birmingham city schoolsmedia.al.com/bn/other/birmingham-curriculum-audit.pdf · 2016. 11. 8. · a...

A Curriculum Audit™of the

BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLS

Birmingham, Alabama

First grader at Powderly Elementary working at a computer station

International Curriculum Management Audit CenterPhi Delta Kappa International

Eighth and UnionBloomington, Indiana 47404

April 2011

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page iii

A Curriculum Audit™of the

BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLS

Birmingham, Alabama

Conducted Under the Auspices ofInternational Curriculum Management Audit Center

Phi Delta Kappa InternationalP. O. Box 789

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

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

Date Audit Presented: April 2011

Members of the Birmingham City Schools Audit Team:

Lead AuditorDr. Kevin Singer

AuditorsMs. Patricia Braxton

Dr. Holly KaptainDr. Sarah Mitchell

Dr. James ScottDr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr.

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page iv

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page v

Table of Contents

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

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

Audit Background and Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................5

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit ..............................................................................................6

Approach of the Audit .............................................................................................................................6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Birmingham City Schools: .....................................................13

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Birmingham City Schools:..................................................13

Finding 1.1: The district leadership has not demonstrated effective control of the policy, planning, resources, curriculum, and communications necessary to positively infl uence educational outcomes. ..............................................................................................................................................14

Finding 1.2: Board policies are inadequate to provide a framework for local curriculum management and quality control. ...............................................................................................................................19

Finding 1.3: Plans and planning do not meet audit criteria in most instances. Planning guidance is inadequate, and planning is separated from the budgeting process. The district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete, and school plans do not systematically refl ect district planning goals and priorities. ......36

Finding 1.4: The design of the table of organization is inconsistent with most principles of sound management and either omits organizational relationships or does not portray them accurately. Job descriptions are not required, inadequate, and do not match the organizational chart. ........................45

Finding 1.5: Reviews of performance evaluations did not reveal the use of actual performance data. Therefore, evaluations do not comply with policy requirements to assess accountability against academic achievement expectations, nor do they provide a sound basis for improving staff performance. .........................................................................................................................................52

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page vi

STANDARD 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. ......................55



Finding 2.1: The district has no comprehensive curriculum management plan in place that guides the design, delivery, and evaluation of curriculum. Current curriculum management practices do not meet audit criteria. ................................................................................................................................56

Finding 2.2: Overall, the scope of the written curriculum K-12 is inadequate to guide instruction. Grades K through 8 have 100 percent adequacy. Courses in grades 9-12 have 100 percent adequacy in three of the four core areas. Overall, the district had 94.4 percent adequacy in curricular coverage, but not all core curricular offerings had coverage. ...............................................................................62

Finding 2.3: Curriculum guides are inadequate in quality and lack the necessary components to guide classroom instruction. ...........................................................................................................................74

STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. ....................................................................................................................95



Finding 3.1: Instructional delivery in Birmingham City Schools refl ects neither district nor state expectations for instructional approaches and modes of student engagement. Classroom instruction is dominated by whole-group approaches. The auditors found no defi ned instructional model to guide teacher decisions. ..................................................................................................................................96

Finding 3.2: Achievement gaps among student subgroups have remained consistent over time. Secondary students are not served with equal effectiveness at all high schools, and based on current trends over one-third of secondary students are expected to leave the system between ninth and twelfth grade. Students do not have equal access to programs and resources across the district. .....106

Finding 3.3: Principals overwhelmingly report visiting classrooms and conducting walk-throughs. However, district expectations for monitoring the curriculum are not defi ned in documents, and effective monitoring occurs idiosyncratically across the district. .......................................................136

Finding 3.4: While there are adequate professional development opportunities in Birmingham City Schools, the professional development program is uncoordinated and insuffi ciently tied to demonstrated needs. ............................................................................................................................140

STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. ..................................................................147

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Birmingham City Schools: ...................................................147

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Birmingham City Schools:................................................148

Finding 4.1: The district lacks comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation planning to guide decisions for improving student achievement; the quality of the assessment system is inadequate. ..........................................................................................................................................148

Finding 4.2: The scope of the student assessment program is inadequate to provide suffi cient data for instructional decision making. ............................................................................................................155

Finding 4.3: Student achievement results are generally inconsistent and do not show continual improvement over time. Student achievement overall is below state and national averages. Trends are mostly positive, but performance remains below state and national averages. ............................168

Finding 4.4: Programs are not formally planned, monitored, or evaluated for effectiveness. ............185

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page vii

STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity. ..................................................................189

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Birmingham City Schools: ...................................................189

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Birmingham City Schools:................................................189

Finding 5.1: The Birmingham City Schools budget is developed from projected enrollment, state allocations, and prior year spending and is neither programmatic nor curriculum driven. ................189

Finding 5.2: Facility planning does not meet audit criteria for adequacy. Facility quality varies between the new and newly-renovated schools and the older schools. .............................................198

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM AUDIT™ TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLS ....................................................................213

Recommendation 1: Establish organizational relationships, processes, and plans that promote effective management and hold staff members accountable for student achievement and activities that support the design and delivery of curriculum. ..................................................................................213

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that: clearly delineates both short- and long-term goals; directs curriculum revision to ensure curriculum documents deeply align with high stakes assessments and support quality delivery; defi nes the instructional model district leaders expect teachers to follow in delivering the curriculum; and integrates staff development initiatives to ensure that teacher training supports the effective delivery of curriculum. ......................................................................................................................................219

Recommendation 3: To provide for more effective use of data to support implementation of the curriculum and to improve student achievement, develop and implement board policies and a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan that provide for the systematic collection, analysis, dissemination, and application of student achievement and program evaluation results. .................................................................................................................................................230

Recommendation 4: Design and implement a budget planning process that is more programmatic in focus and includes strategies for effectively prioritizing expenditures and tightening the linkage between resources and results. ............................................................................................................231

Recommendation 5: Prioritize equity in every facet of managing curriculum and establish procedures for monitoring equity issues across the district. Connect equity for students with actions at all levels: district, building, and classroom, but especially with classroom teaching and learning. ..................234

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement a long-range facilities plan. ......................................237

Recommendation 7: Establish policy-directed planning processes that provide clear direction for district initiatives, improve connectivity and coordination of staff efforts, support school plans, and enhance the accomplishment of achievement goals. ..........................................................................238

V. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................241

VI. APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................245

Appendix A: Documents Reviewed ...................................................................................................247

Appendix B: Alabama Quality Teaching Standards ..........................................................................251

Appendix C: Birmingham City Schools Current Organization Chart: Key Positions .......................257

Appendix D: Birmingham City Schools Current Organization Chart: Chief Academic Offi cer .......259

Appendix E: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One ................................................................261

Appendix F: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One Expanded Academic Program ...............263

Appendix G: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One Expanded Operations Program ............265

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page viii

Appendix H: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two ...............................................................267

Appendix I: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One List of Abbreviations ..............................269

Appendix J: Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two List of Abbreviations ..............................271

Appendix K: Characteristics of Effective Urban Schools .................................................................273

Appendix L: Bloom’s Taxonomy .......................................................................................................285

Appendix M: Auditors’ Biographical Data ........................................................................................293

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page ix

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 0.1 Populations of Birmingham and Birmingham City Schools by Ethnicity .................................2

Exhibit 0.2 Student Enrollment: 2000 to 2011 and Numeric Trend Line Through 2020 .............................2

Exhibit 0.3 Student Enrollment: 1980 to 2010 and Numeric Trend Line Through 2020 .............................3

Exhibit 0.4 Free and Reduced Lunch Percentages: 2005-06 to 2009-10 .....................................................3

Exhibit 0.5 School Board Tenure: Last Two Boards of Education ...............................................................4

Exhibit 1.2.1 Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Auditors ......................................19

Exhibit 1.2.2 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...............................................................23

Exhibit 1.2.3 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...............................................................26

Exhibit 1.2.4 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Three to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ............................................................28

Exhibit 1.2.5 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Four to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ..............................................................30

Exhibit 1.2.6 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...............................................................32

Exhibit 1.2.7 Summary Ratings of the Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ................................................................................................................34

Exhibit 1.3.1 Level I: Characteristics of Quality Planning Audit Criteria—Design, Deployment, and Delivery ...................................................................................................................................37

Exhibit 1.3.2 Level II: Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery ..................................................................................................................................40

Exhibit 1.3.3 Level III: Characteristics of Department and School Improvement Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery .........................................................................................42

Exhibit 1.4.1 District’s Organizational Chart (Key Positions) ......................................................................46

Exhibit 1.4.2 Offi ce of the Chief Academic Offi cer, District’s Organizational Chart ...................................47

Exhibit 1.4.3 Principles of Sound Organizational Management ..................................................................48

Exhibit 1.4.4 Curriculum Audit™ Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions ...................................................49

Exhibit 1.4.5 Quality of Job Descriptions ....................................................................................................50

Exhibit 2.1.1 Key Curriculum Planning Documents and Other Sources Reviewed by Auditors .................56

Exhibit 2.1.2 Curriculum Management Plan Components And Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach ..................................................................................................................................60

Exhibit 2.2.1 Scope of the Written Curriculum: Grades K-5 ........................................................................64

Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum: Grades 6-8 .........................................................................65

Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of Written Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades 9-12 ......................................66

Exhibit 2.2.4 Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area: Grades 9-12...................................................72

Exhibit 2.2.5 Scope of the Written Curriculum Summary: Kindergarten through Grade 12 ........................73

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page x

Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis: Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specifi city ............................................75

Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Ratings of Grades K-12 Curriculum Documents .....................................................76

Exhibit 2.3.3 Auditors’ Ratings of AP Course Syllabi ..................................................................................78

Exhibit 2.3.4 Auditors’ Rating of Reading Language Arts 6-12 Pacing Charts ............................................79

Exhibit 2.3.5 Auditors’ Rating of Mathematics K-12 Pacing Guides ...........................................................80

Exhibit 2.3.6 Description of Cognitive Types in Bloom’s Taxonomy...........................................................82

Exhibit 2.3.7 Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to English Language Arts Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10 .................................................84

Exhibit 2.3.8 Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to Mathematics Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10 ....................................................................86

Exhibit 2.3.9 Congruency Comparison of English Language Arts COS Standards and Objectives With Benchmark Assessment Items: Grades 4, 6, and 10 ................................................................88

Exhibit 2.3.10 Congruency Comparison of Mathematics COS Standards and Objectives With Benchmark Assessment Items: Grades 4, 6, and HS ...............................................................89

Exhibit 2.3.11 Consistency of Objectives in Multiple Advanced Placement Syllabi for a Single Course Offering ....................................................................................................................................90

Exhibit 2.3.12 Analysis of Reading Language Predictive Assessment Items for Types of Cognition Required Using Bloom’s Taxonomy: Grades 4, 6, and HS .....................................................91

Exhibit 2.3.13 Analysis of Mathematics Predictive Assessment Items for Types of Cognition Required Using Bloom’s Taxonomy: Grades 4, 6, and HS .....................................................................92

Exhibit 2.3.14 Analysis of Student Artifacts in English Language Arts and Social Studies Using Bloom’s Taxonomy ..................................................................................................................93

Exhibit 2.3.15 Analysis of Student Artifacts in Mathematics and Science Using Bloom’s Taxonomy ..........93

Exhibit 3.1.1 Instructional Activity Classifi cations .......................................................................................98

Exhibit 3.1.2 Dominant Teacher Activity Observed: Elementary Schools ..................................................99

Exhibit 3.1.3 Dominant Student Activity Observed: Elementary Schools ...................................................99

Exhibit 3.1.4 Dominant Teacher Activity Observed: Secondary Schools ..................................................100

Exhibit 3.1.5 Dominant Student Activity Observed: Secondary Schools ..................................................101

Exhibit 3.2.1 Student Performance on ACT Compared with State and ACT Benchmarks .........................107

Exhibit 3.2.2 ACT Performance by Ethnic Subgroup .................................................................................108

Exhibit 3.2.3 Student Performance on ACT by Gender ..............................................................................109

Exhibit 3.2.4 ACT Composite Scores by High School ...............................................................................109

Exhibit 3.2.5 Number of Students Taking AP Exams from Student Subgroups .........................................110

Exhibit 3.2.6 Mean AP Performance by Student Subgroup ........................................................................111

Exhibit 3.2.7 Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Meals ........................................112

Exhibit 3.2.8 AHSGE Performance by High School at Levels I & II by Percent in Reading for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups ...........................................................................................112

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xi

Exhibit 3.2.9 AHSGE Performance by High School at Level III or IV by Percent in Reading for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups ...........................................................................................113

Exhibit 3.2.10 AHSGE Performance by High School at Level I or II by Percent in Math for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups ...........................................................................................114

Exhibit 3.2.11 AHSGE Performance by High School at Level III & IV by Percent in Math for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups ...........................................................................................115

Exhibit 3.2.12 Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender Subgroups .......................................116

Exhibit 3.2.13 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender Subgroups ........................................117

Exhibit 3.2.14 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender Subgroups .....................................117

Exhibit 3.2.15 Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic Subgroups ........................................118

Exhibit 3.2.16 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic Subgroups .........................................119

Exhibit 3.2.17 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic Subgroups .......................................120

Exhibit 3.2.18 Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty Subgroups ......................................120

Exhibit 3.2.19 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty Subgroups .......................................121

Exhibit 3.2.20 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty Subgroups .....................................121

Exhibit 3.2.21 Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender Subgroups ................................122

Exhibit 3.2.22 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender Subgroups .................................122

Exhibit 3.2.23 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender Subgroups ..............................123

Exhibit 3.2.24 Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic Subgroups .................................124

Exhibit 3.2.25 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic Subgroups ..................................124

Exhibit 3.2.26 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic Subgroups ...............................125

Exhibit 3.2.27 Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty Subgroups ...............................125

Exhibit 3.2.28 Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty Subgroups ................................126

Exhibit 3.2.29 Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty Subgroups .............................126

Exhibit 3.2.30 Graduation Rates ...................................................................................................................127

Exhibit 3.2.31 Ninth to Twelfth Grade Enrollments .....................................................................................128

Exhibit 3.2.32 Number and Percentage of Students Who Drop Out/Leave between Ninth and Twelfth Grade ........................................................................................................................128

Exhibit 3.2.33 Fine Arts Courses by Elementary School ..............................................................................131

Exhibit 3.2.34 Fine Arts/Electives Courses by High School .........................................................................132

Exhibit 3.2.35 AP Courses by High School ..................................................................................................133

Exhibit 3.2.36 Special Education Enrollment by Gender .............................................................................134

Exhibit 3.2.37 Gifted Program Enrollment by Gender .................................................................................134

Exhibit 3.2.38 Gifted Program Enrollment by Ethnicity ...............................................................................135

Exhibit 3.4.1 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Professional Development Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Professional Development Program ..............................................141

Exhibit 4.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and Program Evaluation Plan .....149

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xii

Exhibit 4.1.2 Formative Assessment Analysis Frame 1: Minimal Components and Auditors’ Ratings .....153

Exhibit 4.2.1 Descriptions of Formal Assessments Administered ..............................................................156

Exhibit 4.2.2 Matrix of Formal Assessments by Grade Level ....................................................................158

Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Grades K through 5 .......................................................159

Exhibit 4.2.4 Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Grades 6 through 8 ........................................................160

Exhibit 4.2.5 Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades 9 through 12 ..............161

Exhibit 4.2.6 Scope of the Assessed Curriculum by Subject Area: Grades 9 through 12 ...........................167

Exhibit 4.2.7 Scope of Assessment: Kindergarten through Grade 12 .........................................................168

Exhibit 4.3.1 Comparative District and State Student Profi ciency Percentages on the 2010 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test ..............................................................................................169

Exhibit 4.3.2 Trend Percentages of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT Reading and Math Tests: Grades 3-8 (All Students) ..................................................................................170

Exhibit 4.3.3 Trend Percentages of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT Reading and Math Tests: Cohort Groups in Grades 3-8 (All Students) .....................................................171

Exhibit 4.3.4 Percentages by School of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students—Grades 3-5 ......................................................................172

Exhibit 4.3.5 Percentages by School of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students, Grades 6–8 .......................................................................175

Exhibit 4.3.6 Comparisons Between the School District and the State on the Alabama Science Assessment: All Students, Grades 5 & 7 ...............................................................................178

Exhibit 4.3.7 Mean Percentile Rank Comparisons Between the School District and State Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition: All Students, Grades 3–8 ....................................................179

Exhibit 4.3.8 District Cohort Percentile Rank Trend Comparisons in Reading and Math Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition: All Students ........................................................................179

Exhibit 4.3.9 Mean Passing Percentages Between the School District and State Alabama High School Graduation Examination: All Students ......................................................................180

Exhibit 4.3.10 Comparison of Mean Percentage Scores Between the School District and State on the ACT (All Students) ................................................................................................................181

Exhibit 4.3.11 Five-Year Performance Trends on the ACT ...........................................................................182

Exhibit 4.3.12 Five-Year Performance Trends Comparisons on ACT Composite Scores African American and Caucasian American Students ........................................................................183

Exhibit 4.3.13 Projected Trend Analysis of African American and Caucasian American Students on the ACT Composite Scores ....................................................................................................184

Exhibit 4.4.1 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Program Evaluation Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Program Evaluation Against Audit Characteristics .......................................186

Exhibit 5.1.1 Financial and Budget Documents Reviewed by Auditors .....................................................191

Exhibit 5.1.2 Local Per Pupil Expenditures ................................................................................................192

Exhibit 5.1.3 Summary of Revenue by Source of Funding .........................................................................193

Exhibit 5.1.4 Summary of Expenditures by Function .................................................................................194

Exhibit 5.1.5 FY 2008 Actual Fund Balance to FY 2012 Projected Fund Balance .....................................195

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xiii

Exhibit 5.1.6 Components of a Performance-based Budget and Adequacy of Use in the Budget Development Process .............................................................................................................196

Exhibit 5.2.1 Comparison of Facility Planning Efforts to Audit Components of Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities Planning ............................................................................................199

Exhibit 5.2.2 Capital Project Investment .....................................................................................................201

Exhibit 5.2.3 Observation Notes from Auditors’ Site Tours ........................................................................203

Exhibit 5.2.4 Building Capacity versus Current Enrollment .......................................................................207

Exhibit 5.2.5 Building Capacity versus Current Enrollment: Graph Form .................................................209

Exhibit 5.2.6 Student Enrollment per Building: Three Alabama Districts ..................................................210

Exhibit 5.2.7 Maintenance Cost Per Building .............................................................................................211

Exhibit R.1.1 Proposed Table of Organization Overview: Phase One (see Appendix E) ............................217

Exhibit R.1.2 Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two (see Appendix H) ............................................218

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xiv

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xv

Table of Photographs

First grader at Powderly Elementary working at a computer station ................................................................... i

Teacher working with a group of small group of students at Christian K-8 ...................................................100

Students doing seatwork at Powderly Elementary ...........................................................................................102

Second grade teachers meeting in PLC to review student data and plan instruction—joined by directorof reading language arts K-5. Use of Data, PLC collaborative process, and professional collaboration at North Roebuck Elementary ..........................................................................................................................152

Data wall at Robinson Elementary ..................................................................................................................184

Board shows data collection and charting of student progress on DIBELS assessment data at Gibson Elementary .......................................................................................................................................................184

Nice science lab at Washington K-8 with few materials or supplies due to budget cuts .................................193

Students doing seatwork in a science lab with very few supplies in the room at Hudson K-8 .......................193

Uncovered fl oor drain in boys bathroom on upper fl oor at Councill Elementary ...........................................202

Exposed outer brick wall in unused third fl oor classroom at Councill Elementary .........................................202

Light fi xtures placed over the top of chalk board at Whatley K-8 to help students see what is written onthe board because the regular lighting in the room is at a very low level ........................................................202

Portable classrooms at Whatley K-8 that have no ADA accessibility. Additionally, the stairs block access from the narrow sidewalk ................................................................................................................................202

Unattractive, unsafe entryway to Wenonah Elementary School ......................................................................206

Paint peeling on overhang at front entryway to Powderly Elementary ...........................................................206

Students and teachers wearing coats in their classroom because air temperature is so low at Barrett Elementary .......................................................................................................................................................206

Door to the outside that is chain locked, preventing students from entering or exiting, even during an emergency, at Gaston K-8 ................................................................................................................................206

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page xvi

Birmingham City Schools Audit Report Page 1

A Curriculum Audit™

of the

Birmingham City Schools

Birmingham, Alabama

I. INTRODUCTIONThis document constitutes the fi nal report of a Curriculum Audit™ of the Birmingham City Schools. The audit was commissioned by the Birmingham City Schools Board of Education/Governing Authority within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted during the time period of December 6-10, 2010. Document analysis was performed off site, as was the detailed analysis of fi ndings and site visit data.

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

Background

Birmingham City Schools is located in Birmingham, Alabama, comprising an area of approximately 150 square miles. Currently, the district has a student enrollment of 25,798 and 3,351 employees of which 1,762 are teachers. There is a total of 56 schools in the district, down from 60 schools in 2008. This year’s building count is comprised of 29 elementary schools, 12 middle schools, 7 K-8 schools, 7 high schools, and one alternative school. During the past four years district offi cials have witnessed some dramatic changes in various indicators: the graduation rate has declined from 85 percent in 2006 to 80 percent in 2009; the dropout rate has increased from 8.87 percent in 2006 to 15.64 percent in 2009; ACT scores have decreased from 18 in 2006 to 16.9 in 2009; and the free and reduced lunch count has increased from 78 percent in 2006 to 86 percent this year.

According to City-Data.com:

Modern Birmingham calls itself the “Magic City,” but this young city, which was founded after the Civil War, has seen its days of adversity. Early in its history it suffered from epidemics, crime, and violence. It failed badly in two depressions and saw, in its darkest days, violent racial confrontations. After years of hard work on race relations, Birmingham gradually moved to such a state of racial equality that it was designated an “All America City” for its progress. The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, located near the downtown statue of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., works to educate about the community and beyond in lessons on race relations. In other ways, Birmingham has done much to distance itself from the past and move forward. One of Birmingham’s darkest chapters came to a close in 2002 when jurors delivered a guilty verdict in the case of the 1963 church bombing that killed four African American girls. Once dubbed the “Pittsburgh of the South,” the city now employs the majority of its workers in service jobs. The arts continue to fl ourish, the city’s medical research and treatment facilities are world class, and Birmingham is the second largest fi nancial and banking area in the Southeast. At the heart of the new Birmingham stands the city’s symbol, a statue of Vulcan, Roman god of fi re and the forge. To many, Birmingham seems to have been magically forged anew. For many years Birmingham was a one-industry town, dependent on the iron and steel industry. Today, though, Birmingham’s economy relies more heavily on the medical industry as well as trade, fi nance, research, and government.


Birmingham resides in Jefferson County, whose 2009 population was 230,130. That amount is down 5.2 percent from the year 2000. In 1980, Birmingham was the 50th largest city in the United States. By 2009 that ranking had dropped to 83rd largest. The population of the city of Birmingham and the Birmingham City Schools is disaggregated as per the information listed in Exhibit 0.1:

Exhibit 0.1

Populations of Birmingham and Birmingham City Schools by EthnicityBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Black165,661

White55,059

Hispanic5,600

Asian2,076 Other

1,110

Black25,401

White260

Hispanic725

Asian42 Other

8

Demographic Population of Birmingham Demographic Population of Birmingham City SchoolsSource: Data provided by district offi cials

As with the city and county population, enrollment in the Birmingham City Schools has been declining for several years. In 1980 the district had approximately 50,000 students. By 2000 that number had dropped to approximately 39,000, and in 2011 the district has just under 26,000 students. Exhibits 0.2 and 0.3 display this information in graphic form. Additionally, a numeric trend line is added to each chart. The trend line is based on 10 years of student enrollment data in Exhibit 0.2 and 30 years of enrollment data in Exhibit 0.3.

Exhibit 0.2

Student Enrollment: 2000 to 2011 and Numeric Trend Line Through 2020Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Note: Enrollment data from 2000 to 2010 is actual student enrollment counts. Trend line projection is based on this data. Source: Production Data Collection, Alabama State Department of Education


Exhibit 0.3

Student Enrollment: 1980 to 2010 and Numeric Trend Line Through 2020Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Note: Enrollment data from 1980 to 2010 is actual student enrollment counts. Trend line projection is based on this data.Source: Production Data Collection, Alabama State Department of Education

Auditors noted the following information from these two exhibits:

Enrollment decreased approximately 13,000 students from 2000 to 2011. •

Enrollment decreased approximately 24,000 students from 1980 to 2010. •

Based on 10 years of data, 2000-2010, the projected enrollment for 2019 is just under 15,000.•

Based on 30 years of data, 1980-2010, the projected enrollment for 2019 is just over 20,000.•

Both projections display a continual decline of students in the Birmingham City Schools.•

As the student enrollment declined, the free and reduced lunch counts increased. Exhibit 0.4 displays this information:

Exhibit 0.4

Free and Reduced Lunch Percentages: 2005-06 to 2009-10Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Source: Production Data Collection, Alabama State Department of Education

As noted in Exhibit 0.4:

In 2005-06 the free and reduced lunch percentage was at 78 percent.•

By 2009-10 the free and reduced lunch percentage increased to 86 percent, a growth of 10 percent.•


The members of the board of education include the following individuals:

Board Member Tenure Board Member TenureTyrone Belcher 1st of 4 Years W.J. Maye, Jr. 9th of 12 YearsVirginia Volker 9th of 12 Years Alana Edwards 1st of 4 YearsBrian Giattina 1st of 4 Years April Williams 9th of 12 Years

Edward Maddox 1st of 4 Years Phyllis Wyne 9th of 12 YearsEmanuel Ford 1st of 4 Years

In the last election fi ve people were elected to their fi rst term of school board service. They replaced fi ve individuals who had longer tenure. Exhibit 0.5 graphically displays this change in board tenure:

Exhibit 0.5

School Board Tenure: Last Two Boards of EducationBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Previous Board Tenure: 1 through 12 Years Current Board Tenure: 1 through 12 YearsMartha Wixom Tyrone BelcherVirginia Volker Virginia VolkerHoward Bayless Brian GiattinaCarolyn Cobb Edward MaddoxDannetta Owens Emanuel FordW.J. Maye, Jr. W.J. Maye, Jr.Odessa Ashley Alana EdwardsApril Williams April WilliamsPhyllis Wyne Phyllis WyneSource: Information provided by district offi cials

As noted in Exhibit 0.5:

The current board has a total of 41 years of school board experience, with 36 years of tenure held by • four board members. Five board members are in their fi rst year of service.

The board they replaced had a total of 70 years of school board experience. •

The current board has 29 fewer years of board tenure than did the previous board. •

The superintendent of the Birmingham City Schools is Dr. Craig Witherspoon, who joined the district as chief executive offi cer of the system in 2010. In the past dozen years his predecessors held this job two years, two years, four years, and four years.

The mission of the school district is as follows: “The mission of the Birmingham City Schools is to guide all students to achieve excellence in a safe, secure and nurturing environment.”

The vision of the school district is as follows: “Birmingham City Schools will be a recognized leader in public education, meeting the needs of a diverse student population prepared to succeed in a global society.”


Audit Background and Scope of Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The curriculum auditors in this audit included the following individuals:

Dr. Kevin Singer, Lead Auditor•

Ms. Patricia Braxton, Auditor•

Dr. Holly Kaptain, Auditor•

Dr. Sarah Mitchell, Auditor•

Dr. James Scott, Auditor•

Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Auditor•

Biographical information about the auditors is found in the appendix.

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit

The Birmingham City School System, like most urban districts, has had a long history of educating students to lead productive lives after high school. We are seeking to determine the following:

Whether or not the curriculum and instruction department is organized in a manner that provides the • most effective support to schools in the district.

The level of effective pacing documents, processes, e.g., formative assessments, and procedures, e.g., • computer assisted support programming, tutors, and the like, implemented in a manner that is supportive to schools.

The appropriate and effective feedback loop between the C & I department and schools that supports • effective teaching and learning across the district and in individual schools.

The written, taught, and tested curriculum enacted in a manner that ensures academic support for all • students including at risk, academically gifted, and those in between to achieve at high levels.

We will use this information to chart a course for improvement to ensure alignment of resources, e.g., fi scal, human, programmatic, to maximize student achievement at all levels and in all schools.

Approach of the Audit

The Curriculum Audit™ has established itself as a process of integrity and candor in assessing public school districts. It has been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation concerning matters of school fi nance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky. The Curriculum 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 Audit™ represents a “systems” approach to educational improvement; that is, it considers the system as a whole rather than a collection of separate, discrete parts. The interrelationships of system components and their impact on overall quality of the organization in accomplishing its purposes are examined in order to “close the loop” in curriculum and instructional improvement.


II. METHODOLOGY

The Model for the Curriculum Audit™

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

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control

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

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

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

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

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


In the case of emerging national public school reforms, more and more this responsiveness is assuming a distinctive school-based management focus, which includes parents, teachers, and, in some cases, students. The ability of schools to be responsive to public expectations, as legally expressed in law and policy, is crucial to their future survival as publicly-supported educational organizations. The Curriculum Audit™ is one method for ascertaining the extent to which a school system, or subunit thereof, has been responsive to expressed expectations and requirements in this context.

Standards for the Auditors

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

Technical Expertise

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

The Birmingham City Schools Curriculum Audit™ Team selected by the Curriculum Management Audit Center included auditors who have conducted Curriculum Audits™ or trainings in the following states and countries: Alabama, Arizona, Bermuda, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The Principle of Independence

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

The Principle of Objectivity

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

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

The Principle of Consistency

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


The Principle of Materiality

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

The Principle of Full Disclosure

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

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

“Some school principals said that ... ”

“Many teachers expressed concern that ... ”

“There was widespread comment about ... ”

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

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

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

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

class

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

Interviewed Representatives of the Birmingham City Schools

Superintendent School Board MembersSchool Principals K-12 Teachers (voluntary, self-referred)Students (during site visit) Parents (voluntary, self-referred)

Approximately 100 individuals were interviewed during the site visit phase of the audit.


Data Sources of the Curriculum 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 Birmingham City Schools Curriculum Audit™ were:

Documents

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

Interviews

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

Site Visits

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

Standards for the Curriculum Audit™

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

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

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


The fi ve standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Audit™ in Birmingham City Schools were:

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

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

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

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

The school district has improved its productivity.5.

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

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

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


III. FINDINGS

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

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

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

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

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Birmingham City Schools:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Birmingham City Schools:

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

Auditors found that the district leadership did not have suffi cient control of district resources. Problems were cited in control of the curriculum, assessment, fi nances, and planning, resulting in limited ability to impact student achievement.

Board policies lacked adequate content to provide direction to the staff on most key issues. Further, policies are not subject to regular review, as required by the board. Many have not been reviewed in more than 20 years.


Therefore, the audit team found the body of policies reviewed inadequate to provide the guidance necessary for sound curriculum management.

Plans and planning do not meet audit standards for adequacy. With the exception of state documents, there are no policies, regulations, or other comprehensive, written guidance on planning functions at the district or school level. The district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete and not linked with school plans. Planning at the school level as well as monitoring and support efforts by the district staff were focused on attainment of school AYP goals. Plans and planning are not visibly linked to available resources.

The designs for both the organizational chart and the job descriptions are inadequate. They do not meet audit standards, and their most signifi cant fl aw is that they do not clarify reporting relationships for district employees. Further, implementation of the principles of chain of command and separation of line and staff relationships is ineffective.

There are no organized and monitored arrangements for managing the evaluation system in the Birmingham City Schools. The required procedures and plans are not in place, forms are not completed in accordance with instructions in the state manual, evaluations do not hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, and personnel evaluations do not result in meaningful professional development activities. Both personnel evaluations and professional development activities, as refl ected in personnel records, are ineffective in improving employee performance. If the reports viewed by auditors are typical of all reports, implementation of the personnel evaluation process does not refl ect state requirements or the board focus on accountability for results and does not provide adequate feedback to improve job performances.

Finding 1.1: The district leadership has not demonstrated effective control of the policy, planning, resources, curriculum, and communications necessary to positively infl uence educational outcomes.

A school system exists to control the dollar resources, facilities, policy, planning, programs, personnel, and processes necessary to educate students. It is assumed that, through control, the district leadership can favorably infl uence educational outcomes (i.e., produce graduates with the intellectual tools necessary to thrive in a modern economy.) That premise of control is the reason for the existence of a school system and is central to Standard One of the Curriculum Audit™. Further, it underlies all aspects of the audit. If a school district’s leadership cannot exercise control over its resources, processes, and outcomes, resources may be wasted and students deprived of the education that the taxpayer expects.

The basic thrust of the audit and the audit team’s efforts was to determine if the school district leadership exercised suffi cient control over its assets to accomplish its mission of providing students a sound education. Auditors examined a number of areas to make this determination: management of policy, planning, personnel, curriculum design and delivery, fi nances, facilities, and equitable access to programs and services. They also examined the outcomes of the system in the form of achievement trends and graduation rates. To carry out this effort, auditors reviewed documents provided by the district staff, consulted databases, conducted interviews, and visited schools to observe teaching and learning. From those activities, the audit team developed the fi ndings that follow in this report. As the fi ndings began to take shape, so did the underlying problem of lack of control. For several years district leadership has lacked control of critical elements necessary to infl uence educational outcomes. Those elements included management of fi nances, policy, planning, effective communications between the district staff and school principals, and sound supervision of people, processes, and programs. Because of this loss of control, the school system has been unable to favorably infl uence the educational outcomes that it was created to produce. The contents of this fi nding and those that follow in this report support these conclusions.

Inability to demonstrate control of fi nancial affairs and facilities:

Public education is an expensive endeavor. School systems with constrained budgets must carefully control expenditures in order to provide the essentials of a sound education. Auditors determined that the district leadership was not in control of its fi nances. The following are among the facts that support this conclusion:


Although one of the primary responsibilities of the board of education is to approve budgets, there were • few instructions regarding the approval process and the relationship between budgeting and planning (see Finding 5.1).

The district staff has projected a defi cit in excess of $30 million by the end of fi scal year 2012 (see • Finding 5.1).

District leaders have been marginally effective in generating cost effi ciencies by eliminating excess • classroom capacity resulting from the declining student enrollment. The district currently has a building capacity overage of more than 30 percent. This has resulted in unnecessary utility bills and maintenance costs for buildings that are not fully utilized (see Finding 5.2).

Most school continuous improvement plans do not refl ect the resources necessary for their • implementation. Therefore, it was impossible for the district leaders to determine if those plans are fi nancially feasible (see Finding 1.3).

Inability to effectively control the turnover of key personnel and the personnel evaluation system by which employees are held accountable:

The Birmingham City Schools district has had four superintendents since 2000. It is generally accepted in management circles that it takes fi ve to seven years to institutionalize substantive change. The lack of stability in the district top administrative position can inhibit the substantive change that interviewees agreed is necessary for the district to improve. It was the opinion of many of the staff members interviewed that change was needed and that the turnover of superintendents contributed to the failure to institute change that requires more effective methods of teaching, learning, and support for those functions. The following are representative sample comments by district employees regarding the instability in district leadership and the need for cultural change:

The impact of frequent turnover of superintendents

“The school system needs stability. We have had a lot of superintendents over the past few years. It • takes more than two years to change a [school] system.” (Board Member)

“Since 1996, we have had seven superintendents: Dr. LaMont, Dr. Bell, Dr. Brown, Dr. Shiver, Dr. • Mims, Ms. Allen, and Dr. Witherspoon. The turnover is not good for us. We set goals with one [superintendent], they leave; then, we set new goals [with another one]. It’s hard to accomplish…goals.” (District Administrator)

“One year we had fi ve superintendents. People just don’t pay attention to new initiatives because they • think, ‘This, too, will pass; the superintendent will be gone.’” (District Administrator)

“A primary weakness [is] a different superintendent every two years, if you include the interims. It’s • [the] level of instability.” (District Administrator)

“With the turnover [of superintendents] there has not been a lot of accountability.” (District • Administrator)

“We’ve had considerable leadership [turnover] in the district. We need stability.” (District • Administrator)

“When our leadership becomes more stable and focused, we…site managers will be more focused.” • (Principal)

“I have mixed feelings about the [central offi ce]. Our leadership is changing constantly.” (Principal)•


Cultural inertia that needs to be addressed by stable leadership

“There is a lack of processes in the district and a lack of consistency in district actions. They just do • stuff.” The culture is that employees “don’t want to share [information] and they don’t want anybody to tell them anything….There is a lack of accountability for one’s actions.” (Board Member)

“It goes back to the culture—change comes very slowly.” (District Administrator)•

“[The attitude here is] we’ll do our thing…[we are] not really embracing change.” (District • Administrator)

“Central offi ce is not…customer [oriented]. Trying to get help [there] is very frustrating. Expectations • come without support. Repair of technology is an example….“I want the central offi ce staff to be held to the same standards [that apply to principals].” (Principal)

“There is a lack of ownership and the lack of a sense of urgency. Many [employees] are not open to new • ideas. They have the attitude that, ‘I’ve been here forever; this is how I’m going to do it.’ Other say, ‘It’s not my problem; let someone else do it.’ Each employee needs to take ownership of his duties.” (District Administrator)

“[The attitude here is] we’ll do our thing…not embracing a lot of change.” (District Administrator)•

“Something has happened in this school culture that some people do not feel connected with our students • and schools.” (District Administrator)

“I know that I will need to provide professional development that changes the mindset of some who • believe that children cannot do.” (District Administrator)

“We’ve set [just] ‘adequate’ as the goal. That’s part of the culture…we’ve been trying to change that. • The culture is to make AYP….” (District Administrator)

Instruction changes that require competent, stable leadership

“We’ve got to change the way we do instruction.” (Principal)•

“I get the most resistance to change from tenured teachers.” (Principal)•

“Fifty percent of [my] staff needs to be moved from lectures as an instructional delivery method. We • need to change the culture.” (Principal)

“In order to have rigor, teachers will need to change their skill set.” (District Administrator)•

As the comments indicate, many of the administrators interviewed by auditors cited the turnover of superintendents as a factor contributing to staff inertia in improving curriculum management.

Principals also cited turnover of chief human resources offi cers—six during the past 10 years—as another obstacle to improving staff quality. The lack of stability in the Human Resources Department made it diffi cult for superintendents to monitor evaluation activity and to maintain an effective personnel evaluation system that holds employees responsible for achieving the board’s goals (see Finding 1.5).

Inability to demonstrate mastery of policy management and planning:

Policy and planning, two other key mechanisms through which the district leadership traditionally is expected to exercise quality control of programs and resources, were inadequate:

A board of education exercises quality control of district operations through policy development and • oversight of implementation. Although there is a board-approved requirement for an annual policy review, the district staff presented no evidence this activity had been conducted. Policy dates indicated that many had not been reviewed in over 30 years. Regulations to implement them were similarly dated (see Finding 1.2).

Plans and planning are another method by which the leadership can control district activities and • resources. The strategic priorities and goals of the district Strategic Plan had been fi nalized in the


spring of 2009. More than a year later, in December 2010, when the audit team visited the district, actions plans to implement the Strategic Plan had not been developed. In general, plans did not meet audit standards of adequacy. One of the principal reasons was the lack of fi nancial data that would have allowed the leadership and stakeholders to determine if the plans were fi nancially feasible (see Finding 1.3).

Inability to control the organizational design and manage communications between the staff and school principals:

In order for the district leadership to exercise control, it must have a clear and unequivocal chain of command (chain of supervision) and must send clear, timely, and non-competing information and orders to its subordinate elements (schools). On the other hand, schools must be given a reasonable time to respond and be able to communicate their support needs easily to the staff. In turn, the district must respond to those needs in a timely and effective manner.

Although improving internal communications was one of the board’s priorities identifi ed in the Strategic Plan, lines of communications were muddled at the time of the audit team’s visit. The chain of command, as depicted on the organizational chart, showed arrows encircling groups of positions rather than lines showing specifi c reporting relationships (see Finding 1.4). Hence, in most instances, it was impossible to determine lines of authority and responsibility by viewing the chart. Job descriptions did not clarify those relationships. Principals reported that requirements from the district staff are uncoordinated, bypass the chain of command, and are too numerous to be managed effectively. They also disrupt school operations because of close or confl icting deadlines. The following are typical comments from principals and one board member regarding communications between the district staff and principals:

“I would wish that information [coming from the district offi ce] would be funneled through one or • two sources. I get about 200 e-mails per week. I read the ones from my supervisor. I frequently get late notifi cation of requirements from the district offi ce and have to scramble to meet deadlines.” (Principal)

“There are multiple points of contact. It seems like [I have] other bosses than the [Assistant • Superintendent]. There is a feeling that district staff people have stovepipe communications with classroom teachers, leaving out principals. The Director of Science is an example. Principals must deal with each central offi ce department. There needs to be a single point of contact.” (Principal)

“We are bombarded [with information and requirements] from the central offi ce staff. It’s not unusual • to get four or fi ve departments sending you requirements to do things immediately. No one downtown is coordinating [the requirements placed on] principals. Principals are very frustrated by this.” (Principal)

“Communication [with the district staff] spans the range of good, bad, indifferent, depending on [which • district offi ce you are dealing with] and when.” (Principal)

“[T]he central offi ce staff doesn’t listen to us, especially the human resources staff….We get lots of • last-minute requirements from the central offi ce. This is typical.” (Principal)

“We need to improve the timeliness of disseminating information to schools—although it has gotten • better under [the new superintendent]. It takes too long to get a response from the central offi ce when you need something and there is too much paperwork. We are late getting requirements from the state when they pass through the central offi ce.” (Principal)

“[Communications with the central offi ce are] not perfect; not awful. I • can say that they ask for information that is available from other staff elements.” (Principal)

“I get about 75 e-mails per week. We get too many requirements from the central offi ce that [demand] • immediate actions. They disrupt planning and activities at school level.” (Principal)


“There needs to be more dialogue between principals and Professional Development regarding teaching • methods. [They are] out of sync with schools’ needs.” (Principal)

“We need a district calendar to avoid scheduling confl icts between schools and the district headquarters • and to ensure that principals spend enough time in the building. Some weeks, I am out of my school for three days out of fi ve.” (Principal)

“There is tension between the central offi ce and schools. Talk to the principals about this. Lots of • passive-aggressive responses. There is a strong perception [in schools] of a lack of support [by the central offi ce staff].” (Board Member)

“Communications with the central offi ce are horrible. I have been irritated over the past few years by • being told what to focus on. District staff members bypass principals and give directives directly to teachers….I get short notice requirements from the district all the time. I am told on Friday or Sunday, on my Blackberry, to do something for [the following] Monday.” (Principal)

It was clear to the audit team from these and other comments that control of communications was a critical issue for principals.

Inability to demonstrate control of the curriculum and supporting programs:

The district leadership did not demonstrate control over the curriculum and programs designed to improve student achievement. There were no policies and/or plans for the following:

Student assessment and program evaluations (see • Findings 4.1 and 4.5). Offi cials were unable to provide any program evaluations that had been completed for auditor review. Prior to the site visit, auditors also requested a template to be completed by school administrators listing their program interventions. Despite multiple requests by district staff, only eight forms were returned from the 56 schools. Ironically, one of the superintendent’s entry plan goals was to “Inventory academic programs, materials, and curriculum to begin process of determining impact on academic results.”

Expectations for delivery of instruction in the classroom (see • Finding 3.1).

Equitable distribution of district resources to improve student learning (see • Finding 3.2).

Monitoring of instruction in classroom (see • Finding 3.3).

Professional development (see • Finding 3.4).

Management of the curriculum (see • Finding 2.1). The quality of curriculum documents used to guide instruction was very low (see Finding 2.3). Only 34.6 percent of the taught core curriculum was formally assessed.

Inability to demonstrate control of student outcomes:

If the leadership of a district does not have control of the policy, planning, fi nances, or educational programs and processes, it is unlikely to be able to have desirable impact on educational outcomes. This was the case in the Birmingham City Schools. Although some trends were moving in a positive direction, the district as a whole failed to make the annual yearly progress required by the state (see Finding 4.3). Student achievement has been declining or stagnating in some schools. In many instance, the achievement gap based on gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups is widening in some grades and subjects and may never close based on current trends without drastic and effective action (see Finding 3.2).

Summary

The audit team determined that without appropriate policies and planning, the district leadership is unable to effect quality control over resources, programs, and personnel (see Recommendation 1).


Finding 1.2: Board policies are inadequate to provide a framework for local curriculum management and quality control.

Educational policy development is one of the most important functions of a school district’s board of education. This is the principal process by which the board discharges its responsibilities for control and focus of the school system. Well-written policies establish focus, criteria, and parameters for decision making and standardized practice across a variety of settings. They create consistency throughout the school district and provide a means to manage innovation.

For policies to effectively guide decisions at all levels of the organization, a school district’s policies need to be directive and specifi c as to philosophy, intent, and required actions. When policies are absent, nonspecifi c, or outdated, there is a lack of guidance for the board, administrators, and teachers. The content and quality of educational decisions are left to the discretion of individuals, and outcomes may not refl ect the board’s intent.

Auditors reviewed district policies online and conducted interviews with board members, administrators, and staff to determine the status of policy development and implementation within the school system. They also evaluated policies against quality criteria for sound curriculum policies. The content of district policies merited a rating of only 4 of 81 possible quality points. Further, the annual policy reviews required by the district’s board had not been conducted; many policies had not been reviewed in the last 20 years or more. Based on these fi ndings, the audit team rated the district’s policies inadequate to provide a basis for sound local control of the curriculum.

The following district policies addressed the development and implementation of policy:

Board Policy 1000: School Board Goals and Objectives • states that one of the board’s goals is “formulation of policies which stimulate the learner and the learning process.”

Board Policy 1020: Board Powers and Duties • states, “The board shall be concerned primarily with broad questions of policy.”

Board Policy 1060: Board Committees• establishes a Policy Committee to conduct “an annual comprehensive review of all the system’s policies to determine if they are current in terms of the Alabama Code, City Code, and Federal laws.” (It is noteworthy that appropriateness of policies in terms of district operational needs is not a criterion for this annual review.)

Although the policies cited above indicate that policy development and maintenance is a primary concern of the board, that concern is not refl ected in the contents and dates of the policies reviewed by the audit team.

Exhibit 1.2.1 lists the curriculum management-related policies, administrative regulations, and administrative guidelines reviewed by the auditors. The dates indicate when the document was adopted or last reviewed by the board, whichever is more recent.

Exhibit 1.2.1

Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the AuditorsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Document Title DatePolicies

1000 School Board Goals & Objectives 1/27/041005 Personnel Goals & Objectives 6/22/041020 Board Powers and Duties 1/27/041030 Duties of Individual Board Members 1/27/041060 Board Committees 1/27/091080 Policy Adoption 1/27/041081 Policy Dissemination 1/27/041090 Board-Superintendent Relations 1/27/04


Exhibit 1.2.1 (continued)Policies and Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Auditors

Birmingham City SchoolsDecember 2010

Document Title Date1100 Board Members Development 1/27/041141 Board Self Evaluation 3/24/091145 Equal Employment Opportunity 6/22/042010 Superintendent of Schools 2/10/042020 Duties & Responsibilities of the Superintendent 2/10/042040 Evaluation of the Superintendent 2/10/042080 Policy Implementation 2/10/042090 Administrative Regulations 2/10/042200 Site-Based Management 5/13/973010 Equal Employment Opportunity 9/22/873015 Line & Staff Relations 4/21/813030 Evaluation 4/13/043036 Birmingham City Schools Principal Tenure Policy 4/13/043038 Highly Qualifi ed Teachers and Paraprofessionals 12/12/063050 Leave of Absence…Professional 4/13/043101 Sexual Harassment 4/13/043110 Re-Assignment of Teachers in Temporary Positions 4/13/043115 Title IX Policy 12/12/063131 Possession of Weapons and Firearms by Personnel 8/12/033133 Safety Policy—Prohibition Against Assault, Property Damage And [sic] Bullying 10/27/093140 Substance Abuse 4/13/043200 Professional Development 4/13/044000 Fiscal Management 8/6/744005 State Required Fund Balance 4/10/074010 General Accounting 4/10/074020 Budget Planning 4/21/814021 Local School Budgeting 5/25/974025 Annual Operating Budget 9/22/874060 Independent Audits 4/21/814065 Employee Attendance Management System 7/7/064080 Professional Development and Out of Town Travel 4/10/074105 Instructional Supply Money (Debt) 4/10/075010 Equity 8/6/745015 Gifts and Contributions to the Board of Education 10/28/775110 Maintenance Goals & Objectives 4/21/815120 Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds 4/21/815130 Protection & Security of Buildings, Grounds, & Other School Property 9/22/876010 Facilities Planning 6/23/876020 Facility Use 4/21/816050 Size of Schools 4/21/816070 New Construction 4/21/816090 Equipment 6/23/876100 Renovation of Existing Buildings 8/6/746110 Approval of…Construction or Renovation…(Plan Review by Board) 8/6/746140 School Plant Obsolescence 8/6/746175 School Building Security 6/23/87




Document Title Date6176 Gun Free Environment 8/12/037000 Instructional Philosophy 8/11/877010 Instructional Program 8/11/877011 Length of School Day and School Year 8/11/877012 Policy of Non-Discrimination for the Gifted/Talented Program 8/10/997020 Basic Program 4/21/817021 Improvement of the Instructional Program 4/21/817022 Mathematics Curriculum Requirements 8/22/007034 Equal Opportunity in Course Selection 4/21/817040 Lesson Plans 8/11/877050 Course of Study 8/11/877060 Evaluation of the Instructional Program 8/11/877070 Special Programs 8/11/877090 Character Education 8/11/877100 Instructional Resources 8/20/747110 Textbook Selection and Adoption 8/11/877120 School Library Media Centers 8/11/877122 Selection of School Library Media Resources 8/11/877130 Instructional Television (Media) 8/11/877140 Field Trips 8/11/877180 Student Evaluation & Reporting Pupil Progress 8/11/877181 Grading Policy 3/11/037182 Testing Program Policy 4/26/057200 Homework 8/11/877210 Promotion & Retention 4/21/817215 High School Enrollment 8/11/877216 High School Summer School 8/11/877220 Graduation 8/11/877230 In-Service Training 4/21/817241 Live Work 8/11/877300 Policy Regarding the Legal…Ethical Use of Technology Resources… 2/27/967305 Internet Safety Policy 6/17/027310 Birmingham Board of Education Telephone/Technology Use Policy 11/27/018010 Health 8/25/878011 Tobacco Free Environment 3/11/038020 Safety 8/25/878031 Physical Education 4/21/818040 Guidance Programs 8/25/878050 Special Education 8/25/878070 Student Transfers 8/25/878080 Child Nutrition Programs 4/21/818081 Charged Meal Policy 3/24/098085 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Policy 7/31/068086 Wellness Policy 7/31/068090 Student Opportunities 4/21/818095 Student Transportation Services & Procedures 4/26/05




Document Title Date8100 Student Involvement 8/20/748110 Student Discipline & Behavior 3/11/038130 Corporal Punishment 6/29/988135 Possession of Weapons and Firearms by Students 3/11/038200 Community Schools Policy 2/10/768206 Unannounced Visit by Law Enforcement Agencies 3/11/038207 Anti-Bullying/Anti-Harassment/Anti-Violence Policy 10/27/09

Regulations (R) and Guidelines (G)R2120 Prohibition of Firearms or Other Lethal Weapons…. 1/30/74R2125 Identifi cation Badges 7/19/95R2201 Administrative Guidelines for Site-Based Management…. 5/13/97R3050 Leave of Absence Administrative Regulation (deals with PD leaves) 5/13/97R3130 Local School Security Plans 8/19/81R3131 Test Security Policy 8/19/81R3140 Substance Policy 8/19/81R5031 Local School Purchasing 8/19/81G6021 Schedule and Use of School Facilities and Resources 8/19/81R6021 Regulations for the After School Use of School Buildings and Grounds 9/12/95

R6022 Scheduling of Activities in Regular Schools Which Also Have Community Schools in the Same Structure

5/15/not shown

R7035 Equal Opportunity for Students 8/8/79R7045 Elementary and Middle Grade Organization 9/12/95R7048 High School Department Head or Chairperson (includes job description) 9/18/95R7051 Daytime Students in Night School 3/24/94R7071 All-City Musical Performances 9/6/95R 7210 Homework 1-8 9/6/95R 7211 Promotion and Retention of Exceptional Students to Regular Classes 9/12/95

R 7212 Procedures for Administering Promotion Policy for Students Enrolled in the Bilingual Education Program in Birmingham Public Schools. 9/6/95

R 7216 High School Summer School 9/12/95R 7217 Field Trips 12/19/90R 7241 Live Work 11/19/91R8011 Tobacco Free Environment 9/6/95R8012 Drug and Alcohol Testing 9/6/95R8041 Release of Achievement Test Scores to Parents 7/21/95R8051 Mainstreaming Exceptional Children 5/28/81R8064 Student Discipline: Alternatives to Corporal Punishment UndatedR8064 Corporal Punishment (Corrected Copy) 3/29/83R8130 Corporal Punishment 6/29/98R8070 Student Transfers 9/12/95R8075 Student Transfers (Revised) 9/12/95R8115 Married Students 4/17/79R8116 Pregnant Students 9/27/79

Source: Birmingham City Schools Board Policy Manual


Exhibit 1.2.1 indicates that auditors reviewed a total of 140 documents related to curriculum and instruction and supporting systems (107 board policies and 33 administrative regulations and guidelines). The following statistics indicate when the documents were last reviewed or approved:

Policies:

Policies were dated from 1974 through 2009, •

Nine (approximately nine percent) were last reviewed in the 1970s (more than 30 years ago),•

Forty-six (46) policies (43 percent) were last reviewed between 1981 and 1987,•

Five (less that fi ve percent) were last reviewed in the 1990s, and•

Another 47 policies (44 percent) were last reviewed or approved since 2000.•

Administrative instructions and guidelines:

Dated from 1974 to 1998,•

Four (12 percent) were last reviewed in the 1970s (more than 30 years ago),•

Seven (21 percent) were last reviewed in the decade of the 1980s,•

Twenty (20) (61 percent) were last reviewed in the 1990s, and•

Two documents (six percent) were either undated or did not show the year issued.•

The auditors analyzed the policies listed in Exhibit 1.2.1 to determine their congruence with audit criteria for curriculum management and quality control. The 27 quality criteria are organized into fi ve categories: control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity. For policies within each standard to be characterized as adequate, they must receive 70 percent or more of the points allocated to the criterion.

Standard One: Control

Audit Standard One states the expectation that a school system is able to demonstrate control of resources, programs, and personnel. Control is, in part, provided by board policies that establish an operational framework for management that permits accountability. The criteria and the auditors’ ratings of board policies relative to control are displayed in Exhibit 1.2.2.

Exhibit 1.2.2

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard One—Provides for Control: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:

Audit Criteria and CharacteristicsRelevant

Policies and Regulations

Auditors’ Rating

1.1 A taught and assessed curriculum that is aligned to the district written curriculumRequires the taught and assessed curriculum to be aligned to the district’s written • curriculum

None

Addresses the alignment of the district’s written curriculum with state and national • standards for all subject areas and grades (includes electives)Directs the district’s written curriculum documents to be more rigorous than state and • national standards, to facilitate deep alignment in all three dimensions with current and future high-stakes tests


Exhibit 1.2.2Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on

Audit Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyBirmingham City Schools

December 2010Standard One—Provides for Control:

Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:



Auditors’ Rating

1.2 Philosophical statements of the district instructional approachHas a general philosophical statement of curriculum approach, such as standards-based, • competency-based, outcome-based, etc.

7000, 7010, 7020, 7022, 7300.Directs adherence to mastery learning practices for all content areas and grades involved •

in local, state, and national accountabilityDirects adherence to mastery learning practices for all grade levels and content areas, • including electives

1.3 Board adoption of the written curriculumRequires the annual review of new or revised written curriculum prior to its adoption • 1020, 7050,

7122.Directs the annual adoption of new or revised written curriculum for all grade levels and • content areasDirects the periodic review of all curriculum on a planned cycle over several years•

1.4 Accountability for the design and delivery of the district curriculum through roles and responsibilitiesDirects job descriptions to include accountability for the design and delivery of the • aligned curriculum

1000, 1005, 1020, 1030, 1060, 1090, 2010, 2020, 2040, 2090, 2200, 3030, 7300, 7040. R7048

Links professional appraisal processes with specifi c accountability functions in the • job descriptions of central offi ce administrators, building administrators, and regular classroom teachers Directs professional appraisal processes to evaluate all staff in terms of gains in student • achievement

1.5 Long-range, system-wide planning As part of the district planning process, policy requires that the superintendent and staff • think collectively about the future and that the discussion take some tangible form (This allows for fl exibility without prescribing a particular template)

1020, 1060, 3200, 6010, 6060, 6110.

Requires the development of a system-wide, long-range plan that is updated annually; • incorporates system-wide student achievement targets; and is evaluated using both formative and summative measuresExpects school improvement plans to be congruent with the district long-range plan, to • incorporate system-wide student achievement targets, and to be evaluated using both formative and summative measures

1.6 Functional decision-making structureExpects an organizational chart that is annually reviewed, presented to the board, and • approved by the superintendent

2020, 2200, R2201, 3015

Requires that job descriptions for each person listed on the organizational chart be present • and updated regularly to ensure that all audit criteria, such as span of control, logical grouping of functions, etc., are metDirects and specifi es the processes for the formation of decision-making bodies (e.g., • cabinet, task forces, committees) in terms of their composition and decision-making responsibilities, to ensure consistency, non-duplication of tasks, and product requirements

Standard One Rating (number of points for the six criteria with a possibility of 18) 0Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—18) 0%Note: One point was awarded for every characteristic met under each criterion for a maximum of three points. No points are awarded when policies fail to meet any characteristics.


Exhibit 1.2.2 indicates that board policies associated with control received a rating of zero points out of 18 possible points and are, therefore, inadequate.

The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings:

Criterion 1.1: A taught and assessed curriculum that is aligned to the district written curriculum

No points were given for this criterion. None of the policies reviewed referenced the alignment of the taught, assessed, and written curriculum, the minimum requirement to award points.

Criterion 1.2: Philosophical statements of district curriculum approach

No points were given for this criterion since there was no general statement of the curriculum approach. Board Policy 7022: Mathematics Curriculum Requirements did state that a standards-based approach was being used for the mathematics curriculum.

Criterion 1.3: Board adoption of the written curriculum

Board Policy 7050: Course of Study requires the board to approve the curriculum. No policy required annual approval of the curriculum. Therefore, no points were given for this criterion.

Criterion 1.4: Accountability for the design and delivery of the district curriculum through roles and responsibilities

Several policies identifi ed roles and responsibilities for various employees. However, no points were awarded for this criterion because no policy required job descriptions (see Finding 1.4).

Criterion 1.5: Long-range, system-wide planning process and plan

No points were given for this criterion. The policies cited under Criterion 1.5 in Exhibit 1.2.2 address planning for specifi c activities, mostly facilities, but there is no requirement for a comprehensive, long-range plan (see Finding 1.3).

Criterion 1.6: Functional decision-making structure

No points were given for this criterion. Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent requires the superintendent to organize the staff to effectively accomplish district goals. However, policies required neither an organizational chart nor job descriptions (see Finding 1.4).


Standard Two: Direction

Audit Standard Two states the expectation that a school system has established clear direction through a valid and measurable set of learning objectives for students. The criteria and the auditors’ ratings of board policies relative to that direction are displayed in Exhibit 1.2.3.

Exhibit 1.2.3

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Two—Provides for Direction: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:

Audit Criteria and Characteristics Relevant Policies and Regulations

Auditors’ Rating

2.1 Written curriculum with aligned, criterion-referenced formative assessments for all subject areas at all grade levels

Requires enough specifi city so that all teachers can consistently describe how • students will demonstrate mastery of the intended objective

3038, 3115, 7000, 7010, 7011, 7012, 7020, 7021, 7022, 7040, 7050, 7090, 7100, 7120, 7122, 7130, 7140, 7200, 7210, 7215, 7216, 7220, 7300, 7310, 8031, 8040, 8050, 8100, 8200

Requires formative assessment instruments that align to specifi c curriculum • objectivesDirects that suggestions be provided to teachers for differentiating curriculum to • meet students’ needs as diagnosed by formative assessments

2.2 Periodic review/update of the curriculum and aligned resources and assessmentsRequires the development of procedures to both formatively and summatively • review the written curriculum for all grade levels and content areas

None

Requires the annual review of test banks, benchmark assessments, and other • assessment instruments for alignment with the district or state accountability systemEvaluates assessment instruments for alignment to the district curriculum in all • three dimensions: content, context, and cognitive type

2.3 Textbook/resource alignment to curriculum and assessmentRequires textbooks/resources to be regularly reviewed and the resource revision/• adoption cycle to align with the curriculum revision cycle

7110, 7122, 7130, 7155, 7241

Directs review of all new instructional resource materials for content, context, and • cognitive type alignment to the district curriculum and assessmentDirects district staff to identify discrete areas where alignment is missing and • provide teachers with supplementary materials to address gaps in alignment (missing content, inadequate contexts, etc.)

2.4 Content area emphasisDirects the yearly identifi cation of subject areas that require additional emphasis • based on a review of assessment results

7010, 7090

Within subject areas, requires identifi cation by administration of specifi c • objectives, contexts, cognitive types, and instructional practices to receive budgetary support Requires focused professional development and coaching to support the • instructional delivery of the identifi ed priorities within the content areas


Exhibit 1.2.3 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on

Audit Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyBirmingham City Schools

December 2010Standard Two—Provides for Direction:


Audit Criteria and Characteristics Relevant Policies and Regulations

Auditors’ Rating

2.5 Program integration and alignment to the district’s written curriculumDirects that all subject-related (e.g., reading, Title I) and school-wide (e.g., • tutoring, DARE, AVID) programs be reviewed for alignment to the written and assessed curriculum

None

Requires written procedures for both formative and summative evaluation of all • new subject-related and school-wide programs before submission to the board for approvalDirects administrative staff to prepare annual recommendations for subject-related • and school-wide program revision, expansion, or termination based on student achievement

Standard Two Rating (number of points for the fi ve criteria with a possibility of 15) 0Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—15) 0%Note: One point was awarded for every characteristic met under each criterion for a maximum of three points. No points are awarded when policies fail to meet any characteristics.

Exhibit 1.2.3 indicates that board policies that provide for direction received a rating of zero points out of 15 possible points and are considered inadequate to provide clear curriculum guidance.

The following presents information about the auditors’ analysis of policies in Standard Two:

Criterion 2.1: Written curriculum with aligned, criterion-referenced formative assessments for all subject areas at all grade levels

No points were given for this criterion. Many policies addressed the written curriculum, but there were no policy requirements for formative assessments, aligned or otherwise, for all subject areas and grades (see Finding 2.3).

Criterion 2.2: Provides periodic review of the curriculum and aligned resources and assessments

None of the elements of this criterion were present in the policies reviewed. Therefore, no points were awarded for this criterion (see Finding 2.1).

Criterion 2.3: Textbook/resources alignment to curriculum and assessment

No points were awarded for this criterion. Some policies cited addressed alignment in general terms. However, none mentioned content, context, and cognitive type, nor did policies mention the other elements of this criterion (see Finding 2.3).

Criterion 2.4: Content area emphasis

No points were awarded for this criterion. Although content areas were mentioned in some policies, none identifi ed specifi c areas for emphasis.

Criterion 2.5: Program integration and alignment to the written curriculum

No points were awarded for this criterion. No expectations exist in policy for integrating and aligning programs to the district’s written curriculum or assessments (see Finding 2.1).


Standard Three: Connectivity and Equity

Audit Standard Three states expectations that a school district will have documents/sources that reveal internal connections among different levels of the system, predictable consistency for content delineation within the curriculum, and equality and equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity. Other indicators include allocation of resources to areas of greatest need, professional development to enhance curricular design and delivery, and a curriculum that is monitored by supervisory personnel.

The criteria and the auditors’ ratings of board policies relative to connectivity and equity are displayed in Exhibit 1.2.4.

Exhibit 1.2.4

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Three to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Three—Provides for Connectivity and Equity: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:



Auditors’ Rating

3.1 Predictability of written curriculum from one grade and/or instructional level to anotherRequires the vertical articulation and horizontal coordination of the curriculum • within schools

7050

Requires vertical articulation across grade levels and horizontal coordination among • schools at a given level for all content areasDirects the identifi cation of prerequisite skills and their placement in the written • curriculum at the appropriate grade/instructional level

3.2 Training for staff in the delivery of the curriculum Directs the development and implementation of a district professional development • plan, focused on effective curriculum delivery, that is congruent with the district long-range plan and annual goal priorities

1005, 1100, 2020, 3030, 3050, 3200, 4080, 7150, 7230, R3050

Requires a process whereby staff are coached over time in the implementation of • professional development initiativesDirects the regular evaluation of the impact of professional development on student • achievement, using both formative and summative measures

3.3 Delivery of the adopted district curriculumRequires all staff to deliver the curriculum as approved by the board• 7050 XRequires building principals and all central offi ce staff with curriculum • responsibilities to review disaggregated assessment results and identify areas where curriculum delivery may be ineffectiveRequires an annual report for the board regarding the status of curriculum delivery•

3.4 Monitoring the delivery of the district curriculumDirects building principals to develop and implement a plan to monitor the delivery • of the district curriculum on a weekly basis

7040

Directs central offi ce curricular staff to assist the principal in monitoring the delivery • of the district curriculumRequires periodic school and classroom data-gathering reports from administrators • detailing the status of the delivery of the curriculum across the district, with recommendations for the creation of professional development activities or curricular revisions


Exhibit 1.2.4 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Three to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Three—Provides for Connectivity and Equity: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:



Auditors’ Rating

3.5 Equitable student access to the curriculum, instructional resources, and learning environmentRequires equal student access to the curriculum, appropriate instructional materials • for a variety of learning levels and modes, and appropriate facilities to support the learning environment necessary to deliver the district curriculum

1145, 2020, 3010, 3115, 4021, 4105, 5010, 5015, 7012, 7034, 7070, 7100, 7105, 7110, 7120, 7130, 7216, 7220, 8013, 8050, 8090, 8130, R7035, R7051, R7211, R7212, R7216, R8115, R8116, R8051.

X

Directs the development of procedures for fast-tracking students who lack suffi cient • prerequisite skills for courses such as AP, honors, etc., but need more challenging contentRequires an annual review of equity data (such as access, racial isolation, rigor), the • subsequent reporting to the board of those data, and the development of a plan for correcting equity issues

Standard Three Rating (number of points for the fi ve criteria with a possibility of 15) 2Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—15) 13%Note: One point was awarded for every characteristic met under each criterion for a maximum of three points. No points are awarded when policies fail to meet any characteristics.

The analysis in Exhibit 1.2.4 shows that Birmingham City Schools policies related to connectivity and equity received two points out of a possible 18 points. Policy in these areas is inadequate to provide for local control of the design and delivery of the curriculum.

Details of the auditors’ analysis are provided below.

Criterion 3.1: Predictability of the written curriculum

No points were awarded for this criterion. No board policy addressed a curriculum management plan (see Finding 2.1). Board Policy 7050: Course of Study does require a scope and sequence for grades kindergarten through 12, in each major area of study.

Criterion 3.2: Training for staff in the delivery of the curriculum

Board Policy 3200 requires “a comprehensive and coordinated district plan” for professional development “guided by the strategies and activities of the district to increase student achievement” (see Finding 3.4). However, there is no requirement to link the professional development plan to a long-range plan for district improvement.

Criterion 3.3: Delivery of the adopted district curriculum

Board Policy 7050: Course of Study prohibits additions to the approved curriculum without board consent. Therefore, one points was awarded (see Finding 3.1).

Criterion 3.4: Monitoring the delivery of the district curriculum

No points were awarded for this criterion because there was no policy requirement to develop plans to monitor curriculum delivery (see Finding 3.3).


Criterion 3.5: Equitable student access to curriculum, instructional resources, and learning environment

One point was awarded for this criterion. Numerous policies provide for equal student access and a supportive and equitable learning environment. However, none identify procedures for fast-tracking students who lack prerequisite skills for advanced courses or for an annual review of equity data, beyond state and federal requirements.

Standard Four: Feedback

A school district meeting audit Standard Four has a comprehensive assessment system that provides information for decision making at the classroom, campus, system, and board levels. The criteria and the auditors’ ratings of board policies relative to assessment and feedback are displayed in Exhibit 1.2.5.

Exhibit 1.2.5

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Four to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Four—Provides for Feedback: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:


Policies and Regulation

Auditors’ Rating

4.1 A student assessment processRequires the development and implementation of a district student assessment • process that goes beyond the state accountability assessment system and includes both formative and summative measures

7081, 7180, 7181, 7182, 7210

Requires the development and implementation of a district student assessment • process that is differentiated to address variations in student achievement (both above and below grade level) and includes both formative and summative assessment measuresRequires assessment instruments to be more rigorous in content, context, and • cognitive type than external, high stakes assessments

4.2 A program assessment processDirects the development and implementation of a district program evaluation process • 1000, 1060,

1090, 1141, 2020, 7021, 7060

Requires each proposed program to have an evaluation process (The process includes • both formative and summative evaluations) before that program is adopted and implementedDirects the program assessment process to link with district planning initiatives, • including site improvement plans and the strategic/long-range plan

4.3 Use of data from assessments to determine program and curriculum effectiveness and effi ciencyRequires the disaggregation of assessment data at the school, classroom, student • subgroup, and student level to determine program and curriculum effectiveness and effi ciency

1005

Requires classroom teachers to track and document individual student mastery in core • content areasRequires the development of modifi cations to the curriculum and/or programs as • needed in response to disaggregated assessment data to bring about effectiveness and effi ciency


Exhibit 1.2.5 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Four to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Four—Provides for Feedback: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:


Policies and Regulation

Auditors’ Rating

4.4 Reports to the board about program effectivenessRequires yearly reports to the board regarding program effectiveness for all new • programs for the fi rst three years of operationRequires reports to the board every three years for long-term programs• Requires summative reports to the board every fi ve years for all content areas before • any curriculum revisions or major materials acquisition, with the reports delivered prior to the curricular adoption cycle

Standard Four Rating (number of points for the four criteria with a possibility of 12) 0Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—12) 0%Note: One point was awarded for every characteristic met under each criterion for a maximum of three points. No points are awarded when policies fail to meet any characteristics.

Exhibit 1.2.5 shows that board policies related to audit Standard Four received zero points out of 12 possible points and, therefore, are inadequate to provide direction for assessment and feedback.

Criterion 4.1: A student assessment process

No points were awarded for this criterion. The most defi nitive guidance for student assessment was provided in Board Policy 7182: Testing Program, which stated that the testing program would be guided by state and federal procedures for measuring annual yearly progress. No policy requires summative and formative assessment of all content areas and grades (see Findings 4.1 and 4.4).

Criterion 4.2: A program assessment process

No points were given for this criterion. Board Policy 1000: School Board Goals and Objectives states that one of the goals of the board is to “evaluate regularly educational needs and goals,” but no specifi cs were provided and there was no discussion of formative and summative program assessments (see Finding 4.5). Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent requires “a thorough program of research and evaluation of all aspects of district operations to provide the board with information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and set goals priorities and improvements….” There is no mention of formative or summative assessments.

Criterion 4.3: Use of data from assessment to determine program/curriculum effectiveness and effi ciency

No points were given for this criterion. Policies do not address disaggregation of school, classroom, and individual student assessment data (see Finding 4.3).

Criterion 4.4: Reports to the board about program effectiveness

No points were awarded for this criterion because no reports were required regarding the effectiveness of new programs.


Standard Five: Productivity

A school district meeting audit Standard Five is able to consistently demonstrate improved student outcomes even when faced with diminishing resources. The criteria and the auditors’ ratings of board policies relative to productivity are displayed in Exhibit 1.2.6.

Exhibit 1.2.6

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Five—Provides for Productivity: Directs the superintendent or designee to oversee the development of board policy to ensure:



Auditors’ Rating

5.1 Program-centered budgetingDirects development of a budget process that requires program evaluation, • identifi cation of specifi c measurable program goals before the budget process begins, and documented costs to ensure that expenditures are aligned within revenues and cost-benefi t analysis is facilitated

2020, 4000, 4105, 4005, 4020, 4021, 4025

Requires adherence to a program-centered budgeting process that includes incremental • budgeting based on different program types, delivery, and quality for all curriculum areas (The process provides evidence of tangible connections between allocations and anticipated program outcomes or accomplishments.)Directs full implementation of a program-centered budgeting process that includes • incremental funding possibilities, a process for evaluating options, and the use of program evaluation data linked to budget allocations (This process enables program budget decisions to be based upon documented results and performance.)

5.2 Resource allocation tied to curriculum prioritiesRequires a budget that allocates resources according to documented needs, assessment • data, and established district curriculum and program goals and priorities

1020

Requires a budget that may be multi-year in nature, provides ongoing support for • curriculum and program priorities, and connects costs with program expectations and data-based needsDirects a budget that provides resources needed to achieve system priorities over • time and demonstrates the need for resources based on measurable results and/or performance of programs and activities

5.3 Environment to support curriculum deliveryDirects facilities that enable teachers to work in an environment that supports adequate • delivery of the curriculum

5110, 5120, 5130, 6010, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6100, 6110, 7000, 7305, 8011, 8135, 8201, G6021

X

Directs consideration of multi-year facilities planning efforts to adequately support the • district curriculum and program priorities

X

Directs facilities planning linked to future curriculum and instructional trends and to • the teaching-learning environment incorporated in the documented system mission and vision statements


Exhibit 1.2.6 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on

Audit Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyBirmingham City Schools

December 2010Standard Five—Provides for Productivity:




Auditors’ Rating

5.4 Support systems focused on curriculum design and deliveryProvides a clear connection between district support services and the achievement of • the district curriculum design and delivery, and evidence of optimization within the system

3140, 6175, 8010, 8020, 8040, 8080, 8081, 8085, 8086, 8095, 8110, 8130, 8207

Requires formative and summative evaluation practices for each support service to • provide data for improving these services and documented evidence of improvement over timeRequires periodic reports to the board with recommendations for continuing, revising, • and/or developing new support services to enhance fulfi llment of the mission, including needs-based data

5.5 Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learningDirects the development of specifi c requirements for data analysis that lead to • improved student learning for the core curriculum areas and electives

4010, 4030, 4100

Directs the development of specifi c requirements for data analysis that lead to • improved student learning for all curriculum areas and grade levels (including electives)Directs the development of specifi c requirements for data analysis that lead to • improved student learning for all operations of the district

5.6 Change processes for long-term institutionalization of district priority goalsRequires the identifi cation of strategies, grounded in documented assessment • of program success or effi cacy, to be used by the district to ensure long-term institutionalization of change

7021, 7060

Directs the development of school improvement plans that address the use of specifi c • change strategies at the building level to ensure the institutionalization of change and improved results or performanceDirects that all district, department, and program plans incorporate procedures for • change strategies to ensure the institutionalization of change for improvement and include procedures with formative and summative practices that provide data about change implementation and effectiveness

Standard Five Rating (number of points for the six criteria with a possibility of 18) 2Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—18) 11%Note: One point was awarded for every characteristic met under each criterion for a maximum of three points. No points are awarded when policies fail to meet any characteristics.

Exhibit 1.2.6 shows that board policies relative to audit Standard Five received two points out of 18 possible points and are thus inadequate to provide for improved productivity.

Details of the auditors’ analysis follow.

Criterion 5.1: Program-centered budgeting

No points were given for this criterion because program evaluation was not discussed in conjunction with the budgeting process (see Finding 5.1).


Criterion 5.2: Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities

No policies specifi cally required that budget allocations be linked to documented needs, assessment data, or program goals and priorities. No points were awarded for this criterion (see Finding 5.1).

Criterion 5.3: Environment to support curriculum delivery

Two points were awarded this criterion. Board Policy 5110: Maintenance – Goals and Objectives indicates that facilities and services are to “support a sound educational program.” Board Policy 6010: Facilities Planning requires a long-range plan to be reviewed annually and the associated needs assessments to consider “the changing educational program….” Policies do require periodic review of facilities planning by the board, and the board has established a committee for this purpose (see Finding 5.2).

Criterion 5.4: Support systems focused on curriculum design, deployment, and delivery

No points were awarded for this criterion. There is no requirement for evidence of optimization of support systems or summative and formative evaluation of those systems.

Criterion 5.5: Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning

Policies discussed evaluation in general and did not direct the development of specifi c requirements for data analysis as a basis for improved student learning. No points were awarded for this criterion (see Findings 4.1 and 4.5).

Criterion 5.6: Change processes for long-term institutionalization of district goals

No points were awarded for this criterion. Policies did not discuss a requirement for strategies supported by assessments, nor did they require school improvement plans. Policies stated the expectation for periodic adjustment of the educational program and facilities in very general terms, with no requirement for developing specifi c strategies.

Exhibit 1.2.7 summarizes the board policies ratings for each of the fi ve audit standards and an overall percentage of adequacy revealed through the board policy analysis.

Exhibit 1.2.7

Summary Ratings of the Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy


Standard Number of Criteria

Number of Possible

Points

Points Given

Percentage of Points Relative to 70%

Standard for AdequacyOne 6 18 0 0Two 5 15 0 0

Three 6 18 2 11Four 4 12 0 0Five 6 18 2 11

Overall Rating For All Criteria 27 81 4 5%

Exhibit 1.2.7 shows that the district’s policies received a total of four points (fi ve percent) of 81 possible points. A score of 57 points (70 percent) is required for policies to be rated adequate to provide adequate direction for the management of curriculum and supporting functions. It is noteworthy that the Standard Two policies, those dealing with (curriculum) standards for students, received zero points of a possible 15.


Policy Review

As noted above, Board Policy 1060: Board Committees requires “an annual comprehensive review of all the system’s policies to determine if they are current….” Auditors asked board members if these annual policy reviews had been conducted. While a few board members indicated that the reviews had been conducted, several gave contradictory information:

“The board has a Policy Committee….There is no schedule for reviewing polices. [The required annual • policy review] doesn’t happen….There’s no specifi c reason, probably inattention.” (Board Member)

“We have not [reviewed policies] annually. We’ve done it piecemeal.” (Board Member)•

“We handle [policy] issues as they come up. The policy [manual] needs to be revised.” (Board • Member)

“We have not done anything with the policies in the past year except for bullying….The board is • developing a [policy management] process.” (Board Member)

One board member told auditors that in 2002, the board engaged the State Association of School Boards to help get the policies into shape, but described that effort as “only partially successful.”

Principals and central offi ce administrators also noted the need for regular policy reviews:

“A lot of policies are outdated.” (District Administrator)•

“I’m not aware of a regular policy review since I have been [in the district]….Some [policies] are good, • some not good.” (District Administrator)

Policy: “It’s time for an upgrade.” (Principal)•

Administrative Procedures

Board Policy 2090: Administrative Regulations requires the superintendent to establish administrative regulations to govern schools, consistent with board policies. Board Policy 1081: Policy Dissemination requires the superintendent to make policies “together with administrative rules and regulations needed for their implementation” accessible to employees and the public. During visits to schools few principals could produce administrative regulations. The following is a sample of comments about administrative regulations:

“Administrative regulations are not used much.” (Principal)•

“Everyone does not understand processes or doesn’t follow procedures. There needs to be operations • manuals for [departments].” (District Administrator)

When auditors visited schools, some principals were unable to produce copies of the manual of administrative regulations.

Summary

Board policies lack adequate content to provide direction to the staff on most key issues. Further, policies are not subject to regular review, as required by the board. Many have not been reviewed in more than 20 years. Therefore, the audit team found the body of policies reviewed inadequate to provide the guidance necessary for sound curriculum management. Similarly, administrative instructions are dated, not accessible, and rarely used. Overall, the policies and regulatory guidance for the district are inadequate (see Recommendation 1).


Finding 1.3: Plans and planning do not meet audit criteria in most instances. Planning guidance is inadequate, and planning is separated from the budgeting process. The district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete, and school plans do not systematically refl ect district planning goals and priorities.

Planning is a process by which district offi cers envision the future of the school system and develop the necessary procedures and operations to achieve that future. The planning function charts the course for progress to a desired future state. In this process, multiple data sources are used and decisions are made with clear future goals in mind. Embedded in this planning system is the ability to modify and adjust direction as needed, based on such things as students’ needs, new legislation, or changes in the community. It is a way for the leadership to sustain an organization’s focus over time on the district’s goals and the work necessary to move the district toward its goals. In the absence of sound planning and/or plans, it is diffi cult for the organization to maintain constancy of purpose in the face of environmental and leadership changes. Further, the staff must conduct day-to-day operations without strategic direction, resources may be wasted on inappropriate and ineffective programs, and goals may not be achieved.

To understand how the leadership and staff of the Birmingham City Schools conduct planning, the audit team interviewed board members and staff at the district and school levels. The team also reviewed a number of documents, including the following:

The Birmingham City Schools• Strategic Plan, 2009-2012;

The Birmingham City Schools• Technology Plan, 2010-2012;

A capital improvement plan evaluated in • Finding 5.2;

Most school (continuous) improvement plans;•

District policies and regulations related to planning (Criterion 3, • Exhibit 1.2.2); and

Board minutes.•

Three types of analysis were used in this fi nding. The fi rst dealt with the district’s planning process as a whole. In this analysis, auditors looked at the planning function and how it was carried out at various levels within the district. At the second level of analysis, auditors reviewed what the district considers its key planning documents. In this case, those documents were the Strategic Plan and the Technology Plan. The third level of analysis was focused on the school improvement planning process and school continuous improvement plans (CIPs).

Overall, district planning processes and plans lacked most of the elements of sound planning. Auditors found that planning was being conducted but comprehensive, written planning guidance did not exist. The district Strategic Plan did not specify the actions and resources necessary to pursue priorities and achieve goals. The district staff presented no evidence to indicate that the Strategic Plan infl uenced school level planning. Where district and school goals and priorities overlapped, they were more incidental than intentional. Planning at the school level was focused on achieving academic goals related to annual yearly progress (AYP). In this area, the Chief Academic Offi cer had stratifi ed schools into three levels based on academic need and deployed a monitoring and assistance team to visit schools regularly, assess their progress toward academic goals, identify needs, and set school goals to be accomplished by the next assistance visit. Some written protocols had been established for these staff visits, but there was no comprehensive written description of this process. These efforts were initiated recently so no data existed to assess their impact. As a body of work, school plans did not satisfy audit standards of adequacy for a variety or reasons, including failure to identify the sources and amounts of resources necessary to implement them. Details of the audit team’s fi ndings follow.


Level One Analysis: Quality of planning design and deployment do not satisfy most audit criteria. There is a lack of planning guidance, data to justify plans, and links between planning and budgeting. Deployment of resources, such as staff development, is ineffective. Delivery of planning efforts was also ineffective: the Strategic Plan is incomplete and most plans did not refl ect the resources necessary to carry them out.

Auditors found documentary evidence of long-range planning at the district level, but only to the point of establishing board priorities and goals; there are no action plans for implementation. School level planning is refl ected in the CIPs, but there are no indications that school planning is a direct refl ection of district level strategic planning. School planning and district support of that effort tended to be focused on attainment of AYP as measured by the state.

To determine the quality of the planning function, auditors used the Curriculum Audit™ characteristics of quality planning for design, deployment, and delivery. This analysis examined the planning function across the district, at the central offi ce level, and at school sites. In order for the overall quality of planning to be rated adequate, at least six of the eight characteristics must receive a rating of adequate. Exhibit 1.3.1 lists the audit characteristics for assessing a school district planning effort and the audit team’s ratings of those efforts.

Exhibit 1.3.1

Level I: Characteristics of Quality Planning Audit Criteria—Design, Deployment, and Delivery


There is evidence that…Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequatePolicy Expectations:1. The governing board has placed into policy the expectation that the superintendent and staff collectively discuss the future and that this thinking should take some tangible form without prescribing a particular template, allowing for fl exibility as needed.

X

Vision/Direction:2. Leadership has implicit or explicit vision of the general direction in which the organization is going for improvement purposes. That vision emerges from having considered future changes in the organizational context.

X

Data-driven:3. Data infl uence the planning and system directions/initiatives. XBudget Timing:4. Budget planning for change is done in concert with other planning, with goals and actions from those plans driving the budget planning. X

Day-to-Day Decisions:5. Leadership makes day-to-day decisions regarding the implicit or explicit direction of the system and facilitates movement toward the planned direction.

X

Emergent/Fluid Planning:6. Leadership is able to adjust discrepancies between current status and desired status, facilitates movement toward the desired status, and is fl uid in planning efforts (emergent in nature).

X

Deliberate Articulated Actions:7. Staff are involved in a purposeful way through such efforts as school/unit improvement planning, professional development councils, and district task forces that are congruent with the articulated direction of the system or system initiatives.

X

Aligned Professional Development:8. Professional development endeavors are aligned to system planning goals and initiatives. X

Total 8Percentage of Adequacy 0%


Exhibit 1.3.1 indicates that none of the eight characteristics were rated adequate. As mentioned previously, district-wide planning must meet six of the eight characteristics to be rated adequate. Therefore, district planning does not satisfy audit quality planning criteria. The following comments provide more information regarding the auditors’ fi ndings.

Characteristic One: Policy

There were no policy expectations for collective planning or tangible expressions of planning. Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent stated only that the superintendent should “plan and recommend to the Board the purposes, program and policies for the System…” In particular, auditors observed that no policies addressed planning in the following areas: curriculum development (see Finding 2.1), professional development (see Finding 3.4), student assessment (see Finding 4.1), and program evaluation (see Finding 4.5).

Characteristic Two: Vision/Direction

The board’s vision, priorities, and goals are expressed in the Strategic Plan, 2009-2012. In pursuit of its vision, the board established the following priorities:

“Academic excellence for all students”;•

“Ensure adequate resources for academic excellence, high quality employees, and state-of-the-art • facilities and technology”;

“Highest quality employees, who have student success as their highest priority”;•

“Engages all stakeholders through effective communication and partnerships”; and•

“A safe learning environment where all student feel secure and valued.”•

With the exception of a review of the decline in student enrollments since school year 2004-05, the auditors were provided with no objective data to support the board’s priorities.

Characteristic Three: Data-Driven

Neither of the district-level plans reviewed by auditors contained a comprehensive assessment of data to support their goals. However, under the direction of the Chief Academic Offi cer, the School Improvement Offi cer, and the various curriculum departments, the district had initiated an effort to collect student achievement data necessary to monitor school progress. A series of assistance visits was in progress to help school staffs address needs identifi ed by student achievement data. However, these efforts had just begun, and there was insuffi cient data for auditors to assess their effectiveness. No such system had been established to monitor Strategic Plan goals.

Characteristic Four: Budget Timing

The auditors were presented with no written policy to guide budget allocations. Most plans reviewed by the audit team did not specify the funds necessary for implementation or adequately identify their sources.

Characteristic Five: Day-to-Day Decisions

It is expected that day-to-day decisions will be guided by district policies, plans, and staff expertise. In the Birmingham City Schools, policy is inadequate (see Finding 1.2), the district’s strategic plan is incomplete, written planning guidance does not exist, and staff development to improve staff practices was uncoordinated (see Finding 3.4) and reported by some as ineffective. Additionally, support by the central offi ce was reported as inconsistent and idiosyncratic (see Findings 1.1 and 5.2). Finally, teaching methods were inconsistent with best practices (see Finding 3.1). To its credit, the district was in the process of assembling a data room, referred to as, the “War Room,” containing the information needed to guide day-to-day decisions. As of the date of the audit site visit, this was a work in progress.


Characteristic Six: Emergent/Fluid Planning

The evidence did not indicate that leadership had been able to adjust discrepancies between the current status and the desired status. For example, school capacity had not been aligned with the declining student population (see Finding 5.2). The lack of effective, coordinated staff development is another example (see Finding 3.4). Further, board members, central offi ce administrators, and principals reported staff inertia in adjusting support and teaching methods to the real needs of students and school staffs (see Finding 1.1).

Characteristic Seven: Deliberate Articulated Actions

Since the district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete, there is no fully articulated strategic direction for the system. Staff efforts were devoted primarily to helping principals achieve the goals identifi ed in their CIPs so that schools could satisfy AYP requirements. Staff visits to schools were focused on gathering achievement data and providing classroom and school planning assistance.

Characteristic Eight: Aligned Professional Development

Professional development was not substantially addressed in the district’s Strategic Plan, and there was no separate district professional development plan (see Finding 3.4). A district administrator told auditors, “We have not planned coordinated staff development.”

Some principals reported that professional development offered by the district was disorganized and not aligned with their needs. The following are typical of their comments:

“There needs to be more dialogue between principals and [the] Professional Development [Department] • regarding teaching methods. Professional development is out of sync with schools. Teachers need more training on integration of technology into instruction. They also need more workshops on using technology. The train-the-trainer model is not fully effective.” (Principal)

“Most [professional development] is just a waste of time for principals. For teachers, it’s ineffective. • On September 3rd, we conducted a district professional development. The list of course was sent out the day before. There was nothing for elementary teachers. The whole affair was not effectively planned. Last year was not well planned either. There was not enough advance information on Professional Learning Communities, but the training was excellent. Overall, professional development in this district is poorly planned.” (Principal)

“[Principals need] professional development on what site-based management is and where decisions • can be made.” (Principal)

Summary

There is evidence of planning in the school system, as indicated in written district and school plans, memoranda, and interviews. However, planning lacked adequate guidance, was disjointed, and was divorced from the realities of available resources. Hence, auditors found the district’s planning efforts inadequate.


Level Two Analysis: The quality of district-wide plans was found to be inadequate in several areas. The Strategic Plan lacks actions, monitoring, evaluations, and resources necessary to pursue priorities and goals; the Technology Plan shares some of these problems. Both plans have deployment defi ciencies. Delivery could not be assessed because the Strategic Plan does not identify implementing actions and the Technology Plan is in the early stages of implementation.

If the auditors fi nd planning in the system, they proceed to determine if there are plans. If plans exist, auditors examine them for certain change characteristics. Auditors were given two district-level plans to evaluate, the Strategic Plan, 2009-2012 and the Technology Plan, 2010-2012.

Exhibit 1.3.2 lists the Curriculum Audit™ characteristics of quality district-level planning documents and the auditors’ assessment of the degree to which these characteristics were present in the two district-wide plans cited above. In order for district-wide plans to meet audit standards, fi ve of the seven characteristics must be rated adequate.

Exhibit 1.3.2

Level II: Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery

Birmingham City Schools December 2010

Characteristics

Auditors’ RatingDistrict

Strategic Plan

Technology Plan

Reasonable and Clear: 1. The plan is reasonable; it has a feasible number of goals and objectives for the resources (fi nancial, time, people) available. Moreover, the goals and objectives are clear and measurable.

Inadequate Inadequate

Emergent/Fluid:2. The plan allows for emergent thinking, trends, and changes that impact the system both internally and externally. Inadequate Adequate

Change Strategies:3. The plan incorporates and focuses on those action strategies/interventions that are built around effective change strategies (e.g., capacity building of appropriate staff).

Inadequate Adequate

Deployment Strategies:4. The plan clearly delineates strategies to be used to support deploying the steps and tasks outlined in the plan (e.g., orientation to the change, staff development on the profi ciencies needed to bring about the change, communication regarding planned change).

Inadequate Adequate

Integration of Goals and Actions:5. All goals and actions in the plan are interrelated and congruent with one another. Inadequate Adequate

Evaluation Plan and Implementation:6. There is a written plan to evaluate whether the objectives of the plan have been met (not to evaluate whether or not the activities have taken place). Evaluation components of plans are actions to be implemented; plans are evaluated for their effects or results, and they are then modifi ed as needed. There is both frequent formative evaluation and annual summative evaluation, so that plans are revised as needed.


Monitoring:7. Systems are in place and are being implemented for assessing the status of activities, analyzing the results, and reporting the outcomes that take place as the plan is designed and implemented.


Total 0/7 4/7Percentage of Adequacy 0% 57%

In order for the district-wide plans to meet audit standards, fi ve of the seven characteristics must be rated adequate. Exhibit 1.3.2 shows that neither of the district-wide plans satisfi es the quality plan criteria for adequacy. The following are the auditors’ comments on the specifi cs of the ratings above:


Characteristic One: Reasonable and Clear

Auditors were unable to determine if the Strategic Plan is reasonable because the sources and amounts of the funds required to carry out the plan are not stated. In the Technology Plan, goals, objectives, and implementing actions are specifi ed. However, multiple funding sources were cited for the same items with no indication as to how much money would come from each source. For example, funding sources for Item 1, Goal 1 were “E-rate [sic] funds” and the “General Fund.” Therefore, auditors were unable to determine the feasibility of the Technology Plan.

Characteristic Two: Emergent/Fluid

Statements in the Strategic Plan are suffi ciently broad to accommodate emerging trends. However, in the absence of action plans, auditors were unable assess the district’s approach to this criterion. The Technology Plan provided suffi cient fl exibility to deal with emerging trends.

Characteristic Three: Change Strategies

The Strategic Plan contains lists of change strategies, but no implementing details. The Technology Plan contains details on how to improve the technical capabilities of staff and students.

Characteristic Four: Deployment Strategies

Deployment strategies were not stated in the Strategic Plan, but were described with precision in the Technology Plan.

Characteristic Five: Integration of Goals and Actions

The Strategic Plan contained goals; action plans had not been developed. The Technology Plan refl ected integration of goals, objectives, and actions.

Characteristic Six: Evaluation Plan and Implementation

Neither the Strategic Plan nor the Technology Plan contained provisions for formative evaluations or annual summative evaluations.

Characteristic Seven: Monitoring

Since there are no action plans to support the Strategic Plan, monitoring systems are not documented. In the Technology Plan, monitoring provisions are identifi ed for each goal. However, in some cases, those provisions are incomplete or inappropriate. For example, while Goals 1 and 2 deal with student mastery of technology and using technology to extend learning opportunities, monitoring methods did not include an examination of students’ work, the primary indicator of student mastery. Additionally, Goal 4 was concerned with providing an adequate technical infrastructure for staff and students, but the technical specifi cations and equipment that defi ne the infrastructure are not listed as a data sources for monitoring goal attainment.

The following comments by district administrators support the fi nding that the Strategic Plan is neither complete nor being implemented:

“The strategic plan is nebulous; it has the goals, but nothing specifi c—no action steps yet.” (District • Administrator)

“We are in the current strategic plan, but we haven’t done anything on it.” (District Administrator)•

“I know that the board has a strategic plan, but it’s not been followed.” (District Administrator)•

Summary

The audit team determined that the two major district-wide plans discussed above do not meet audit standards for quality design. The Strategic Plan is incomplete in that it lacks action plans and resources to support the goals and priorities contained therein. The Technology Plan is a more thorough document. However, it lacks provisions for sound monitoring, formative and summative evaluations, and clear statements of the sources and amounts of resources required for implementation.


Level Three Analysis: School continuous improvement plans did not meet audit standards of quality. Connectivity to district plans was incidental or missing, resources were not suffi ciently identifi ed, communication regarding change was dysfunctional, and evaluation arrangements were inadequate.

The last type of analysis conducted by the auditors was an examination of school continuous improvement plans (CIPs). The same types of characteristics used for district-wide plans were used, in addition to tracing the connectivity to district-wide plans. In order to achieve maximum impact of the planning process, the leadership must maintain tight control of goals and objectives, while permitting and ensuring creativity and fl exibility in methods at all levels. When properly structured, this planning process reduces slack within the system. Slack occurs when there is a lack of connectivity among the planning efforts of the leadership, central offi ce elements, and schools. When slack is present, district goals are less likely to be achieved in a timely manner or produce the results intended by the leadership. Design slack can usually be detected by comparing the goals and objectives in school and central offi ce departmental plans to the goals and objectives in district-wide plans. Slack in delivery of planning efforts can normally be detected by observing day-to-day operations, such as teaching methods in a classroom.

To assess the quality of school CIPs, the audit team examined the plans themselves along with policies, administrative instructions, and district-wide plans. They also interviewed principals and central offi ce staff regarding planning and plans.

Auditors found no policies that addressed school improvement planning. District employees were using the very detailed Alabama Department of Education template to prepare and monitor school comprehensive improvement plans. Those plans were to be a comprehensive guide for reforming the school’s total instructional program. Specifi c components of the plans include: a needs assessment based on student achievement, description of school-wide reform strategies, instruction by highly qualifi ed teachers, professional development activities, recruitment and retention of highly qualifi ed teachers, strategies to increase parent involvement, intervention strategies, and strategies for use of academic assessments to plan the improvement of individual student performance and the overall instructional program. Auditors determined that the law provided adequate guidance for the preparation of school plans.

To assess the quality of school planning, the audit team examined CIPs for 47 elementary, middle, and high schools selected by the district staff and compared those plans to the audit characteristics of quality school improvement plans. Exhibit 1.3.3 lists those characteristics and the auditors’ assessment of the degree to which the characteristics were present in the plans reviewed. To be considered adequate, school plans must receive an adequate rating on six of the eight characteristics assessed.

Exhibit 1.3.3

Level III: Characteristics of Department and School Improvement Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery

Birmingham City Schools December 2010

CharacteristicsAuditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateCongruence and Connectivity:1. Goals and actions are derived from, explicitly linked to, and congruent with the district plan’s goals, objectives, and priorities. X

Reasonable and Clear:2. The plan is reasonable; it has a feasible number of goals and objectives for the resources available (fi nances, time, people). The goals and objectives of the plan are clear and measurable.

X

Emergent/Fluid:3. The plan allows for emergent thinking, trends, and changes that impact the system both internally and externally. X

Change Strategies:4. The plan incorporates and focuses on those action strategies/interventions that are built around effective change strategies (e.g., capacity building of appropriate staff).

X


Exhibit 1.3.3 (continued)Level III: Characteristics of Department and School Improvement Plan Quality

for Design, Deployment, and DeliveryBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

CharacteristicsAuditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateDeployment Strategies:5. The plan clearly delineates strategies to be used to support deploying the steps and tasks outlined in the plan (e.g., orientation to the change, staff development on the profi ciencies needed to bring about the change, communication regarding planned change).

X

Integration of Goals and Actions:6. All goals and actions in the plan are interrelated and congruent with one another. X

Evaluation Plan and Implementation:7. There is a written plan to evaluate whether the objectives of the plan have been met (not to evaluate whether or not the activities have taken place). Evaluation components of plans are actions to be implemented; plans are evaluated for their effects or results and modifi ed as needed. There is both frequent formative evaluation and summative evaluation, so that plans are revised as needed.

X

Monitoring:8. Systems are in place and are being implemented for assessing the status of activities, analyzing the results, and reporting outcomes that take place as the plan is designed and implemented.

X

Total 4 4Percentage of Adequacy 50%

Exhibit 1.3.3 shows that school continuous improvement plans received an adequate rating on 50 percent of the eight characteristics assessed. Seventy (70) percent is required to receive an overall rating of adequate. Therefore, school CIPs were rated inadequate. The following are auditors’ comments on the ratings:

Characteristic One: Congruence and Connectivity

At the time the auditors visited the district, the Strategic Plan was a work in progress; neither the action plans nor metrics to measure goal attainment existed. Although there was congruence of some district and school goals, it would be inaccurate to say that the goals and actions in school plans were derived from the district’s Strategic Plan. Interviewees described the Strategic Plan as inactive. Available evidence indicated that district strategic planning and school planning were separate activities. School planning is focused on attainment of annual yearly progress (AYP) goals required by the state.

Characteristic Two: Reasonable and Clear

Goals were clear and measurable. However, many CIPs failed to specify the resources necessary to attain those goals. Therefore, auditors were unable to determine if goals were reasonable.

Characteristic Three: Emergent/Fluid

Plans were to be revised based on an annual assessment of trends. Further, district teams visited schools periodically to assess goal attainment, provide classroom assistance, and help school staffs create the next set of goals for student achievement.

Characteristic Four: Change Strategies

Change in schools was focused on using training and data to improve teaching and student achievement. Goals related to school level professional development were included in all plans reviewed. Professional Learning Communities were being established in all schools as a means to facilitate change. District and school level teams reviewed and provided data for teachers to help them establish student achievement goals and to measure student progress. Data representing goals and progress were posted on data walls or in data rooms in some schools visited by auditors. (This area is an example of the lack of connectivity between school- and district-level planning: while there was no district professional development plan, school plans described needs and plans for much professional development.) As stated earlier, district staff used the detailed Alabama Department of


Education template to prepare and monitor school comprehensive improvement plans. The processes outlined in that template are adequate to guide effective planning. What was missing in the Birmingham City Schools was consistent communication between the staffs at the district offi ce and schools and among the schools themselves regarding the changes that were occurring. This lack of communication created dysfunction and uncoordinated efforts.

Characteristic Five: Deployment Strategies

Clear deployment strategies did not exist in most plans. Communication regarding the management of change was cited as a problem by many principals interviewed by the audit team (see Finding 1.1). Auditors were told that school staffs were inundated with directives from various elements of the central offi ce that frequently bypassed principals. Further, some principals indicated that district staff development efforts did not support the specifi c needs of their staffs and were not well managed (see Finding 3.4).

Characteristic Six: Integration of Goals and Actions

In the plans reviewed by auditors, the actions planned were consistent with the stated goals.

Characteristic Seven: Evaluation Plan and Implementation

There was no written plan to evaluate the objectives of school plans. However, the Chief Academic Offi cer had established Collaborative Teams consisting of staff members from the School Improvement Offi ce and subject matter departments to monitor and evaluate the implementation of school plans. Some protocols had been written, but the effort lacks comprehensive, written guidance.

Characteristic Eight: Monitoring

Systemic monitoring of school plans was in the early stages of implementation at both the school and the district level. The most pervasive monitoring method was the use of district Collaborative Teams described in the preceding paragraph. Staff members had received walk-through training, but there was little consistency among schools in the execution of this activity. Principals reported that monitoring of plans was also conducted at grade level meetings, through lesson plan reviews, and by other methods (see Finding 3.3).

In addition to the CIP defi ciencies identifi ed above, the audit team noted the following:

Several plans contained blank pages and/or were missing data, pages, and whole sections. These • included plans for the following schools: Hampton, Wylan, B.T. Washington, Powderly, Putnam Middle School, Robinson, and Huffman.

Some plans showed a mismatch between the activities and goals. For example, the Wenonah High • School plan indicated that the staff would “Purchase software and handouts” to improve student behavior.

Other plans contained awkward wording and misspellings. For instance, the Wylan Elementary • School plan indicated that “Progress monitoring will be given twice a month” and that the staff would “Dissimilate [sic] the…Code of Conduct to all students.”

In summary, school improvement plans did not satisfy audit standards for quality.

Overall Planning Summary

Plans and planning do not meet audit standards for adequacy. With the exception of state documents, there are no policies, regulations, or other comprehensive, written guidance on planning functions at the district or school level. The district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete and not linked with school plans. Planning at the school level as well as monitoring and support efforts by the district staff were focused on attainment of school AYP goals. Plans and planning are not visibly linked to available resources. In general, plans and planning in the Birmingham City Schools are inadequate (see Recommendation 7).


Finding 1.4: The design of the table of organization is inconsistent with most principles of sound management and either omits organizational relationships or does not portray them accurately. Job descriptions are not required, inadequate, and do not match the organizational chart.

Clear organizational relationships support sound management of an organization. It is a widely accepted practice to group positions in an organization according to generally recognized management principles that promote productive work relationships among members of the organization. The simplest expression of these relationships is an organizational chart (ORGCHART) that clearly depicts employee relationships. The ORGCHART should be supported by well-written job descriptions that are aligned with it. When done properly, these documents—the ORGCHART and job descriptions—clarify the roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships for employees and tend to support effective operations. If the generally accepted management principles are not followed in establishing the relationships in the ORGCHART, and the ORGCHART is not supported by good job descriptions, operations are more likely to be unduly complicated and ineffective.

To determine if the ORGCHART for Birmingham City Schools conforms to principles of sound organization management and is supported by adequate job descriptions, auditors reviewed board policies, the ORGCHART, and job descriptions provided by the staff. The audit team also interviewed central offi ce staff and principals to determine if actual reporting relationships were consistent with the relationships depicted on the ORGCHART. Auditors found that the design of the chart was not in accordance with generally accepted management principles for sound organizational relationships. Neither the chain of command nor the span of control for many positions was apparent in the ORGCHART. Positions/functions were not logically grouped, scalar relationships were not accurately portrayed, and key positions had been omitted from the chart. Job descriptions frequently did not match positions on the ORGCHART. Auditors also determined that directives to principals frequently did not fl ow through the established chain of command, violating the principles that (1) each employee should answer to only one supervisor and (2) line and staff functions should be separate.

Overall, the designs of both the ORGCHART and job descriptions were inadequate in that they were inconsistent with sound organizational management principles. In practice, important management principles were violated.

The Organizational Chart (ORGCHART)

Auditors began their analysis of the ORGCHART with a review of board policies and administrative regulations. Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent requires the superintendent to organize the staff, subject to board approval, but no documents address the ORGCHART. The staff provided a set of organizational charts for the audit team to analyze. The critical sections are depicted in Exhibit 1.4.1, which provides an overview of the key positions across the district, and Exhibit 1.4.2, which depicts the Offi ce of the Chief Academic Offi cer. The documents provided by the district staff were undated. Titles were missing for employees in several organizational elements, including Research and Accountability, Communications/Public Relations, and Strategic Partners.


Exhibit 1.4.1 shows key positions in the district staff.

Exhibit 1.4.1

District’s Organizational Chart (Key Positions)Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Source: Birmingham City Schools Organizational Chart, Key Positions (see Appendix C)


Exhibit 1.4.2 depicts key positions in the Offi ce of the Chief Academic Offi cer.

Exhibit 1.4.2

Offi ce of the Chief Academic Offi cer, District’s Organizational ChartBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Source: Birmingham City Schools Organizational Chart: Chief Academic Offi cer (see Appendix D)


Exhibit 1.4.3 shows the generally accepted management principles that the auditors used to analyze the relationships depicted on the charts shown in Exhibits 1.4.1 and 1.4.2. Exhibit 1.4.3 also shows the auditors’ analysis of the extent to which the selected sections of the ORGCHART embody the principles of sound organizational management.

Exhibit 1.4.3

Principles of Sound Organizational Management Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Principle Description of Organizing Principles/ORGCHART AnalysisSpan of Control

Description: The number of employees that can be effectively supervised by one person on a daily, face-to-face basis ranges from seven to a maximum of 12.ORGCHART Analysis: In most instances, it was impossible for auditors to analyze the spans of control for supervisors because the lines indicating the chain of command/reporting relationships are missing. However, it is apparent from the ORGCHART that the superintendent must supervise or interact directly with at least 18 persons, including nine board members. That number exceeds the 12-person maximum and violates the principle of span of control.

Chain of Command

Description: The principle that a person should have only one boss (superior) to avoid being placed in a compromised decision-making situation.ORGCHART Analysis: Where lines depict the chain of command, no employee has more than one supervisor. However, as noted above, chain of command lines are omitted in many instances. For example, it is not clear whether or not all of the employees under the Chief Academic Offi cer report directly to her or if there are other internal supervisory arrangements. Hence, the chain of command principle was violated, rendering this aspect of the chart inadequate.

Logical Grouping of

Functions

Description: The principle of clustering similar duties/tasks in order to keep supervisory needs to a minimum (ensuring economy of scale).ORGCHART Analysis: Auditors observed at least two violations of this principle. There is no curriculum director under the Chief Academic Offi cer (CAO) to supervise and coordinate the curriculum departments. This was verifi ed by interviews. Also, the job description for the CAO’s position gives the incumbent the responsibility to “Direct district…assessment for pre-kindergarten through grades twelve,” but the Testing Director who performs this function reports to the Superintendent.

Separation of Line and Staff

Functions

Description: The principle that those administrators carrying out the primary mission of the district are not confused with those who are supporting it. Line administrators only report to other line administrators, never to staff administrators. This keeps the line of accountability for the primary mission of the district uncompromised.ORGCHART Analysis: Auditors observed no substantive violations.

Scalar Relationships

Description: The principle that roles of the same title and remuneration should be graphically on the same general horizontal plane.ORGCHART Analysis: Scalar relationships are a major problem throughout the chart. For example, clerks and secretaries are frequently placed above more senior employees, and assistant superintendents are on the same level as the textbook manager. Therefore, auditors determined that the placement of positions on the chart did not conform to this principle.

Full Inclusion Description: The principle that all persons working within the district carrying out its essential line and staff functions should be depicted in the table of organization.ORGCHART Analysis: The ORGCHART did not include principals or teachers.

The analysis provided in Exhibit 1.4.3 shows that the ORGCHART violated fi ve of the six principles of sound organizational design. The most critical fl aw is that the chart does not perform the essential function of portraying relationships among positions in the organization. In summary, the design of the ORGCHART is inadequate. It is not guided by policy, does not conform to most principles of sound organizational relationships, and does not clarify the relationships among employee positions.


Job Descriptions

Job descriptions are the building blocks of an organization and, ideally, support the ORGCHART. They describe the tasks that must be completed in order for the organization to accomplish its mission and state the qualifi cations necessary to perform those tasks. They also document the relationship of one position to another and the responsibilities for design and delivery of curriculum or support for those core tasks. Properly written job descriptions provide each employee with clear direction as to his or her authority and responsibility. This direction is necessary for the organization to maintain constancy of purpose. Without good job descriptions, an organization’s leaders cannot be sure that all mission-essential tasks are accounted for or that they have a sound basis for hiring or evaluating employees.

To assess the quality of the school system’s job descriptions, the audit team conducted interviews and reviewed district policies, regulations, job descriptions, the ORGCHART, and related documents. Their purpose was to determine the extent to which the job descriptions were adequate to support the ORGCHART and specifi ed responsibilities for the design and delivery of curriculum. Auditors found that no directive requires a job description for every position, job descriptions were not aligned with the ORGCHART, and the contents do not meet audit standards for quality. Overall, the design for job descriptions is inadequate.

The audit team found no board policy or administrative regulation that requires a job description for all positions. Auditors requested copies of all job descriptions and were provided a manual of job announcements that served as job descriptions. To assess the quality of job descriptions, auditors selected a sample of 60, most of which involved curriculum duties, and rated them for content quality using the following four criteria:

Qualifi cations;1.

Immediate links in the chain of command. A statement identifying the supervisor and a statement 2. identifying all positions supervised by the incumbent. No employee should have more than one supervisor;

Functions, duties, and responsibilities; and3.

Relationship to curriculum (where relevant, e.g., expectations regarding the design and delivery of 4. curriculum).

The fi ve possible ratings on each of the four criteria are shown in Exhibit 1.4.4.

Exhibit 1.4.4

Curriculum Audit™ Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions

Rating ExplanationMissing No statement made.

Inadequate Statement made, but it is incomplete and missing suffi cient details.

Adequate The statement is more or less complete, usually missing curricular linkages or suffi cient detail regarding curricular 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 exemplary scope and depth.


For job descriptions to be considered strong, the four criteria must be rated adequate or higher. The auditors’ ratings of the 60 selected job descriptions are displayed in Exhibit 1.4.5.

Exhibit 1.4.5

Quality of Job Descriptions Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Title Qualifi cations Chain of Command Responsibilities Curricular

LinkagesAlabama Reading Initiative (ARI) Coach Strong Inadequate Strong StrongAlabama Reading Initiative Support Teacher Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Director-Mathematics Adequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryAssistant Principal (High School) Strong Inadequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Superintendent of Federal Programs Inadequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Superintendent of Schools Strong Adequate Strong StrongAssistant Superintendent of Student Support Services Inadequate Adequate Strong StrongAttendance Offi cer Adequate Inadequate Exemplary NABilingual Program Specialist Inadequate Inadequate Strong Strong Birmingham Civil Rights Teacher Facilitator Adequate Inadequate Adequate InadequateBirmingham R.E.A.D.S. Support Teacher Strong Inadequate Strong StrongBusiness Education Program Specialist Exemplary Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryChief Academic Offi cer Exemplary Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryCooperative Education Program Specialist Adequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryCoordinator of Fine Arts Adequate Inadequate Strong StrongCoordinator of Media Resources Adequate Inadequate Adequate InadequateCoordinator Training Programs for Certifi ed Staff Inadequate Inadequate Adequate InadequateCoordinator Training Programs for Classifi ed Staff Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateCurriculum Support Teacher (School Based) Adequate Inadequate Strong StrongDirector for Army Instruction Adequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryDirector of Attendance Strong Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryDirector of Career/Technical Education Strong Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryDirector of Mathematics/ CPMSA Program Adequate Inadequate Strong ExemplaryDirector of Reading & Language Arts Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateDirector of Science Inadequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Student Information and Testing Strong Inadequate Adequate AdequateESL Paraprofessional – English as a Second Language Strong Adequate Exemplary ExemplaryExecutive Director for Professional Development, Grants & Research Inadequate Inadequate Exemplary Exemplary

Executive Director for Special Education Strong Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryExecutive Director of Instructional Technology Strong Adequate Strong ExemplaryExecutive Director of Physical Education & Athletics Sound Inadequate Inadequate InadequateFacilitator of Training Programs for Classifi ed Employees Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate NA

Family & Consumer Science Program Specialist Inadequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryGED and Testing Specialist Strong Adequate Strong AdequateGifted and Talented and Section 504 Program Specialist Inadequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateGuidance Counselor Exemplary Adequate Exemplary ExemplaryHearing Offi cer Adequate Inadequate Adequate NAHomebound Teacher Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateInstructional Technology Resource Specialist Exemplary Adequate Exemplary ExemplaryInstrumental Music Support Teacher Strong Adequate Strong Strong


Exhibit 1.4.5 (continued)Quality of Job Descriptions Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Title Qualifi cations Chain of Command Responsibilities Curricular

LinkagesJROTC Senior Army Instructor Adequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateLiteracy Support Teacher Strong Inadequate Strong StrongMathematics Support Teacher Strong Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryMusic Program Specialist Exemplary Inadequate Strong StrongPlacement Counselor/ Coordinator Strong Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryPrincipal Adequate Inadequate Strong AdequateProgram Specialist Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateProgram Specialist-Reading Department Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateProgram Specialist-Science Department Inadequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryReading Recovery Program Specialist Strong Inadequate Strong StrongReading Recovery Teacher Leader Strong Inadequate Strong StrongScience Support Teacher Adequate Inadequate Exemplary ExemplarySpecial Education Program Specialist Inadequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateSpecial Populations Counselor Strong Inadequate Strong StrongSpeech Arts Program Specialist, Grades K-12 Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateTeacher Coordinator-Executive High School Internship Program Inadequate Inadequate Strong Adequate

Teacher, ESL Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateTechnology Education Program Specialist Exemplary Inadequate Exemplary ExemplaryTextbook Coordinator Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateVisual Arts Program Specialist Strong Inadequate Strong Strong

Exhibit 1.4.5 shows that of the 60 job descriptions reviewed by auditors, only seven (12 percent) were rated adequate or better on all job elements. Auditors observed numerous quality issues with the job descriptions. They are described below:

General Observations

There are no job descriptions for certain positions on the ORGCHART, including curriculum • supervisors.

Approximately 40 percent of the job descriptions reviewed contain no job goal or purpose. One must • read through the list of performance responsibilities to determine the purpose of the position.

Several sets of job descriptions are almost identical, except for the job title (examples: Business • Education Program Specialist, Cooperative Education Program Specialist, and Family & Consumer Science Program Specialist; Speech Arts Program Specialist Grades K-12 and Visual Arts Program Specialist Grades, K-12; and Coordinator Training Programs for Certifi ed Staff and Coordinator Training Programs for Classifi ed Staff).

Qualifi cations

In some instances, there is no requirement for the incumbent to have training or experience related • to duties and responsibilities listed for the position. This is true for most employees with program evaluation responsibilities. The following positions exemplify the program evaluation comment: Director of Science, Program Specialist - Science Department, Family and Consumer Science Program Specialist, Gifted and Talented and Section 504 Program Specialist, the Assistant Superintendent of Federal Programs, Birmingham R.E.A.D.S. Support Teacher, and Literacy Support Teacher.


Some qualifi cations are suffi ciently vague that a candidate with almost any college degree or level of • experience can qualify (example: Program Specialist in the Reading Department).

Chain of Command

The majority of supervisory relationships are inadequate for one or more of the following reasons: • (1) they are not the relationships depicted in the ORGCHART, (2) employees report to two or more supervisors or no supervisor is identifi ed, (3) the positions supervised are not identifi ed, or (4) incumbents report to individuals/positions not shown on the ORGCHART. For instance, the Executive Director for Professional Development reports to a nonexistent Chief of Staff, and many job descriptions call for the incumbent to report to a nonexistent Director of Career/Technical Education, Deputy Superintendent for Instruction, Deputy Superintendent/Division of Instruction, or Instruction Offi cer.

Responsibilities

The list of responsibilities for most job descriptions is adequate or better.•

Connections to Curriculum

The majority of curricular linkages are at least adequate.•

In summary, policy is inadequate because it does not require job descriptions for all positions. The job descriptions reviewed by the audit team are inadequate primarily because they do not specify supervisory relationships and because qualifi cations do not match duties. Overall, the design for job descriptions is inadequate.

Summary

Given these fi ndings, auditors concluded that the designs for both the organizational chart (ORGCHART) and the job descriptions are inadequate. They do not meet audit standards, and their most signifi cant fl aw is that they do not clarify reporting relationships for district employees. Further, implementation of the principles of chain of command and separation of line and staff relationships is ineffective (see Recommendation 1).

Finding 1.5: Reviews of performance evaluations did not reveal the use of actual performance data. Therefore, evaluations do not comply with policy requirements to assess accountability against academic achievement expectations, nor do they provide a sound basis for improving staff performance.

Sound personnel evaluations are designed to produce feedback to support a variety of personnel actions including appointment, professional development, promotion, transfer, and dismissal. They also provide a mechanism for feedback on progress toward organizational goals. In order to provide adequate feedback for such actions, evaluations must be accurate and contain suffi cient details to allow managers to distinguish between employees based on their strengths and improvement needs. Also, with the current legislative focus on accountability for student achievement, there has been a shift in emphasis from educational processes to educational results. It is logical that this new emphasis be refl ected in the performance evaluation guidance and activities of school systems.

To assess the quality of feedback provided by performance evaluations in the Birmingham City Schools, auditors reviewed state evaluation guidance, board policy, administrative regulations, and written personnel evaluation reports for a small sample of teachers and administrators. Auditors also interviewed staff members regarding the evaluation system. The policies and other guidance documents indicated an emphasis on accountability and improvement efforts based on measurable results. However, staff indicated that implementing plans and procedures had not been developed. Auditors also found that the overwhelming majority of evaluations reviewed lacked the data necessary to support summative evaluations or to assess progress toward professional improvement goals. The design for the personnel evaluation program did not comply with policy requirements, and implementation was ineffective in accomplishing the stated purposes of the program.


The following documents provided guidance for evaluating personnel and their progress on professional improvement plans:

Board Policy 1005: Personnel Goals and Objectives states the board’s commitment to:

“The conducting of an employee training and evaluation program which contributes to continuous • improvement of staff performance” and

“The ensuring of accountability so that progress can be measured against common expectations for • academic achievement” (see Finding 1.2)

Board Policy 2200: Site-Based Management identifi es “the individual school site as the primary unit of accountability” for the implementation of educational programs. Auditors interpreted this to mean that teachers and principals would be held accountable for student achievement in their evaluation reports.

Board Policy 3030: Evaluations:

States that the “purpose of employee appraisal is to assist all personnel in their job performance”;•

Requires the establishment of “policy and procedures,” and “an operational plan” for the systematic • implementation of the Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program of Alabama. Auditors noted, and a staff member verifi ed, that no local procedures or operational plans exist (see Finding 1.3), even though the program has been in existence for several years; and

Requires all supervisors be trained and certifi ed in the implementation of the state’s personnel evaluation • program and states, “Any supervisor who fails to participate in and receive state evaluation certifi cation shall be subject to disciplinary action….” Auditors surmised that if this policy was being followed, all supervisors had the expertise to properly evaluate employees and prepare and evaluate professional development plans.

The district’s Strategic Plan mentions “Supporting teachers and administrators through professional development plans that align with student achievement.”

Overall, the policy guidance for summative evaluation of personnel and evaluation of progress on their professional development plans was adequate. However, the implementation of these plans and procedures does not exist.

Auditors were also provided copies of state manuals for the Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program (PEPEP) of Alabama. In general, the manuals covered classes of certifi ed personnel and required that staff evaluations be based on a series of documents, observations, and survey results that resulted in written summative evaluation. In turn, a written professional development plan (PDP) designed to improve performance was to be derived from the summative evaluation. The PDP required identifying goals, activities, and outcomes to improve performance and provided for subsequent review and evaluation of those outcomes.

In order to determine if this personnel evaluation program conformed to state and local requirements, auditors requested a 10 percent sample of both teacher and administrator evaluations completed over the past two years, but not less than 20 records in each category. In response, the district provided the following usable records for the audit team: fi ve records for central offi ce administrators, nine for principals, and 28 for teachers. Since there was no record of scheduled evaluations in the human resource offi ce, auditors were unable to determine if these records conformed to the sample requested.

In the course of researching this fi nding, the audit team learned that the Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program (PEPEP) of Alabama is being phased out. Therefore, auditors elected not to focus on the details of the various forms, but to identify common themes in implementation of the outgoing evaluation program that would assist the district leadership in monitoring the new program. During their analysis of the summative and professional development plan evaluations, the following common themes emerged:

Most summative evaluations gave employees top ratings without any student or employee performance • data to justify the ratings.


Many evaluations dealt with process goals rather than specifi c end products, such as a percent student • achievement gain or a percent decline in discipline referrals. Further, goals were often vaguely worded and lacked specifi c measures of attainment. Approximately half of the PDPs for teachers and administrators dealt with processes rather than end products.

Care had not been exercised in completing forms. Dates and signatures were missing. Many PDPs had • been initiated, but not closed out with an evaluation at the end of the rating cycle.

Although PDPs were to have periodic process checks, only about half of the plans for administrators • and two-thirds of those for teachers contained such checks.

Some PDP forms did not contain the required statement of an agreement on the goals and activities that • the employee was to pursue. Many forms lacked the required listing of benefi ts that were to accrue from developmental activities.

Proposed evaluation methods on PDP forms were unrelated to goals or activities in some plans. For • example, one principal was to improve recruiting, selection, evaluation, and retention of personnel, but the subsequent evaluation did not address any of these topics.

Not all evaluators understood the specifi cs of how the PDP form was to be used. This was evident • because summative evaluations were written in a section intended for a prospective statement of the effects of the proposed developmental activities.

Most forms for teachers contained no comments by the evaluator at the end of the PDP cycle. If • comments were included, they were often neither substantive nor pertinent. For example, in several documents the data presented as evidence and support did not align with the assessment method agreed upon at the beginning of the cycle.

In Finding 1.1 several people commented about the frequent turnover of the human resource supervisors. The lack of required evaluation plans and procedures, coupled with the improperly prepared evaluation documents, provide evidence that this regular turnover has compromised systemic district operations (see Finding 1.1).

Summary

These observations and interviews with staff members caused auditors to conclude that there are no organized and monitored arrangements for managing the evaluation system in the Birmingham City Schools. The required procedures and plans are not in place, forms are not completed in accordance with instructions in the state manual, evaluations do not hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, and personnel evaluations do not result in meaningful professional development activities. Both personnel evaluations and professional development activities, as refl ected in personnel records, are ineffective in improving employee performance. If the reports viewed by auditors are typical of all reports, the implementation of the personnel evaluation process does not refl ect state requirements or the board focus on accountability for results and does not provide adequate feedback to improve job performances (see Recommendation 1).


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major programmatic initiatives designed to be cohesive;•

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

A framework that exists for systemic curricular change.•


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

Standard Two includes actions that provide direction to teaching and learning in a school district. In applying this standard, the auditors found no comprehensive curriculum management plan or documentation of the curriculum management process currently in place in the Birmingham City Schools. Although some expected elements of a curriculum management plan exist in a few documents, no clear explanation of the intended process was evident.

They found that the elementary and middles schools had written documents intended to guide instruction in all core and non-core area courses and subjects. At the high school level, three of four core areas had adequate written curriculum. Overall K-12, curriculum coverage was inadequate since all core courses or subject areas did not have written curriculum documents to guide instruction.

In evaluating the curriculum guidance documents for quality, the auditors found the current guides to be inadequate when assessed against audit criteria. They found that the district’s curriculum documents lacked consistency in format and in providing adequate information for the alignment of a written, taught, and tested curriculum. The guides provided minimal direction to teachers regarding assessment, selection of instructional strategies, resources, and prerequisite skills.

The auditors also found that programs in Birmingham City Schools are not systemically designed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated to provide alignment with the curriculum and to increase student achievement (see also


Findings 4.1 and 5.1). No evidence of procedures, standards, or selection criteria for programs implemented in the district was presented to the audit team.

Finding 2.1: The district has no comprehensive curriculum management plan in place that guides the design, delivery, and evaluation of curriculum. Current curriculum management practices do not meet audit criteria.

Curriculum management planning describes the procedural intent of the district to guide the curricular program and is essential in ensuring the delivery of consistent instruction across the district. A school district with strong curriculum management has a comprehensive plan that establishes guidelines for the design, delivery, and evaluation of curriculum. Such a plan provides a process to renew curriculum to refl ect the current needs of the learners in the district and timely responses to state and federal guidelines. A plan that is well designed provides system accountability and quality control.

To assess the status of curriculum management planning in the Birmingham City Schools, auditors examined the curriculum documents and plans provided by district offi cials. They also reviewed board policies, administrative regulations, job descriptions, and meeting minutes. Auditors visited all schools and most classrooms in the district and interviewed central offi ce administrators, board members, school administrators, and teachers regarding curriculum management.

Auditors found no comprehensive curriculum management plan or documentation of the curriculum management process. Expected elements of a curriculum management plan exist in some documents, but no clear explanation of the intended process was evident.

Key curriculum planning documents and other sources reviewed are listed in Exhibit 2.1.1.

Exhibit 2.1.1

Key Curriculum Planning Documents and Other Sources Reviewed by AuditorsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Document DateBirmingham City Schools Board of Education Strategic Plan Spring 2009Birmingham City Schools Website N/AMeeting Minutes (Board and Various Groups) 2009-10Procedures for Textbook Adoption Process February 14, 2008Curriculum and Instruction Memoranda VariousTechnology Plan—Birmingham City 2010-11Board Policies No dateJob Descriptions No dateThe New Civil Right: BCS’ Five Year Literacy Plan (2006-2011) 2006

In the absence of specifi c planning documents dedicated to managing the design, delivery, evaluation, and revision of curriculum, auditors reviewed board policies and other materials provided for any characteristics of a quality curriculum management plan. Some components of curriculum planning were found in board policies, board minutes, and job descriptions (see Findings 1.2 and 1.4).

Board Policy 7000: Instructional Philosophy• states, “The Birmingham Board of Education exists for the benefi t of every child. The goal of the school, therefore, is to provide a sound, well-balanced instructional program and environment which will foster the maximum development of the individual child socially, mentally, physically and emotionally. The program will be developmental and clearly defi ned to ensure maximum academic profi ciency. Learning experiences will vary according to individual needs while providing all students with a basic body of knowledge, understanding, attitudes and skills necessary for a full and productive life.”


In addition, this policy further states, “The Board supports continuing efforts to accomplish this goal through design and supervision of a quality instructional program and seeks to create a proper instructional climate through provision of the best possible staff, facilities, equipment and materials.”

Board Policy 7020: Basic Program• states, “The basic educational program for the Birmingham Board of Education is intended to provide for the maximum growth of all students. It shall be so developed that learning experiences will vary according to individual needs while providing all pupils with a basic body of understanding, attitudes, knowledge and skills necessary for a productive life.”

Board Policy 7050:• Course of Study identifi es content that should be included and the basic subject areas to be taught K-12. It states, “The Birmingham Course of Study shall meet content requirements as established by law and guidelines of the State Board of Education. In addition, it shall contain appropriate courses as determined by the Birmingham Board of Education in at least the following basic areas: Mathematics, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Career Education, Health and Physical Education, and Fine Arts.”

Board Policy 7022: Birmingham City Schools Mathematics Curriculum Requirements• details the mathematics course offerings: “In an effort to improve mathematics curriculum opportunities for all students who attend a Birmingham City School, the district will provide standards-based, algebra-rich, hands-on mathematics instruction to all students, K-12.” The policy goes on to identify curriculum requirements for elementary students: “The Everyday Math program will serve as the curriculum for teaching of mathematics for all students in grades kindergarten through fi ve.” The policy further states regarding high school (grades nine through 12), “Courses will be added to the curriculum to provide students with the opportunity to participate in advanced level mathematics.”

Board Policy 7050: Course of Study • lists the materials to be given to teachers for instructional guidance: “Each teacher (grades kindergarten through twelfth) shall be given a copy of the Birmingham Course of Study or a Scope and Sequence Skills Chart for each basic course and shall be familiar with and provided with changes as they are made.”

Board Policy 7040:• Lesson Plan identifi es expectations for teacher lesson plans and the review of plans, stating that “All teachers are required to develop written lesson plans for each class they are assigned. The degree of specifi city of these lesson plans shall be determined by the teacher in accordance with the approved curriculum and must be suffi cient to be easily interpreted by a supply teacher if the need should arise. Such lesson plans are to be made available to the principal and/or other school system supervisory personnel for inspection upon request.”

Two board policies address the selection and approval of textbooks and instructional materials:

Board Policy 7122: Selection of School Library Media Resources• says, “School library media resources shall be selected in accordance with the philosophy and objectives of the Birmingham Board of Education and the local school, and, shall support the curriculum of the school.” The policy further states, “The responsibility for coordinating the selection of materials and equipment rests with the professionally trained school library media personnel. Under the supervision of the principal, with the fi nal authority being vested in the Board of Education.”

Board Policy 7110: Textbook Selection and Adoption• states, “The Birmingham Board of Education, on the recommendation of the Superintendent, shall appoint a committee to evaluate local needs and to make selections of textbooks. Textbooks shall be adopted by the Committee with the approval of the Superintendent.”


Several board policies address assessment and evaluation:

Board Policy 7180: Student Evaluation and Reporting Pupil Progress• provides guidelines regarding reporting student progress. It states, “Teachers shall periodically share with parents and students an evaluation of each student’s individual progress. Regular written reports, student conferences, parent conference, and other meaningful ways to report student achievement are encouraged.”

Board Policy 7182: Testing Program Policy• sets the expectations for assessing student achievement: “Birmingham City Schools Board of Education will adhere to the State of Alabama Testing Program. The testing program will follow guidelines set by state and federal mandates in determining adequate yearly progress. All students will participate in state and/or federal mandated assessments.”

Board Policy 7060: Evaluation of the Instructional Program• provides direction for monitoring and evaluation of the educational program: “The administrative and instructional staff are expected and encouraged to study continuously and update all aspects of the school program. The Birmingham Board of Education shall be advised of the need for new or revised programs and shall encourage involvement of each school community in the consideration of improvements.”

Board Policy 7021: Improvement of the Instructional Program• states, “Improvement and development of the educational and instructional program shall be continuous. Modifi cations, experimentation, and revisions in the curriculum that shall benefi t the children of the Birmingham Schools are encouraged.”

The auditors were provided with a few curriculum-related documents that contained some guidelines for curriculum planning:

The document titled • Birmingham City School Board of Education Strategic Plan (Spring 2009) contained the beginnings of some design aspects of a curriculum management plan, including the identifi cation of fi ve priority areas of the strategic initiative.

The Curriculum and Instruction Department has a page on the district website titled “Welcome to • Birmingham City Schools,” which states, “The Birmingham City School System offers a standards-based, aligned curriculum to its students. Standards-based reform is the driving force behind most federal, state and local education policy. Under the standards-based reform, students will have access to more challenging curriculum content that they will be expected to learn at a profi cient to high level of performance.”

In addition to board policies, the auditors looked for direction for curriculum management in board meeting minutes, principals’ meeting agendas, and agendas and minutes of the Curriculum and Instruction Department.

Regular Board Meeting, June 22, 2010 (p. 17)• . The minutes refl ect the superintendent’s direction and planning in his report to the board when he states, “We will be working with administrators and teachers to set benchmark goals based on prior achievement levels, and to ensure that we have structures in place so that when we set bars for schools, at the end of each level, the professional development support structure is there; that we are monitoring and providing formative assessments and the training for teachers and administrators to move those efforts.” He also indicated that data is currently being collected that will be presented to the board to help guide the district.

The Curriculum News and Information• link on the district website provides schedules of planned meetings and seminars with topics listed to be covered by the various departments to support teacher delivery and implementation of the curriculum.


The auditors examined job descriptions (see Finding 1.4) to determine if roles and responsibilities for the management of curriculum were articulated for the Birmingham City Schools. A number of job descriptions assign curriculum management related roles and responsibilities. The following references were included in job descriptions:

Superintendent. “Studies and revises, together with the staff, all curriculum guides and courses of study, • on a continuing basis. Recommends to the Board for its adoption all courses of study, curriculum guides, and major changes in texts and time schedules to be used in the schools.”

Assistant Superintendent of Federal Programs. “Supervises and/or monitors federal program personnel • including curriculum support teachers, program facilitators, supplemental teachers and classroom aides.”

Assistant Superintendent of Schools. “Ensures quality implementation of curriculum through focused • instruction.”

Chief Academic Offi cer. “Directs the development of district curriculum, instructional practices • and assessment for pre-kindergarten through grade twelve. Assists in setting the direction around curriculum, instruction and assessment for all students, including those with diverse learning needs, in areas such as but not limited to: special education, career technical education, reading, math, social studies, instructional technology, gifted instruction, and different instruction. Ensures that theories and techniques related to best practices in instruction, approach and materials have been identifi ed and disseminated to pedagogical staff.”

Assistant Superintendent of Student Support Services. “Implements community and student support • programs and assists with the implementation of school system plans for school and curriculum evaluation, and the application of resources and programs designed to meet needs identifi ed as a result of the evaluation process.”

Coordinator of Fine Arts. “Coordinates the development, implementation and assessment of new and • innovative Fine Arts programs to meet the needs of students enrolled in the Birmingham City School System. Coordinates the development and writing of curriculum guides and program proposals.”

Coordinator of Media Resources. “Serves on curriculum development teams. Assists departments and • curriculum committees in the selection of media and equipment.”

Director of Career and Technical Education. “Directs the development of new curricula to meet the • changing job market requirements.”

Director of Mathematics. “Disseminates information on innovative and creative instructional programs • and techniques to teachers, principals and area staff. Coordinates the development and writing of curriculum guides and program proposals. Coordinates curriculum alignment initiatives in the specifi c content area.”

Director of Reading Language Arts K-5 and 6-12. “Coordinates the development and writing of • curriculum guides and program proposals. Coordinates curriculum alignment initiatives in the specifi c content area. Monitors existing instructional practices and learning environments in the school system and supports their improvement.”

Director of Science. “Coordinates the development and writing of curriculum guides and program • proposals. Coordinates curriculum alignment initiatives in the specifi c content area.”

Principal. “The principal ensures that instructional objectives for a given subject and/or classroom are • developed, and involves the faculty and others in the development of specifi c curricular objectives to meet the needs of the school program.”

Program Specialist of Guidance and Counseling. “Assists counselors with guidance curriculum, • individual planning, responsive services and program management activities.”


Program Specialist of Social Studies. “Assists in the presentation and coordination of in-service • professional development and growth activities. Assists in the development and writing of curriculum guides, standards, and program proposals. Assists in the coordinating of curriculum alignment initiatives in the specifi c content area. Assists with the development of curricular enhancements to augment the Alabama Course of Study – Social Studies.”

Guidance Counselor. ”Implements the elementary school guidance curriculum.”•

Library Media Specialist. “Participates at curriculum meetings and at faculty meetings.”•

Although this and other information provided to the audit team contained some elements of a curriculum management system, there was no single document providing guidance and direction for sound curriculum management. There was no other documented process for district curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation, or for the implementation of an aligned curriculum K-12. Auditors were able to determine that a process was in place for the board to adopt and review textbooks and instructional materials.

The audit uses 15 characteristics of a quality comprehensive curriculum management plan when evaluating a school district’s approach to curriculum design, delivery, and assessment. These characteristics are described in Exhibit 2.1.2 and accompanied by the auditors’ evaluation for Birmingham City Schools. A comprehensive curriculum management plan as described in Exhibit 2.1.2 directs not only the design of the curriculum, but also the scope and cycle of implementation and review, the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, the procedures for alignment, and the strategies for assessment and for using assessment data for revision and improvement.

Exhibit 2.1.2

Curriculum Management Plan Components And Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach


Characteristics:Auditors’ Rating

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

X

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

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

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

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

X

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

X

Directs that curriculum documents not only specify the content of the student 8. objectives/student expectations, but also include multiple contexts and cognitive types.

X


Exhibit 2.1.2 (continued)Curriculum Management Plan Components

And Auditors’ Assessment of District ApproachBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Characteristics:Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateSpecifi es the overall beliefs and procedures governing the assessment of curriculum 9. effectiveness. This includes curriculum-based diagnostic assessments and rubrics (as needed). Such assessments direct instructional decisions regarding student progress in mastering prerequisite concepts, skills, knowledge, and long-term mastery of the learning.

X

Directs curriculum to be designed so that it supports teachers’ differentiation 10. of instructional approaches and selection of student objectives at the right level of diffi culty. This ensures that those students who need prerequisite concepts, knowledge, and skills are moved ahead at an accelerated pace, and that students who have already mastered the objectives are also moved ahead at a challenging pace.

X

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

Outlines procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations of 12. programs and their corresponding curriculum content. X

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

Presents procedures for monitoring the delivery of curriculum.14. XEstablishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery.15. X


Source: Auditor rating of reviews of district documents and interviews.

Auditors found that the current processes in Birmingham City Schools do not meet any of the 15 audit criteria for curricular planning.

Interviews with board members, district administrators, principals, and teachers revealed more information about and perceptions of curriculum management and planning in the school district. Several people expressed concerns about the need for common and coordinated direction:

“The staff has been working in silos. Every curriculum department is doing its own thing.” (Central • Offi ce Administrator)

“We [the district] need to open up the lines of communication between curriculum coordinators and • directors with principals.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“There are items on the Think Link which need to be looked at. We have to correlate our item • specifi cations which are to be used aligned with the text.” (Principal)

“They [curriculum] have gotten away from developing curriculum guides, and it is on our agenda.” • (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“We need a strong assessment process that the district owns, that can be a formative assessment and not • just tied to Scott Foresman.” (Principal)

“A streamlined process is needed working with the curriculum department, principals, and teachers • with clearly defi ned roles and positions to support the curriculum.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“Principals tend to delegate instructional monitoring.” (Principal)•

“There needs to be more conversations with directors [especially] in the high school and middle • schools.” (Principal)


“We [the district] need to strengthen connectedness so that the curriculum is being addressed.” (Central • Offi ce Administrator)

“We are teaching from the state standards. As a district we need to invest time and money into curriculum • alignment and planning for instruction. The standards are too general.” (Principal)

“Some of the textbooks don’t teach things the way they are tested, so we have put together documents • to help them [teachers].”(Central Offi ce Administrator)

“The state has identifi ed the content. We have done pacing guides, but need to develop curriculum • guides.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“We have a lot of data, but need help with it.” (Principal)•

“We [the district] need to focus on bonding and collaboration. That really has not been a focus.” • (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“In my opinion, everyone needs to be involved in curriculum development.” (Central Offi ce • Administrator)

“We [the district] adopt textbooks, not curriculum.” (Principal)•

Summary

The auditors found that Birmingham City Schools lack a comprehensive curriculum management plan to direct the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of the curriculum. Board policies and supplemental documents do not provide mandates for providing quality written curriculum in an organized, consistent manner for all teachers. Overall, the current process of curriculum management planning in Birmingham City Schools is inadequate when measured against audit criteria. While some information is available to administrators and teachers from multiple sources (board policies, job descriptions, and curriculum documents), administrators and teachers are not provided coherent and cohesive direction for consistent practices within a comprehensive curriculum management plan (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 2.2: Overall, the scope of the written curriculum K-12 is inadequate to guide instruction. Grades K through 8 have 100 percent adequacy. Courses in grades 9-12 have 100 percent adequacy in three of the four core areas. Overall, the district had 94.4 percent adequacy in curricular coverage, but not all core curricular offerings had coverage.

Curriculum documents are the written guidelines that provide direction for teachers in planning classroom instruction. These documents should include information about standards and objectives for students, prerequisite skills, instructional resources, classroom strategies, and methods of assessment. When there is no curriculum document for a subject or content area, teachers have to rely on other resources for planning and delivering instruction. These resources may or may not be aligned with the system’s intended curriculum. In addition, they may not provide consistency, focus, and equity across schools, grades and courses. This fi nding addresses only the scope of the written curriculum. The quality of the written curriculum is addressed in Finding 2.3.

The scope of the curriculum refers to the extent to which the taught curriculum is covered by written curriculum documents to guide instruction. If 100 percent of the four core courses (English/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science) and 70 percent or more of all other courses offered in a system have written curriculum documents, auditors determine that the scope, or coverage, of the written curriculum is adequate to direct instruction and provide quality control of the system’s curriculum.

To determine the scope of curriculum coverage, auditors reviewed board policies and related curriculum documents. The documents included Alabama Courses of Study, Birmingham Courses of Study, district developed scope and sequence charts, curriculum maps, text resources, pacing guides, and course syllabi developed by individual teachers. In addition to the documents, the auditors interviewed board members, principals, teachers, and those members of the central offi ce administrative staff responsible for curriculum development and implementation.


The scope of the curriculum did not meet audit criteria for adequacy. The reviewers expect to fi nd written curriculum for all subjects and courses offered at every grade level. At the elementary and middle school levels, the auditors found written documents to guide instruction for all core and non-core subject areas. At the high school level, the district did not meet adequacy in the science core area. Overall, in grades K-12 over 90 percent of the courses or subject areas had curriculum documents to guide instruction or address the details of curriculum implementation.

Auditors examined policies and regulations to determine curriculum requirements in Birmingham City Schools. The following local board policies refer to the scope of the written curriculum:

Board Policy 7050:• Course of Study identifi es the content that should be included and the basic subject areas to be taught K-12: “The Birmingham Course of Study shall meet content requirements as established by law and guidelines of the State Board of Education. In addition, it shall contain appropriate courses as determined by the Birmingham Board of Education in at least the following basic areas: Mathematics, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Career Education, Health and Physical Education, and Fine Arts.”

Board Policy 7050: Course of Study • identifi es materials to be given to teachers for instructional guidance: “Each teacher (grades kindergarten through twelfth) shall be given a copy of the Birmingham Course of Study or a Scope and Sequence Skills Chart for each basic course and shall be familiar with and provided with changes as they are made.”

Board Policy 7022: Birmingham City Schools Mathematics Curriculum Requirements• identifi es the district’s math course offerings: “In an effort to improve mathematics curriculum opportunities for all students who attend a Birmingham City School, the district will provide standards-based, algebra-rich, hands-on mathematics instruction to all students, K-12.” The policy goes on to identify curriculum requirements for elementary students and states, “The Everyday Math program will serve as the curriculum for teaching of mathematics for all students in grades kindergarten through fi ve.” The policy further states regarding high school (grades nine through 12), “Courses will be added to the curriculum to provide students with the opportunity to participate in advanced level mathematics.”

The policies reviewed in the Birmingham City Schools identify the minimum course offerings K-12 and list the documents each teacher should receive for every course he or she teaches. However, they do not outline specifi c detailed procedures or clearly state expectations for the development of curriculum and course outlines or their use as a framework to guide instruction. The policies do not provide adequate guidance and direction for the design, development, and delivery of the curriculum (see Findings 1.2 and 2.1).

Auditors found that there are several positions in the district that have responsibility for curriculum development and implementation (see Findings 1.4 and 2.1).

Scope of the Written Curriculum

In researching the availability of curriculum guides for all subject areas and course offerings, auditors were told that many of the curriculum documents could be accessed online. However, due to a district webpage update in progress at the time, it became necessary to provide hard copies for the review. Documents were received from central offi ce staff and also obtained from individual school sites.

The primary curriculum document provided to auditors for each content area was the Alabama Course of Study (ACOS). Auditors were told that the ACOS is used as the main curriculum guidance document to direct instruction K-12 in the district. ACOS documents were presented for English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Health, Physical Education, Career and Technical Education and Arts Education. Each Course of Study included a content overview/description, list of standards and objectives K-12, and course names and topics covered by the standards. Birmingham City Schools was given credit for having curriculum coverage K-12 based on the content of the Alabama Courses of Study presented for review. For AP courses, individual syllabi were given to auditors as curriculum guidance documentation for AP offerings at the high school level.


Courses falling within the category of Special Education have not been included in the scope exhibits. Auditors learned from examining curriculum documents and from interviews that teachers provide children with special needs access to the regular core curriculum whenever possible. The extent to which these children follow the Alabama Course of Study curriculum standards and objectives is determined by each student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) rather than Special Education curriculum documents.

Exhibit 2.2.1 shows the auditors’ data regarding the K-5 scope of the written curriculum. It lists the courses, the grade in which they are offered, the number of areas needing a written curriculum, and whether a curriculum exists (noted by an “X”). The course listing was cross referenced with board policy and the school master schedules.

Exhibit 2.2.1

Scope of the Written Curriculum: Grades K-5Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Subject K 1 2 3 4 5Number of Subjects or

Courses Taught

Number of Subjects or Courses

With Written Curriculum

Core Subject AreasEnglish Language Arts X X X X X X 6 6Mathematics X X X X X X 6 6Science X X X X X X 6 6Social Studies X X X X X X 6 6

Subtotal 24 24Non-Core SubjectsArts Education

Dance X X X X X X 6 6Music X X X X X X 6 6Theatre X X X X X X 6 6Visual Arts X X X X X X 6 6

Health Education X X X X X X 6 6Physical Education X X X X X X 6 6Career Education X X X X X X 6 6

Subtotal 42 42Total 66 66

Percent of Total - Scope of the Written Curriculum 100%Key: X = Subjects Taught and Written Curriculum Available.Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors

As indicated in Exhibit 2.2.1:

Overall, 100 percent of core and non-core courses in grades K-5 have some form of curriculum document • and resources.

The scope of the K-5 written curriculum is adequate.•

For grades 6-8 examination of master schedules helped to identify the instructional program content and courses offered. These documents were also reviewed to cross reference and verify course offerings.


Exhibit 2.2.2 presents the auditors’ ratings regarding the scope of the written curriculum for grades 6-8. It lists the courses offered, the grades in which they are offered, the number of areas needing a written curriculum, and whether a curriculum exists (noted by an “X”).

Exhibit 2.2.2

Scope of the Written Curriculum: Grades 6-8Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

CourseGrade Level Offered Number of Areas

Needing CurriculumNumber of Areas With Curriculum6 7 8

Core AreasEnglish Language Arts

Language Arts X X X 3 3Reading X X X 3 3Reading 180 X X X 3 3

Mathematics X X X 3 3Social Studies X X X 3 3

Earth Science X - - 1 1Life Science - X - 1 1Physical Science - - X 1 1

Subtotal Core Areas 18 18Non-Core AreasArts Education

Band X X X 3 3Choir X X X 3 3Art X X X 3 3Music X X X 3 3Theatre X X X 3 3

Career EducationCareer Tech I X X - 2 2Career Tech II - - X 1 1Teen Discoveries X X - 2 2Teen Connections - - X 1 1

Health Education X X X 3 3Physical Education X X X 3 3Technology Education

Keyboard X X X 3 3Subtotal Non-Core Areas 30 30

Total 48 48Percent of Total - Scope of the Written Curriculum 100%Key: Shaded = Course Not Offered X= Written Curriculum AvailableSource: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors

As noted in Exhibit 2.2.2,

Overall, a total of 48 out of 48, or 100 percent, of course offerings (core and non-core) in grades 6-8 • have written curriculum.

The scope of the 6-8 written curriculum is adequate since 100 percent of the four core areas and 100 • percent of the 30 non-core areas have curriculum guides.


Department course descriptions were reviewed in addition to school master schedules to identify the instructional program content and courses offered for grades 9-12. These documents provided a cross check for verifying course offerings.

Exhibit 2.2.3 presents the data regarding the scope of the written curriculum for grades 9-12. It lists the title and cumulative number of courses offered, the identifi ed high schools offering the course (noted by an X), and whether there is written curriculum (noted by an asterisk *).

Exhibit 2.2.3

Scope of Written Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades 9-12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered

High Schools Curriculum

Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

Fine Arts 1 Art Fundamentals X X X X X *2 Spec Art X X X X X *3 Studio Art X X X X *4 AP Art X 5 AP Art History X 6 Theatre I X *7 Theatre II X *8 Beginning Band X X X X X *9 Concert Band X X X X *10 Intermediate Band X *11 Jazz Band X X X *12 Marching Band X X X *13 Symphony Band X X X *14 Intermediate Orchestra X X *15 Advanced Orchestra X X *16 Intro to Choir X X X X *17 Choir I X X X *18 Choir II X X X *19 Choir III X *20 Choir IV X *21 Concert Choir X X X X X *22 Ensembles X X X *23 Music Appreciation X X *24 Music Technology X X *25 Dance Elec X *26 Dance Technique X * Career & Technical 27 Automotive Electrical I X *28 Automotive Electrical II X *29 Automotive Brakes X *30 Automotive Suspension and Steering X *


Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued)Scope of Written Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades 9-12


Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered


Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

31 Diesel Engines I X *32 Diesel Engines II X *33 Applied Welding I X *34 Applied Welding II X *35 Introduction to Welding X *36 Culinary Arts I X X *37 Culinary Arts II X X *38 Hospitality and Tourism X X *39 Networking I X *40 Networking II X *41 Information Technology Fundamentals X X *42 AP Computer Programming X 43 AP Computer Science X 44 Graphic Arts X X X *45 Fashion X X *46 Life Connections X X *47 Food and Nutrition X X X *48 Family and Consumer Sciences X X X *49 Workforce Essentials X X X X *50 Business Technology Applications X X X X X *51 Advanced Business Technology Applications X X X X *52 Accounting X X X X *53 Advanced Accounting X X *54 Banking and Financial Services X X X X X *55 Financial Management X X X *56 Consumer Services I X *57 Consumer Services II X *58 Multimedia Design X X X X *59 Web Design X *60 Introduction to Cosmetology X X X X *61 Hair Coloring X X X *62 Introduction to Nail Care and Applications X X *63 Nail Art Applications X *64 State Board Practicum X *65 Digital File Preparation X X *66 Advanced Digital File Preparation X *67 Engineering X *68 Marketing Principles X X X *69 Sales Promotion X X *70 Camera Images X X X *




Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered


Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

71 Character Animation X X *72 Introduction to Animation X *73 Advanced Animation X X *74 Animated Filmmaking X X X *75 Drafting I X *76 Drafting II X *77 Animation Layout X *78 Advanced Drafting X *79 Exec Intern X X X X *80 Chemical Services X X X *81 Consumer Services I X *82 Consumer Services II X *83 Salon Management X X *84 Education and Training X *85 Entrepreneurship X X *86 Housing X *87 Introduction to Television Production X *88 Television Production X *89 Advanced Television Production X *90 Food Health Science X X *91 Trans Serv I X X X X *92 Trans Serv EL X X X *93 Cooperative Education Seminar X X X X *94 Parenting X X *95 Survey Health X *96 Therapeutic Services X X *97 Teaching I X *98 Teaching II X * English Language Arts 99 English 9 X X X X X *100 English 10 X X X X X *101 English 11 X X X X X *102 English 12 X X X X X *103 English Graduation X X X *104 Pre-AP English 9 X X X X X *105 Pre-AP English 10 X X X X X *106 Pre-AP English 11 X X X X X *107 Pre-AP English 12 X X X X X *108 Critical Thinking X X X *109 Corrective Reading A X X X *




Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered


Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

110 Journalism /News / Yearbook X X *111 AP Language and Composition X X X X X *112 AP Language Workshop X X X X *113 AP Literature and Composition X X X X *114 AP Literature Workshop X X X X *115 Black Literature X X *116 Mythology X *117 Speech I X *118 English Novel X X *119 Young Adult Literature X * Mathematics

120 Algebra I X X X X X *121 Algebra II X X X X X *122 Pre-AP Algebra I X X X X *123 Pre-AP Algebra II X X X X *124 Pre-AP Algebra III X *125 Geometry X X X X X *126 Pre-AP Geometry X X X X X *127 Algebra Connection X X X *128 Algebra III Stats X X X X X *129 Pre-calculus 11, 12 X X X X X *130 AP Calculus X X X X X *131 AP Calculus Workshop X X X X X *132 Gr Exam Math X X X *133 Algebra Ex X *134 Linear Algebra X * JROTC

135 JROTC I X X X X X 136 JROTC II X X X X 137 JROTC III X X X X 138 JROTC IV X X X X 139 Drill Team X X X X X 140 ROTC Color Guard X X X X 141 ROTC Firearm X X X Additional

142 ESL I X X 143 ESL II X X 144 ESL III X X 145 ACT Test Prep X 146 Health Education X X X X X *




Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered


Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

147 Driver Education X X X X * Physical Education

148 Physical Education X X X X X *149 Exercise Intern X X X X X * Science

150 Physical Science X X X X X *151 Biology X X X X X *152 Pre-AP Biology X X X X X *153 Chemistry X X X X X *154 Pre-AP Chemistry X X X X X *155 Human Anatomy X X X X X *156 Genetics X X X *157 Microbiology X X X X *158 Forensic Science X X X X *159 Pre-AP Physics X X X X *160 Environmental Science X X X X *161 AP Biology X X X X X *162 AP Biology Workshop X X X *163 AP Chemistry X X X 164 AP Chemistry Workshop X X X 165 Gr Exam Science X X X * Social Studies

166 World History 9 X X X X *167 US History 10 X X X X X *168 Pre-AP History 9 X X X X X *169 Pre-AP History 10 X X X *170 US History and Geography 11 X X X X X *171 Pre-AP History 11 X X X *172 Government X X X X *173 Economics X X X X *174 Pre-AP Government X *175 Pre-AP Economics X X *176 AP American History X X X X X *177 AP American History Workshop X X X X *178 AP Government X X X X *179 AP Government Workshop X X X *180 AP Economics X X X *181 AP Economics Workshop X X X *182 We the People X X X *183 Gr Exam Social Studies X X X *




Courses Offered

(Cumulative Count)

Courses Offered


Guide AvailableA

. H.

Park

er

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

184 Street Law X X X *185 Psychology X X *186 Sociology X X * Languages Other than English

187 Spanish I X X X X X *188 Spanish II X X X X X *189 Spanish III X X X *190 Spanish IV X *191 French I X X X *192 French II X X X *193 French III X X *

Number of Course Offerings 193Number of Course Offerings with Curriculum Guides Available 176Percent of Course Offerings with Curriculum Guides Available 91.2%X = Course offered at school indicated. Auditors were not presented with master schedules for Huffman and Jackson-Olin High Schools.* = Curriculum guide available for course offered.Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors

As noted in Exhibit 2.2.3:

There are 193 course offerings listed in the high school master schedules.•

Written curriculum is available for 176 of the total courses offered.•

The scope of the written curriculum for the four core subject areas is 97.3 percent, and the scope for the • non-core areas is 90.8 percent.

The overall scope of the 9-12 written curriculum is 91.2 percent. The high school curriculum does not • meet the audit criteria for adequacy since not all of the core courses have written curriculum.


Exhibit 2.2.4 presents a summary of the scope of curriculum for grades 9-12 by subject and content area.

Exhibit 2.2.4

Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area: Grades 9-12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Content AreaNumber

of Course Offerings

Offerings with Curriculum Guidance

Documents

Percent of Offerings with

Curriculum Guidance

DocumentsCore Content AreasEnglish Language Arts 21 21 100.0Mathematics 15 15 100.0Science 16 14 87.5Social Studies 21 21 100.0

Subtotal Core Content Areas 73 71 97.3%Non-Core Content AreasFine Arts 26 24 92.3Career and Technical 72 70 97.2JROTC 7 0 0.0Driver Education 1 1 100.0*Additional 4 0 0.0Health Education 1 1 100.0Physical Education 2 2 100.0Languages Other than English 7 7 100.0

Subtotal Non-Core Areas 120 105 90.8%Total 193 176 91.2%

* See Exhibit 2.2.3 cumulative 142-145, for complete listing of courses identifi ed as “other”.Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors


Three of the four core areas have 100 percent curriculum coverage.•

Science has written curriculum documents for 14 of 16 course offerings for 87.5 percent coverage. •

There is 90.8 percent coverage in the non-core courses. •

The overall coverage for core and non-core courses is 91.2 percent. •

To achieve adequacy, curriculum documents must be available for all core courses (100 percent) and at least 70 percent of non-core areas. Overall curriculum guide documents are available for 91.2 percent of core and non-core course offerings at the high school level. All core areas in grades 9-12 except science had written curriculum for all courses. The scope of the written curriculum in grades 9-12 does not meet audit standards for adequacy since curriculum coverage is not available for all core areas.


Exhibit 2.2.5 provides a summary of the scope of curriculum guide documents K-12.

Exhibit 2.2.5

Scope of the Written Curriculum Summary: Kindergarten through Grade 12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Grade Levels

Core Areas Non-core Areas Total Areas

Total Core Offerings

Core Areas With a Written

Curriculum

Total Non-Core Offerings

Non-Core Areas With a Written

Curriculum

Total Course Offerings

Total Areas With a Written

CurriculumK-5 24 24 42 42 66 666-8 18 18 30 30 48 489-12 71 69 120 105 193 176Total 113 111 192 177 307 290

Core Areas = 98.3% Non-Core Areas = 92.2% Total Areas = 94.5%Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors

As indicated in Exhibit 2.2.5,

Auditors identifi ed a total of 307 courses offered in kindergarten through grade 12 in Birmingham City • Schools. Curriculum documents were presented to auditors for 290 core and non-core courses.

Curriculum documents were presented for 177 of 192, or 92.2 percent, of non-core courses.•

Core area course offerings had curriculum for 113 of 115 courses for 98.3 percent coverage.•

The scope of the written curriculum K-12 is 94.5 percent overall for kindergarten through grade 12 in • Birmingham City Schools.

The district does not meet the minimum audit criterion for scope since the core curriculum does not • have 100 percent curriculum coverage.

In addition to reviewing the policies and documents identifi ed, the auditors conducted interviews to identify opinions and beliefs regarding the scope of the written curriculum in Birmingham City Schools. During these interviews, auditors heard comments from teachers and administrators expressing concerns about course offerings and the curriculum. Their comments follow:

“It [our district curriculum] is a state adopted course of study. Because it comes from the state, it is • already approved.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“The Alabama course of study; pacing chart and BCS curriculum (course of study and beyond) are • called the BCS enhanced curriculum.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“We [curriculum department] will start the process this summer to have teachers come together looking • at the common core and developing curriculum.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“Our pacing guides are based on the course of study….They have pacing guides on a weekly basis. The • middle schools and high schools are set up on a daily basis.” (Central Administrator)

“On a daily basis, they [teachers] rely on the basal.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)•

“CORE provided a pacing guide for Scott Foresman and was purchased for teachers.” (Central Offi ce • Administrator)

“I use the curriculum guide and the lesson plan book [to guide instruction].” (Teacher)•

“They [teachers] use the Alabama Course of study [to guide instruction].” (Principal)•

“We create our own scope and sequence for each grade for our school.” (Principal)•


“They [the district staff responsible] have not written curriculum guides. It’s on the agenda to develop • the curriculum guides.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

Summary

In Birmingham City Schools, comprehensive curriculum guides have been replaced with Courses of Study provided by the state of Alabama, curriculum maps, scope and sequence charts, pacing guides, course syllabi, textbooks, and other supplemental resources, most of which have been developed and designed at the district level or by individual teachers at the school level. These documents when added together represent the scope of the written curriculum in the system. Some of the documents made available to the auditors were provided by individual central offi ce and department administrators and others were obtained from school sites, indicating that curriculum planning and writing occurs at the building level as well as the district level.

At the elementary and middle school levels, the scope of the written curriculum is 100 percent in the four core content areas, and guides were available for all non-core areas for 100 percent curriculum coverage. At the high school level, the scope of the written curriculum in non-core areas is above the 70 percent minimum audit criterion, but adequate in only three of the four core content areas. Overall, the scope of the curriculum Kindergarten through grade 12 is 94.4 percent, with coverage of core areas at 98.3 percent. These totals do not meet audit criteria for adequate coverage (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 2.3: Curriculum guides are inadequate in quality and lack the necessary components to guide classroom instruction.

The written curriculum is the school system’s way of guiding and directing classroom instruction. Quality guides align the written, taught, and tested curriculum and provide specifi c objectives that clearly defi ne what is expected of students. Further, curriculum documents provide guidance on prerequisite skills, list major instructional tools, and describe classroom strategies. Quality curriculum documents allow all students equal access to learning by providing for articulation and connectivity from one grade to the next and coordination between grades.

In order to assess the quality of the curriculum in the Birmingham City Schools the auditors reviewed board policies to identify quality expectations. They reviewed all online and hard copy curriculum documents presented to them as curriculum guides. The audit team also interviewed board members, administrators, and teachers.

The auditors found that the curriculum guides, consisting primarily of the state courses of study, were inadequate to direct teaching and learning in the district. Auditors reviewed district board policies to determine if they provided content and format directions for curriculum guides. No policy statements were found that addressed the quality of curriculum guides. The following excerpts from the policies refer to the district’s curriculum expectations (see Finding 1.2):

Board Policy 7000: Instructional Philosophy • states, “The instructional program will be developmental and clearly defi ned to ensure maximum academic profi ciency. Learning experiences will vary according to individual needs while providing all students with a basic body of knowledge, understanding, attitudes and skills necessary for a full and productive life. The board supports continuing efforts to accomplish this goal through design and supervision of a quality instructional program…”

Board Policy 7021: Improvement of the Instructional Program • indicates an expectation of continuous improvement: “Improvement and development of the educational and instructional program shall be continuous. Modifi cations, experimentation, and revisions in the curriculum which benefi t the children of the Birmingham Schools are encouraged.”

Board Policy 7122: Selection of School Library Media Resources • directs that “School library media resources shall be selected in accordance with the philosophy and objectives of the Birmingham Board of Education and the local school; and, shall support the curriculum of the school.”


Auditors also reviewed Birmingham City Schools planning documents for references to the content and format of the district’s written curriculum:

The document entitled • Birmingham Board of Education 2009-2012 Strategic Plan (Spring 2009) identifi ed academic achievement as one of fi ve priority areas and set goals and objectives including, “Provide a rich and diverse curriculum that prepares students to excel in a global society.” The plan further states that action plans will address areas including “Utilizing data to develop meaningful curriculum.”

The Technology Refresh Plan• states that to reach its vision will require “curriculum which integrates the use of various technology tools to help all students succeed in the 21st century.”

The policies and plans presented by the district staff did not contain adequate guidance for the format and content of the curriculum guides.

Administrators of the Birmingham City Schools presented auditors with curriculum documents including the Alabama Course of Studies (ACOS) created by the state of Alabama and district developed materials and pacing guides. In addition, course syllabi and curriculum guidance documents for Advanced Placement (AP) offerings were presented. The auditors reviewed these documents separately. There is no audit expectation that district personnel create or include pacing guides as part of the curriculum, but there is an expectation that the district should have curriculum guides (see Finding 2.2).

Exhibit 2.2.5 shows a total of 290 curriculum documents for the district in grades K-12. Although district offi cials counted all of these documents as guides, as stated in the previous paragraph, many were other documents, such as the Alabama Course of Studies (ACOS), pacing guides, curriculum guidance documents, or Advanced Placement (AP) syllabi. Further, most of the actual curriculum guides spanned multiple grade levels. For instance, the fi rst guide listed in Exhibit 2.3.2 is Arts Education: Dance, grades K-12. This single guide represents 13 course offerings as listed in Exhibit 2.2.5. Consequently, when auditors subtracted the documents that were not curriculum guides and combined the multiple grade level courses listed in a single guide, the number of guides assessed for quality was less that the total guides listed in Exhibit 2.2.5.

The audit team evaluated the curriculum documents presented to them using the audit’s fi ve quality criteria for basic minimum guide components and specifi city shown in Exhibit 2.3.1. AP syllabi and pacing guides are reviewed later in this section.

Exhibit 2.3.1

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis: Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specifi city

Point Value Criteria

Criterion One: Clarity and Specifi city of Objectives0 No goals/objectives present1 Vague delineation of goals/learner outcomes2 States tasks 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

Criterion Two: Congruity of the Curriculum to the Assessment Process0 No assessment approach1 Some approach of assessment stated2 States skills, knowledge, and concepts that will be assessed3 Keys each objective to district and/or state performance assessments


Exhibit 2.3.1 (continued)Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis:

Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specifi cityPoint Value Criteria

Criterion Three: Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes 0 No mention of required skill1 States prior general experience needed2 States prior general experience needed in specifi ed grade level

3 States specifi c documented prerequisite or description of discrete skills/concepts required prior to this learning (may be a scope and sequence across grades/courses if PreK-12)

Criterion Four: Delineation of the Major Instructional Tools0 No mention of textbook or instructional tools/resources1 Names the basic text/instructional resource(s)2 Names the basic text/instructional resource(s) and supplementary materials to be used

3 States for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resource(s) and the curriculum objective

Criterion Five: Clear Approaches for Classroom Use0 No approaches cited for classroom use1 Overall, vague statement on approaching the subject2 Provides general suggestions on approaches3 Provides specifi c examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom

The curriculum documents were rated on each criterion. A total score for each document was determined by adding the individual scores for each criterion. A curriculum document that receives a score of 12 out of 15 possible points is considered adequate. The ratings for the Birmingham City Schools curriculum documents are displayed in Exhibit 2.3.2.

Exhibit 2.3.2

Auditors’ Ratings of Grades K-12 Curriculum DocumentsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Curriculum Documents Grade Levels

Written/ Revised

Criteria Total RatingObj. Assess. Prereq. Res. Appr.

Arts Education Dance K-12 2005-06 2 0 0 0 0 2Arts Education Music K-12 2005-06 2 0 1 0 0 3Languages Other than English K-12 2005-06 2 0 0 0 0 2Science K-8 2004-05 2 0 0 0 0 2Science 9-12 2004-05 2 0 0 0 0 2BCS Career & Technology Education 9-12 2009-2011 1 0 2 0 0 3BCS Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance Model for K -12 Public Schools K-12 - 2 0 1 0 0 3

Physical Education K-12 2008-09 2 1 0 0 0 3Health Education K-12 2008-09 2 0 0 0 0 2Driver and Traffi c Safety Education - 2006-07 2 1 0 1 0 4Technology Education K-12 2007-08 2 0 0 0 0 2Mathematics K-5 2002-03 2 0 0 0 0 2Mathematics 6-8 2002-03 2 3 0 3 3 11


Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued)Auditors’ Ratings of Grades K-12 Curriculum Documents


Curriculum Documents Grade Levels

Written/ Revised


Mathematics 9-12 2002-03 2 3 1 3 0 9English Language Arts K-5 2007-08 2 1 2 2 2 9English Language Arts 6-8 2007-08 2 0 0 0 0 2English Language Arts 9-12 2007-08 2 0 1 0 0 3Read 180 6-12 - 2 2 0 3 2 9

35 11 8 12 7 73Average 1.9 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 4.1

Source: K-12 curriculum guides as presented to auditors.

As shown in Exhibit 2.3.2:

The average total score for the curriculum guides was 4.1 of a possible 15 points.•

Curriculum guides ratings ranged from a low of 2 to a high of 11. •

Mathematics grades 6-8 had the highest score (11). •

None of the curriculum documents reviewed achieved a score of 12, which is the minimum rating for a • document to be considered adequate.

The highest rated category was the clarity and specifi city of objectives criterion with an average score • of 1.9 of a possible 3 points.

The lowest area of rating was clear approaches for classroom use with a score of 0.4 out of 3.•

Comments related to the ratings for each criterion in Exhibit 2.3.2 follow:

Criterion 1: Clarity and Specifi city of Objectives: Mean Rating: 1.9

In most curriculum areas the document that was presented for review was the Alabama Course of Studies. These documents stated the specifi c skills and objectives to be learned but did not describe how each objective is performed.

Criterion 2: Congruity of the Curriculum to the Assessment Process: Mean Rating: 0.6

In order to score 3 points in this area there must be evidence that each objective is linked to district and/or state performance evaluation. As indicated in Exhibit 2.3.2, two (nine percent) of the guides reviewed by the audit team scored 3 points on congruity of the curriculum to the assessment process.

Criterion 3: Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes: Mean Rating: 0.4

Some curriculum areas in grades 9-12 had prerequisite courses listed in the Birmingham Course of Study, but did not include a specifi c list of prerequisite skills. Most other guides did not mention prerequisite skills.

Criterion 4: Delineation of the Major Instructional Tools: Mean Rating: 0.7

Only fi ve, or 27 percent, of the 18 guides reviewed included any discussion of delineation of the major instructional tools.

Criterion 5: Clear Approaches for Classroom Use: Mean Rating: 0.4

Three, or 17 percent, of the 18 guides discussed clear approaches for classroom use; the remaining guides did not describe any approaches for use of the curriculum in the classroom.


In addition to the curriculum guides presented to the auditors, teacher developed Advanced Placement (AP) course syllabi were presented as the curriculum guidance documents for AP courses offered at high schools in the district. Teachers of a given AP course are responsible for developing their own AP syllabus using frameworks and models provided to guide them through the process. Once approved by the College Board, the syllabus becomes the curriculum guidance document for the teacher who developed it. Therefore, there could be more than one syllabus for the same course. Auditors analyzed these documents against the criteria in Exhibit 2.3.1. In those cases where there were multiple teachers and syllabi for the same course, auditors selected one syllabus as a sample to review. The ratings of the AP syllabi are presented in Exhibit 2.3.3. The number of syllabi provided to the auditors per course is indicated.

Exhibit 2.3.3

Auditors’ Ratings of AP Course SyllabiBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

CourseNumber of Syllabi per

Course


AP Calculus AB 1 0 0 0 2 1 3AP English Literature & Composition 5 2 1 0 1 2 6AP English Language & Composition 4 2 1 1 2 1 7AP Microeconomics 1 0 0 0 1 0 1AP US Government & Politics 1 0 1 0 2 0 3AP US History 1 1 1 0 2 0 4AP Biology 1 1 1 0 1 2 5

Total 14 Average 0.9 0.7 0.1 1.6 0.9 1.3

Source: Advanced Placement syllabi as presented to auditors.

Exhibit 2.3.3 indicates the following:

The syllabi rated ranged in quality from 1 to 7 points.•

The average rating for the syllabi was 1.3 of a possible 15 points.•

AP English Literature and Composition received the highest rating with 7 points.•

A summary of the rating for each criterion follows:

Criterion 1: Clarity and Specifi city of Objectives: Mean rating: 0.9

While many AP syllabi stated course objectives, none of the objectives were keyed to an identifi ed level of acceptable student performance, nor was the learning time given for the objective.

Criterion 2: Congruity of the Curriculum to the Assessment Process: Mean rating: 0.7

The majority of the AP syllabi reviewed stated the skills, knowledge, or concepts to be assessed but did not key each objective to district and/or state performance expectations.

Criterion 3: Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes: Mean rating: 0.1

The AP syllabi scored lowest in this area. Most did not mention prerequisite skills, though some stated prior general experience. No syllabi described discrete concepts and skills required.

Criterion 4: Delineation of Major Instructional Resources: Mean rating: 1.6

The AP syllabi scored highest in this area. Many did reference the text and supplementary resources but did not identify the match between the text and the curriculum objective.


Criterion 5: Clear Strategies for Classroom Use: Mean rating: 0.9

The majority of the AP syllabi examined contained vague statements of approaches to teaching the subject or provided general suggestions or approaches. None of the syllabi gave specifi c examples of how to approach key concepts.

In summary, all AP syllabi reviewed by the auditors were rated as inadequate based on audit criteria.

In addition to curriculum documents the auditors were presented with a number of pacing guides. There is no audit expectation that a district include pacing guides as part of the curriculum as such guides rarely delineate differentiation for instructional differences in groups of children. The guides were rated separately from the curriculum documents against the seven audit criteria for pacing guides. Reading Language Arts 6-12 and Mathematics K-12 pacing guides were selected for review because they were the most complete documents presented to auditors.

Exhibit 2.3.4 shows auditors’ rating of the Reading Language Arts 6-12 Pacing Charts presented for review.

Exhibit 2.3.4

Auditors’ Rating of Reading Language Arts 6-12 Pacing ChartsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Audit CriteriaAuditors’ Rating

Auditors’ CommentsAdequate Inadequate

Time Frame and Flexibility:1. The chart suggests a time frame for teaching the standards/objectives, but the language of the directions is clear in stipulating that it is the teacher’s ultimate decision as to when each standard/objective is taught to individual students. This gives teachers fl exibility in delivering content at the appropriate instructional level for individual students.

X The pacing guide includes a statement, on the cover, “suggested pacing charts,” which gives teachers some fl exibility to meet the needs of individual students, but does not include clear language in the directions regarding time frame.

Feasibility: 2. The chart is designed in such a way that the amount of time provided for learning the standard/objective is reasonable.

X

Precision and Non-duplication:3. The standards/objectives in the chart are written in language that is precise and non-duplicative (unless adequate rationale for duplication is provided).

X

Curricular Differentiation4. : The chart includes written expectations that teachers are to differentiate the curriculum based upon the diagnostic assessment of students’ progress in mastering the concepts, skills, and knowledge they are expected to learn. This allows teachers to know where each student is with regard to the entire sequence of objectives, so that instruction is at the right curricular level for each student.

X The guide identifi es Pre-AP skills and resources but does not include written expectation regarding use of diagnostic assessment for differentiation or use of the materials listed.

Initial Acquisition and Mastery Aspects Are 5. Present: The chart in some way indicates when learnings are initially acquired and when additional practice is intermittently provided to move students to mastery (long-term retention) of the learning.

X There is no discussion of mastery in the Reading Language Arts 6-12 pacing guide.


Exhibit 2.3.4 (continued)Auditors Rating of Reading Language Arts 6-12 Pacing Charts




Linkage to Formative Assessments:6. District staff use assessments that are clearly tied to pacing standards/objectives. These assessments are to be used to help teachers differentiate their teaching and make instructional decisions about the initial acquisition of learning. Assessments are not only used in a summative manner.

X Assessments listed are not clearly tied to pacing standards/objectives.

[If the district has benchmarks tied to pacing 7. charts] Flexibility in Administering Formative Assessments: Assessments tied to the standards/objectives of the pacing chart are administered to each individual student when he or she is ready to take the assessments, rather than all students at the same time.

X Assessment measures are listed in the guide, but the administration of the measures is not discussed in the pacing guide.

Source: Language Arts pacing guides as presented to the auditors.

As shown in Exhibit 2.3.4, The Reading Language Arts 6-12 pacing guide developed by the district did not meet audit criteria in fi ve out of the seven areas that were evaluated. Auditors’ ratings of the pacing guides presented for mathematics are shown in Exhibit 2.3.5.

Exhibit 2.3.5

Auditors’ Rating of Mathematics K-12 Pacing GuidesBirmingham City Schools

December 2010



Time Frame and Flexibility:1. The chart suggests a time frame for teaching the standards/objectives, but the language of the directions is clear in stipulating that it is the teacher’s ultimate decision as to when each standard/objective is taught to individual students. This gives teachers fl exibility in delivering content at the appropriate instructional level for individual students.

X The pacing guide includes a statement, “suggested pacing,” which gives teachers limited fl exibility to meet the needs of individual students.

Feasibility: 2. The chart is designed in such a way that the amount of time provided for learning the standard/objective is reasonable.

X The pacing guide is broken down into weekly units of study. The rate of the course does not allow for any deviation from the schedule for students who require additional time on a topic.

Precision and Non-duplication:3. The standards/objectives in the chart are written in language that is precise and non-duplicative (unless adequate rationale for duplication is provided).

X Language is precise and clear.


Exhibit 2.3.5 (continued)Auditors Rating of Mathematics K-12 Pacing Guides




Curricular Differentiation4. : The chart includes written expectations that teachers are to differentiate the curriculum based upon the diagnostic assessment of each student’s progress in mastering the concepts, skills, and knowledge they are expected to learn. This allows teachers to know where each student is with regard to the entire sequence of objectives, so that instruction is at the right curricular level for each student.

X There is no design component or written expectation of differentiation in the mathematics pacing guides.

Initial5. Acquisition and Mastery Aspects are Present: The chart in some way indicates when learnings are initially acquired and when additional practice is intermittently provided to move students to mastery (long-term retention) of the learning.

X There is no discussion of mastery in the mathematics pacing guides.

Linkage to Formative Assessments:6. District staff use assessments that are clearly tied to pacing standards/objectives. These assessments are to be used to help teachers differentiate their teaching and make instructional decisions about the initial acquisition of learning. Assessments are not only used in a summative manner.

X There is no link to formative assessment.

[If the district has benchmarks tied to pacing charts] 7. Flexibility in Administering Formative Assessments: Assessments tied to the standards/objectives of the pacing chart are administered to an individual student when he or she is ready to take the assessments, rather than all students at the same time.

X Assessment measures are not discussed in the mathematics pacing guides.

Source: Mathematics pacing guides as presented to the auditors.

As shown in Exhibit 2.3.5:

The mathematics pacing guides developed by the district did not fully meet audit criteria in six of the • seven areas that were evaluated.

One criterion, “time frame and fl exibility,” was partially met.•

Administrators and teachers made several comments to auditors regarding the use of pacing guides.

“Our pacing guides are based on the course of study….They have pacing guides on a weekly basis. The • middle schools and high schools are set up on a daily basis.” (Central Offi ce Administrators)

“They should have a pacing document. The high schools should have a binder with pacing and sample • questions.” (Central Offi ce Administrators)

Pacing guides can be used by a district to give teachers guidance in delivering curriculum, but pacing guides that try to tightly control the delivery of instruction can limit a teacher’s ability to address the individual student needs in his/her classroom. What is taught and tested at a specifi c grade level in a given subject area is determined by the district. The delivery of instruction is determined by the teacher in order to best meet the individual needs of the students in a particular course or grade level.

In summary, Reading Language Arts 6-12 and Mathematics K-12 pacing guides reviewed by the auditors did not meet the audit criteria for adequacy.


In addition to the curriculum document review, the auditors conducted interviews with board members, administrators, and teachers. The following comments pertained to curriculum quality and alignment:

“Our standards are very low in Alabama. They are so broad and ambiguous….We have some of the • lowest standards as it relates to reading compared to other states. So I do not rely solely on that.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“Alabama Course of Study [referring to curriculum]. We have our pacing charts. We try to go beyond • the Course of Study.” (Central Offi ce Administrator)

“I use the Course of Study as it’s related to my interests and the student’s interests and then some • current events. I choose sections from the Course of Study.” (Teacher)

“I pick and choose [objectives] from the Alabama Course of Study.” (Teacher)•

The auditors found the overall quality of the curriculum guides, AP syllabi, and pacing guides in Birmingham City Schools inadequate to direct quality instruction. None of the curricular guides reviewed met audit criteria for adequacy. Most of the guides and all of the AP syllabi lack the clarity, precision, and specifi city among the objectives, assessments, resources, and instructional approaches necessary to support teaching and delivery of the curriculum (see Recommendation 2).

Analysis of Curriculum Components and Assessments for Further Alignment

In addition to analyzing curriculum guides and AP syllabi, auditors examined other components of the curriculum to determine the degree to which they were aligned with each other in content, context and cognitive type. Auditors also examined teaching materials to determine the cognitive type based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, the level of thinking required of students to master the course content (see Exhibit 2.3.6 below for Bloom’s Taxonomy).

Exhibit 2.3.6

Description of Cognitive Types in Bloom’s Taxonomy

Cognitive Domain Defi nition of Type Additional Clarifi cation Comments

Knowledge Includes those behaviors and test situations that emphasize the remembering, either by recognition or recall, of ideas, material, or phenomena.

Ranges from the specifi c and relatively concrete types of behaviors to the more complex and abstract ones, including the interrelations and patterns in which information can be organized and structured.

Remembering is the major psychological process involved.

Comprehension When confronted with a communication, written or oral, they are expected to know what is being communicated and to be able to market some use of the material or ideas contained in it.

Three types: translation, interpretation, and extrapolation.

Emphasis is on the grasp of the meaning and intent of the material.

Application Apply comprehension in a situation new to the student without prompting; requires transferring of knowledge and comprehension to a real situation.

Emphasis is on the remembering and bringing to bear upon given material the appropriate generalizations or principles.

Analysis Break down the material into its constituent parts, make explicit the relationships among the elements, and then recognize the organizational principles of the arrangement and structure that holds together the communication as a whole.

Emphasis is on the breakdown of the material into its constituent parts and detection of the relationship of the parts and of the way they are organized.

Not to be confused with the comprehending the meaning of something abstract (which is comprehension).


Exhibit 2.3.6 (continued)Description of Cognitive Types in Bloom’s Taxonomy

Cognitive Domain Defi nition of Type Additional Clarifi cation Comments

Synthesis Putting together elements and parts so as to form a whole, to a pattern or structure not clearly there before.

Focus on creative ability of the student but within limits of a framework.

Must draw upon elements from many sources and put these together in a structure or pattern not clearly there before.

Should yield a product.Evaluation Making judgments about the value, for

some purpose, of ideas, works, solution, methods, material, etc.

Involves use of criteria as well as standards for appraising the extent to which particulars are accurate, effective, economical, or satisfying. May be quantitative or qualitative. Are not opinions but judgments based on criteria.

Source: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Benjamin Bloom, Editor, Longman, 1956

To conduct this review, auditors examined specifi c samples of documents supporting core academic areas, focusing on the following:

Congruence between Alabama Course of Study (COS) grade level curriculum standards and objectives 1. and teaching strategies and approaches suggested in district adopted textbooks regarding their content (topic), their context (how the information is presented and/or learning expected to occur), and cognitive type (level of thinking required) as described in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Analysis of the congruence between mathematics and English language arts COS grade level curriculum 2. standards and objectives and district benchmark assessment items, again in regard to content, context, and cognitive complexity.

The presence and quality of course objectives in each teacher developed syllabi for a single advanced 3. placement course.

Auditors focused on the following in analyzing documents for cognitive type:

An analysis of benchmark assessment items for cognitive type.1.

An examination of artifacts of student work for cognitive type.2.

To accomplish these analyses, auditors reviewed samplings of Course of Studies grade level standards and objectives, instructional materials, pacing guides, and benchmark assessment items from grades 4, 6, and 10 (using Geometry for mathematics at the high school level) provided by district staff. Auditors reviewed sample content in teachers’ editions of district adopted textbooks presented as the main instructional resource for mathematics and English language arts for the targeted samples. Additionally, the audit team collected samples of K-12 student worksheets in English language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science during their school visits.

When they evaluated the samples against audit criteria, the auditors found some areas of defi ciency that represent weaknesses in deep alignment of the district COS grade level standards and objectives, local curriculum resources, and district benchmark assessments. The audit team observed that overall for English language arts and mathematics, the two curricular areas chosen as samples for deep curriculum analysis purposes, samples of instructional materials and assessments were congruent with the COS grade level standards and objectives in content. However, auditors determined that there was a lack of congruence when context and cognitive type were considered. The predominant cognitive type found in the COS grade level standards and objectives and student artifacts was comprehension.


The auditors have summarized their analysis of the curriculum support resources in two categories: alignment and cognitive complexity.

Alignment Congruence

Alignment links student learning objectives, instructional strategies, instructional resources, and assessments that measure the mastery of objectives. It is determined by examining the match between the written, taught, and tested curriculum and the congruency between the content, context, and cognition of objectives in the design and delivery of the curriculum.

The following sections summarize the auditors’ analysis of alignment in the core curriculum areas of English language arts and mathematics.

Congruence of COS grade level standards and objectives with adopted textbooksI.

English Language Arts

In this analysis, auditors were seeking to determine the extent to which district adopted textbooks were congruent with English language arts COS standards and objectives in content, context, and cognitive type. Auditors chose samples from adopted textbooks for grades 4, 6, and 10 to demonstrate their fi ndings. They compared their samples to the related COS grade level standards and objectives to determine the degree of congruence or “match” in content, context, and cognitive level. A summary of the comparisons is displayed in Exhibit 2.3.7.

Exhibit 2.3.7

Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to English Language Arts Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10


Grade Level Standards and

ObjectivesAdopted Textbook and Content Sample

Congruency of Content

Sample to COS Objectives

Con

tent

Con

text

Cog

nitiv

e L

evel

Grade 4 Scott Foresman, Reading StreetCOS.4.4.2 Identifying author’s purpose

TEACH: 2-STRATEGY- Look at the title and skim the text to answer questions about the author’s purpose. Think Aloud- MODEL- I see the numbers 200 years ago; 800,000 square miles; 3 cents an acre; and 13 states; and the date of May of 1804 in the text. These numbers and dates are facts the author included in the article to describe something that happened a long time ago in history. This suggests that the author’s purpose is to inform. (T41)

Y Y Y

COS.4.2.1 Using context clues

TEACH: Have students think about lesson vocabulary words in context as they read “Tall Paul.” Model using context clues to determine the meaning of prairie. MODEL: This sentence says Tall Paul could cross a mile of prairie in one step. The sentence before says he lived on the plains. I think the plains and prairie may be the same thing. I know the plains are a fl at stretch of land. The synonym makes sense in the context: Tall Paul crossed a mile of the plains in one step.(T90)

Y Y Y

COS.4.4.1 Identifying main idea

GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS: Remind students that good readers use graphic organizers to help them remember what they have read. Have each student complete a time line that shows the order of the most important events in the story. (T81)

P P N


Exhibit 2.3.7 (continued)Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to

English Language Arts Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Grade Level Standards and

ObjectivesAdopted Textbook and Content Sample

Congruency of Content

Sample to COS Objectives

Con

tent

Con

text

Cog

nitiv

e L

evel

Grade 6 Holt—Elements of Literature, The Holt Reader Teacher’s Manual COS.6.1.3 Identifying sequence of events

RETELL: Re-read lines 46-67. Then, retell what happens in the sixth game that leads the Moose to “go public” with what he wants. (p.8)

Y Y N

COS.6.5.2 Identifying fi gurative language in various literature selections

VISUALIZE: Lines 150-164 are fi lled with imagery, language that appeals to the senses. Circle the images that help you “see” the Gorgans. (p.140)

Y Y Y

COS.6.1.4 Making generalizations from text information

INFER: Pause at line 120. Based on what you have read so far, what inferences can you draw about Mary’s character? List 2 ways in which she seems different from Roger. (p. 50)

Y Y Y

Grade 10 Holt—Elements of Literature, The Holt Reader Teacher’s ManualCOS.10.2.1 Identifying and interpreting fi gurative language and imagery, including symbolism and metaphors

INTERPRET: Underline the extended metaphor in lines 66-71 that Edwards uses to describe God’s wrath. Explain the metaphor in your own words. (T14)

Y Y Y

COS.10.1.2 Using context clues to determine meaning

WORD STUDY: Tracts (line 174) are persuasive writings on political or religious subjects. Circle the context clue that helps you fi gure out the meaning of the word. (T45)

Y P Y

COS.10.1.3 Identifying sequences to enhance understanding

IDENTIFY: This chapter deals with the Civil War. What war breaks out early in the next century?(T82)

Y Y Y

Key: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partial, less than half of elements matchingData Sources: Alabama Course of Study English Language Arts; Birmingham City Schools Department of Reading Language Arts, 6-12 Suggested Pacing Charts and district-adopted 4th, 6th, and 10th grade textbooks.

As noted in Exhibit 2,3,7:

Eight of nine (88.9 percent) selected grade 4, 6, and 10 COS standards and objectives and texts are • congruent in content.

Seven of the nine (77.8 percent) are congruent in context. •

Seven of the nine (77.8 percent) are consistent in cognitive type.•

Overall across all grade levels 4, 6 and 10, COS and textbook samples have higher consistency in • content than in context or cognitive type.


Mathematics

Auditors also evaluated the congruency between COS standards/objectives and content samples of mathematics textbooks adopted by the district. Content samples were selected from each of the grades 4 and 6 mathematics and grade 10 Geometry adopted textbooks (using teachers’ editions). Exhibit 2.3.8 summarizes the data for a representative sampling of those reviews.

Exhibit 2.3.8

Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to Mathematics Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10


Grade Level Standards and Objectives Adopted Textbook and Content Sample

Congruency of Content Sample

to COS Objectives

Con

tent

Con

tent

Cog

nitiv

e L

evel

Grade 4 Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley, Grade 4 Volume 1COS.4.6.1 Estimating sums and differences using various strategies, including rounding and compatible numbers, to judge the reasonableness of an answer.

LEARN: Remind students that a difference is an answer to a subtraction problem. Point out that an estimate is made before subtracting the numbers in order to get the difference. Then the exact difference can be compared to the estimate to see if it is reasonable. P. 82

Y Y P

COS.4.7.2 Identifying information needed to determine an operation to solve a problem.

LEARN: The same situation can be used to create both multiplication and division stories. The information missing determines whether the problem is a multiplication or division story. P. 154

Y P N

Grade 6 Glencoe Mathematics, Applications and Concepts Course 1COS.6.6.1 Classify angles as acute, obtuse, right, or straight.

IN-CLASS EXAMPLES: Use a protractor to fi nd the measure of each angle. Then classify each angle as acute, obtuse, right or straight. P. 507

Y Y Y

COS.6.10 Interpret information from bar graphs, line graphs, and circle graphs.

TRANSPORTATION: The circle graph below shows which method of transportation students use to get to Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School. How does the number of students who ride a moped to school compare to the number of students who take the bus? P. 63

Y Y Y

COS.6.11 Determine the probability of a simple event by expressing the probability as a ratio, percent, or decimal.

BELLRINGER: Communication. Discuss how likely students think getting a 1 is when they roll a number cube once. Not very likely. Rolling a 7? Impossible-there is no 7 on a number cube. Rolling a 2 or a 4? Rolling one of two numbers is more likely than rolling one number. P. 428

Y P N

Grade 10 McDougal Littell, GeometryCOS.10.2 Prove theorems related to pairs of angles, including vertical, adjacent, complementary, and supplementary, as well as those formed by parallel lines cut by a transversal and perpendicular lines.

CLOSURE QUESTION: Describe the relationships between the four angles formed by two intersecting lines. The angles across from each other are vertical angles. Each pair of vertical angles are congruent. The adjacent angles formed by the lines are linear pairs. The angles in a linear pair are supplementary. P. 46

Y N N


Exhibit 2.3.8 (continued)Congruency Comparison of Adopted Textbook Content Samples to

Mathematics Grade Level Standards and Objectives: Grades 4, 6, 10Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Grade Level Standards and Objectives Adopted Textbook and Content Sample

Congruency of Content Sample

to COS Objectives

Con

tent

Con

tent

Cog

nitiv

e L

evel

COS.10.7.1 Apply the Pythagorean Theorem and its converse to solve application problems, including expressing answers in simplifi ed radical form or as decimal approximations and using Pythagorean triples where applicable.

MOTIVATING THE LESSON: Ask students to make a right triangle by equally spacing 12 knots in a string and then bending it to form a 3-4-5 triangle. Finding lengths that form right triangles is the focus of this lesson. P. 536

Y P N

COS.10.1 Determine the equation of a line given two points, a point and a slope, a table of values, a graph, ordered pairs, or the equation of a line parallel or perpendicular to another line through a given point.

CLOSURE QUESTION: If you know two points on line p and two points on line q how could you tell if p || q? Find the slope of each line using the slope formula. If the slopes are equal, the lines are parallel. P. 167

Y N Y

Key: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partial, less than half of elements matchingData Sources: Alabama Course of Study Mathematics; Birmingham City Schools Department of Mathematics, K-12 Pacing Charts and district-adopted 4th, 6th, and Geometry textbooks.

Exhibit 2.3.8 indicates:

All selected COS standards and objectives and given text samples at grades 4, 6, and Geometry are • congruent in content.

Three of eight (37.5 percent) COS standards and objectives and given text samples are congruent in • context.

Three of eight (37.5 percent) of the given COS standards and objectives and text samples are congruent • in cognitive level.

In summary, auditors found that nearly all samples from the district adopted textbooks were congruent in content with Course of Study standards and objectives. However, many were not congruent in context and cognitive complexity.

Congruence of COS standards and objectives with district benchmark assessment itemsII.

The auditors also looked at the alignment of Course of Study standards and objectives with assessment items taken from the district’s benchmark assessment system to determine consistency between COS standards and objectives and assessments. Such alignment is necessary in order to provide transfer of learning from instruction to assessments for student mastery.

The audit team reviewed assessment items at grades 4, 6, and high school (HS). The samples of assessment items and corresponding standards and objectives from grades 4, 6, and 10 (Geometry for mathematics at HS) were selected to provide a sampling for each level (elementary, middle, and high school).


English Language Arts

Auditors evaluated congruency between English Language Arts standards and objectives and benchmark assessment items administered by the district by selecting a sampling of COS objectives from the Alabama Course of Study for English language arts and sample assessment items from the Predictive Assessment Test A for grades 4, 6, and HS. For this analysis, auditors continued with their process for determining congruency by looking at content, context, and cognitive type. Three samples were selected from each of the grade levels to demonstrate the representative alignments. Exhibit 2.3.9 summarizes the data for the samples reviewed.

Exhibit 2.3.9

Congruency Comparison of English Language Arts COS Standards and Objectives With Benchmark Assessment Items: Grades 4, 6, and 10


Course of Study (COS) Standards and Objectives

Sample Items from Discovery

Education Predictive

Assessment Reading Language

Test A

Congruence of Sample Benchmark Items

to COS Standards /Objectives

Con

tent

Con

text

Cog

nitiv

e L

evel

COS.4.2.1 Using Context Clues Test Item #1 Y Y YCOS.4.5.1. Determining sequence of events in informational and functional texts. Test Item #2 Y Y N

COS.4.3.8 Drawing conclusions to determine content not directly stated. Test Item #9 Y Y N

COS.6.3.1 Drawing conclusions to extend meaning Test Item # 2 Y Y YCOS.6.3.2 Making generalizations Test Item #13 Y Y YCOS 6.1.3 Identifying sequence of events Test Item # 18 Y P NCOS.10.4.1. Evaluating strength of argument in informational texts. Test Item # 2 Y Y YCOS.10.2.2. Interpreting tone from author’s word choice Test Item # 18 Y Y YCOS.10.3.4 Summarizing passages of informational and functional reading materials Test Item # 21 Y N Y

Key: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partial, less than half of elements matchingData Sources: Alabama Course of Study Objectives, Discovery Education Predictive Assessment Reading Language - Test A - Grades 4, 6, and HS.

In Exhibit 2.3.9, auditors noted that:

All English language arts COS objectives examined in this analysis were congruent in content with the • benchmark test items for grades 4, 6, and HS.

Seven of the nine test item samples analyzed were congruent with COS objectives in context.•

Six of nine test item samples were congruent with COS objectives in cognitive type.•

For grades 6 and 10, two of the three selected test item samples had complete congruency in content, • context, and cognitive type to the COS objectives. One grade 4 test item had complete congruency.

Overall, of the 27 points of consistency possible between the English language arts COS objectives and • the given benchmark test item samples, 22 (81.5 percent) were congruent.


Mathematics

The auditors also looked at the congruence of the Birmingham City Schools mathematics COS standards/objectives with the district benchmark assessments. Auditors reviewed assessment items from grades 4, 6, and HS. Samples were selected from each of the grade levels to demonstrate the representative alignments. Exhibit 2.3.10 shows the results of the analysis of the selected mathematics samples.

Exhibit 2.3.10

Congruency Comparison of Mathematics COS Standards and Objectives With Benchmark Assessment Items: Grades 4, 6, and HS


Course of Study (COS)Standards and Objectives

Sample Items from Discovery

Education Predictive

Assessment Mathematics

Test A

Congruence of Benchmark Items to COS Standards

and Objectives

Con

tent

Con

text

Cog

nitiv

e Ty

pe

COS.4.6.3 Using addition and subtraction to calculate the balance of an account Test item #42 Y Y Y

COS.4.7.2 Identifying information needed to determine an operation to solve a problem. Test Item #56 Y P N

COS.4.3.4 Writing equivalent forms of fractions. Test Item #61 Y Y PCOS.6.6 Classify angles as acute, obtuse, right, or straight Test Item # 44 Y Y YCOS.6.10 Interpret information from bar graphs, line graphs and circle graphs. Test item # 51 Y P Y

COS.6.11 Determine the probability of a simple event by expressing the probability as a ratio, percent or decimal. Test item # 52 Y Y Y

COS.10.2 Prove theorems related to pairs of angles, including vertical, adjacent, complementary, and supplementary, as well as those formed by parallel lines cut by a transversal and perpendicular lines.

Test item # 14 Y N N

COS.10.7 Apply the Pythagorean Theorem and its converse to solve application problems, including expressing answers in simplifi ed radical form or as decimal approximations and using Pythagorean triples where applicable.

Test item # 39 Y Y N

COS.10.1 Determine the equation of a line given two points, appoint and a slope, a table of values, a graph, ordered pairs, or the equation of a line parallel or perpendicular to another line through a given point.

Test item # 17 Y P N

Key: Y = Yes; N = No; P = Partial, less than half of elements matchingData Sources: Alabama Course of Study Objectives, Discovery Education- Predictive Assessment Mathematics - Test A - Grades 4, 6, and HS.

Auditors noted the following in Exhibit 2.3.10:

All mathematics COS standards and objectives examined in the analysis were congruent in content with • the benchmark test items for grades 4, 6, and HS.

Five of the nine test item samples analyzed were congruent with COS standards and objectives for • context.

Four of the nine test item samples were congruent with COS standards and objectives for cognitive • type.

One selected grade 4 test item had complete congruency in content, context, and cognitive complexity • to the COS standard /objective.


Two of the sixth grade test items matched the mathematics COS in all three dimensions: content, • context, and cognitive type.

None of the three high school test items had complete congruency to the COS standards and • objectives.

Overall, of the 27 points of consistency possible between the mathematics COS standards and objectives • and the given benchmark test item samples, 18 (66.7 percent) were congruent.

In summary, sample district benchmark assessments were found to be congruent in content with COS standards and objectives; however, they are not always congruent in context and cognitive type.

Consistency of course objectives in Advanced Placement (AP) syllabiIII.

Teacher-developed course syllabi were presented to the auditors as curriculum guidance documents for the Advanced Placement (AP) courses offered in the district. All district students enrolled in an AP class will take the same AP assessment at the end of a given course, regardless of the school they attend or their assigned teacher. Curriculum and objectives for students set the direction for achieving the district’s goals. The lack of clear, specifi c objectives across courses and schools increases the likelihood of inconsistencies in teaching and learning. Auditors’ conducted an analysis of the written objectives listed in multiple syllabi for the same AP course using audit criteria. Specifi cally, the auditors looked for the presence of stated objectives and closely examined objectives for clarity and specifi city. Exhibit 2.3.11 summarizes the results of this analysis.

Exhibit 2.3.11

Consistency of Objectives in Multiple Advanced Placement Syllabi for a Single Course Offering


CourseSyllabi

Per Course

No Goals or

Objectives

Vague Goals or Learner

Outcomes

Statement of Performance

Task or Skill to Be Learned

For Each Objective: Sequence,

Performance Standard, and Time

Spent

Number of

Objectives in Syllabi

AP English Language and Composition 4 1 1 2 0 0-16AP English Literature and Composition 5 2 1 2 0 0-8Total 9 3 2 4 0 0-16Source: Advanced Placement course syllabi.


There are nine syllabi for the two AP courses with multiple teachers: fi ve syllabi for AP English • Literature and Composition and four separate syllabi for AP English Language Composition.

Six of the nine syllabi (66.7 percent) listed goals or objectives, while the remaining three (33.3 percent) • did not list any learning goals or objectives.

The number of objectives in the English Language Composition syllabi ranged from 0-16.•

The number of objectives in the English Literature Composition syllabi ranged from 0-8.•

Overall, the majority of the AP syllabi listed goals and objectives, and those that did not provided vague learner outcomes and skills to be learned. The quality and number of instructional objectives in AP syllabi were inconsistent, however, across a single course offering.


Cognitive Complexity

The audit team used Bloom’s Taxonomy—as described previously in Exhibit 2.3.6—when analyzing documents for types of cognition in preceding sections and in the sections to follow.

Types of Bloom’s Taxonomy in benchmark assessment itemsI.

To conduct their inquiry, auditors used Bloom’s Taxonomy to analyze individual test items on district benchmark assessments in reading language and mathematics for grades 4, 6, and high school. The results of the audit team’s analyses are presented in Exhibit 2.3.12 and Exhibit 2.3.13.

Exhibit 2.3.12 summarizes the analysis of reading language benchmark assessment items.

Exhibit 2.3.12

Analysis of Reading Language Predictive Assessment Items for Types of Cognition Required Using Bloom’s Taxonomy: Grades 4, 6, and HS


Grade Level

Number of Assessment

Items

Knowledge %

Comprehension %

Application %

Analysis %

Synthesis %

Evaluation %

4 31 25.8 58.1 9.7 6.5 0 06 30 13.3 53.3 10.0 6.7 10.0 6.7

HS 38 31.6 26.1 15.8 2.6 13.2 15.8Total 99 24.2% 42.4% 15.2% 5.1% 8.1% 8.1%

Data Sources: Alabama- Test A - Predictive Assessment- Reading Language- Grades 4, 6, and HS; Bloom’s Taxonomy

The data in Exhibit 2.3.12 indicates that:

The grade 4 assessment contained the highest percent of knowledge and comprehension items at 83.9 • followed by grade 6 at 66.6 percent and the high school level at 57.7 percent.

Application was required of students for around 10 percent of the items as grades 4 and 6, and almost • 16 percent of the items on the high school predictive assessment.

Analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation was required in 21.3 percent of the combined total number of • items from Reading Language assessments for grades 4, 6, and HS.

The HS reading language benchmark assessment has the highest percent (47.4) of items requiring • analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation.

Overall, 66 of the 99 (66.7 percent) items on the grade 4, 6, and HS reading language benchmark • assessments are in the knowledge and comprehension types.


Exhibit 2.3.13 shows the summary data on cognitive types of mathematics benchmark items reviewed.

Exhibit 2.3.13

Analysis of Mathematics Predictive Assessment Items for Types of Cognition Required Using Bloom’s Taxonomy: Grades 4, 6, and HS


Grade Level

Number of Assessment

Items

Knowledge %

Comprehension %

Application %

Analysis %

Synthesis %

Evaluation %

4 30 16.7 70.0 13.3 0 0 06 30 20.0 66.7 13.3 0 0 0

HS 40 17.5 77.5 5 0 0 0Total 100 18% 72% 10% 0% 0% 0%

Data Sources: Alabama- Test A - Predictive Assessment- Mathematics - Grades 4, 6, and HS; Bloom’s Taxonomy

In Exhibit 2.3.13 it can be noted that:

More than 85 percent (86.7) of mathematics benchmark assessment items for grades 4 and 6 are • knowledge or comprehension types.

Ninety-fi ve (95) percent of HS level mathematics benchmark assessment items were at the knowledge • or comprehension types.

Assessment items in the grade 4 and 6 mathematics benchmark test requiring application, analysis, • synthesis, or evaluation totaled 13.3 percent.

Only fi ve percent of the items on the HS mathematics benchmark assessment required application, • analysis, synthesis, or evaluation, the higher types of cognition.

Overall, 90 of 100 (90 percent) of the items on Birmingham City Schools’ mathematics benchmark • assessments for grades 4, 6, and HS were at the knowledge and comprehension cognitive levels.

A majority of the items on the reading, language arts, and mathematics benchmark assessments at grades 4, 6, and HS require the lowest types of cognition (knowledge and comprehension). Overall 66.7 percent of the reading language benchmark items and 90 percent of the mathematics benchmark assessment items across the three grades selected are at the knowledge and comprehension levels. The auditors expected to see rigorous assessment items that relied on various types of Bloom’s and were matched to an equally rigorous curriculum. Because the majority of the curriculum documents were simply the state courses of study, such a highly developed curriculum and assessment did not exist. A curriculum that relies on lower types of Bloom’s (knowledge and comprehension) often produces the same type of rigor in the subsequent assessment documents. Auditors found this to be true with the assessment items reviewed.


Bloom’s cognitive types in student artifactsII.

English Language Arts and Social Studies

The auditors collected samples of English language arts and social studies student worksheets (artifacts) while visiting classrooms and analyzed them for cognitive level using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Exhibit 2.3.14 presents this analysis for the 51 artifacts collected.

Exhibit 2.3.14

Analysis of Student Artifacts in English Language Arts and Social Studies Using Bloom’s TaxonomyBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Grade Level Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Number of

ArtifactsK-5 8 13 0 0 0 1 226-8 5 7 0 1 0 1 149-12 3 7 0 2 2 1 15

Totals 16 27 0 3 2 3 51Percent 31.4% 52.9% 0.0% 5.9% 3.9% 5.9%

Data Sources: Student artifacts collected in English language arts and social studies classes by auditors during classroom visits; Bloom’s Taxonomy


Of the 51 English language arts and social studies artifacts collected by auditors during classroom • visits, 5.9 percent were at the evaluation level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Less than 10 percent of the artifacts involved application, analysis, or synthesis.•

Sixteen (16), or 31.4 percent, of the artifacts required students to recall a fact, information, or a procedure • at the knowledge level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Eight, or 50 percent, of the artifacts identifi ed at the knowledge level were collected in K-5 classrooms.

Forty-three (43), or 84.3 percent, of the K-12 student artifacts required thinking at the knowledge or • comprehension level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Mathematics and Science:

The auditors also examined 33 artifacts from mathematics and science classes for cognitive type using Bloom’s Taxonomy. Results of the analysis are presented in Exhibit 2.3.15.

Exhibit 2.3.15

Analysis of Student Artifacts in Mathematics and Science Using Bloom’s TaxonomyBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Grade Level Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Number of

ArtifactsK-5 11 3 0 0 1 0 156-8 1 7 2 1 0 0 119-12 1 5 1 0 0 0 7

Totals 13 15 3 1 1 0 33Percent 39.4% 45.5% 9.1% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0%

Data Sources: Student artifacts collected in mathematics and science classes by auditors during classroom visits; Bloom’s Taxonomy


Exhibit 2.3.15 shows that:

Of the 33 mathematics and science artifacts collected by auditors during classroom visits, none were at • the evaluation level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Five, or 15.1 percent, of the artifacts involved application, analysis, or synthesis.•

Thirteen (13), or 39.4 percent, of the artifacts required students to recall a fact, information, or a • procedure at the knowledge level. Eleven (11), or 84.6 percent of the artifacts identifi ed as knowledge type were collected in K-5 classrooms.

Twenty-eight (28), or 84.9 percent, of the K-12 student artifacts required thinking at the knowledge or • comprehension levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Based on their analyses, auditors determined that the 84 samples of student work gathered during classroom visits collectively represented all types of Bloom’s Taxonomy. However, the level of thinking demanded of students to complete most of the worksheets analyzed were at the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Summary

Auditors examined curriculum guides, pacing guides, and Advanced Placement syllabi. None of the curriculum guides or syllabi met audit quality standards for quality curriculum documents. The audit team also analyzed the alignment of textbooks, assessments, and student worksheets. They found some areas of defi ciency in the alignment and cognitive complexity of the materials analyzed that represent weaknesses in deep alignment of the local curriculum and assessments when evaluated against audit criteria. Auditors found that sample contents from textbooks and benchmark assessment items were not always congruent in context and cognitive type with course of study standards and objectives. Auditors also found that the quality and number of course objectives in most AP syllabi were inconsistent across a single course. Finally, the samples from the benchmark assessments and student artifacts examined lacked cognitive complexity, with the majority of the materials at the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. If the resources used for these analyses are representative of those used in other curricular areas, the Birmingham City Schools curriculum, instructional materials, and assessments lack the deeper alignment that support optimal academic achievement (see Recommendation 2).


STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation.A school system meeting this Curriculum Audit™ standard is able to show how its program has been created as the result of a systematic identifi cation of defi ciencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of pupil learning.

In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defi ning curriculum and that, as a whole, it is more effective than the sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combinations of programs or schools do not equate to the larger school system entity.

The purpose of having a school system is to obtain the educational and economic benefi ts of a coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning, which is complex and multi-year in its dimensions, and to employ economies of scale where applicable.


The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to fi nd a highly-developed, articulated, and coordinated curriculum in the school system that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs at the central and site levels. Common indicators are:

Documents/sources that reveal internal connections at different levels in the system;•

Predictable consistency through a coherent rationale for content delineation within the curriculum;•

Equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity;•

Allocation of resource fl ow to areas of greatest need;•

A curriculum that is clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building-level administrators • and other supervisory personnel;

Specifi c professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery;•

A curriculum that is monitored by central offi ce and site supervisory personnel; and•

Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time.•


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

The instructional strategies and student activities observed in classrooms in Birmingham City Schools are mostly whole-group in nature. Students are most often engaged in seatwork at the secondary level and in whole-group approaches at the elementary level. The elementary students were far more likely to be observed in small group instruction than secondary students, but small group instruction was almost exclusively tied to reading. Differentiation of content and activities was not observed. Curriculum delivery does not refl ect the individualized, personally relevant, hands-on/student-centered, and cognitively challenging instruction that incorporates real life contexts and current technology, as described in board policy and the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards.

Student subgroups across the district are not experiencing similar academic success, nor are the subgroups enrolled in special programs at rates that are proportional with their overall district enrollment. Black male students perform below other subgroups, and students of poverty are equally disadvantaged on the SAT 10. Students from different high schools experience different success on the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. In addition, the district has a high dropout and leave rate. Around 40 percent of any class leaves the district between ninth and twelfth grade. Students do not have equal access to programs, particularly fi ne arts and electives, across the district.


Principals almost all attested to visiting classrooms frequently and informally and being aware of instruction. The new appraisal system ultimately supports monitoring but is not adequate in defi ning how monitoring is to occur and how frequently. Current methods for monitoring curriculum vary widely. There are many different forms and checklists in use in the schools, but there is no specifi c written guidance at the district level

Auditors found a strong commitment to professional development, at the building and system levels, evident in the district. However, Birmingham City Schools’ professional development is fragmented, uneven in quality, and not evaluated for effectiveness in improving instruction and student achievement. System-level efforts are not coordinated with building-based initiatives; the number of trainings and areas of focus increases fragmentation; and there is no centralized control over the goals, purposes, design, differentiation, and results of professional development.

Finding 3.1: Instructional delivery in Birmingham City Schools refl ects neither district nor state expectations for instructional approaches and modes of student engagement. Classroom instruction is dominated by whole-group approaches. The auditors found no defi ned instructional model to guide teacher decisions.

The effectiveness of curriculum delivery is dependent on two key components: the quality of the written curriculum, in that it provides the necessary components for teachers to teach well and focuses and connects the content, and the teachers’ adherence to an instructional model that refl ects the type of strategies and approaches known to be effective in improving student mastery of the desired skills, concepts, knowledge, and vocabulary. Curriculum delivery, however, is a fl uid act that relies on teacher expertise and judgment; teachers must have the freedom to make choices based on data and observation in order to meet students’ academic and affective needs. This freedom occurs within a framework of curriculum objectives that are tightly held—all students are expected to master the same concepts, skills, and knowledge—while allowing for teacher-level decision making and action that is loosely held and in the students’ best interest. An instructional model is defi ned to provide teachers (especially inexperienced teachers) a model of what district leaders know to be effective, but the quality of instruction must ultimately be determined by its results—student achievement—rather than by adherence to the model.

In other words, a strong framework for quality instruction must be in place in the form of an aligned curriculum and defi ned instructional model, but student learning and student needs must be the driving force behind all decisions made, whether administrative or instructional. Much of the decision making for instruction has to be based on solid information that is available frequently enough to be useful, and that is diagnostic in nature. To be diagnostic, an assessment instrument must hone in on specifi c skills and concepts and determine the level to which students have mastered that skill or concept. Teachers can then respond to the gaps in learning that the assessment has identifi ed. Being precise in diagnosing and addressing gaps in student learning is an essential part of making the most of the overall instructional time available; it is simply more effi cient.

To determine the nature of and expectations for curriculum delivery in Birmingham City Schools, the auditors visited classrooms in almost every school in the district where teaching was occurring. Auditors also reviewed policies and documents that had expectations regarding instructional methodology and student engagement and interviewed teachers, principals, and district administrators about the same.

Overall, the auditors found that classroom instruction, while focused on Alabama state standards, is not refl ective of district or state expectations. There is no defi ned model for instruction in the district, and the effectiveness and quality of instruction, as measured by student achievement and dropout rates (see Findings 4.4 and 3.2), are inconsistent, particularly across grade levels.

Although auditors found no clearly defi ned model for instruction in the district, they did fi nd direction for instructional strategies and approaches in board policy and in the new teacher appraisal instrument. Board Policy 7010: Instructional Program outlines the skills and expectations for student engagement that are necessary to meet student needs across the district. The expectations are that each student will:

“…develop a positive attitude toward learning…”; •


“Develop the ability to think creatively and critically, to analyze and formulate sound decisions and to • function effectively in a complex society”;

“be provided opportunities to become computer literate”;•

“develop…skills in the scientifi c method of problem solving and will be encouraged to use this method • in resolving everyday problems”; and

“…develop an understanding and respect for human achievement in the natural and social sciences, the • arts, and the humanities through an interdisciplinary approach to these disciplines” (see also Finding 1.2).

The policy is clear that students are expected to be engaged in problem solving and critical and creative thinking, analysis, and decision making. Another important expectation is competence with technology. While the policy lacks specifi c suggestions concerning the approaches and strategies teachers should use, the EDUCATEAlabama teacher appraisal instrument does provide direction in this area.

The appraisal instrument is based on the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards (AQTS—see Appendix B). These standards include the expectations that teachers:

Make instruction personally relevant to students, incorporating their background knowledge, personal • interests, and experiences and connecting their learning to real-life settings (Standards 1.2 and 1.3).

Modify instruction to meet the individual needs of students, using alternative approaches, materials, • resources, or delivery methods (Standard 1.5).

Engage student interest, by creating a stimulating environment, engaging students’ curiosity, and • involving students in their own academic goal-setting and achievement monitoring. Foster collaboration in problem solving (Standards 2a.3, 2b.2, 2b.3, 3c.1).

Demonstrate high expectations for all learners with individualized pacing and differentiated content • and provide students with opportunities to learn independently and collaboratively (Standards 2b.4 and 4c.2).

Differentiate instruction based on individual student interest, cultural background, skill level, language • profi ciency, special needs, learning styles, and personal interests (Standards 2b.4, 4b, 4c.2, and 4d.2).

Integrate technology into all content areas and facilitate learners’ individual and collaborative use of • technology (Standard 3d).

There is a clear expectation in the AQTS for student-centered, engaging, cognitively challenging, and individualized instruction. Individualized instruction is typifi ed by small group approaches and students working on different assignments and activities based on their individual needs.

Auditors visited hundreds of classrooms during their school visits in Birmingham City Schools. They spent four days making these visits, and they collected observational data concerning the dominant activities, for students and teachers, taking place in each classroom. They also noted the number of computers available for use in each classroom and the number of students using them, as well as the type of technology teachers were utilizing to support their teaching or students’ learning. While it is inappropriate to claim that the observational data collected during auditors’ classroom visits are representative of curriculum delivery over the course of the year, they do offer a snapshot view of what was going on in the majority of classrooms at that point of time. The purpose of presenting these data is not to evaluate teachers; rather, it is to refl ect back to the district what was observed and compare those observations with district expectations for curriculum delivery.


Auditors noted a difference between the dominant teacher and student activities observed in elementary classrooms and secondary classrooms. Therefore, the following exhibits present classroom snapshot data according to grade level: elementary or secondary. Exhibit 3.1.1 describes and defi nes each category used in collecting the snapshot data.

Exhibit 3.1.1

Instructional Activity Classifi cations

Teacher Instructional Behaviors

At Desk Refers to the teacher seated at his/her desk without students, e.g., correcting papers, taking attendance, reading, or doing other paperwork or computer work.

Direct Instruction Refers to the teacher verbally leading the entire class through a learning activity, e.g., lecture, demonstration, overhead projector, or questions and answers.

Small GroupRefers to a teacher working with a group of students that is less than approximately one-fourth of the number of students in the classroom. Examples include reading groups, centers, or tutoring a small group.

AssistingRefers to a teacher working with students in pairs, small lab groups, or individually about specifi c steps or actions the student(s) should use or reviewing student work, not simply providing praise or feedback.

Monitoring Refers to the teacher circulating about the classroom visually monitoring the students as they work.

Other Refers to an instructional activity not included in the classifi cations above, such as reading aloud . Auditors typically note what “other” refers to.

Student Learning Behaviors

Seatwork Refers to students working at their desks doing some type of paper and pencil exercise or prepared worksheet.

Lab/Hands-OnRefers to students actively involved in a laboratory experiment/investigation or problem-solving activities, typically in pairs or small groups, with manipulatives or hands-on opportunities.

Whole GroupRefers to students involved as a whole class in a common activity that could include receiving direct instruction, listening to someone read aloud, watching a movie, listening to a lecture, watching a demonstration, etc.

Small Group

Refers to students working with a group that is less than approximately one-third of the total number of students in the classroom. Examples include reading groups, centers, students in groups trying to solve mathematical or science problems by deciphering information or analyzing data, or the teacher tutoring a small group.

Silent Reading Refers to at least two-thirds of the students in the class reading silently.

A/V Presentation Refers to class as a whole engaged in watching or listening to a video or audio presentation.

Off Task Refers to students off task.


Exhibits 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 present the data from elementary classroom observations, by dominant teacher activity and dominant student activity.

Exhibit 3.1.2

Dominant Teacher Activity Observed: Elementary SchoolsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

At Desk9%

Direct Instruction

43%

Small Group22%

Monitoring14%

Assisting10%

Other/Reading Aloud

2%

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.1.2, the most frequently observed teacher activity in elementary classrooms was direct instruction, which accounted for 43 percent of all classroom observations. Small group instruction was the second-most frequently observed teacher activity. It was the dominant teacher activity in 22 percent of all classroom observed. The most common type of small group instruction was reading group or center work.

Monitoring was the third-most observed teacher activity at 14 percent of all observations, followed by assisting (10 percent) and being seated at his or her desk (nine percent). Just two percent of all observations were of teachers doing other things, such as reading aloud.

Exhibit 3.1.3 displays the dominant student activities observed in classrooms.

Exhibit 3.1.3

Dominant Student Activity Observed: Elementary SchoolsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Seatwork26%

Whole Group46%

Silent Reading/Read

Aloud2%

Lab/Hands-on3%

Small Group20%

AV Presentation

1%

Writing1% Off Task

1%


From Exhibit 3.1.3, it can be seen that students were observed engaged in seatwork in 26 percent of all classroom observations. Whole-group instruction was the dominant student activity in almost half (46 percent) of all classroom observations.

Students were engaged in lab/hands-on and silent reading activities in three and two percent, respectively, of all observations, and were engaged in small group activities in 20 percent of all classrooms observed. Students were off-task, watching/listening to an AV presentation, or engaged in writing activities (journaling, writing an essay or assignment) in three percent of all classrooms observed (one percent of all observations, respectively). The dominance of whole-group student engagement is consistent with the most commonly observed teacher activity, direct instruction.

Teacher working with a group of small group of students at Christian K-8

In the secondary schools, the dominant activities for teachers and students differed from those for elementary schools. Exhibits 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 present these data, again organized by teacher and student dominant activities.

Exhibit 3.1.4

Dominant Teacher Activity Observed: Secondary SchoolsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

At Desk25%

Direct Instruction

39%

Small Group2%

Monitoring25%

Assisting8%

Other/Reading Aloud

1%

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.1.4, teachers were at their desk or monitoring students in one half (25 percent of the observations for each category) of all classrooms observed in secondary schools. Direct instruction was the most commonly-observed teacher activity; teachers were engaged in direct instruction in 39 percent of all


classrooms observed. Teachers were observed assisting students in eight percent of all classrooms visited, working with small groups in two percent of all classrooms, and engaged in other activities in one percent of all classrooms visited.

Exhibit 3.1.5 presents the corresponding data regarding dominant student activity in the classrooms visited.

Exhibit 3.1.5

Dominant Student Activity Observed: Secondary SchoolsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Seatwork38%

Whole group35%

Lab/Hands-on11%

Small Group8%

AV Presentation1%

Testing5%

Off Task2%

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.1.5, students were engaged in seatwork in over one-third (38 percent) of all classrooms visited. The next most frequently observed student activity was whole group in nature, in 35 percent of all classrooms visited. Students were engaged in a lab or hands-on activity in 11 percent of all classrooms visited at the secondary schools, and in small group activities in eight percent of the classrooms. Students were watching or listening to an AV presentation in one percent of the classrooms, taking a test in fi ve percent of the classrooms, and were off task in two percent of the classrooms that auditors visited.

Direct instruction and whole group instruction in elementary classrooms, as well as seatwork in secondary, were the most commonly observed modes of curriculum delivery across the district. In the high schools and middle schools, teachers were observed at their desks as often as they were seen monitoring student work, and more often than they were observed working with small groups, pairs of students, or individuals.

This is not congruent with the expectations for differentiated, individualized instruction described in the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. Differentiated mastery teaching approaches are essential for guiding underperforming students. It is also incongruent with the district expectation that students “develop...skills in the scientifi c method of problem solving and will be encouraged to use this method in resolving everyday problems,” and “Develop the ability to think creatively and critically, to analyze and formulate sound decisions.” Critical thinking involves discussions, small group and pair work, and active learning scenarios as well as critical writing activities. Students that were observed doing seatwork were most frequently observed working on textbook activities or in workbooks. Problem-solving using the scientifi c method involves hands-on, real-life experimentation and observation. Hands-on, lab-type activities comprised 11 percent of all the student activities observed in the secondary schools and three percent of all the student activities observed in the elementary schools. Small group work represented only eight percent of the student activities observed.


Without analyzing the content of the textbooks and workbooks for cognitive type, it is impossible to determine the cognitive rigor of seatwork activities, but such engagement is not individualized, nor is it responsive to students’ unique personal experiences, backgrounds, and interests. Such work has all students working on the same objectives for the same amount of time with no modifi cations for special needs or learning styles. This does not align with district or AQTS expectations.

Small group instruction was observed in about one-fourth of all elementary classrooms visited. This was most frequently observed in classrooms where reading instruction was occurring. When students were working in small groups with the teachers, the rest of the students were most often engaged in center activities, writing activities (journaling), or worksheets/coloring activities. Typically, all students were observed working on the same material or content with little or no differentiation observed.

Students doing seatwork at Powderly Elementary

During interviews with principals, teachers, and district administrators, auditors heard comments that attested to the need for differentiated, individualized instruction across the district.

“It’s coming—it’s slow. It’s a cultural issue [individualizing instruction].” (District Administrator)•

“Differentiation, that is one of the challenges. It’s a challenge for the high school and middle school. • There is always someone else who can handle the students who aren’t quite up to average.” (District Administrator)

“We have a lot of special needs, which calls for a lot of differentiated instruction to meet their needs [in • reading].” (Principal)

Need? “Differentiated instruction. I think some of [the teachers] really don’t know what that looks • like.” (Principal)

“Maybe half [of all teachers] really get it, data-driven instruction, differentiation.” (Principal)•

“[Teachers’] accommodations are just superfi cial. Still, there’s no individualization, looking at this • kid’s disability and how it’s affecting him. Nobody takes that seriously.” (District Administrator)

“We have to make sure everyone gets the best treatment.” (Principal)•

“All but about three percent of special education students [could be served in regular classrooms • with true, individualized instruction]. The rest of them could be served in the neighborhood school.” (District Administrator)

“Special ed. should…be specially designed instruction that helps this kid. There is not enough of that. • That has bothered me.” (District Administrator)


There were also several comments regarding the need to improve instruction, add rigor, and raise expectations for students. One administrator said, “[Teachers] are telling me we can’t teach the kids the basic, fundamental skills to be in society. If we can’t, this is just a place where we keep folks. [Teachers] all are just some highly paid babysitters.” Other comments about the need to improve instruction and increase pacing and rigor included the following:

“[We need] high expectations, setting the standard, demanding everybody rise to it, and holding • everyone accountable—students AND teachers.” (Principal)

“You can’t keep teaching the way you’ve always taught and expect students to learn the same.” • (Principal)

“We’ve got to change the way we do instruction.” (Principal)•

“Fifty (50) percent of the staff needs to be moved from lectures as an instructional delivery method. We • need to change the culture.” (Principal)

“For some of the teachers there is a belief that the kids can’t do it because of socioeconomic situations.” • (District Administrator)

“I want teachers to teach with a sense of urgency…as though [the children’s] success is a refl ection on • [the teacher].” (Principal)

“The teachers at high school—the pacing is too slow. The pacing should be higher and they should be • moving the kids faster. There should be higher level, critical thinking—it shouldn’t be drill and kill.” (District Administrator)

“There are four [teachers] I’m working with on teaching practices, [to] change the focus from ‘teacher • to child’ to ‘child to teacher.’” (Principal)

“As I go into some classrooms and see what some of the activities are going on, they could be enhanced.” • (District Administrator)”

“[Rigor] varies; in some schools, some classrooms, you see some really great things going on. In • others, there are weaknesses there.” (District Administrator)

“I think [the curriculum is] weak in some areas. We need to look at the rigor.” (District • Administrator)

Instructional quality? “I think there is room for improvement. It’s changing everybody’s mindset.” • (Principal)

“Teaching quality is a huge barrier for me.” (District Administrator)•

“In order to have rigor, teachers will need to change their skill set.” (District Administrator)•

“I like to see if the student is engaged in a meaningful activity.” (Principal)•

“We have the pre-AP track, we have career-tech, and we have dropouts. There’s no effort in our high • schools to OWN our children.” (CAO)

Several comments were also made regarding small group instruction, suggesting that it needs to increase across the district. Whole group instruction was mentioned as being ineffective. These comments included:

“We encourage teachers to pull small groups.” (District Administrator)•

“Many of them [teachers] work with small groups.” (District Administrator) •

“We try to give them strategies for working with struggling learners. We’re trying to reduce the amount • of pull out.” (District Administrator)

“We want small group instruction.” (District Administrator)•

“The best way is not the whole group, so we are told.” (Principal)•


“With students who are struggling, I want to see teachers teaching them directly within a small group—• in all content areas, not just reading.” (District Administrator)

Other administrators mentioned the shortcomings inherent in the standards, materials, and resources teachers rely on to guide instruction (see also Finding 2.3), which are perceived as impeding rigor. Comments included the following:

“On a daily basis, [teachers] rely on the basal.” (District Administrator) •

“Alabama standards are broad, ambiguous, and low level. If teachers only followed the Alabama • standards our children would still be behind.” (District Administrator)

“We believe heavily in [Alabama] in textbooks.” (District Administrator)•

“In order to have really rigorous instruction, you are not going to fi nd it in a box. I have to help them • understand that. Especially in the intermediate grades.” (District Administrator)

“I think that every child should be educated to master the curriculum to the extent that child can—I • think the state requirement is low; I see little reason that every child can’t achieve that [within reason].” (District Administrator)

“Some of the textbooks don’t teach things the way they are tested, so we have put together documents • to help [teachers].” (District Administrator)

There were other comments regarding the nature of content addressed in many classrooms, particularly at the secondary level. Principals and administrators attested to the lack of personal connection or academic success students experience in their classes, which contributes to discipline problems or the dropout rate (see also Finding 3.2).

“What’s going on in that classroom has no connection with them—that’s why they cut.” (District • Administrator)

“In your classes, if your activity is something [students] can relate to, that would eliminate some of the • [behavior] problems.” (Principal)

“At least 50 percent of behavior/discipline problems could best be addressed in the classroom.” • (Principal)

“Most of the students having learning problems are having behavior problems as well.” (Principal)•

“Discipline is more about kids who struggle academically.” (Principal)•

In summary, the nature of instruction and student engagement that auditors observed in classrooms did not refl ect the expectations described in board policy and the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. Secondary student activities were mostly seatwork or whole group instruction, and elementary students were mostly involved in whole group instruction. Small group instruction comprised about 25 percent of all classroom observations at the elementary schools. Little or no differentiation was observed in classrooms; most students within a class were involved in the same activities and were being taught the same objectives.

The district has no instructional model defi ned for teachers to describe expectations for curriculum delivery. While policy and state documents state expectations for strategies and student engagement, there are no expectations concerning how teachers are to use data from diagnostic assessments to group students and plan instruction. In addition, the current curriculum is not specifi c enough to support teachers in determining when students have achieved mastery at an appropriate level (see Findings 2.3 and 2.4).


Technology Integration

An important district expectation is that technology be integrated into classroom instruction and that students develop competence with technology, as a tool and to support their learning. Auditors recorded any instance where technology was observed being used as a resource by the teacher, or by the student.

There was great variation among schools in the type and availability of technology resources (see Finding 3.2). In classrooms where the technology refresh has occurred, auditors observed smart boards, computer projectors, document cameras, and 3-4 computer stations in place. Classrooms that have not yet been refreshed had perhaps 2-4 computer stations, but these were often out of date or non-functioning.

Auditors found that document cameras and smart boards were the most commonly used technology resources by teachers. Smart boards were also observed being used with students, interactively, in a few classes, and computer projectors were observed being used in a few classes as well (for PowerPoint presentations). Overall, the computers in the classrooms were seen to be used the least frequently.

The auditors observed over 2,000 computers in the classrooms they visited. Of these computers, just over 12 percent (250) were being used by students at the time of the site visit. Auditors most frequently observed students using the computers in elementary schools during reading instruction, when students were doing center work. Computer labs were also visited during auditor walk-throughs, and these were most often in use. There were a number of Read 180 labs that auditors visited, as well, each with at least seven computers. These were almost all in use at the time of the school visits.

Overall, auditors found an emerging use of technology in some buildings, especially those that have been updated with new smart boards, document cameras, and computer projectors. Laptop carts were also observed in a few classrooms. However, in the majority of classrooms in Birmingham City Schools, technology is not consistently used to support classroom instruction by the teacher, and even less was it observed being used by students in conjunction with student activities, with the exception of computer labs. This is not refl ective of the district expectation that students acquire competence in using the latest technology.

Interviews with building principals and administrators confi rmed the fi nding that technology is not yet effectively integrated into instruction:

“Technology is a large frustration here, and it has been for a number of years.” (District Administrator) •

“You are not going to see a lot of usage [of technology in classrooms]. Some of your schools will have • more new technology than others, but I still see those who have promethium boards and they are using them as white boards.” (District Administrator)

“I see a lot of, ‘If you are good, you get to use the computer. You aren’t going to get to use the computer • if you’re not quiet.’” (District Administrator)

“But 21• st century learning—we are just not addressing it. I don’t see our kids using web 2.0 tools on a daily or some type of consistent basis.” (District Administrator)

“With the exception of Career Technology, computer use in the classroom is a problem. Technology is • limited here because of a lack of funding, but things are improving.” (Principal)

Other comments addressed the inadequacy of the infrastructure, particularly since the refresh is not yet complete. These comments included:

“Our system is down a lot, district-wide.” (Principal)•

“Building technology infrastructure is a problem; the computer network goes down frequently. • Maintenance support is improving but does not fully support the mission.” (Principal)

Others attested to the need for more training in how to use technology in a content-integrated fashion:

“Another weakness is that technology training is an ‘add-on.’ We offer professional development, but • we offer it outside of context. Really, if we are doing training, we should be doing it in context, like in English/language arts.” (District Administrator)


Summary

The instructional strategies and student activities observed in classrooms in Birmingham City Schools are mostly whole-group in nature. Students are most often engaged in seatwork at the secondary level, and in whole-group approaches at the elementary level. The elementary students were far more likely to be observed in small group instruction (20 percent of classrooms observed) than secondary students, but small group instruction was almost exclusively tied to reading. Differentiation of content and activities was not observed. Curriculum delivery does not refl ect individualized, personally relevant, hands-on/student-centered, and cognitively challenging instruction that incorporates real life contexts and current technology, as described in board policy and the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. The auditors found no direction in policy or district documents concerning an instructional model that outlines a process for planning individualized instruction based on diagnostic achievement data (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 3.2: Achievement gaps among student subgroups have remained consistent over time. Secondary students are not served with equal effectiveness at all high schools, and based on current trends over one-third of secondary students are expected to leave the system between ninth and twelfth grade. Students do not have equal access to programs and resources across the district.

The concept of equity is distinguished from equality in an important way. Equality refers to treating people the exact same way, or impartially, while equity refers to a state of fairness that may actually require inequalities. For example, under a state of equality, children with greater needs receive the same as children with fewer needs—they are treated equally. But under a state of equity, students with greater needs receive greater attention and resources, to make up the difference with the children who began with more. Equity is the more relevant and important aspect of educational success in effective school systems. These school systems recognize that if students are all treated the same, regardless of their individual challenges and needs, they are actually denying some of those children the opportunity to succeed. To provide children with equal opportunities in a spirit of equity may in fact mean that resources and attention must be divided unequally.

Auditors look at equity and equality within school systems because the primary focus in schools is student learning. Not all students come to school equally equipped or prepared to learn; hence, it is up to schools to remedy these disparities. Failing to do so results in an inability to effectively educate all students. The test of a truly effective, quality school system is one that is successful with all its students, even those considered at-risk.

To determine whether or not the standard of equity had been met, the auditors examined board policy and administrative regulations, plans, curriculum documents, and other documents in the district. Auditors also conducted interviews with teachers, principals, administrators, and board members and visited all schools in the district.

The auditors found inadequate direction in policy and district documents for equity. Although there is not a great deal of ethnic diversity across the district, there is economic diversity. Students of poverty do not perform as well as other children across the district, nor are males achieving as well as females on multiple assessments. Secondary students are not served as effectively as elementary and middle school students in Birmingham City Schools. Secondary students are far more likely to leave or dropout, at a rate that exceeds 40 percent over the four years of high school. In addition, not all students have equal access to courses that make up the educational program.

There is some direction in board policy concerning equity and equality. Board Policy 5010: Equity addresses the distribution of goods and services throughout the system, stating that it should be accomplished with “due consideration to demonstrated need and in all other respects based upon the principles and equal treatment of staff, pupils, schools and communities.” While the policy states that resources should be administered according to demonstrated need, it then states that in other respects, distribution should be equal. There is no specifi city to guide how goods and services are to be allocated equitably, and the standard of equality may in fact work against equity without needed guidelines. Regarding the distribution of educational resources, Board Policy 7100: Instructional Resources does require that they shall be “distributed across the district on an equitable basis.”


Board Policy 7000: Instructional Philosophy also addresses equity in learning. It requires that the “instructional program and environment…will foster the maximum development of the individual child….Learning experiences will vary according to individual needs while providing all students with a basic body of knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and skills necessary for a full and productive life.” This policy does require equity in directing that learning experiences vary according to individual needs, and other policies require equal access to learning and courses by all students.

Board Policy 7034: Equal Opportunity in Course Selection requires that “Each qualifi ed student, regardless of sex, race, religion or national origin will have an equal opportunity to enroll in any course offered in the school system.” Although these policies do address equity to a degree, there is little specifi city regarding how the district will monitor equity and equal access for students across the district; how district administrators will determine equity in goods and services allocation, as well as in resource allocations; and how success in attaining equity will be measured (see also Finding 1.2).

The auditors present the equity data in three categories. The fi rst is student subgroup performance on tests. The second category is secondary students’ leave rate, and the third category for equity is student access to and enrollment in courses in Birmingham City Schools.

Student Subgroup Performance on Tests

Auditors fi rst looked at how student subgroups perform on different tests. For this analysis, the tests examined included the ACT, AP exams, the Alabama High School Graduation Exam, and the Stanford Achievement Test 10th Edition (SAT-10).

ACT Performance

The auditors examined ACT performance by student subgroup. Overall, student performance on the ACT is below state average, and only a limited percentage of students actually take the exam. Just over 800 students took the ACT in 2010, which represents less than one-half of the junior class. Exhibit 3.2.1 presents the average ACT scores on all subtests for district students compared to the average ACT composite scores and the ACT benchmark scores on all subtests for Alabama students. The ACT benchmark score for each subtest is the “minimum score needed on an ACT subject-area test to indicate a 50 percent chance of receiving a B or higher, or about a 75 percent chance of obtaining a C or higher in the corresponding credit-bearing college course.”

Exhibit 3.2.1

Student Performance on ACT Compared with State and ACT BenchmarksBirmingham City Schools

2010

16.3 16.6 17.1 17.6 17

20.419.5

20.7 20.2 20.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

English Math Reading Science Composite

BCS

State

ACT Benchmark


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.1, Birmingham City students perform below the state average on all ACT subtests, as well as on the composite of the subtest scores. Birmingham City Schools and Alabama students’ performance fell short of the ACT benchmarks in all content areas except English, when the state score exceeded the benchmark.

The auditors then examined Birmingham students’ performance by ethnic and gender subgroups Ethnic subgroup data are presented in Exhibit 3.2.2.

Exhibit 3.2.2

ACT Performance by Ethnic SubgroupBirmingham City Schools

2010

16.9

13

18

20.319

17.1

20.621.7

2020.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

Afr

ican

A

mer

ican

/Bla

ck

Am

eric

an

Indi

an/A

K

Nat

ive

Whi

te

His

pani

c

Oth

er

BCS

State

Exhibit 3.2.2 shows that Birmingham student subgroups all performed below these same subgroups at the state level. When compared against themselves, however, the following can be seen:

African American students performed just under the district average (by .1 point). •

American Indian students performed four points below the district composite score, on average.•

White students performed better than the district average composite score by one point.•

Hispanic students in Birmingham have the highest composite ACT score, 20.3, which exceeds the • district average by over three points.

Students classifi ed as “other” (multiracial or failed to respond) outperformed the district average • composite score by two points.


Auditors then compared student ACT performance across gender groups. The results are displayed in Exhibit 3.2.3:

Exhibit 3.2.3

Student Performance on ACT by GenderBirmingham City Schools

2010

16

16.7 16.7

17.5

16.8

16.5 16.5

17.417.6

17.1

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

English Mathematics Reading Science Composite

Males

Females

Data from ACT Profi le Report, 2010 graduating class

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.3, females perform better than males on all subtests except mathematics, in which males outperform females by .2 points. The difference in scores with all subgroups is less than one-half of a point. It should also be noted that over 60 percent of all the students taking the ACT are female and 39 percent are male.

Auditors then examined ACT performance by school. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if schools’ performance on the ACT varied and if this variance correlated in any way with their corresponding level of poverty. Most of the high schools have similar percentages of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches1, with a few notable exceptions. These data are presented in Exhibit 3.2.4.

Exhibit 3.2.4

ACT Composite Scores by High SchoolBirmingham City Schools

2009-10

Huffman Woodlawn Ramsay Wenonah G. Washington Carver

16.8 15.3 21.316.5 16.6

66.1

86.3

54.1

81.2 88.7

Composite ACT score F/R lunch %

Data from ACT Profi le Report, 2010 graduating class

1 Auditors did not receive reliable data concerning F/R Price meal percentages. These percentages were calculated using Fall 2010 attendance review data from the Alabama State Department of Education. AYP data were not yet available for the 2009-10 school year on the district website.


The comparison in Exhibit 3.2.4 is complicated by the different nature of the numbers presented. Free/reduced lunch numbers on the x-axis represent percentages. The ACT scores are a number (from a scale of 0-30). As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.4, students at Ramsay, the school with the lowest percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price meals (the federal indicator of poverty) had the highest composite AP scores. In the other high schools for which ACT composite scores were available,2 Woodlawn had the lowest ACT composite score and had the second-highest free/reduced-lunch percentage, and George Washington Carver High School had the highest free/reduced-lunch percentage and the third-lowest ACT composite score.

On the ACT, students of poverty do not perform as well as students who are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

AP Examinations

AP examinations are voluntary. Less than 300 students take the AP exam in a given year. This comprises less than 10 percent of all eleventh and twelfth graders across the district, and less than six percent of all tenth to twelfth graders. Of the students who do take the exam, very few actually pass with a score of three or higher (the score required to received college credit for the course). Females participate in AP exams at a rate more than twice that of males. Auditors looked at score distributions for 2008 and 2009. Auditors did not receive AP data disaggregated by ethnic subgroup and gender for 2010. Exhibit 3.2.5 presents the number of students taking the tests from each ethnic subgroup and by gender for both years.

Exhibit 3.2.5

Number of Students Taking AP Exams from Student SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

2008 2009Males 66 77Females 157 204Total 223 281African Am. 211 261American Indian 1 1Hispanic 5 2White 3 7Not stated/Other 3 10

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.5, the majority of students taking the AP exams are African American/Black and female. Overall, less than fi ve percent of all students in grades 10-12 take the exams.

Auditors typically compare performance across student ethnic subgroups. However, given the small numbers represented by all ethnic groups other than African American/Black, auditors are presenting these data with great caution. Because of the signifi cant difference in size of subgroups, it cannot be said that differences in performance would remain consistent if subgroup sizes were similar.

2ACT scores were not provided for P.D. Jackson-Olin and A.H. Parker High Schools.


Exhibit 3.2.6 presents the mean AP score for all AP exams taken in the district for 2008 and 2009, by student subgroup.

Exhibit 3.2.6

Mean AP Performance by Student SubgroupBirmingham City Schools

2008-09

2008 2009Males 1.5 1.8Females 1.6 1.8African American/Black 1.6 1.8Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native 1.0 2.0Hispanic 1.6 1.5White 1.7 2.7Not stated/Other 1.3 1.5

As displayed in Exhibit 3.2.6, there is disparity among student subgroups in their AP performance.

Except for Hispanic students, all student groups scored higher in 2009 than in 2008. •

For both years, White students were the highest-performing subgroup, scoring almost a full point higher • than African American students (the largest subgroup). The difference was not as marked in 2008; White students scored only .1 points higher than African American students.

Males scored slightly higher than females in 2009, but slightly behind females in 2008. •

It should also be noted that these scores represent the total mean AP score for these student subgroups and include all AP exams. There is a difference among campuses in what AP courses, and therefore exams, are available. This is discussed in the section on access to programs, later in this fi nding.

In summary, these data suggest that certain subgroups are not performing as well on AP exams as other ethnic subgroups. The AP program is not serving all students successfully; the majority of students tested do not score at adequate levels, as defi ned by the College Board, to receive college credit.

Alabama High School Graduation Exam

Auditors then analyzed Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) scores. These data were available for every high school. Auditors looked at eleventh grade data for all high schools, comparing each school’s student subgroup performance, based on the percentage of students taking the test who are eligible for free/reduced-price lunch.

To best interpret the data presented, it is helpful to see the percentage of students at each high school who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The auditors did not have the most up-to-date percentages (2009-10) from the Alabama Department of Education website. For this exhibit, they used the data reported in the AHSGE accountability reporting document (provided by the district). Exhibit 3.2.7 presents these data:


Exhibit 3.2.7

Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price MealsBirmingham City Schools

2009-10

High School Percentage of Students Eligible for F/R Price Lunch

Woodlawn High School 91.4G. W. Carver High School 88.1A.H. Parker High School 83.9P.D. Jackson-Olin High School 79.1Wenonah High School 76.0Huffman High School 64.7Ramsay High School 53.9

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.7, the percentages of students who are considered to be in poverty range from 53.9 percent at Ramsay to over 90 percent (91.4 percent) at Woodlawn.

The data for AHSGE reading performance, by high school, are presented in Exhibit 3.2.8. The exhibit displays the percentage of students from each subgroup who score at Levels I & II (these levels are considered not profi cient or partially profi cient but do not pass).

Exhibit 3.2.8

AHSGE Performance by High School at Levels I & II by Percent in Reading for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups

Birmingham City Schools2009-10

14.3

11.1

25.0

19.0

4.0

20.9

0.0

11.5

23.0 23.3

35.2

4.4

42.5

1.205

1015202530354045

Woo

dlaw

n

G. W

. Car

ver

A.H

. Par

ker

P.D

. Jac

kson

-Olin

Wen

onah

Huf

fman

Ram

say

Perc

enta

ge

Non-poverty Poverty

The auditors found that students of poverty do not fare equally well at all high schools. The following is evident in Exhibit 3.2.8:

Over 40 percent of students of poverty at Huffman High School do not pass the AHSGE in reading, and • just over 20 percent of students who are non-poverty fail to pass the AHSGE.

Ramsay High School has the lowest percentage of students, poverty or non-poverty, who fail the AHSGE • in the district. Slightly higher numbers of poverty students than non-poverty students at Ramsay do not pass.


Students of poverty are almost twice as likely to fail than students who are non-poverty at Carver, • Jackson-Olin, and Huffman High Schools.

There is very little difference between students of poverty and students who are non-poverty in the • percentage who do not pass the AHSGE at Woodlawn, Parker, Wenonah, and Ramsay High Schools. It is notable that Woodlawn, Carver, and Parker high schools have the highest percentage of students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.

Exhibit 3.2.9 presents the percentage of students at each high school, whether in poverty or non-poverty, who attain a level III or IV on the AHSGE. Level III represents the minimum level of profi ciency needed to graduate or pass the exam, and Level IV exceeds profi ciency.

Exhibit 3.2.9

AHSGE Performance by High School at Level III or IV by Percent in Reading for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups


88.5

77.076.8

64.9

95.5

57.5

98.9

76.5

85.7

88.9

75.0

81.0

96.0

79.1

100.0

87.1

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Woo

dlaw

n

G. W

. Car

ver

A.H

. Par

ker

P.D

. Jac

kson

-Olin

Wen

onah

Huf

fman

Ram

say

Dis

trict

Perc

enta

ge

Poverty Non-Poverty

The following can be seen from Exhibit 3.2.9:

Students in poverty perform inconsistently across schools. At Ramsay, 98.9 percent of all students of • poverty score a Level III on the AHSGE. One hundred percent of non-poverty students score at the same profi ciency level.

The lowest percentage of students in poverty score at Level III or higher on the AHSGE at Huffman • High School, at 57.5 percent. A higher percentage of non-poverty students score at Level III or higher, but this is the second-lowest percentage of non-poverty students that score at Level III.

The lowest percentage of non-poverty students scoring at Level III or higher occurs at A.H. Parker High • School.

Higher percentages of non-poverty students attain a Level III or higher on the AHSGEE at every high • school expect for Woodlawn and A.H. Parker, where a higher percentage of students in poverty attain a Level III or higher than the percentage of non-poverty students.

Wenonah had almost identical percentages of poverty and non-poverty students attaining a Level III or • IV on the AHSGE.


The greatest disparity between poverty and non-poverty students, in terms of the percentage of students • achieving a Level III or higher on the AHSGE, exists at Huffman and Jackson-Olin High Schools, followed by Carver.

The auditor concluded that students of poverty are not equitably served at all campuses, after examining Alabama High School Graduation Exam performance in reading, by school.

The auditors then looked at mathematics performance on the AHSGE by high school. These comparisons are presented in Exhibits 3.2.10 and 3.2.11. Exhibit 3.2.10 displays the percentage of students, poverty or non-poverty, who score at Levels I & II on the AHSGE.

Exhibit 3.2.10

AHSGE Performance by High School at Level I or II by Percent in Math for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups


25.324.3

13.0

23.1

3.8

34.9

4.1

19.8

7.1

25.0

7.4

17.5

2.0

22.0

1.2

13.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Woo

dlaw

n

G. W

. Car

ver

A.H

. Par

ker

P.D

. Jac

kson

-Olin

Wen

onah

Huf

fman

Ram

say

Dis

trict

Perc

enta

ge

Poverty Non-poverty

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.10:

Students in poverty are more likely to not pass the AHSGE at all high schools except for Carver, • although the percentages of students not passing the AHSGE in math at Carver are the highest for non-poverty students and third-highest for poverty students.

At Huffman High School, almost 35 percent of students in poverty do not pass the AHSGE. Twenty-• two (22) percent of the non-poverty students do not pass, the second-highest percentage in the district.

Wenonah and Ramsay have the lowest percentages of students who score at Levels I and II on • the mathematics portion of the AHSGE. Like Huffman, they have the lowest percentage of low socioeconomic status students in the district (determined by eligibility to receive free or reduced-price meals).

At Woodlawn High School, students in poverty are almost four times as likely as non-poverty students • to score at Level I or II on the AHSGE in mathematics. This high school has the highest discrepancy in performance at Levels I and II compared to other high schools in Birmingham.

As with reading, students of poverty have higher rates of failure on the AHSGE.•


Exhibit 3.2.11 presents the percentage of students who score at Levels III & IV, which represent meeting or exceeding requirements.

Exhibit 3.2.11

AHSGE Performance by High School at Level III & IV by Percent in Math for Poverty/Non-Poverty Subgroups


74.7

75.887.1

76.9

96.2

65.1

98.8

80.2

92.9

75.0

92.6

82.5

98.0

78.0

95.9

87.0

50556065707580859095

100

Woo

dlaw

n

G. W

. Car

ver

A.H

. Par

ker

P.D

. Jac

kson

-Olin

Wen

onah

Huf

fman

Ram

say

Dis

trict

Perc

enta

ge

Poverty Non-poverty

From Exhibit 3.2.11, it can be seen that:

Non-poverty students are more likely to pass with a Level III or IV than poverty students at all high • schools except Ramsay and Carver. At Ramsay, a very high percentage of both groups of students score at passing levels, while at Carver, relatively low percentages of both groups of students score at passing levels when compared with other schools.

The differences in the percentages of poverty vs. non-poverty students passing the AHSGE are minimal • at Carver, Wenonah, and Ramsay.

Wenonah and Ramsay High Schools have the highest percentages of students who pass the AHSGE, • whether poverty or non-poverty.

Huffman and Carver have the lowest percentages of students who pass the AHSGE, whether poverty • or non-poverty, and Woodlawn has the second-lowest percentage of poverty students who pass the AHSGE.

Overall, the auditors found that high schools do not serve students of poverty and non-poverty effectively. Students who attend certain high schools are far more likely to successfully pass the AHSGE, regardless of their poverty status. Students of poverty are less likely to pass the AHSGE at other schools.


Stanford Achievement Test 10

Auditors then examined test data for the last fi ve years for the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT 10). The Stanford Achievement Test is a norm-referenced assessment that is administered to grades 3-8 in core content areas. For this analysis, the auditors examined reading and mathematics scores to determine whether any gaps in achievement among student subgroups exist. Auditors looked at grades 3, 5, and 8 to see if possible disparities would be evident at multiple levels, or if perhaps any disparities among subgroups at early grade levels are eradicated or narrowed over time.

The fi rst set of exhibits presents SAT 10 reading data, disaggregated by gender. Exhibit 3.2.12 displays third grade scores for the last fi ve years for both subgroups, as well as the district mean percentile. All scores represent nationally normed percentile rankings.

Exhibit 3.2.12

Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

29 28 2730

37

41 4037

42

47

34 3431

3642

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District


Third grade males have performed below females for the last fi ve years on SAT 10 reading. •

Males have scored, on average, 10-12 percentile points behind females from 2005-2010 on the third • grade SAT 10 reading test.

Scores have improved for both gender subgroups in the last three years, but no consistent trend in • narrowing the gap is apparent (see also Finding 4.4).


Exhibit 3.2.13 displays SAT 10 reading data by gender subgroups for fi fth grade students.

Exhibit 3.2.13

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

29 28

3335

37

41 40

4650

48

34 34

39 42 43

05

10152025303540455055

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District


Females continued to score between 11 and 15 percentile points above males on the fi fth grade SAT 10 • reading test over the last fi ve years.

No clear trend in maintaining, widening, or narrowing the gap was apparent.•

Scores have improved slightly over the last four years, although this trend was not consistent for • females.

Exhibit 3.2.14 presents similar data from SAT 10 reading scores by gender subgroup for eighth grade students, 2005-2010.

Exhibit 3.2.14

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

3032

30 3034

39 39 40 39

44

34 35 35 3539

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District


Exhibit 3.2.14 displays the following:

As in prior grades, females have consistently attained higher percentile rankings than males over the • last fi ve years.

The gap among gender subgroups ranges from seven percentile points in 2006-07 to 10 percentile • points in 2007-08 and 2009-10.

No consistent trend toward narrowing the gap was noted; the gap that was apparent at third grade • remains apparent at eighth grade.

In reading, males have consistently performed below females on the SAT 10 over the last fi ve years. • The auditors saw no evidence of the gap narrowing consistently over time.

The next exhibits present the same SAT 10 reading achievement data by ethnic subgroup. Auditors look at differences in achievement among ethnic subgroups to see if any groups are not performing as well as others across the district.

For these three exhibits, it is important to interpret the data with caution. Each subgroup, unlike gender and poverty subgroups, differs greatly in size from the others. Black/African American students represent at every year over 96 percent of the entire student population tested. White students account for between <1 percent to 1.5 percent of all the students tested, and Hispanic students represent between 1.5 - 2.5 percent of all students tested. Remembering the difference in sizes across subgroups, the following data can be evaluated. Exhibit 3.2.15 presents third grade SAT 10 reading data from 2005-2010.

Exhibit 3.2.15

Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

34

3331

36 41

2129 28

31

38

4953

42

55

61

34

31

36

42

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.15, there is considerable discrepancy in student achievement by ethnic subgroup. Black students, who comprise over 96 percent of all students tested, score at or slightly below the district average each year. White students score consistently higher than other ethnic subgroups, and Hispanic students consistently score below the district average.


Gaps among ethnic subgroups show no consistent trend, either in narrowing or in widening, over the fi ve years displayed. Exhibit 3.2.16 shows similar SAT 10 reading data, but for fi fth grade students for 2005-2010.

Exhibit 3.2.16

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

41

4238

4243

30 34

4136

40

5255 56

64

4442

3942

43

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District

From Exhibit 3.2.16, it can be seen that:

White students, with the exception of the 2009-10 school year, outperform other ethnic subgroups on • the SAT 10 reading test.

Hispanic student performance shows no clear trend; the students score both below and above the district • average over the fi ve-year period.

The gap among ethnic subgroups shows no clear trend in widening or narrowing over the fi ve years • presented. Over the fi rst four years, the gap between White students and Black students widened by 11 percentile points, but then was completely eradicated in 2009-10. Additional data are needed to determine whether this performance will hold constant.

No improvement in the gaps among student subgroups was apparent from third grade to fi fth grade.•


Exhibit 3.2.17 presents the eighth grade data by ethnic subgroups.

Exhibit 3.2.17

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

34 35

35 35 3935

21

3532

29

6460

5554

54

3535 35

39

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District

Exhibit 3.2.17 displays the following information:

Hispanic students’ performance over the last fi ve years has shown no clear trend. They have typically • scored at or below the district average.

White students have consistently scored above other ethnic subgroups, but the gap has narrowed over • the last fi ve years, from 30 points in 2005-06 to 15 points in 2009-10.

The gap among ethnic subgroups’ SAT 10 reading performance at eighth grade is greater than at the • third and fi fth grade levels, indicating a failure to make gains in narrowing the gap over time across the district.

Exhibits 3.2.18 through 3.2.20 present SAT 10 reading data by poverty subgroup for 2005-2010. Exhibit 3.2.18 displays the third grade data.

Exhibit 3.2.18

Third Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

32 3229

34

40

48 48 4749

56

34 3431

36

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.18, non-poverty students have consistently scored higher than poverty students for the last fi ve years on the SAT 10 reading test at third grade. The gap remains at or above 15 percentile points each year and shows no sign of narrowing. Although scores show an upward trend in recent years, improvement has remained equal for both groups, so the gap has not been narrowed.

Exhibit 3.2.19 displays the same SAT 10 reading data for 2005-2010, but for fi fth grade students.

Exhibit 3.2.19

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

39 3935

39 40

54

61 60 61 61

41 4239 42 43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District

In Exhibit 3.2.19, it can be seen that poverty students have consistently scored below non-poverty students on the fi fth grade SAT 10 reading test over the last fi ve years. The gap between the two groups has ranged from 15 points in 2005-06 to a high of 25 percentile points in 2007-08. Last year, the gap was 21 percentile points and shows no sign of narrowing.

Exhibit 3.2.20 displays the eighth grade SAT 10 reading data:

Exhibit 3.2.20

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Reading Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

32 33 33 3336

44 4649 48

56

34 35 35 3539

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District

Exhibit 3.2.20 shows, as with third and fi fth grades, that non-poverty students have consistently scored above poverty students over the last fi ve years on the eighth grade SAT 10 reading test. The gap has widened over time; it was 12 percentile points in 2005-06 and increased to 20 percentile points in 2009-10.


Students of poverty do not achieve as well as non-poverty students in the Birmingham City Schools. The gap between poverty and non-poverty students has not decreased, nor has it shown any signs of decreasing over the last fi ve years.

The next nine exhibits present similar SAT 10 data by student subgroup, this time for mathematics achievement from 2005-2010. The fi rst three exhibits present the data for gender subgroups. Exhibit 3.2.21 presents third grade data for SAT 10 mathematics.

Exhibit 3.2.21

Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

2932

2731

35

4042

3739

45

3437

3235

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.21, males have consistently scored below females on the SAT 10 mathematics test. The gap ranges from 11 points in 2005-06 to eight points in 2008-09, but remains around 10 percentile points. There is no noticeable narrowing of the SAT 10 gender achievement gap over time.

Exhibit 3.2.22 presents the fi fth grade SAT 10 mathematics data for 2005-2010.

Exhibit 3.2.22

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

40 4137 38

41

49 48 48 47 4745 44 42 43 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.22, females consistently outperform males on the SAT 10 mathematics test in fi fth grade, although the gap between the two groups narrows somewhat over time, from nine percentile points in


2005-06 to six percentile points in 2009-10. However, it would appear that the gap narrows more as a function of females’ scores decreasing over time, rather than through improvement of males’ scores.

Exhibit 3.2.23 presents the eighth grade SAT 10 mathematics data for 2005-2010.

Exhibit 3.2.23

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Gender SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

3432

3436

4238

3438

41

47

36 3336 38

44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Male

Female

District

It can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.23 that the gap between males and females on the SAT 10 mathematics test at eighth grade is consistently less than the gap at third and fi fth grades. Females continue to attain higher scores than males. The gap at eighth grade remains around fi ve percentile points, although the gap has increased slightly over the fi ve years presented.

Auditors next looked at differences in mathematics achievement among ethnic subgroups to see if any groups are not performing as well as others across the district.

For these three exhibits, it is important to interpret the data with caution. Each subgroup, unlike gender and poverty subgroups, differs greatly in size from the others. Black/African American students represent at every year over 96 percent of the entire student population tested; White students account for between <1 percent to 1.5 percent of all the students tested; and Hispanic students represent between 1.5 - 2.5 percent of all students tested. The difference in sizes across subgroups should be kept in mind while evaluating the following data. Exhibit 3.2.24 presents third grade SAT 10 mathematics data from 2005-2010.


Exhibit 3.2.24

Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

34 36

31

34

39

25

43

37

44

4747

57

41

58 60

3437

3235

40

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District

Exhibit 3.2.24 displays the following information:

There has been a consistent gap in achievement on the SAT 10 mathematics test among ethnic subgroups. • White students have consistently scored above other student subgroups.

Hispanic students have improved over the last fi ve years, and their performance has exceeded the • district average for the last four years.

The achievement gap between White students and Black students has fl uctuated over time, from 13 • points in 2005-06, to 10 points in 2007-08, to 21 points in 2009-10. Again, each group is vastly different in size, so data must be interpreted with caution.

Exhibit 3.2.25 presents the SAT 10 mathematics data for fi fth grade.

Exhibit 3.2.25

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

45

4442 42 4444

39

44

4948

48

53

47

57

41

4442

43

44

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.25, White students performed above all other ethnic subgroups every year, with the exception of the 2009-10 school year. White students’ performance fell from being 14 points higher than the district average in 2008-09 to three points below the district average in 2009-10.

Exhibit 3.2.26 presents the SAT 10 mathematics data for eighth grade.

Exhibit 3.2.26

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Ethnic SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

36

3336

38 44

34

24

41

39 38

57

63

56

40

60

33 3638

44

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e Black

Hispanic

White

District

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.26, the achievement gap between Black and White students is apparent at all years except 2008-09. The gap has narrowed over the full fi ve years, although White students’ performance has been inconsistent in the last three years. Hispanic students’ performance is both above and below district averages over the fi ve-year period and displays no clear trend.

The following three exhibits all present SAT 10 mathematics data by poverty subgroup for 2005-2010. Exhibit 3.2.27 presents third grade data.

Exhibit 3.2.27

Third Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

3134

2933

39

5054

5053 55

3437

32 3540

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.27, students of poverty consistently have scored below non-poverty students over the last fi ve years. The gap has narrowed slightly, from 19 percentile points in 2005-06 to 16 percentile points in 2009-10.

Exhibit 3.2.28 presents the poverty subgroup data for fi fth grade.

Exhibit 3.2.28

Fifth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

42 4239 40 42

58 60 6158

61

45 44 42 43 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District

At fi fth grade, Exhibit 3.2.28 shows that non-poverty students continue to score above poverty students every year on the SAT 10 mathematics test. The gap between the two groups has remained between 16 (2005-06) and 22 percentile points (2007-08), and was 19 points in 2009-10. There has been no noticeable trend of narrowing the achievement gap.

Exhibit 3.2.29 presents the eighth grade SAT 10 mathematics data by poverty subgroup.

Exhibit 3.2.29

Eighth Grade SAT 10 Mathematics Performance by Poverty SubgroupsBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

3431

34 3641

44 45 4651

62

3633

36 3844

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Perc

entil

e

Poverty

Non-poverty

District

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.29, non-poverty students continue to score above poverty students on the eighth grade SAT 10 mathematics test. The gap between the two groups has widened over the last fi ve years, from 10 percentile points in 2005-06 to 21 percentile points in 2009-10.


In summary, based on the SAT 10 reading and mathematics data at all three grade levels, there has been no success in narrowing the achievement gap between poverty and non-poverty students in either reading or mathematics. White students consistently score higher than other ethnic subgroups, although the size of the subgroups is not comparable. Males consistently score below females, as well, in both reading and mathematics. Although most scores show an upward trend in recent years, the improvements have not resulted in any narrowing of achievement gaps among student subgroups.

Secondary Students’ Leave Rate

In addition to analyzing student subgroup achievement gaps, the auditors also examined dropout rates as reported to the state. Dropout rates, however, are misleading in that many students who drop out of school in Birmingham may in fact open enroll to a neighboring district. This switch in districts is easily accomplished in the Birmingham area since it is surrounded on all sides by county school districts. The State of Alabama now tracks students as they move from one district to the next so that those students who leave a district to go to a different one are not counted as dropouts.

Offi cial dropout rates in Birmingham have varied widely over a three-year period, most likely due to the change in student tracking procedures at the state level. The actual number and percentage of students considered “dropouts” for the district went from an average of 20 percent in 2007 to less than 5 percent in 2008. Given the instability of these fi gures, the auditors chose to analyze graduation rates instead. These are presented in Exhibit 3.2. 30.

Exhibit 3.2.30

Graduation RatesBirmingham City Schools

2005-2010

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Graduation rate

Source: Alabama Department of Education Accountability Reports, 2005-2010

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.30, the district’s graduation rate shows no clear trend for the last six years, but has remained around 83 percent. This number has failed to meet improvement requirements established by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.


Exhibit 3.2.31 shows the number of students who were enrolled in Birmingham City Schools in twelfth grade, compared to the same number in the class who were enrolled in ninth grade. The bottom line shows twelfth grade enrollment; the top line ninth grade from four years prior. The X-axis displays the year in which students were in twelfth grade. A greater distance between the two points on the lines indicates a higher leave rate; more students left the district for various reasons during that four-year period than in other years.

Exhibit 3.2.31

Ninth to Twelfth Grade EnrollmentsBirmingham City Schools

2002-2011

3,3273,230

3,4583,244

2,8942,767

2,981 2,9912,796

1,977 1,927 1,888 1,883 1,8471,673

1,562 1,595 1,585

1,400

1,900

2,400

2,900

3,40020

02-0

3

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

9th grade 12th grade

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.31, enrollment in ninth grade has decreased somewhat over the years, as has overall district enrollment. However, the drop in enrollment is minor (+/- 500 students) compared to the loss of students between ninth and twelfth grade (>1,200).

The number of students who leave or drop out between grades 9 and 12 is presented in Exhibit 3.2.32. This number has remained fairly constant, spiking to 48 percent for the class of 2009. The actual number of students who left over the four-year period is presented in parentheses next to the school year (the year in which they were in twelfth grade) on the x-axis.

Exhibit 3.2.32

Number and Percentage of Students Who Drop Out/Leave between Ninth and Twelfth GradeBirmingham City Schools

2002-2011

41% 40%45%

42%36%

40%

48% 47%43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2002

-03

(1,3

50)

2003

-04

(1,3

03)

2004

-05

(1,5

70)

2005

-06

(1,3

61)

2006

-07

(1,0

47)

2007

-08

(1,0

94)

2008

-09

(1,4

19)

2009

-10

(1,3

96)

2010

-11

(1,2

11)

%Loss


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.32, the percentage of students who drop out or leave between ninth and twelfth grade has remained fairly constant over the eight years shown, from a low of 36 percent to a high of 48 percent. The current leave rate (43 percent) is very similar to what it was eight years ago (41 percent).

During interviews, many administrators mentioned the high number of students leaving the district at the secondary level. Comments expressing concern over the problem included the following:

“As far as attendance, the biggest problem is probably high school. Once they turn 17 years old, they • can drop out.” (District Administrator)

“Our dropouts—we probably have about 30-40 percent, easily, that drop out from ninth to twelfth. Some • of them—they’re considered a dropout now if they don’t fi nish in four years.” (District Administrator)

“[Dropouts?] A lot of them go to other schools—they went somewhere. Some went to GED programs, • or they went to another district.” (District Administrator)

“Our biggest problem is that [ELL students are] dropping out . Money is more enticing than an education. • Some of the older kids aren’t documented—they can’t attend college.” (District Administrator)

“High schools [are the] biggest problem.” (District Administrator) •

There were several comments attributing the number of students who leave or drop out to discipline problems in the schools, or to students’ academic failure.

“We have too many fi ghts, particularly at the high school. Some of that is how the administrators react to • students. There are some high schools that repeatedly send student to juvenile detention, criminalizing minor issues. Some schools have lots of suspensions. Students are just told to leave school, but not formally suspended…examples: Woodlawn HS and Huffman.” (District Administrator)

“Discipline at Hoffman HS is a problem. Parents told me that children do not feel safe.” (Board • Member)

“We have not gotten consistent data on discipline problems.” (Board Member)•

“Students leave after the eighth grade because of poor discipline in the high schools and bad [academic] • programs.” (District Administrator)

“Most of the students having learning problems are having behavior problems as well.” (Principal)•

“Discipline is more about kids who struggle academically.” (Principal)•

“Under discipline, for expulsion, there’s not an intervention system in place to address the fact that some • of these [are] issues that could be handled without getting that far. There’s no system of intervention—the kid is left for chance. There’s no planning.” (District Administrator)

“[If] you suspended that child three times, he has an 80 percent chance of dropping out. Get in-school • suspension! Or do Saturday school, get them tutoring.” (District Administrator)

Others commented about the lack of a process to handle dropouts or to prevent them. These comments included:

“In the ninth grade, they don’t go to class and they fail. Your ninth grade, they have some of your worst • attendance, and the biggest is tardies. It adds up.” (District Administrator)

“The exit process for student dropping out is supposed to be conducted by counselors. The counselors • do not appear to know how to do this even though they have been trained to do this work.” (District Administrator)


There were also many who commented regarding the number of kids who leave, attributing it to competition with surrounding districts and to the lack of adequate diversity in the educational program. These comments included:

“We lose a lot of kids once they get to middle and high. We keep them K-6; I don’t think the high • schools offer enough variations of things.” (District Administrator)

“We need to be more fl exible and offer more opportunities. Our alternative school should be more • diverse.” (District Administrator)

“I’d like to see more diversity in the programs offered by the school district.” (Principal)•

“We have the pre-AP track, we have career-tech, and we have dropouts. There’s no effort in our high • schools to OWN our children.” (District Administrator)

“I’d like to see true alternative schools for children who are not achieving in a traditional setting. I • don’t feel every child gets the equity he deserves because not every child can learn in a traditional setting.” (Building Administrator)

“We are in competition—we are going to have kids that leave if they can get better programs in another • district.” (District Administrator)

One administrator commented on the need to personally connect instruction with the students. He stated, “What’s going on in that classroom has no connection with them—that’s why they cut.” This insight corroborates what auditors observed in classrooms with regard to instruction (see Finding 3.1).

In summary, Birmingham has had declining enrollment over the last two decades. However, the sharp decline in enrollment at the secondary level is not a result of diminishing population. Instead, a large number of students, around 40 percent, leave the district between ninth and twelfth grades, and another percentage drop out. District stakeholders attribute the number of students leaving to poor discipline in some buildings, inadequate educational programming, insuffi cient alternative programs, or even ineffective instruction.

Student Access to and Enrollment in Courses

Auditors then examined what access students have to courses and programs across the district and studied the enrollment in courses by student subgroup. These analyses were conducted to determine if students have equal access to certain courses and if there is any disproportionality in a student subgroup’s representation in a particular program, such as special education, gifted/talented, or AP programs. Such issues are equity indicators and assist auditors in determining whether a particular subgroup is being underserved in the district, or overrepresented in a particular program.

There is clear direction in board policy concerning student access to programs. Board Policy 7034: Equal Opportunity in Course Selection requires that “Each qualifi ed student, regardless of sex, race, religion or national origin will have an equal opportunity to enroll in any course offered in the school system.” This policy requires that every student have access to any course offered across the district and makes no exceptions for the student’s neighborhood or economic background.

Regarding course access, auditors heard many comments about the uneven offering of courses across the district, particularly with fi ne arts courses. During site visits, auditors noted a great deal of discrepancy in what fi ne arts classes are offered from building to building.


Exhibit 3.2.33 presents the different fi ne arts courses offered at elementary schools in the district. Auditors did not receive master schedules for all the schools, so not all elementary schools are represented in the exhibit. Additionally, auditors only marked a fi ne art as being offered if it was a stand-alone course with a designated teacher. There were several instances where art is offered during the course of the day, but it is taught by the regular classroom teacher, rather than by an art teacher. Physical education was left out since it is offered at every elementary school (according to master schedules).

Exhibit 3.2.33

Fine Arts Courses by Elementary SchoolBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Music Art Band Strings Technology Elec ROC

Clarence Going Elementary School XNorth Roebuck Elementary School XRobert C. Arthur Elementary School XSun Valley Elementary School X X XRobinson Elementary School X X X X XAvondale Elementary School X XGate City Elementary School X XBarrett Elementary School X XJ.B. Gibson Elementary SchoolNorwood Elementary School XBrunetta C. Hill Elementary SchoolE.P.I.C. Elementary SchoolGlen Iris Elementary School X X XHemphill Elementary School X XJackson Elementary School XCentral Park Elementary School X X XNewton H. Price Elementary School XPowderly Elementary SchoolRobert E. Lee Elementary SchoolWenonah Elementary SchoolCharles A. Brown Elementary School XMinor Elementary School X XPrinceton Elementary School X XWoodrow Wilson Elementary School X XGiddings S. Lewis Elementary SchoolNorth Birmingham Elementary SchoolSouth Hampton Elementary School X XWilliam Hooper Council Elementary School X XWylam Elementary School

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.33, some elementary schools have several fi ne arts courses, while others have none. The size of the school is a large determinant in whether or not fi ne arts is offered; the more students a building has, the more teachers the building is entitled to. Therefore, extremely large schools are able to offer more courses like band or even technology.


Auditors found similar issues at the high school level. Fine arts courses are not consistent across campuses, nor are AP courses. Exhibit 3.2.34 presents fi ne arts course data for the high schools for which auditors received master schedules. This exhibit is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to demonstrate the lack of consistency in course offerings across the district.

Exhibit 3.2.34

Fine Arts/Electives Courses by High SchoolBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Huffman Woodlawn A. H. Parker Ramsay Wenonah

George Washington

Carver Robotics XTheatre X XSpanish I X X X X XSpanish II X X X X XSpanish III X XSpanish IV XFrench I X X X XFrench II X X X XFrench III XGraphic Arts X X XCamera Image X X XCosmetology X X X XBand X X X X XConcert Band X X X XJazz Band X X XOrchestra X XMarching Band X XChoir X X X X XMusic X XDrill Team X X X X XJROTC/ROTC X X X X XTV Production XEducation/Teaching XAnimation X XArt X X X X XAutomotive XTourism X XCulinary Arts X XEnsembles XWeb Design XJournalism X XSpeechFam/Con Sci/Food X X XDance XWelding XACT Test Prep XFashion X X


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.34, there are many different courses that are offered at all the high schools presented here, while there are many other courses that are particular to a single school (such as dance at Ramsay) or a couple of schools. The lack of consistency in course offerings might be ameliorated by open enrollment within the district, but given the socioeconomic demographics within the district, open enrollment does not allow all students access to all courses if they have diffi culties with transportation to a non-neighborhood school. The inconsistency in offerings does not follow board policy.

Auditors heard comments regarding the lack of consistency in course offerings across the district, particularly in fi ne arts:

“We have no choir or band this year; we couldn’t afford the staffi ng.” (Principal)•

“We now have theater in six of our high schools and two of our middle schools.” (District • Administrator)

“We have the only dance department in the school system.” (Principal)•

“We have music technology at Central Elementary School; Avondale Elementary School has a keyboard • program.” (District Administrator)

“Most of our principals do care about the arts. There have been one or two who do not care for the fi ne • arts, and they have eliminated them systematically.” (District Administrator)

With regard to AP courses, there is similar inconsistency in which AP courses are offered at which buildings. Exhibit 3.2.35 presents these data.

Exhibit 3.2.35

AP Courses by High SchoolBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

AP Courses Carver Huffman Jackson-Olin Parker Ramsay Wenonah Woodlawn

Biology X X X X X XCalculus X X X XEnglish Language & Composition X X X X XEnglish Literature & Composition X X X X X XGovernment X XUS History X X X X XMicroeconomics XChemistry X X XArt History XStudio Art: Drawing XSource: Birmingham City Schools AP; PowerPoint Report 2010

As presented in Exhibit 3.2.35, there is inconsistency in the AP courses offered at the high schools across the district. Jackson-Olin only offers one AP course, while Ramsay and Huffman each offer eight. Parker and Woodlawn each offer three, Carver six, and Wenonah fi ve. In summary, students do not have equal access to courses and programs across the district.


With regard to program enrollment, auditors requested data for gifted/talented enrollment and special education enrollment by gender and ethnicity. The auditors found slight disproportionalities in gifted program enrollment by ethnicity and considerable disproportionalities in gifted and special education enrollment by gender. The data for special education enrollment, by gender, is presented in Exhibit 3.2.36.

Exhibit 3.2.36

Special Education Enrollment by Gender Birmingham City Schools

2009

68.0

50.2

32.0

49.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Special Education % District %

Male

Female

Source: EDSER001, Dept. of Education Child Count 2009

Exhibit 3.2.36 displays the disproportionality of males versus females in special education. Males comprise just over 50 percent of the student population in Birmingham City Schools but almost 70 percent of the enrollment in special education. Likewise, females account for just under half the entire student population but only one-third of the special education population.

Exhibit 3.2.37 presents the disproportionality of enrollment in the gifted program by gender.

Exhibit 3.2.37

Gifted Program Enrollment by Gender Birmingham City Schools

2009

43.0

50.2

57.0

49.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gifted % District %

Male

Female



As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.27, males comprise just over 50 percent of the total student population but only 43 percent of the gifted population. Females are overrepresented in the gifted program; they comprise just under 50 percent of the total student population, but 57 percent of the gifted population.

Exhibit 3.2.28 presents gifted program enrollment by ethnicity.

Exhibit 3.2.38

Gifted Program Enrollment by EthnicityBirmingham City Schools

2009

2.7

94.5

2.1 0.71.0

96.0

2.6 0.30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

White Black Hispanic Asian

Gifted %

District %


As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2.38, White students make up just one percent of the total student population, but comprise almost three percent of the gifted population. Hispanics are slightly underrepresented in the gifted program, while Asian students are overrepresented. Black students are slightly underrepresented in the gifted program as well. Although the ethnic subgroups besides Black are quite small, there are disproportionalities in the enrollment in the gifted program by ethnicity.

Summary

Birmingham City Schools has some direction in policy concerning issues of equity and equality. However, the auditors found that student subgroups across the district are not experiencing similar academic success, nor are the subgroups enrolled in special programs at rates that are proportional with their overall district enrollment. Black male students perform below other subgroups, and students of poverty are equally disadvantaged on the SAT 10. Students from different high schools experience different success on the Alabama High School Graduation Exam.

In addition, the district has a high dropout and leave rate. Around 40 percent of any class leaves the district between ninth and twelfth grades. Students do not have equal access to programs, particularly fi ne arts and electives, across the district. The current inconsistencies in course offerings across campuses do not meet directives in board policy.


Finding 3.3: Principals overwhelmingly report visiting classrooms and conducting walk-throughs. However, district expectations for monitoring the curriculum are not defi ned in documents, and effective monitoring occurs idiosyncratically across the district.

Monitoring is a key component of quality teaching and learning. Monitoring is the process by which building administrators observe instruction and collect data to determine the alignment of what is taught (the delivered curriculum) with the written and tested curriculum. Monitoring is focused on curriculum alignment as well as effective delivery, such as instructional strategies and approaches that are successful in improving student achievement. Monitoring is a critical link in connecting system-level curriculum objectives with what occurs in individual classrooms and is a responsibility of all building administrators. Monitoring is not only about teacher appraisal, although teacher appraisal may comprise one facet of monitoring. As the instructional leaders, building administrators are the fi rst line of support and accountability for the effective and aligned delivery of curriculum. To monitor well, administrators need clearly defi ned curriculum and a specifi c instructional model (see Finding 3.1).

To ensure effective monitoring, the philosophy for instructional monitoring and its purpose, guidelines, and desired results must be defi ned in district policy and regulations. Successful implementation is then assured through extensive staff development that focuses equally on what administrators should be monitoring, such as the content of instruction and the strategies and approaches used, and how they should be monitoring, such as with what different approaches they might use for different purposes. For example, one monitoring approach might be to collect student work to determine the rigor and grade level of the samples for calibration against the district curriculum; another might focus on observing and recording instructional approaches and dominant student activities, while another may involve posing refl ective questions to teachers to encourage their professional growth. Each approach serves a different purpose, and together, they comprise the totality of comprehensive curriculum monitoring. Whatever the approaches used, monitoring data, when used in conjunction with assessment data, provide building leaders with critical information regarding instructional strengths and weaknesses in the building.

To determine whether monitoring was adequate and effective in the Birmingham City Schools, auditors interviewed all principals, almost all district administrators, board members, and some teachers across the district. The auditors also visited each school and reviewed district documents that addressed curriculum and curriculum monitoring in any fashion.

Overall, the auditors found that there have been multiple trainings in Birmingham on classroom walk-throughs, most recently just a few months prior to the audit site visit (see Finding 3.4), that addressed curriculum monitoring. The unwritten expectation for a type of monitoring is existent throughout the district and in almost all schools. Principals almost all attested to visiting classrooms frequently; many reported visiting every classroom every day. However, the auditors found no district-defi ned model for monitoring that specifi es its purpose and guidelines, and principals cited many reasons behind their classroom visits, not all of which are tied to instruction. Monitoring across the system is therefore uncoordinated and does not explicitly focus on improving the delivery of the curriculum.

The auditors fi rst examined board policy and regulations to determine whether any written direction exists for monitoring in the district. They found that monitoring, in terms of observing teaching, is addressed minimally in policies and state documents that direct teacher appraisal (see Findings 1.2 and 1.5). Board Policy 3030: Evaluation Certifi cation connects teacher evaluation with curriculum delivery. The policy requires that professional education personnel be evaluated to “ensure that educational goals are understood and pursued.” There are no descriptions in policy of what monitoring procedures are to look like or what the purposes of monitoring are (apart from teacher appraisal), nor is there any expectation for different methods of monitoring for different purposes.

The new Alabama teacher appraisal system (still in revision during the 2010-11 school year) is focused on teacher professional growth and is replacing the Professional Educational Personnel Evaluation (PEPE). With the EDUCATEAlabama appraisal system, monitoring is required through two unannounced classroom visits in addition to several anecdotal notes collected during informal visits. The system does not specify how often


principals should collect anecdotal notes, only that they should serve as data sources in the teacher appraisal process.

EDUCATEAlabama is focused on identifying areas in which teachers need to improve, based on the administrator’s evaluation of whether or not the teacher meets the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards (AQTS) (see Appendix B). One standard indicator does address the alignment of the taught content with state standards, and this requirement is congruent with audit expectations for monitoring, but the new appraisal system is still in draft form and has not yet been fully implemented in Birmingham City Schools. During interviews, principals did not indicate that their walk-throughs are connected to the formal appraisal process, although many collect data from those walk-throughs as the EDUCATEAlabama system suggests.

Effective monitoring in the Birmingham City Schools if further impeded by the lack of a quality curriculum that is specifi c, rigorous, and inclusive of an instructional model (see Findings 2.2 and 2.3). Without a specifi c written curriculum and instructional model, building administrators have less clarity regarding what they should be monitoring for, particularly in the area of instructional strategies and approaches to be used for effective delivery. When student objectives are general and non-specifi c, it also becomes more diffi cult to determine whether instruction is occurring at the appropriate level for each student. This is true in Birmingham City Schools (see Finding 2.4).

During classroom walk-throughs, the auditors interviewed principals and also requested samples of any checklists or documents that principals use to collect data. Auditors received many samples, but few were common across the schools. One focused on reading instruction only; others were very general, with categories under which the administrator could record anecdotal notes; while others were simply checklists, such as the “Teacher at a Glance” form mentioned by three or four principals. A few were from outside, commercial sources. Most shared a few common categories under which data were collected or recorded, such as the teacher activity or strategy or evidence of student work. The auditors found no written direction concerning the use of such forms, their purpose, how they should or could connect with teacher appraisal, or the general philosophical intent behind using the forms in the fi rst place. While some of the forms included a place for recording the intended instructional objective, most simply had a space for recording whether or not the Alabama Course of Study (ACOS) objective was posted on the classroom wall or white board. Posting an objective is no guarantee that the objective actually is being taught.

The many variations in format and categories for collecting classroom walk-through data indicate the lack of a district-wide focus in monitoring, particularly in the purposes for monitoring and how monitoring data should be used. While the audit does not expect rigid adherence to a single method or approach for monitoring, it does expect clear rationale, in writing, for each approach implemented. The auditors observed that the Birmingham City Schools use multiple approaches for conducting walk-throughs, but there was no distinct purpose (determined by data analysis) for each discrete approach that was explicitly tied to efforts specifi cally aimed at improving instruction and curriculum alignment. The practice of walking through classrooms and being present and visible in the building was widespread but not consistently tied to data-driven district or school goals.

Auditors also found inconsistencies in how observation data are used across the district. No district document or policy describes how walk-through or other classroom observational data are to be used to improve instruction, curriculum design, or student learning. There were defi nite instances in which principals reported effective monitoring practices; they indicated they use observational data in determining professional development initiatives or in deciding on building improvement goals. These practices were merely idiosyncratic and were not in response to a district-wide system described in writing. Examples of effective monitoring were dependent on individual principals and were more common at the elementary level.

Interviews with principals and assistant principals confi rmed auditors’ fi ndings regarding the inadequate written direction for monitoring and the lack of specifi c guidelines or expectations for its implementation. When administrators were asked about the quality of curriculum monitoring across the district, there was a lack of agreement regarding its occurrence or effectiveness, which further supports the idiosyncratic nature of effective monitoring. The comments included the following:


“The majority of the principals are doing a good job of monitoring.” (District Administrator) •

“Some principals do an excellent job of monitoring instruction, looking at SAT-10 data, etc. but I • remind them not to just focus on the weakest, but to focus on the students who are not struggling as well to make sure that they are moving forward.” (District Administrator)

“I try to make sure that principals are focused on teaching and learning.” (District Administrator)•

“Principals tend to delegate instructional monitoring.” (Principal)•

“The elementary people do [monitoring] much more. You have some middle school people who are • doing walk-throughs of a sort, but less [people] at the high school.” (District Administrator)

Several principals commented, however, on the quality of walk-through training recently held in the district.

“I expect to be more laser-focused as a result of walk-through training.” (Principal)•

“I learned to be more refl ective and less evaluative [from walk-through training].” (Principal)•

“The walk-through training was benefi cial.” (District Administrator)•

“Walk-throughs? Particularly good for the assistant principals. They are hired to not just deal with • discipline but to deal with the whole academic program.” (District Administrator)

However, a few principals indicated that they have been doing walk-throughs for several years already and didn’t personally benefi t from more training. Regarding the frequency with which principals or assistant principals already visit classrooms, the auditors heard the following comments:

“I am in the classroom all day—in and out all day.” (Building Administrator)•

“All day, when I am in the building.” (Building Administrator) •

“I do walk-throughs every day unless I’m not in the building.” (Principal)•

“I try to be in every day—my goal is to do every day. I came and did four today. My goal is to get into • some classrooms every day.” (Building Administrator)

“Any day that I am in the building. I am in the classroom every day.” (Building Administrator)•

“I see every class every two-three days. I’ve been using the walk-through for seven years now.” • (Building Administrator)

“I try to get into classrooms every day. I pretty much know when they are on task with the curriculum. • The objectives are posted in the classroom.” (Principal)

How often in the classroom? “Virtually every day.” (Principal)•

How often in the classroom? “Between myself and my AP, we are in all classrooms every week.” • (Principal)

The clear message auditors received from interviewing principals is that most are aware of a need to visit classrooms and be visible in the school. In addition to how frequently they are in classrooms, auditors asked how principals monitor the curriculum and what they use to do so. Some of the responses included:

“[I use] Teacher at a Glance and do walk-throughs.” (Principal)•

“[I use] the ‘Teacher at a Glance’ form for walk-throughs.” (Principal)•

“I started walk-throughs. I use a notebook and forms which I have modifi ed from reading • Breaking Ranks in the Middle.” (Principal)

“I mostly monitor instruction through walk-throughs and visual observations. I don’t put a whole lot • of stock in lesson plans. Teachers have common planning as a team, and grade levels are on the same lesson. I know the curriculum and also look at testing materials (the assessment) and student Grade levels.” (Principal)


“I use the PDK walk-through to monitor instruction as well as the lesson plans and course of study.” • (Principal)

“We ask for the lesson plan when we enter the classroom and look for the objectives that are being • taught.” (Principal)

“Student progress reports, professional development, observations, and intervention plans are used to • assist us as we monitor instruction.” (Principal)

“The assistant principal, reading coach, and I do the walk-throughs as a way to monitor instruction. We • ask for lesson plans and look for objectives.” (Principal)

“[I] see if teacher covers the range of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Conduct formal and informal walk-throughs • using ‘teacher at a glance’ and review student work. Also, [I] collect and evaluate lesson plans and give teachers feedback on them.” (Principal)

“[I] visit classrooms, review achievement data…and weekly lesson plan reviews.” (Principal)•

“I like to see if the student is engaged in a meaningful activity (when walking through).” (Principal)•

“[I do] walk-throughs, [and] use data analysis from ThinkLinks.” (Principal)•

As can be seen from the above comments, principals differ in how they monitor instruction. Some attest to simply visiting classrooms and using a form to record various data, while others indicate they collect lesson plans and even look at assessment data. Regarding the usefulness of collecting lesson plans, one principal stated, “Lesson plans don’t refl ect classroom activities” and indicated the need to observe them in person. A few principals mentioned looking at the rigor of the lesson or the nature of student engagement or student work. There is variation in how principals monitor; their approaches refl ect the unwritten district consensus for a need to monitor, but indicate the lack of formalized district direction regarding the purposes, approaches, and guidelines for monitoring.

Principals also mentioned the support they receive from curriculum personnel in their buildings in their efforts to monitor and improve instruction. This connection between schools and curriculum personnel is more specifi cally addressed in Finding 3.4, but a few principals and central offi ce administrators also mentioned it in relation to monitoring instruction and determining whether teachers are delivering the intended curriculum. Representative comments included the following:

“We (curriculum department staff) send principals a monthly page which shows them what they should • be seeing in teachers’ lesson plans and in classroom observations.” (District Administrator)

“I get a message from the Mathematics Department entitled, ‘What you should see in math during the • [current month].’ That is very helpful.” (Principal)

There were a few complaints regarding district issues that impact principals’ ability to monitor effectively. One interviewee commented, “There are no stated expectations for teachers.” Another principal mentioned, “There is a lack of processes in the district and a lack of consistency in district actions. They just do stuff.” These comments support the auditors’ fi nding that written, district-level direction for classroom monitoring is inadequate and has resulted in unfocused efforts at the site level to monitor curriculum.

Auditors found that district administrators in the Birmingham City Schools recently have instituted a process in the district for monitoring at the macro level—monitoring schools’ general performance and achievement in light of Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) goals, in an effort to work with building administrators for school improvement. There was no description or direction for the process in writing, but district leaders described it to auditors. The initiative involves teams of individuals, called collaborative teams or collaborative curriculum teams, who visit the schools, observe in classrooms, and meet with principals. One district administrator described the process and its intent: “We have Collaborative Curriculum Teams that go to assist schools. We document what the school needs and what we recommend. I am responsible for assembling a War Room containing data binders for each school. When binders are fi nished, the curriculum directors will have all the data on each school.” This process is in the early stages, so not all schools have been visited yet. This is


further evidence of monitoring, but the process is not yet defi ned in key areas, such as how it connects to CIP development, curriculum design and revision, and district-level decision making.

Summary

The Birmingham City Schools principals almost all attested to visiting classrooms frequently and informally and being aware of instruction. The new EDUCATEAlabama appraisal system ultimately supports monitoring but is not adequate in defi ning how monitoring is to occur and how frequently. Current methods for monitoring curriculum vary widely. Many different forms and checklists are in use in the schools, but no specifi c written guidance at the district level stipulates why monitoring should occur, how to best accomplish it and with what methods and approaches, the different purpose each discrete method or approach can serve, and the role data analysis plays in curriculum monitoring. Many key pieces for effective monitoring are in place, but they lack written direction, coordination, and focus, particularly in how to use monitoring data most effectively. The collaborative team process shows promise in assisting schools in improving achievement, but it is in early stages and is not yet institutionalized through written goals, procedures, and connections to other district plans and initiatives (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 3.4: While there are adequate professional development opportunities in Birmingham City Schools, the professional development program is uncoordinated and insuffi ciently tied to demonstrated needs.

Professional development is a critical part of equipping teachers and support staff with the skills and knowledge they require to effectively meet the needs of an ever-changing student population and master the delivery of the written curriculum. In effective school districts, the main focus of professional development is on curriculum delivery: what concepts, skills, and knowledge students must master and how to effectively teach them. Every professional development initiative should clearly connect to and support curriculum delivery—the main vehicle by which the client in a school district (students) receives the desired product (student learning).

The most effective professional development is needs-based and is differentiated in response to individual teacher or staff needs. All trainings should be selected based on careful analysis of data from classrooms, schools, and feeder areas in response to demonstrated weaknesses and needs in the educational program. There is no single perfect model for all professional development initiatives; models and approaches must vary based on the type of training needed, the purpose(s) of the training, and how the acquired skills or concepts need to be implemented. However, all professional development should have a clear and measurable effect on teacher or staff performance, which in turn impacts and improves student achievement. Professional development may be conducted via workshop-style trainings, during staff meetings, through professional learning communities, or in teachers’ individual classrooms. It may focus on specifi c content that students are expected to master, on new materials and resources that will help teachers deliver instruction, or on effective approaches or learning activities in the classroom. Regardless of the particular objectives for a professional development initiative, the outcomes should always be measurable in terms of more effective curriculum management and improved student achievement.

To determine the adequacy and effectiveness of professional development in Birmingham City Schools, the auditors interviewed almost all central offi ce administrators, all building principals, board members, and some teachers. Auditors also visited each school campus and reviewed district documents that addressed professional development in some capacity.

Overall, the auditors found a strong commitment to professional development in the district. Almost everyone attested to the plentiful nature of professional development opportunities, and they described many initiatives that are offered at all levels of the system: in classrooms, individual schools, groups of schools, and district-wide. However, the quality of the professional development opportunities could not be determined. Initiatives are uncoordinated; there is no single department or position within the district that tracks all staff development initiatives, their evaluations, and their effectiveness. Although many principals indicated that certain trainings are selected in response to a demonstrated need, based on the analysis of test data, the effectiveness of building-level trainings and initiatives is not evaluated. Teachers are not required to attend trainings that their supervisors deem critical to their improvement, which limits the degree to which a specifi c training can ameliorate


ineffective instruction or poor student achievement in a school or program. The plentiful nature of professional development cannot be explicitly linked to improvement at various levels of the district.

To determine the adequacy of professional development in the system, the auditors use criteria to rate the adequacy of policy, planning and design, delivery, and assessment of professional development. These criteria, along with auditor ratings, are presented in Exhibit 3.4.1.

Exhibit 3.4.1

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Professional Development Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Professional Development Program


Characteristics Adequate InadequatePolicy

Has policy that directs staff development efforts.1. XFosters an expectation for professional growth.2. XIs for all employees.3. X

Planning and DesignIs based on a careful analysis of data and is data-driven.4. XProvides for system-wide coordination and has a clearinghouse function in 5. place. X

Provides the necessary funding to carry out professional development goals.6. XHas a current plan that provides a framework for integrating innovations 7. related to mission. X

Has a professional development mission in place.8. XIs built using a long-range planning approach.9. XProvides for organizational, unit, and individual development in a systemic 10. manner. X

Focuses on organizational change—staff development efforts are aligned to 11. district goals. X

DeliveryIs based on proven research-based approaches that have been shown to 12. increase productivity. X

Provides for three phases of the change process: initiation, implementation, 13. and institutionalization. X

Is based on human learning and development and adult learning14. XUses a variety of professional development approaches.15. XProvides for follow-up and on-the-job application necessary to ensure 16. improvement. X

Expects each supervisor to be a staff developer of staff supervised.17. XEvaluation

Requires an evaluation process that is ongoing, includes multiple sources of 18. information, focuses on all levels of the organization, and is based on actual change in behavior.

X

Total 4 14Percentage 21%

As can be seen in Exhibit 3.4.1, the current professional development programs in Birmingham City Schools meet 13, or 28 percent, of the criteria for an effective, quality professional development program. A discussion of specifi c characteristics, organized by intent, follows.


Professional Development Policy

The auditors found some direction in board policy concerning professional development. Board Policy 3200: Professional Development directs that “all individuals employed by the Birmingham City School District be committed to common beliefs about professional development…and be involved in training, growth, and renewal opportunities.” The policy continues to describe the district commitment to professional development and specifi es that experienced certifi ed staff members are required to complete 30 hours of professional development every year and novice certifi ed staff 40 hours. The importance of professional development for classifi ed staff is also included; they are expected to complete 15 hours of training every year.

Although a policy exists (Policy 3200) on professional development, it inadequately addresses all aspects of professional development programming and fails to require a plan to oversee successful implementation, evaluation, and management of professional development in the district (see Finding 1.2). Therefore, characteristic one was not met, but characteristics two and three are met by the policy.

Planning and Design

Data-driven: No documents or policies reviewed by the auditors specifi ed that professional development be designed in response to data. This characteristic was not met.

System-wide coordination: The auditors found no evidence that professional development is coordinated through one single offi ce, with a clearinghouse function in place. There is a district offi ce managing district-level professional development, but individual curriculum departments also initiate trainings or provide trainings in schools in response to principal requests. Due to the need to track continuing education units to satisfy state requirements, all professional development offerings are entered into a database, detailing who attended, but there is no information regarding the specifi c content and quality of each offering. This characteristic was not met.

Funding: There is adequate funding for professional development, through Title funds and district resource allocation (see Finding 5.1).

Plan, mission, and long-range planning: The auditors found no plan, short- or long-term, that directs and coordinates professional development efforts. Policy 3200 contains language that indicates an expectation for a plan, although there are no specifi cs offered as to the purpose or nature of that plan, or its framework. The auditors found no mission specifi c to professional development. There is some direction regarding the overall purpose of professional development in Policy 3200, which states, “The district’s professional development plan should refl ect best practices and be guided by the strategies and activities of the district to increase student achievement.” This statement, however, cannot be considered a mission statement. Nothing in policy or any other documents was found addressing long-range planning for professional development. These three characteristics were not met.

Organizational, unit, and individual development: There is a brief statement in Policy 3200 that indicates an expectation that professional development occur at all levels: organizational, unit, and individual. The policy conveys the expectation that professional development will occur in conjunction with “coordinated district plan, local school plans, and individual growth plans during the school year.” There are no specifi cs as to how this should be structured or implemented in a systemic way. This characteristic was not met due to this limitation.

Staff development efforts are aligned to district goals: there is weak language in Policy 3200 that addresses this characteristic. It states, “The district’s professional development plan should refl ect best practices and be guided by the strategies and activities of the district to increase student achievement.” The statement follows the implied expectation that the professional development plan should be coordinated with the district plan, but there is no explicit direction given that professional development should be tied to district goals. This characteristic was not met.


Delivery

Research-based approaches: The auditors found no policy or document that stipulates that the approaches used in professional development be research-based. This characteristic was not met.

Initiation, implementation, and institutionalization: The auditors found no documents or policy that stipulates that all professional development offerings take into consideration the three phases of change: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. This characteristic was not met.

Human learning and development: The auditors found no documents that direct or require professional development offerings to be based on theories regarding human learning and development or on adult learning theories. No document or policy addressed this characteristic specifi cally; the characteristic was not met.

Variety of professional development approaches: The current professional development offered in Birmingham City Schools is diverse in nature and incorporates a variety of approaches. This occurs, however, by default rather than as a result of direction from a policy, plan, or other document. This characteristic was met.

Follow-up and on-the-job application: This currently happens idiosyncratically across the district, particularly with trainings conducted in individual schools for classroom teachers, but auditors could not verify that it occurs consistently with all professional development offerings, nor is it required or addressed in any policy or document. This characteristic was not met.

Each supervisor to be a staff developer: This characteristic was not found in any policy or document. It was also not observed in schools nor mentioned by principals. Most professional development in the buildings is delivered by curriculum personnel, not by the teachers’ supervisor. This characteristic was not met.

Evaluation

Evaluation process: Despite the district software used to record specifi c trainings and their participants, there is no formalized system in place by which the quality, effectiveness, or impact of professional development is evaluated. The data collection for professional development is done to ensure that teachers can satisfy state requirements for continuing education units. This characteristic was not met.

Overall, the auditors found that although a specifi c training in Birmingham City Schools may be quite effective, this is not a result of coordinated, focused efforts at a system level. There is no single offi ce coordinating professional development, monitoring its design in response to demonstrated needs and in alignment with district goals, and evaluating the overall effectiveness of aligned initiatives. The fragmented nature of so many initiatives across the district may in fact decrease effectiveness, since the number of different trainings district-wide may decrease the likelihood that they will effect lasting change. The district lacks clear goals for professional development at the system level that are driven by the strategic plan and data.

During interviews, many principals and district administrators commented on quality and effectiveness of professional development that is offered district-wide. There were confl icting views expressed, although no one disputed the need for or value of professional development (PD). As one district administrator said, “I am a big proponent of using PD to provide teachers with the knowledge they need to inform instruction.” However, several persons commented on the lack of coordination in professional development through a single department and attested to the fragmented nature of the program. Others mentioned the need to integrate it more successfully with everyday teaching in the schools. These comments included the following:

“We need to get integrated PD more as a mode of operating.” (District Administrator)•

“We (the district) have not planned coordinated staff development.” (District Administrator)•

“We have no formal program from our department [professional development]. The needs of all of our • schools and teachers are different.” (District Administrator)

“There needs to be more dialogue between principals and Professional Development regarding teaching • methods. Professional Development is out of sync with schools.” (Principal)


“[It’s a] challenge—getting all the different department heads, the different curriculum units, to share • what they’re doing, so everything is under one umbrella, under professional development.” (District Administrator)

What types of PD are you doing in math? “I couldn’t tell you. I know they have meetings, but I • couldn’t tell you the focus. Same with English language arts—I can’t tell you what the focus is.” (District Administrator)

Regarding the quality of the professional development, several confl icting opinions were expressed:

“Most of it is just a waste of time for principals. For teachers, it’s ineffective. On September 3• rd we conducted a district professional development….There was nothing for elementary teachers. The whole affair was not effectively planned. Last year was not well planned either. There was not enough advance information on Professional Learning Communities, but the training was excellent. Overall, professional development in this district is poorly planned.” (Principal)

“Even if it is a district initiative, we haven’t focused on the follow-up, supporting the teachers through • it. There may be a little bit of that conversation but not a lot.” (District Administrator)

“They’re getting better at [professional development]. At one time it was a toss-up as to whether it’s • any good. District-wide is not as well planned as specifi c content areas.” (Principal)

“I’ve never seen such PD—people do PD all the time…For a teacher not to know how they are doing • something, it’s because they don’t want to know.” (District Administrator)

“I think it’s good PD; it’s mostly focusing on best practices for whatever that content is, but I don’t think it • takes into account special education or Hispanic ELL kids, or the high kids.” (District Administrator)

In addition to comments concerning quality, auditors also heard statements regarding the diffi culty of getting teachers to attend. Some attested to the need to pay teachers to secure their involvement. These comments included the following:

“We have strong professional development. But they are begging to get people to participate. We can’t • make our teachers attend.” (Principal)

“We are paying teachers to participate in the professional development.” (Principal)•

“Teachers are paid a stipend [for PD]—some high school teachers say, I don’t care if you’re paying me, • I’m not going to come.” (District Administrator)

In addition to district-level professional development, district leaders commented on the quantity and quality of professional development in the schools. Curriculum support personnel exist to work with specifi c buildings in improving the quality and alignment of instruction. Auditors heard confl icting reports regarding how much of professional development is building-based and how much is conducted in the building due to district-level initiatives. Two principals stated,

“There’s a lot of professional development that is coming from the district this year.” (Principal)•

“This year most of our professional development was coordinated and provided by central offi ce.” • (Principal)

Other building administrators indicated that the majority of their professional development is initiated and conducted in their building, based on their needs assessment or Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP):

“We normally do our own professional development in this school. Our current focus is on best practices, • and we do three a year. Right now we are focused on formative assessment.” (Principal)

“Regardless of what the school district says we need, we look at our three-year trend data and decide • what we need at this school.” (Principal)

“We are doing a lot of in-house professional development.,” (Principal)•


“We are focusing on formative assessments [PD] this year. “(Principal)•

“Job embedded professional development is being provided by the reading and math directors.” • (Principal)

“We look at our test results, discipline, parental involvement to make decisions about the type of • professional development that needs to be offered.” (Principal)

“She’s a part of our [building] leadership team. She provides lessons for the students and sets up our • professional development.” (Principal)

Principals also mentioned doing professional development with different groups of teachers over the • course of a school day: “We have rolling professional development….We spend an hour with each grade level.”

The existing model of curriculum support personnel working in the schools with classroom teachers received mixed reviews from principals. A few principals have even staffed their building (using Title I funds) with curriculum support positions who can serve as trainers. Principals commented on the quality of curriculum support training in their buildings, which varies by grade level and content area:

“There is added value in having curriculum [support teachers] in schools. They come about two times • a month and are fairly supportive.” (Principal)

“The help we get from curriculum support teachers varies, depending on the subject area. The • mathematics teacher is here frequently and has worked with individual teachers, models lessons, brings manipulatives, and provides feedback on classroom observations….” (Principal)

“Science teachers have been to my building about three times this year. I have not seen the reading or • social studies [curriculum support] teachers.” (Principal)

“I don’t need support from the district. I have a strong reading coach. Social studies support teachers are • in constant contact; science, I can’t tell you how long it’s been [since they’ve been here].” (Principal)

“[Curriculum support teachers in the central offi ce] are, in general, no help. The mathematics support • teachers come to criticize, but does [sic] not help.” (Principal)

“I need more support for science and social studies teachers. The focus has been on reading and • mathematics to the detriment of science and social studies. Social studies support from the central offi ce has been geared to middle and high schools.” (Principal)

“We do job-embedded professional development.” (Principal)•

“They (curriculum personnel) have gotten better at PD, but the budget cuts have hurt us. We’ve lost a • lot of good people.” (Principal)

“It [curriculum support] needs to be restructured. (1) Make sure that all program specialists and • curriculum support people have had successful classroom experiences. (2)The program specialist and curriculum support staff should be posted at schools and maintain an active student group. (3) Track their best practices.” (Principal)

“Curriculum support is outstanding. Reading coaches get training once per month at Central and bring • [the training] back to the school. We invite science and social studies support persons in when needed.” (Principal)

“[Curriculum support] needs to improve. Program specialists and support staff offer very little meaningful • support. Communication has gotten so philosophical with little practical help.” (Principal)

“Although we do not have math coaches at every school, the elementary support staff and the PD • provided have made a difference.” (District Administrator)


According to principals, the professional development provided at the building level by curriculum support personnel is inconsistently effective. Curriculum department leaders also commented on the nature of curriculum support and professional development in the schools.

“We’ve tried to give them [curriculum department personnel] some professional development to help • them become better coaches.” (District Administrator)

“We [curriculum personnel] send principals a monthly page which shows them what they should be • seeing in teachers’ lesson plans and in classroom observations.” (District Administrator)

“We [curriculum personnel] try to give the teachers strategies to help students in the regular classroom • rather than pullout.” (District Administrator)

“We [curriculum personnel] have got to provide additional PD for teachers. We [educators] are supposed • to be teaching the kids and not them teaching us.” (District Administrator)

“Although we don’t have math coaches in every school, we do have four elementary support teachers.” • (District Administrator)

As can be seen from the comments above, principals and curriculum personnel recognize a need for quality, integrated professional development that improves teacher effi cacy and curriculum alignment. However, their comments indicate a need to improve the existing system.

Summary

There is a strong commitment to professional development, at the building and system level, evident in the district. However, Birmingham City Schools’ professional development is fragmented, uneven in quality, and not evaluated for effectiveness in improving instruction and student achievement. System-level efforts are not coordinated with building-based initiatives; the number of trainings and areas of focus increases fragmentation; and there is no centralized control over the goals, purposes, design, differentiation, and results of professional development. There is a clear commitment to doing professional development and to involving as many people as are willing to participate, but there is no coordinated approach for ensuring that the teachers who most need professional development are receiving it and benefi tting from it (see Recommendation 2).


STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs.A school system meeting this audit standard has designed a comprehensive system of assessment/testing and uses valid measurement tools that indicate how well its students are achieving designated priority learning goals and objectives. Common indicators are:

A formative and summative assessment system linked to a clear rationale in board policy;•

Knowledge, local validation, and use of current curricular and program assessment best practices;•

Use of a student and program assessment plan that provides for diverse assessment strategies for varied • purposes at all levels—district, school, and classroom;

A way to provide feedback to the teaching and administrative staffs regarding how classroom instruction • may be evaluated and subsequently improved;

A timely and relevant data base upon which to analyze important trends in student achievement;•

A vehicle to examine how well specifi c programs are actually producing desired learner outcomes or • results;

A data base to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program alternatives, as • well as to engage in equity analysis;

A data base to modify or terminate ineffective educational programs;•

A method/means to relate to a programmatic budget and enable the school system to engage in cost-• benefi t analysis; and

Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions.•

A school district meeting this audit standard has a full range of formal and informal assessment tools that provide program information relevant to decision making at classroom, building (principals and school-site councils), system, and board levels.

A school system meeting this audit standard has taken steps to ensure that the full range of its programs is systematically and regularly examined. Assessment data have been matched to program objectives and are used in decision making.


The auditors expected to fi nd a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum, pre-K through grade 12, which:

Was keyed to a valid, offi cially adopted, and comprehensive set of goals/objectives of the school • district;

Was used extensively at the site level to engage in program review, analysis, evaluation, and • improvement;

Was used by the policy-making groups in the system and the community to engage in specifi c policy • review for validity and accuracy;

Was the foci and basis of formulating short- and long-range plans for continual improvement;•

Was used to establish costs and select needed curriculum alternatives; and•

Was publicly reported on a regular basis in terms that were understood by key stakeholders in the • community.



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

The auditors found that the district lacks a comprehensive assessment plan, although some components are contained within some of its board policies and its assessment and program evaluation practices. The auditors determined that the district uses a variety of state-mandated assessments; however, there is a lack of a coordinated approach to evaluating student achievement in most grade levels and subject areas; therefore, the scope of assessment of the written curriculum is inadequate to support the monitoring of student achievement and to guide instructional decision making.

Data trends related to student achievement indicate inconsistent growth in achievement over time.

The auditors were not provided with any data or reports that demonstrated that the school district evaluated the curriculum or any of the educational programs. Though a wealth of data was provided for at least two of the core content areas, overall the school district did not have the data it needed to provide comprehensive feedback to students, teachers, administrators, or the community for use in evaluating the effectiveness of the curriculum.

Finding 4.1: The district lacks comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation planning to guide decisions for improving student achievement; the quality of the assessment system is inadequate.

Comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation planning provides the board, administrators, and teachers with data that can be used to inform instructional decisions. Without effective program evaluation measures, programs that are ineffective are allowed to continue and thereby inappropriately consume district resources of time, energy, and money. Without data regarding program effectiveness, districts tend to add more interventions to the list of current ones, which generally results in spreading limited resources further.

A comprehensive student assessment planning process ensures that the written curriculum of the district is being assessed and that the data from those assessments are being used to shape instructional decisions at the district level as well as the classroom level. Data from the student assessment measures can also be used to drive decisions around the need for professional development training for the instructional and administrative staff members.

The auditors found that the Birmingham City School district assessment program relies heavily on the Alabama Student Assessment Program (ASAP) assessments in grades 3-8 and high school, which does not assess all grade levels or subject areas. The district uses ThinkLinks, a Discovery Education product that is aligned to the state required norm-referenced Stanford 10 Achievement Test at grades 3-8 and high school in several core content areas as a formative assessment. The Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Learning Skills (DIBELS) is used to collect formative assessment data in grades K through three.

The auditors reviewed board policies, the district student assessment plan, and other assessment-related documents provided by the district. The auditors also interviewed central offi ce administrators, principals, teachers, and board members regarding the student assessment and program evaluation processes used by the district.

The auditors found that the district does not meet audit criteria for assessment and evaluation planning. Only one of the 20 audit characteristic of quality assessment planning was met by the school district.

The following policies were found by the auditors to have some connection to either program evaluation or student assessment (see Finding 1.2):

Board Policy 1000: School Board Goals and Objectives• lists as one of the board of education goals, “…to evaluate regularly educational needs and goals.”

Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent• requires “…a thorough program of research and evaluation of all aspects of district operations to provide the board with information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and set goals priorities and improvements…”


Board Policy 7060: Evaluation of the Instructional Program• states that “the instructional program should be periodically reviewed…”

Board Policy 7182: Testing Program Policy• states, “the testing program would be guided by state and federal procedures for measuring annual yearly progress.”

The Birmingham City Schools provided the auditors with a copy of the district’s student assessment plan and school board policies. The review of the school board policies informed the auditors that there were no references to a comprehensive assessment or program evaluation system. Further, there were no references in board policy regarding formative or summative assessment expectations or how data from the federal and state mandated tests were to be used in Birmingham to guide curriculum development or to improve student achievement. Following the review of board policies, the auditors focused on evaluating the Birmingham student assessment plan and board policies related to student assessment and program evaluation against 20 characteristics of comprehensive program and student assessment planning.

Exhibit 4.1.1 shows the 20 characteristics of effective student and program assessment planning and the auditors’ rating of the district’s approach for each characteristic.

Exhibit 4.1.1

Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and Program Evaluation PlanBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Characteristic (The plan…)Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateDescribes the philosophical framework for the design of the student 1. assessment plan and directs both formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade in congruence with board policy. Expects ongoing formative and summative program evaluation; directs use of data to analyze group, school, program, and system student trends.

N

Includes an explicit set of formative and summative assessment procedures to 2. carry out the expectations outlined in the plan and in board policy. Provides for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, student).

N

Requires that formative, diagnostic assessment instruments that align 3. to the district curriculum be administered to students frequently to give teachers information for instructional decision making. This includes information regarding which students need which learner objectives to be at the appropriate level of diffi culty (e.g., provides data for differentiated instruction).

N

Provides a list of student assessment and program evaluation tools, purposes, 4. subjects, type of student tested, timelines, etc. X

Identifi es and provides direction on the use of diverse assessment 5. strategies for multiple purposes at all levels—district, program, school, and classroom—that are both formative and summative.

N

Specifi es the roles and responsibilities of the central offi ce staff and school-6. based staff for assessing all students using designated assessment measures and for analyzing test data.

N

Specifi es the connection(s) among district, state, and national assessments.7. XSpecifi es the overall assessment and analysis procedures used to determine 8. curriculum effectiveness. N


Exhibit 4.1.1 (continued)Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and

Program Evaluation Plan

Characteristic (The plan…)Auditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateRequires aligned student assessment examples and tools to be placed in 9. curriculum and assessment documents. N

Specifi es how equity issues will be identifi ed and addressed using data 10. sources; controls for possible bias. N

Identifi es the components of the student assessment system that will be 11. included in program evaluation efforts and specifi es how these data will be used to determine continuation, modifi cation, or termination of a given program.

N

Provides for appropriate trainings for various audiences on assessment and 12. the instructional use of assessment results. N

Delineates responsibilities and procedures for 13. monitoring the administration of the comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan and/or procedures.

N

Establishes a process for communicating and training staff in the 14. interpretation of results, changes in state and local student achievement tests, and new trends in the student assessment fi eld.

N

Specifi es creation of an assessment data system that allows for the attribution 15. of costs by program, permitting program evaluations to support program-based cost-benefi t analyses.

N


N = No evidence provided X = Inadequate evidence provided

A review of Exhibit 4.1.1 shows that the policies and district documents related to student assessment and program evaluation are not adequate in terms of addressing the characteristics of comprehensive assessment planning. Elements of two characteristics were found to be evident in the student assessment plan and board policy. A list of assessment tools was provided, the subjects assessed and type of student tested were listed, but the list was incomplete and testing timelines were not provided (characteristic 4). Reference was made to the connection between state and local assessments in the student assessment plan and inadequately in Board Policy 7182 (characteristic 7). None of the other characteristics of student assessment and program evaluation planning were addressed in district policy or in any other documents provided to auditors.

The following is a description of what the auditors found with respect to each of the 15 characteristics:

Describes the board’s policy regarding the philosophical framework for the design of the program 1. and student assessment plan and directs both formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade and expectations of ongoing program evaluation, both formative and summative (Directs use of data to analyze group, school, program, and system student trends). No evidence was provided by the district.

Explicitly includes a formative and summative assessment system to carry out in board policy. Provides 2. for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, and student). No evidence was provided by the district.

Requires that formative, diagnostic (formative) instructional assessments aligned to district curriculum 3. be used by teachers for instructional decision making and in making ongoing decisions including which students receive which learner objectives to be at the appropriate level of diffi culty (e.g. provides data for differentiated instruction). No evidence was provided by the district.


Provides a list of assessment tools, purposes, subjects, type of student tested, timelines, etc.—This 4. characteristic was rated as inadequate. The district document entitled Student Assessment Plan provided a listing of assessments currently in use; however, it did not identify clearly the purposes of the assessments or the timelines for testing.

Identifi es and provides direction on the use of diverse assessment strategies for multi-purposes at all 5. levels—district, school, and classroom. No evidence was provided by the district.

Specifi es the roles and responsibilities of the central offi ce staff and school-based staff for assessing all 6. functions and operations of the system. No evidence was provided by the district.

Specifi es the connection(s) between district, state, and national assessments—Reference was made to 7. state and local assessments in the Student Assessment Plan and was referenced inadequately in Board Policy 7182.

Specifi es overall assessment procedures and analysis procedures to determine curriculum 8. effectiveness. No evidence was provided by the district.

Requires aligned student assessment examples and tools to be placed in curriculum and assessment 9. documents. No evidence was provided by the district.

Specifi es how equity issues will be identifi ed and addressed using data sources as well as controls for 10. bias. No evidence was provided by the district.

Identifi es the components of the student assessment system that will be included in program evaluation 11. efforts and how data will be used to determine continuation, modifi cation, or termination of a given program. No evidence was provided by the district.

Provides for appropriate trainings for various audiences on assessment and the instructional uses of 12. assessment results. No evidence was provided by the district.

Delineates responsibilities and procedures for monitoring formative and summative assessment design, 13. implementation, and results. No evidence was provided by the district.

Establishes a process for communicating and training staff in the interpretation of results, changes 14. in state and local achievement tests, and trends in the fi eld of student and program assessment. No evidence was provided by the district.

Specifi es the creation of an assessment data system that allows for the attribution of costs by program, 15. permitting program evaluations to support program-based cost-benefi t analyses. No evidence was provided by the district.

The auditors interviewed district administrators, principals, teachers, and board members to gather information about the district’s student assessment and program evaluation efforts. The following comments typify what auditors were told:

“We are data driven under the new administration.” (District Administrator)•

“In the past we tried to put in an evaluation program, but it really wasn’t implemented.” (District • Administrator)

“We haven’t used much data to make decisions.” (District Administrator)•

“There’s a strong effort to be data driven.” (Principal)•

“I’ve tried to get them much more in the research and evaluation mode and not just testing.” (District • Administrator)

“I try to get my teachers to take all data that affects student achievement and look at it and determine • how it can be used to help students.” (Principal)


When asked about formative assessments, representative comments from district administrators included the following:

“I’d like to see the use of more formative assessment.” (Principal)•

“We use ThinkLinks info to identify student weaknesses and for student grouping.” (District • Administrator)

“We don’t evaluate all programs consistently, but we have had some results on some specifi c programs.” • (Principal)

“We don’t do anything formative beyond the benchmark assessments.” (District Administrator)•

“We have data meetings by grade level with the reading coach, counselor, assistant principal and I. We • use the ThinkLinks data to develop our priorities.” (Elementary Principal)

“We use the ARMT, ThinkLinks, and DIBELS data as well as teacher made tests to help us decide what • to prioritize.” (Elementary Principal)

When asked what sort of achievement data the district offi ce sends to campuses, representative district administrative staff replied:

“We provide the schools with data so they can compare their schools’ performance with the state • performance.” (District Administrator)

“We ask each principal to work with their teams to develop school improvement plans. We tell them to • use the data from the testing program, SAT10, attendance, and other data generated in the district. The principals are not grabbing in the dark. They have the data.” (District Administrator)

Second grade teachers meeting in PLC to review student data and plan instruction—joined by director of reading language arts K-5. Use of Data, PLC collaborative process, and professional collaboration at North Roebuck

Elementary

Formative Assessments

The Birmingham City Schools uses ThinkLinks as a formative assessment measure in grades 3 through 8 in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science and in high school (in reading/language arts and mathematics). A product of Discovery Education’s assessment division, ThinkLinks assessment items are aligned with Alabama’s state curriculum standards, the norm-referenced Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition (a mandated state assessment), and Alabama assessment reporting categories. ThinkLinks is administered three times a year, quickly scored, and returned to the schools for use in benchmarking and reporting on student achievement and identifying individual and group instructional needs.


The auditors conducted an analysis of the ThinkLinks assessments using the minimal characteristics for formative assessment as described in the Curriculum Management Improvement Model (CMIM). Exhibit 4.1.2 displays this information:

Exhibit 4.1.2

Formative Assessment Analysis Frame 1: Minimal Components and Auditors’ Ratings


Point Value Criteria Auditors’

RatingFormal formative student assessments for all curriculum standards/objectives are available for teacher 1. use in determining students’ initial acquisition of learning

0 No district formative student assessments to determine initial acquisition of learning are in place for any of the curriculum standards.

1Formative assessments to determine students’ initial acquisition of learning are in place for some of the curriculum, including at least two or three academic core areas at a minimum of six grade levels.

X

2Formative student assessments to determine initial acquisition of learning are in place for all required core academic courses (mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies) in grades 2-12.

3 Formative assessments are in place to determine students’ initial acquisition of learning for all required and elective subject areas and all grades/courses.

Informal formative assessments are available for all appropriate course/grade standards/objectives for 2. teachers to use prior to teaching a standard to determine if students possess necessary prerequisites (the concepts, knowledge, and skills that are required before students can successfully master the intended standard or objective)

0 No district formative student assessments to determine whether prerequisite knowledge of learning are in place for any of the curriculum standards.

1Formative student assessments to determine student prerequisite knowledge of learning are in place for some of the curriculum, including at least two or three academic core areas, at a minimum of six grade levels.

X

2Formative student assessments to determine if student prerequisite knowledge of learning is in place for all required core academic courses (mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies) in grades 2-12.

3 Formative student assessments to determine if student prerequisite knowledge of learning is in place for all required and elective subject areas and all grades/courses.

Informal formative assessments for all standards/objectives are in place for teachers to use prior to 3. teaching a standard to determine prior student mastery

0 No district formative student assessments to determine students’ prior mastery of learning are in place for any of the curriculum standards.

1Formative student assessments to determine prior mastery of learning are in place for some of the curriculum, including at least two or three academic core areas at a minimum of six grade levels.

X

2Formative student assessments to determine students’ prior mastery of learning are in place for all required core academic courses (mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies) in grades 2-12.

3 Formative student assessments to determine students’ prior mastery of learning are in place for all required and elective subject areas and all grades/courses.


Exhibit 4.1.2 (continued)Formative Assessment Analysis Frame 1: Minimal Components

and Auditors’ RatingsPoint Value Criteria Auditors’

RatingPools of informal student assessment items for all curriculum standards/objectives are available for 4. teachers to use during their ongoing instruction to diagnose students’ current status of learning—both initial acquisition and sustained mastery

0 No district item pools for informal district formative student assessments are available for teachers’ use as part of their ongoing instruction around the standards.

1Item pools for informal formative student assessments are available to determine student learning for some of the curriculum including at least two or three academic core areas at a minimum of six grade levels.

X

2Item pools for informal formative student assessments are available to determine student learning for all required core academic courses (mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies) in grades 2-12.

3 A variety of informal formative student assessments are available to determine student learning for all required and elective subject areas and all grades/courses.

Formative student assessments are treated as diagnostic tools rather than summative tools5.

0 Formative student assessments are generally seen as summative in nature or the distinction between the two is not refl ected in their use.

1 Some formative student assessments are used appropriately, but most are seen and/or used as summative instruments. Grades are often assigned for scores.

2Many formative student assessments are being used appropriately, but there is some use of the assessments in a summative way. In some cases, grades are assigned for scores.

X

3

Formative student assessments are generally used appropriately as diagnostic tools. No grades are given on the assessments; rather, teachers use the information from these assessments to guide their instructional decisions regarding each student’s needs.

Total Points 6

From the data shown in Exhibit 4.1.2, the following observations can be made regarding each of the fi ve criteria:

Criterion 1: The district does not provide any formal formative assessments in the area of social studies for any of the grade levels. The formative assessments are provided in three core content areas for grades 3 to 8 in reading, mathematics, and science. At the high school level only reading/language arts and mathematics are assessed. If a social studies assessment had been in use and science assessed at the high school level, the rating score would have been a 2.

Criterion 2: Formative assessments to determine student prior mastery of learning using DIBELS and ThinkLinks are in place for some of the curriculum including reading and mathematics (grades K-9).

Criterion 3: Formative assessments to determine prerequisite knowledge using DIBELS and ThinkLinks are in place for some of the curriculum, including reading and mathematics (grades K-9).

Criterion 4: Pools of informal assessment items are available for teachers to use during their ongoing instruction. The Discovery Education program and its progress monitoring tool are available for teachers; however, not all core content areas are addressed by the version of the program adopted by the school district.


Criterion 5: Formative assessments are treated as diagnostic tools rather than summative tools by many teachers and principals. Evidence of teacher use of the ThinkLinks/Discovery Education progress monitoring tool to diagnose the extent to which individual students or groups of students were learning exists. This criterion received the highest rating of the fi ve criteria.

As noted in Exhibit 4.1.3, with a score of 6, or 40 percent, the current formative assessment system does not meet the minimum score of 12, or 80 percent, needed to meet the requirements for adequacy.

Summary

The auditors found that the district documents and board policies did not adequately address any of the characteristics of a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan. The lack of planning for student assessment and program evaluation does not allow the district to take a coordinated and rational approach to student assessment and program evaluation (see Finding 4.4). The district has focused its formative assessment system on the Discovery Education program ThinkLinks assessments. The auditors observed that ThinkLinks is widely discussed and used in the school district, particularly as the focus of data use to improve student achievement and delivery of the curriculum. ThinkLinks did not score well on the auditors’ formative assessment criteria. Based on the district’s almost singular dependence on the Alabama State Assessment Program for student assessment data, the absence of a plan for comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation, and reliance on a formative assessment system that does not provide coverage in all four of the core content areas, auditors found that the Birmingham City Schools lacks comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation planning to guide decisions for improving student achievement (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 4.2: The scope of the student assessment program is inadequate to provide suffi cient data for instructional decision making.

Informal curricular decisions become possible when decision makers can review and analyze data from student assessments. Systematic analysis leads to identifi cation of strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum. Just as having a complete set of written curriculum documents in each subject area is important, having data from each area to make objective decisions about programs is also necessary. Without specifi c information on how students are performing, district policy-makers rely on anecdotal or random evidence or hearsay 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 reliable data about student achievement.

To determine the scope of formal assessments in Birmingham City Schools, the auditors examined a variety of documents provided by the district staff, including board policies, the student assessment plan, curriculum documents, course selection guides, lists of tests administered, and other documents available on the district and state websites. The auditors also interviewed district administrators, principals, teachers, and board members to gather information about the scope of the district’s assessment program.

Auditors found that board policies provided very little direction regarding the scope of student assessment. No policy is related specifi cally to the scope of assessments administered to students in the district (see Findings 1.2 and 4.1).

Overall, auditors found that the scope of assessment did not meet the audit minimum criteria of assessing 70 percent of the district’s curriculum, inclusive of all core areas for all grade levels. The assessment program depends heavily on the Alabama Student Assessment Program (ASAP). The ASAP system assesses reading and mathematics in most grades but only assesses in science and social studies in three or fewer grades.

Exhibit 4.2.1 provides descriptions of the state-mandated and locally adopted tests that are administered to the students in the Birmingham City Schools.


Exhibit 4.2.1

Descriptions of Formal Assessments AdministeredBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Test Subject Frequency Grade(s) DescriptionARMT Reading Annually 3-8 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test—criterion-referenced test

based on the state model content standards. (required)Math Annually 3-8 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test—criterion-referenced test

based on the state model content standards. (required)ASA Science Annually 5&7 Alabama Science Assessment—criterion-referenced test based on

the state model content standards. (required)ADAW Writing Annually 5,7&10 Alabama Direct Assessment in Writing—assesses student writing

in the four domains based on the state model content standards. (required)

DIBELS Reading Ongoing K-3 Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Learning Skills (required)AHSGE Reading Ongoing 10 (10-

12)Alabama High School Graduation Exam—criterion-referenced test based on the state model content standards. (required for high school graduation)

Math Ongoing 10 (10-12)

Alabama High School Graduation Exam—criterion-referenced test based on the state model content standards. (required for high school graduation)

Language Ongoing 10 (10-12)


Science Ongoing 10 (10-12)


Social Studies

Ongoing 10 (10-12)


AAA Reading Annually K-8 &11 Alabama Alternate Assessment—criterion-referenced portfolio assessment aligned to Alabama’s academic extended content standards. (administered to students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities)

Math Annually 3-8 & 11 Alabama Alternate Assessment—criterion-referenced portfolio assessment aligned to Alabama’s academic extended content standards. (administered to students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities)

Science Annually 5, 7 & 11 Alabama Alternate Assessment—criterion-referenced portfolio assessment aligned to Alabama’s academic extended content standards. (administered to students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities)

SAT10 Reading Annually 3-8 Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition-norm-referenced assessment (required)

Language Annually 3-8 Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition-norm-referenced assessment (required)

Math Annually 3-8 Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition-norm-referenced assessment (required)

Science Annually 5 & 7 Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition-norm-referenced assessment (required)

Social Science

Annually 6 Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition-norm-referenced assessment (required)

OLSAT Aptitude Annually 3-8 Otis-Lennon School Ability Test—a test of school aptitude


Exhibit 4.2.1 (continued)Descriptions of Formal Assessments Administered


Test Subject Frequency Grade(s) DescriptionEXPLORE College

ReadinessOngoing 9 Assesses college readiness

PLAN College Readiness

Ongoing 10 Assesses college readiness and academic aptitude. Used by scholarship programs

PSAT College Readiness

Ongoing 10 Assesses college readiness and academic aptitude. Used by scholarship programs

AP College Aptitude

Annually 10-12 Assesses achievement in Advanced Placement high school courses and can be used to award college credit or college course exemption

ACT College Admissions

Ongoing 11-12 College entrance examination—assesses students educational aptitude and ability to complete college

ThinkLinks Reading/Language

Arts

Ongoing 2-9 ThinkLinks assessment are formative assessments developed by Discovery Education and are linked to the State Course of Study and the SAT10. (Required by BPS)

Social Science

Ongoing 2-9 ThinkLinks assessment are formative assessments developed by Discovery Education and are linked to the State Course of Study and the SAT10. (Required by BPS)

Math Ongoing 2-9 ThinkLinks assessment are formative assessments developed by Discovery Education and are linked to the State Course of Study and the SAT10. (Required by BPS)

Science Ongoing 2-9 ThinkLinks assessment are formative assessments developed by Discovery Education and are linked to the State Course of Study and the SAT10. (Required by BPS)

Source: Data provided by school district offi cials and the Alabama State Department of Education website.

The following observations can be made about Exhibit 4.2.1:

Both criterion- and norm-referenced assessments are given in Birmingham City Schools.•

Students in most grade levels are assessed in reading and mathematics.•

The Alabama Student Assessment Program (ASAP) includes criterion-referenced assessments in • reading and mathematics in grades K-10; in writing and science at grades 5, 7, and 10; and in social studies in grade 10. A norm-referenced exam is administered in reading/language arts at grades 3-8, in science at grades 5 and 7, and in grade 6 in social science.

Formative assessments are given in grades K-9 in reading, grades 3-9 in mathematics, and grades 3-8 • in science.

Four college preparation/readiness exams are administered beginning at eighth grade.•


Exhibit 4.2.2 summarizes the scope of the assessments used by the Birmingham City Schools by grade levels. The exhibit also shows whether the assessment is required or optional.

Exhibit 4.2.2

Matrix of Formal Assessments by Grade LevelBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

AssessmentsGrade Level

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12ARMT-READING X X X X X XARMT-MATH X X X X X XDIBELS X X X DTHINKLINKS-READING/LANGUAGE ARTS D D D D D D D D

THINKLINKS-MATH D D D D D D D DTHINKLINKS-SCIENCE D D D D D D DASA – SCIENCE X XADAW – WRITING X X XAHSGE-READING XAHSGE-MATH XAHSGE-LANGUAGE XAHSGE-SCIENCE XAHSGE-SOCIAL STUDIES XAAA-READING X X X X X X X X X XAAA-MATH X X X X X X XAAA-SCIENCE X X XSAT10-READING X X X X X XSAT10-LANGUAGE X X X X X XSAT10-MATH X X X X X XSAT10-SCIENCE X XSAT10-SOCIAL SCIENCE XOLSAT X X X X X XEXPLORE DPLAN XPSAT OAP O O OACT O OX = State mandated assessment; D = District mandated assessment; and O = Optional assessments

Auditors made the following observations about Exhibit 4.2.2:

All students in grades K-10 have a required assessment in reading using either the DIBELS or one of • the ASAP assessments.

Formative assessments in reading and mathematics using ThinkLinks are required for students in grades • 3-9, and assessments in science are required for grades 3-8.

The AP exam is optional for grades 10, 11, and 12; however, for those taking AP courses the exam is • required.


Using the district curriculum scope established in Finding 2.2, the auditors compared the formal assessments given in curricular areas and courses for grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Only required assessments were used in this comparison. No teacher-generated assessments were considered for this comparison.

Exhibit 4.2.3 shows the assessment scope by subject area for grades K-5 for each course taught. If a formal assessment exists for the subject and grade, an “X” is listed on the chart. The course listing was cross referenced with the board policy, school master schedules, and Finding 2.2.

Exhibit 4.2.3

Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Grades K through 5Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Subject K 1 2 3 4 5

Number of Subjects

or Courses Taught

Number of Subjects

or Courses Formally Assessed

Core Subject AreasEnglish Language Arts X X X X X X 6 6Mathematics X X X 6 3Science X X X 6 3Social Studies 6 0

Subtotal 24 12Non-Core SubjectsArts Education

Dance 6 0Music 6 0Theatre 6 0Visual Arts 6 0

Health Education 6 0Physical Education 6 0Career Education 6 0

Subtotal 42 0Total 66 12

Percent of Total—Scope of the Assessed Curriculum 18%Key: X = Subjects Where the Written Curriculum is Assessed.Source: District Assessment Documents as presented to auditors


Overall, 18 percent of core and non-core courses in grades K-5 are formally assessed.•

The scope of the K-5 assessed curriculum is inadequate.•


For grades 6-8, master schedules and the linkage of those schedules to the assessments formally administered in the Birmingham City Schools were examined. Exhibit 4.2.4 presents the auditors’ ratings regarding the scope of the assessed curriculum for grades 6-8. It lists the courses offered, the grades in which they are offered, the number of areas in which assessments should be administered, and the percentage of the curriculum that is assessed (where assessments are offered, these are noted with an “X”).

Exhibit 4.2.4

Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Grades 6 through 8Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Course

Grade Level Offered Number of Subjects

or Courses Taught

Number of Subjects

or Courses Formally Assessed

6 7 8

Core AreasEnglish Language Arts

Language Arts X X X 3 3Reading X X X 3 3Reading 180 X X X 3 3

Mathematics X X X 3 3Social Studies X - - 3 1Science

Earth Science X 1 1Life Science X 1 1Physical Science X 1 1

Subtotal Core Areas 18 16Non-Core AreasArts Education

Band, Beginning - - - 3 0Band, Advanced - - - 3 0Choir - - - 3 0Dance - - - 3 0Music - - - 3 0Theatre - - - 3 0

Career EducationCareer Tech I X 1 0Career Tech II X 1 0Teen Discoveries X X 2 0Teen Connections X 1 0

Health Education X X X 3 0Physical Education X X X 3 0Technology Education

Keyboard X X X 3 0Subtotal Non-Core Areas 29 0

Total 47 16Percent of Total - Scope of the Assessed Curriculum 34%

Key: Shaded = Course Not Offered X= Subjects Where the Written Curriculum is AssessedSource: District Assessment Documents as presented to auditors



Overall, 34 percent of core and non-core courses in grades 6-8 are formally assessed.•

The scope of the grades 6-8 assessed curriculum is inadequate.•

Department course descriptions were reviewed by the auditors in addition to school master schedules to identify the instructional program content and courses offered for grades 9-12. These documents provided a cross check for verifying course offerings.

Exhibit 4.2.5 presents the data regarding the 9-12 scope of the assessed curriculum. It lists the courses offered (noted by an “X”), the schools in which the courses are offered, the number of areas where assessments should be administered, and the percentage of the courses that are assessed.

Exhibit 4.2.5

Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades 9 through 12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)

Subjects or Courses Taught

High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

Fine Arts1 Art Fundamentals X X X X X 1 02 Spec Art X X X X X 1 03 Studio Art X X X X 1 04 AP Art X 1 15 AP Art History X 1 16 Theatre I X 1 07 Theatre II X 1 08 Beginning Band X X X X X 1 09 Concert Band X X X X 1 010 Intermediate Band X 1 011 Jazz Band X X X 1 012 Marching Band X X X 1 013 Symphony Band X X X 1 014 Intermediate Orchestra X X 1 015 Advanced Orchestra X X 1 016 Intro to Choir X X X X 1 017 Choir I X X X 1 018 Choir II X X X 1 019 Choir III X 1 020 Choir IV X 1 021 Concert Choir X X X X X 1 022 Ensembles X X X 1 023 Music Appreciation X X 1 024 Music Technology X X 1 025 Dance Elec X 1 026 Dance Technique X 1 0


Exhibit 4.2.5 (continued)Scope of the Assessed Curriculum: Courses and Subjects in Grades Nine through Twelve


Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)


High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

Career & Technical27 Automotive Electrical I X 1 028 Automotive Electrical II X 1 029 Automotive Brakes X 1 030 Automotive Suspension and Steering X 1 031 Diesel Engines I X 1 032 Diesel Engines II X 1 033 Applied Welding I X 1 034 Applied Welding II X 1 035 Introduction to Welding X 1 036 Culinary Arts I X X 1 037 Culinary Arts II X X 1 038 Hospitality and Tourism X X 1 039 Networking I X 1 040 Networking II X 1 041 Information Technology Fundamentals X X 1 042 AP Computer Programming X 1 043 AP Computer Science X 1 044 Graphic Arts X X X 1 045 Fashion X X 1 046 Life Connections X X 1 047 Food and Nutrition X X X 1 048 Family and Consumer Sciences X X X 1 049 Workforce Essentials X X X X 1 050 Business Technology Applications X X X X X 1 051 Advanced Business Technology Applications X X X X 1 052 Accounting X X X X 1 053 Advanced Accounting X X 1 054 Banking and Financial Services X X X X X 1 055 Financial Management X X X 1 056 Consumer Services I X 1 057 Consumer Services II X 1 058 Multimedia Design X X X X 1 059 Web Design X 1 060 Introduction to Cosmetology X X X X 1 061 Hair Coloring X X X 1 062 Introduction to Nail Care and Applications X X 1 063 Nail Art Applications X 1 064 State Board Practicum X 1 065 Digital File Preparation X X 1 0




Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)


High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

66 Advanced Digital File Preparation X 1 067 Engineering X 1 068 Marketing Principles X X X 1 069 Sales Promotion X X 1 070 Camera Images X X X 1 071 Character Animation X X 1 072 Introduction to Animation X 1 073 Advanced Animation X X 1 074 Animated Filmmaking X X X 1 075 Drafting I X 1 076 Drafting II X 1 077 Animation Layout X 1 078 Advanced Drafting X 1 079 Exec Intern X X X X 1 080 Chemical Services X X X 1 081 Consumer Services I X 1 082 Consumer Services II X 1 083 Salon Management X X 1 084 Education and Training X 1 085 Entrepreneurship X X 1 086 Housing X 1 087 Introduction to Television Production X 1 088 Television Production X 1 089 Advanced Television Production X 1 090 Food Health Science X X 1 091 Trans Serv I X X X X 1 092 Trans Serv EL X X X 1 093 Cooperative Education Seminar X X X X 1 094 Parenting X X 1 095 Survey Health X 1 096 Therapeutic Services X X 1 097 Teaching I X 1 098 Teaching II X 1 0 English Language Arts99 English 9 X X X X X 1 1100 English 10 X X X X X 1 1101 English 11 X X X X X 1 1102 English 12 X X X X X 1 1103 English Graduation X X X 1 1104 Pre-AP English 9 X X X X X 1 1




Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)


High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

105 Pre-AP English 10 X X X X X 1 1106 Pre-AP English 11 X X X X X 1 1107 Pre-AP English 12 X X X X X 1 1108 Critical Thinking X X X 1 1109 Corrective Reading A X X X 1 1110 Journalism /News / Yearbook X X 1 1111 AP Language and Composition X X X X X 1 1112 AP Language Workshop X X X X 1 1113 AP Literature and Composition X X X X 1 1114 AP Literature Workshop X X X X 1 1115 Black Literature X X 1 1116 Mythology X 1 1117 Speech I X 1 1118 English Novel X X 1 1119 Young Adult Literature X 1 1 Mathematics

120 Algebra I X X X X X 1 1121 Algebra II X X X X X 1 1122 Pre-AP Algebra I X X X X 1 1123 Pre-AP Algebra II X X X X 1 1124 Pre-AP Algebra III X 1 1125 Geometry X X X X X 1 1126 Pre-AP Geometry X X X X X 1 1127 Algebra Connection X X X 1 1128 Algebra III Stats X X X X X 1 1129 Pre-calculus 11, 12 X X X X X 1 1130 AP Calculus X X X X X 1 1131 AP Calculus Workshop X X X X X 1 1132 Gr Exam Math X X X 1 1133 Algebra Ex X 1 1134 Linear Algebra X 1 1 JROTC

135 JROTC I X X X X X 1 0136 JROTC II X X X X 1 0137 JROTC III X X X X 1 0138 JROTC IV X X X X 1 0139 Drill Team X X X X X 1 0140 ROTC Color Guard X X X X 1 0141 ROTC Firearm X X X 1 0 Additional




Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)


High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

142 ESL I X X 1 1143 ESL II X X 1 1144 ESL III X X 1 1145 ACT Test Prep X 1 0146 Health Education X X X X X 1 0147 Driver Education X X X X 1 0 Physical Education

148 Physical Education X X X X X 1 0149 Exercise Intern X X X X X 1 0 Science

150 Physical Science X X X X X 1 1151 Biology X X X X X 1 1152 Pre-AP Biology X X X X X 1 1153 Chemistry X X X X X 1 1154 Pre-AP Chemistry X X X X X 1 1155 Human Anatomy X X X X X 1 1156 Genetics X X X 1 1157 Microbiology X X X X 1 1158 Forensic Science X X X X 1 1159 Pre-AP Physics X X X X 1 1160 Environmental Science X X X X 1 1161 AP Biology X X X X X 1 1162 AP Biology Workshop X X X 1 1163 AP Chemistry X X X 1 1164 AP Chemistry Workshop X X X 1 1165 Gr Exam Science X X X 1 1 Social Studies

166 World History 9 X X X X 1 1167 US History 10 X X X X X 1 1168 Pre-AP History 9 X X X X X 1 1169 Pre-AP History 10 X X X 1 1170 US History and Geography 11 X X X X X 1 1171 Pre-AP History 11 X X X 1 1172 Government X X X X 1 1173 Economics X X X X 1 1174 Pre-AP Government X 1 1175 Pre-AP Economics X X 1 1176 AP American History X X X X X 1 1177 AP American History Workshop X X X X 1 1178 AP Government X X X X 1 1




Cou

rses

Off

ered

(Cum

ulat

ive

Cou

nt)


High Schools

Num

ber T

augh

t

Num

ber

Form

ally

Te

sted

A. H

. Par

ker

Car

ver

Ram

say

Wen

onah

Woo

dlaw

n

179 AP Government Workshop X X X 1 1180 AP Economics X X X 1 1181 AP Economics Workshop X X X 1 1182 We the People X X X 1 1183 Gr Exam Social Studies X X X 1 1184 Street Law X X X 1 1185 Psychology X X 1 1186 Sociology X X 1 1 Languages Other than English

187 Spanish I X X X X X 1 0188 Spanish II X X X X X 1 0189 Spanish III X X X 1 0190 Spanish IV X 1 0191 French I X X X 1 0192 French II X X X 1 0193 French III X X 1 0

Number of Course Offerings 193Number of Course Offerings that are Formally Assessed 77

Percent of Course Offerings Formally Assessed 39.9%X = Course offered at school indicated. Auditors were not presented with master schedules for Huffman and Jackson-Olin High Schools.Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors


There are 193 course offerings listed in high school master schedules.•

Formal assessments are available for 77 of the total courses offered.•

The scope of the written curriculum for the four core subject areas is 100 percent, and the scope for the • non-core areas is 4.3 percent.

The overall scope of the grades 9-12 written courses that are assessed is 39.9 percent. The high school • curriculum does not meet the audit criteria for adequacy.


Exhibit 4.2.6 presents a summary of the assessment scope of curriculum for grades 9-12 by subject and content area:

Exhibit 4.2.6

Scope of the Assessed Curriculum by Subject Area: Grades 9 through 12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Content Area Number of Course Offerings

Offerings with Formal Assessments

Percent of Offerings with Formal Assessments

Core Content AreasEnglish Language Arts 21 21 100.0Mathematics 15 15 100.0Science 16 16 100.0Social Studies 21 21 100.0

Subtotal Core Content Areas 73 73 100.0%Non-Core Content AreasFine Arts 26 2 7.7Career and Technical 72 0 0.0JROTC 7 0 0.0Driver Education 1 0 0.0*Other 4 3 75.0Health Education 1 0 0.0Physical Education 2 0 0.0Languages Other than English 7 0 0.0

Subtotal Non-Core Areas 120 5 4.2Total 193 78 40.4%* See Exhibit 2.2.3, cumulative 142-145, for complete listing of courses identifi ed as “other”.Source: District Curriculum Documents as presented to auditors


Each of the four core content areas is formally assessed via the Alabama High School Graduation tests, • which are aligned to the state’s graduation requirements.

There is 4.2 percent coverage in the non-core courses. •

The overall coverage for core and non-core courses is 40.4 percent.•

To achieve adequacy, a minimum of 70 percent of the curriculum offered across grades 9-12 must be formally assessed. The scope of the assessed curriculum in grades 9-12 does not meet audit standards for adequacy since only 40.3 percent of the curriculum is assessed.


Exhibit 4.2.7 provides a summary of the scope of assessment in grades K-12:

Exhibit 4.2.7

Scope of Assessment: Kindergarten through Grade 12Birmingham City Schools

December 2010

Core Areas Non-core Areas Total Areas

Grade Levels Total Core Offerings

Core Areas that are

Formally Assessed

Total Non-Core Offerings

Non-Core Areas that

are Formally Assessed

Total Course

Offerings

Total Areas that are

Formally Assessed

K-5 24 12 42 0 66 126-8 18 16 29 0 47 169-12 73 73 120 5 193 78Total 115 101 191 5 306 106

Core Areas = 87.8% Non-Core Areas = 2.6% Total Areas = 34.6%Source: District and State Assessment Documents as presented to auditors


Auditors identifi ed a total of 306 courses offered in kindergarten through grade 12 in Birmingham City • Schools, of which 106 are formally assessed, representing 34.6 percent of the curriculum.

The auditors identifi ed 115 core courses/curricular areas, of which 101 are formally assessed, representing • 87.8 percent of the core curriculum.

The auditors identifi ed 191 non- core courses/curricular areas, of which fi ve are formally assessed, • representing 2.6 percent of the non-core curriculum.

The district does not meet the minimum audit criterion of 70 percent for scope of the assessment system since the assessed curriculum covers only 34.6 percent of the curriculum.

Summary

The scope of the assessment of the written curriculum is inadequate to monitor student achievement and to guide instructional decision making. The scope of the combined core and non-core area subjects that are formally assessed from grades kindergarten through 12 is 34.6 percent; therefore, the scope of assessment does not meet the minimum audit standard of 70 percent coverage of the curriculum (see Recommendation 2).

Finding 4.3: Student achievement results are generally inconsistent and do not show continual improvement over time. Student achievement overall is below state and national averages. Trends are mostly positive, but performance remains below state and national averages.

Assessment data provide information to district personnel to determine the effectiveness of the board-adopted curriculum and the instructional strategies of the taught curriculum in relationship to actual student performance. Data reveal performance gaps in terms of individual learning, grade level defi ciencies, and building level progress toward established goals or targets. Comparison of student achievement data to a set of standards or to other groups of students helps administrators, teachers, and the board determine the level of effectiveness of their instructional programs. Analysis of data by subgroups such as ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status helps determine if all populations of students are achieving at the same level or not. If all populations are not achieving at the same level, the data can be used to help determine which groups need more resources to be successful.

Analyses of trends provide information about how assessment results have changed over time. In a system with effective quality control, performance of all students should improve over time while performance gaps among student subgroups should diminish. When the data are available to allow for the verifi cation of alignment


between test items and the objectives of the written curriculum, more effective instructional and curricular planning can occur.

The auditors examined board policies, various memos and assessment-related documents, and assessment data provided by the district personnel as well as on the district and state websites. Auditors also interviewed district administrators, principals, teachers, and board members about achievement gaps among student subgroups and about how the assessment data are used to inform instructional and curricular decisions at the school and district levels.

Overall, auditors found that student achievement, as measured by the Alabama Student Assessment Program (ASAP) for the Birmingham City Schools for 2008-09, was mixed but consistently below state averages on ASAP assessments and below national average on nationally norm-referenced assessments. Birmingham City Schools trend data for the last fi ve years further shows that this performance pattern of ups and downs, with overall performance below state and national averages, has been occurring for at least fi ve years.

Exhibit 4.3.1 summarizes student profi ciency data for the elementary and middle school grades in the Birmingham City Schools compared with Alabama student performance for the 2009-10 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test by grade level (grades 3-8).

Exhibit 4.3.1

Comparative District and State Student Profi ciency Percentages on the 2010 Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test


0

20

40

60

80

100

Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth

ASAP Reading

BCS

AL

0

20

40

60

80

100

Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth

ASAP Mathematics

BCS

AL

Source: Chief State School Offi cers Reports for 2006, 2008 and 2010-Alabama

From the data shown in Exhibit 4.3.1, the following observations are noteworthy:

The percentage of students in the Birmingham City Schools scoring at or above grade level for 2009-10 • ranged from 64 percent to 80 percent in reading.

The percentage of students in the Birmingham City Schools scoring at or above grade level for 2009-10 • ranged from 56 percent to 72 percent in mathematics.

For each grade and each content area, the performance of Birmingham City School’s students was • consistently below the performance of Alabama students.

The range of mathematics scores was lower than the range of reading scores.•


Exhibit 4.3.2 summarizes the fi ve-year student profi ciency data performance trends for the elementary and middle school grades in the Birmingham City Schools on the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) by grade level (grades 3-8). Scores listed by grade level are for different groups of children each year, for example, third grade students in 2006, third grade students in 2007, third grade students in 2008, etc.

Exhibit 4.3.2

Trend Percentages of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT Reading and Math Tests: Grades 3-8 (All Students)


Reading 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Grade 3 75 74 73 76 80Grade 4 72 73 74 72 77Grade 5 70 74 72 74 74Grade 6 68 73 74 74 74Grade 7 64 66 66 70 73Grade 8 60 62 64 62 64

MathGrade 3 68 68 61 68 71Grade 4 69 67 69 65 71Grade 5 69 69 65 69 71Grade 6 58 60 57 60 62Grade 7 42 48 46 54 56Grade 8 57 58 57 63 72Key: Data are rounded upward if the decimal is ≥ .50. Data highlighted in shaded cells refl ect years in which test scores dropped.Source: Birmingham City Schools Assessment Data Reports

Noteworthy in Exhibit 4.3.2 are the following points:

Reading scores ranged from a high of 80 percent achieving grade level profi ciency to a low of 60 percent • achieving grade level profi ciency across the fi ve-year timeframe. Even though these are different groups of students each year, the percentage of students achieving profi ciency was lowest for eighth graders across the fi ve years.

Mathematics scores ranged from a high of 72 percent achieving grade level profi ciency to a low of • 42 percent achieving grade level profi ciency across the fi ve-year timeframe. Even though these are different groups of students each year, the percentage of students achieving profi ciency was lowest for seventh graders across the fi ve years.

Reading scores for grades 3, 4, 5 and 8 were mixed across the fi ve-year timeframe.•

Mathematics scores for grades 3-8 were mixed across the fi ve years, with 2007-08 being a year in • which all of the mathematics scores dipped from the previous year.


Exhibit 4.3.3 displays data for single groups of students (cohort) over successive years of testing in both reading and mathematics. For instance, when a group was in eighth grade in 2010, the chart displays their eighth grade score that year, along with their seventh grade score in 2009, their sixth grade score in 2008, their fi fth grade score in 2007, and their fourth grade score in 2006. There is no attempt by auditors to determine statistical cohort analysis over time. The grade levels listed are for the set of students who took the test in the given year, with no determination concerning the percentage of the group that remained the same from year to year.

Exhibit 4.3.3

Trend Percentages of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT Reading and Math Tests: Cohort Groups in Grades 3-8 (All Students)

Birmingham City Schools2007 - 2010

Grade Reading: All Students Total Math: All StudentsScores when

students were in:

8th Gr in 2010

8th Gr in 2009

8th Gr in 2008

8th Gr in 2007

7th Gr in 2010

6th Gr in 2010

8th Gr in 2010

8th Gr in 2009

8th Gr in 2008

8th Gr in 2007

7th Gr in 2010

6th Gr in 2010

3rd Grade 75 74 68 684th Grade 72 73 74 69 67 695th Grade 74 70 72 74 69 69 65 696th Grade 74 73 68 74 74 57 60 58 60 627th Grade 70 66 66 64 73 54 46 48 42 568th Grade 64 62 64 62 72 63 57 58Improved 1 x 1 x 0 x 1 x

Key: Shaded Area denote scores that declined from the previous school yearData Source: ARMT Reading and Math Tests: Grades 3–8, 2006 - 2010

Noteworthy in Exhibit 4.3.3 are the following points:

Reading and mathematics scores declined in cohort groups of seventh graders in every year for which • data were available to review. No analysis was made for the seventh graders in 2006 (the eighth grade class of 2007) since sixth grade scores in 2005 were not available in either reading or mathematics.

Reading scores further declined in cohort groups of eighth graders in all four years in which data were • available for review.

Mathematics scores declined in cohort groups of sixth graders in all four years in which data were • available for review.


Exhibit 4.3.4 summarizes the percentage of students in elementary grades achieving profi ciency or above on the ARMT in reading and mathematics and the impact of counting partially profi cient on the school achieving adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 2009-10. Federal AYP requirements must be implemented in school districts receiving Federal Title I funds as a condition of receipt of those funds. The percentages required for profi ciency to meet the federal requirement are set by each state.

Exhibit 4.3.4

Percentages by School of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students—Grades 3-5


Reference GradeReading

Profi cient and Above

Reading Profi cient + Partially Profi cient

Reading Percent

Required for Profi ciency

Math Profi cient and Above

Math Profi cient + Partially Profi cient

Math Percent


BPS3 80 89.5 85 70 80.5 794 77 88.5 82 70 82.5 785 74 86.5 85 74 86.5 77

Arthur3 77 88.5 85 67 81 794 77 88 82 79* 87 785 71 85 85 72 85 77

Avondale3 58 78.5 85 52 68.5 794 82* 90.5 82 80* 87 785 82 90.5 85 83* 90.5 77

Barrett3 74 87 85 59 73 794 82* 91 82 73 83 785 83 90 85 71 85 77

Brown3 91* 95.5 85 66 81.5 794 56 77.5 82 62 77 785 64 82 85 62 80 77

Central Park3 82 89.5 85 73 80 794 89* 95 82 73 84 785 69 84 85 52 74.5 77

Christian3 89* 94.5 85 87* 92.5 794 80 90 82 68 78 785 70 85 85 59 77 77

Councill3 70 83 85 46 67 794 74 87 82 75 85.5 785 74 85.5 85 75 87 77

Epic3 87* 92 85 77 82.5 794 93* 95.5 82 85* 91.5 785 85 92.5 85 83* 91 77

Gaston3 89 94.5 85 60 78 794 80 90 82 64 82.5 785 79 90 85 95* 97 77

Gate City3 77 87.5 85 82* 87.5 794 48 74 82 58 75.5 785 58 78 85 59 77.5 77

Gibson3 72 85 85 66 76 794 74 85.5 82 68 84 785 63 80.5 85 69 84.5 77


Exhibit 4.3.4 (continued)Percentages by School of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above

on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students—Grades 3-5Birmingham City Schools

December 2010




Reading Percent




Math Percent


Glen Iris3 92* 96.5 85 85* 90.5 794 73 86 82 74 84 785 77 87.5 85 75 86.5 77

Going3 86* 93 85 87* 91 794 83* 91.5 82 76 87.5 785 76 87.5 85 75 87 77

Hemphill3 81 89.5 85 67 78 794 83* 91.5 82 63 80.5 785 76 88 85 72 86 77

Hill3 57 78.5 85 45 61 794 76 86 82 83* 91.5 785 59 77 85 55 77.5 77

Hudson3 90* 93.5 85 91* 93.5 794 62 80.5 82 76 86 785 79 89.5 85 96* 98 77

Inglenook3 48 74 85 36 60 794 90* 95 82 87* 92 785 97* 97 85 97* 97 77

Jackson3 85* 91.5 85 85* 90 794 79 89.5 82 72 83.5 785 62 81 85 79* 90 77

Lee3 78 88.5 85 72 81 794 69 84.5 82 73 84.5 785 69 84.5 85 81* 88.5 77

Lewis3 76 87.5 85 85* 92.5 794 74 87 82 48 65.5 785 73 87 85 85* 92.5 77

Minor3 79 90 85 64 77.5 794 72 85 82 73 84 785 63 80 85 63 80 77

North Birmingham

3 77 87.5 85 66 77.5 794 63 81.5 82 48 68.5 785 87* 93 85 63 81.5 77

North Roebuck

3 79 88 85 72 79.5 794 78 88.5 82 59 78 785 80 89 85 77* 88 77

Norwood

3 77 87 85 88* 92.5 794 92* 96 82 84* 92.5 78

5 PARTIAL ADMINISTRATION 85 68 84 77

Phillips3 89* 93.5 85 68 80.5 794 86* 93.5 82 80* 89.5 785 96* 98.5 85 90* 95 77



on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students—Grades 3-5Birmingham City Schools

December 2010




Reading Percent




Math Percent


Powderly3 71 85.5 85 46 71 794 70 85.5 82 80* 90 785 41 69 85 50 75 77

Price3 90* 95 85 75 82.5 794 96* 98 82 79* 89.5 785 68 84 85 82* 91 77

Princeton3 100* 100 85 98* 99.5 794 98* 99 82 97* 98 785 100* 100 85 100* 100 77

Robinson3 76 88 85 63 76.5 794 78 88.5 82 74 85.5 785 70 84.5 85 71 85.5 77

South Hampton

3 92* 96 85 83* 89.5 794 73 85 82 59 76 785 77 88 85 60 78.5 77

Sun Valley3 75 87 85 61 73.5 794 61 79.5 82 55 73.5 785 DATA NOT PROVIDED 85 71 85 77

Tuggle3 67 83.5 85 74 85.5 794 81 90.5 82 86* 93.5 785 65 82.5 85 70 85.5 77

Washington3 89* 94.5 85 80* 88.5 794 75 87.5 82 82* 90 785 81 90.5 85 78* 89 77

Wenonah3 68 84 85 68 81 794 73 86 82 64 81 785 74 87 85 47 71.5 77

Whatley3 73 86.5 85 58 71.5 794 70 85 82 40 67.5 785 55 75.5 85 57 78.5 77

Wilson3 94* 96 85 76 84 794 94* 97 82 78* 89 785 76 88 85 67 83 77

Wylam3 68 84 85 56 74 794 54 77.5 82 53 71 785 63 82 85 63 82 77

Note: The scores marked with an asterisk made AYP at the particular grade level based on the percentage of student achieving or exceeding profi ciency. The second column for reading and math refl ects the addition of partial profi cient scores to the AYP of the schools. The scores contained in a shaded cell did not make AYP even with the addition of the partially profi cient scores. Source: Chief State School Offi cers Reports for 2006, 2008, and 2010-Alabama


The following observations can be made from the data in Exhibit 4.3.4:

There were 109 grade levels (3-5) in 37 schools that aspired during the 2009-10 school year to achieve • the state AYP average profi ciency cut score in reading on the ARMT. (Data was not available for fi fth grade in two schools in reading.) Of that number, 29 grade levels (27 percent) in 20 schools achieved the state annual profi ciency target (AYP) without any adjustment to their profi ciency scores.

Twenty-seven (27) grade levels (25 percent) in 21 schools did not achieve the state profi ciency target • even after they were permitted to receive credit for students who were partially profi cient on the ARMT reading test.

There were 111 grade levels (3-5) in 37 schools that aspired during the 2009-10 school year to achieve • the state AYP average profi ciency cut score in mathematics on the ARMT. Of that number, 37 grade levels (33 percent) in 24 schools achieved the state annual profi ciency target (AYP) without any score adjustments.

Twenty-seven (27) grade levels (24 percent) in 21 schools did not achieve the state profi ciency target • even after they were permitted to receive credit for students who were partially profi cient on the ARMT reading test.

The Birmingham City Schools overall achieved AYP as a result of being able to count profi cient and • partially profi cient student performance at each of the grade levels (3, 4 and 5). Without the inclusion of the performance of partially profi cient student performance, the school district would not have met AYP in 2009-10.

Exhibit 4.3.5 summarizes the percentage of students in middle school grades achieving profi ciency or above on the ARMT in reading and mathematics and the impact of counting partially profi cient on the ability of each school to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 2009-10. The percentages required for profi ciency to meet the federal requirement are set by each state.

Exhibit 4.3.5

Percentages by School of Students Scoring Profi cient or Above on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students, Grades 6–8





Reading Percent




Math Percent Required for Profi ciency

BCS6 74 86.5 85 62 81 657 72 85 79 56 78 668 64 81.5 67 72 86 70

Arrington6 75 87.5 85 82* 91 657 63 81 79 44 72.5 668 57 78.5 67 86* 93 70

Bush6 59 78.5 85 39 69.5 657 66 81.5 79 55 77.5 668 49 73 67 60 80 70

Center St6 76 87 85 57 78.5 657 65 82.5 79 43 71.5 668 54 75 67 65 82.5 70

Christian6 100* 100 85 98* 98.5 657 100* 100 79 98* 98.5 668 100* 100 67 99* 99.5 70



on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students, Grades 6–8Birmingham City Schools

December 2010




Reading Percent





Daniel Payne6 64 82 85 55 77.5 657 79* 89 79 59 80 668 67* 83.5 67 75* 87.5 70

Gaston6 90* 95 85 80* 90 657 66 80.5 79 50 75 668 72* 86 67 53 76.5 70

Glenn6 59 77 85 33 66.5 657 58 78.5 79 26 63 668 41 68.5 67 60 80 70

Green Acres6 61 80 85 40 69 657 67 83 79 47 73.5 668 48 73 67 59 79.5 70

Hudson6 85* 93 85 72* 85.5 657 88* 94 79 90* 95.5 668 64 81 67 85* 92 70

Huffman M.6 83 91.5 85 54 77 657 75 87 79 53 76.5 668 73* 86.5 67 57 90.5 70

Inglenook6 51 75.5 85 66* 83.5 657 68 84 79 66* 83 668 63 79 67 82* 91 70

Martha Gaskins

6 77 88.5 85 48 74 657 60 79.5 79 31 66 668 56 77 67 61 80.5 70

Ossie Ware Mitchell

6 55 77 85 39 69 657 72 85.5 79 27 63.5 668 64 80.5 67 58 79 70

Phillips6 99* 99.5 85 91* 95.5 657 100* 100 79 99* 99.5 668 92* 96 67 97* 98.5 70

Putnam6 61 79 85 43 71.5 657 48 72.5 79 25 62.5 668 49 74 67 43 71.5 70

Smith6 88* 94 85 81* 90.5 657 92* 96 79 92* 96 668 81* 90 67 78* 89 70

Washington6 68 84 85 59 79 657 57 78 79 48 74 668 54 75 67 48 74 70

Wenonah6 69 85 85 69* 85 657 72 85.5 79 63 81.5 668 61 80 67 69 84.5 70



on the ARMT and the School AYP Status: All Students, Grades 6–8Birmingham City Schools

December 2010




Reading Percent





Whatley6 70 84.5 85 36 68 657 58 78.5 79 43 71.5 668 43 71.5 67 58 79 70

Wilkerson6 95* 97.5 85 97* 98.5 657 94* 97 79 88* 94 668 82* 90.5 67 93* 96.5 70

Note: The scores marked with an asterisk made AYP at the particular grade level based on the percentage of student achieving or exceeding profi ciency. The second column for reading and math refl ects the addition of partial profi cient scores to the AYP of the schools. The scores contained in a shaded cell did not make AYP even with the addition of the partially profi cient scores. Source: Chief State School Offi cers Reports for 2006, 2008 and 2010-Alabama


There were 60 grade levels (grades 6-8) in 21 schools that aspired during the 2009-10 school year to • achieve the state AYP average profi ciency cut score in reading on the ARMT. Of that number, 19 grade levels (32 percent) in eight schools achieved the state annual profi ciency target (AYP).

Thirteen (13) grade levels (18 percent) in nine schools did not achieve the state profi ciency target even • after they were permitted to receive credit for students who were partially profi cient on the ARMT reading test.

Of the 60 grade levels (grades 6-8) in 21 schools that attempted to achieve the state AYP average • profi ciency cut score in mathematics on the ARMT in 2009-10, 23 grade levels (38 percent) in 10 schools achieved the state annual profi ciency target (AYP) without any score adjustments.

Three grade levels (fi ve percent) in three schools did not achieve the state profi ciency target even after • they were permitted to receive credit for students who were partially profi cient on the ARMT reading test.

The Birmingham City Schools overall achieved AYP as a result of being able to count profi cient and • partially profi cient student performance at each of the grade levels in reading (6-8) and grades 6 and 7 in mathematics. Without the inclusion of partially profi cient student performance scores in those grade level/subject areas, the school district would not have met AYP in 2009-10.


Exhibit 4.3.6 summarizes the percentage of students in grades 5 and 7 that met and exceeded state standards on the Alabama Science Assessment compared with overall state performance.

Exhibit 4.3.6

Comparisons Between the School District and the State on the Alabama Science Assessment: All Students, Grades 5 & 7


Reference

Percent of 5th Graders

Meeting Standards

Percent of 5th Graders Exceeding Standards

Percent of 5th Graders At or Above Grade Level

Percent of 7th Graders

Meeting Standards

Percent of 7th Graders Exceeding Standards

Percent of 7th Graders At or Above Grade Level

Birmingham 40 21 61 37 20 57Alabama 40 38 78 39 30 69Source: System Test Reports from 2010 School Year, Birmingham Public Schools


The percentage of fi fth grade students in the Birmingham City Schools meeting grade level standards • in 2009-10 was 40 percent, the same as the percentage of students in the state at fi fth grade who met the standards.

The percentage of fi fth grade students in the Birmingham City Schools exceeding grade level standards • in 2009-10 was 21 percent, lower than the percentage of fi fth grade students in the state who exceeded the state standards (38 percent).

Overall, the percentage of Birmingham fi fth grade students who met and/or exceeded the state standards • in science was 61 percent, lower than the percentage of grade 5 students who met and/or exceeded the state science standards in Alabama (78 percent).

The percentage of seventh grade students in the Birmingham City Schools meeting grade level standards • in 2009-10 was 37 percent, slightly below the percentage of students in the state at seventh grade who met the state standards (39 percent).

The percentage of seventh grade students in the Birmingham City Schools exceeding the grade level • standards in 2009-10 was 20 percent, which was below the state percentage of 30 percent.

Overall, the percentage of Birmingham seventh grade students who met and/or exceeded the state • standards in science was 57 percent, lower than the percentage of students in grade 7 who met and/or exceeded the state science standards in Alabama (69 percent).

Exhibit 4.3.7 summarizes the performance of Birmingham City Schools’ students in grades 3 through 8 on the norm-referenced Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition, compared with Alabama and national performance for the 2009-10 school year.


Exhibit 4.3.7

Mean Percentile Rank Comparisons Between the School District and State Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition: All Students, Grades 3–8


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Perc

entil

e

SAT Reading

BCS

AL

National

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

entil

e

SAT Mathematics

BCS

AL

National

Source: System Test Reports from 2010 School Year, Birmingham Public Schools

Data from Exhibit 4.3.7 shows that:

Percentile rank scores for Birmingham City School students on the Stanford 10 in reading ranged from • 38th percentile (grades 6 and 8) to the 45th percentile (grade 4).

The performance of Birmingham City School students was below the state and national percentile ranks • averages at each grade level in reading.

Percentile rank scores for Birmingham City School students on the Stanford 10 in mathematics ranged • from the 40th percentile (grade 3) to the 48th percentile (grade 4).

The performance of Birmingham City School students was below the state and national percentile ranks • averages at each grade level in mathematics.

Exhibit 4.3.8 summarizes the performance trends for the aggregate cohort of Birmingham City Schools from third grade in 2004-05 through their advancement to grade 8 in 2009-10 compared with state aggregate performance on the Stanford 10 norm-referenced assessment.

Exhibit 4.3.8

District Cohort Percentile Rank Trend Comparisons in Reading and Math Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition: All Students


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

entil

e

SAT Cohort Analysis: Reading

BCS

AL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

entil

e

SAT Cohort Analysis: Math

BCS

AL

Source: Chief State School Offi cers Reports for 2006, 2008, and 2010-Alabama


A summary of Exhibit 4.3.8 indicates that:

Reading percentile rank scores for Birmingham City Schools students on the Stanford 10 increased • from 33rd percentile in 2004-05 (third grade) to 42nd percentile in 2009-10 (eighth grade).

Birmingham reading scores dropped by 10 percentile ranks from grade 5 in 2006-07 to grade 6 in 2007-• 08, showing that while the performance trend was positive, performance occasionally fl uctuated.

The performance of the Birmingham City Schools student cohort was consistently below the state • percentile rank average at each grade level across the fi ve years in reading.

Mathematics percentile rank scores for Birmingham City Schools students on the Stanford 10 increased • from 35th percentile in 2004-05 (third grade) to 41st percentile in 2009-10 (eighth grade).

Birmingham mathematics scores dropped by eight percentile ranks from grade 5 in 2006-07 to grade 6 • in 2007-08, again demonstrating some fl uctuation in performance.

The performance of the Birmingham City Schools student cohort was consistently below the state • percentile rank average at each grade level across the fi ve years in mathematics.

Exhibit 4.3.9 summarizes the mean passing percentage of Birmingham City School’s eleventh and twelfth grade students on the Alabama High School Graduation Examinations in 2009-10 compared with state performance.

Exhibit 4.3.9

Mean Passing Percentages Between the School District and State Alabama High School Graduation Examination: All Students


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grade 11 Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 12 Grade 11 Grade 12

Reading Language Math Social Studies Biology

BCS

AL


A summary of Exhibit 4.3.9 indicates that:

The mean passing percentages for Birmingham City Schools students ranged from 72 percent in social • studies to 87 percent in biology for eleventh grade students.

For grade 11, the performance of Birmingham students on the high school graduation test was one to • six percent below the performance of Alabama students overall in each content area.

The mean passing percentages for Birmingham City Schools students ranged from 89 percent in social • studies and language to 94 percent in mathematics for twelfth grade students.

The performance of Birmingham students in grade 12 on the high school graduation test was one to four • percent below the performance of Alabama students overall in each content area.


Exhibit 4.3.10 summarizes the average ACT scores for Birmingham City Schools students during 2009-10 compared with state and national performance.

Exhibit 4.3.10

Comparison of Mean Percentage Scores Between the School District and State on the ACT (All Students)


0

5

10

15

20

25

English Math Reading Science Composite

Birmingham

Alabama

National



Birmingham City Schools’ students average ACT scores ranged from 16.3 in English to 17.6 in science • during the 2009-10 administration.

The Birmingham City Schools students performed below the state and national averages on all subtests • and the composite score on the ACT.

The mathematics subtest had the greatest difference in scores, at 4.4 points between the BCS and • national scores.

The science subtest had the smallest difference in scores, at 3.3 points between the BCS and national • scores.


Exhibit 4.3.11 summarizes the fi ve-year average ACT score performance trends for Birmingham City Schools students from 2005-06 through 2009-10.

Exhibit 4.3.11

Five-Year Performance Trends on the ACTBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ACT Trend Data: Five Years

English

Mathematics

Reading

Science

Composite

Source: ACT Profi le Report – District, Graduating Class 2010, Birmingham City School District


Overall trends for the fi ve years in all subjects as well as the composite score were declining.•

Birmingham City Schools’ students’ average ACT score trends in English ranged from a high of 17.7 in • 2005-06 to a low of 16.3 in 2009-10.

Birmingham City Schools’ students’ average ACT score trends in mathematics ranged from a high of • 17.1 in 2005-06 and 2006-07 to a low of 16.5 in 2008-09.

Birmingham City Schools’ students’ average ACT score trends in reading ranged from a high of 18.1 in • 2005-06 and 2007-08 to a low of 16.9 in 2008-09.

Birmingham City Schools’ students’ average ACT score trends in science ranged from a high of 18.4 in • 2005-06 to a low of 17.3 in 2008-09.

Birmingham City Schools’ students average ACT score trends on the composite score ranged from a • high of 18.0 in 2005-06 to a low of 16.9 in 2008-09.

Performance trends fl uctuated up and down in reading, science, and on the composite score from one • year to the next across the fi ve years. Scores also fl uctuated up and down for English and mathematics, but the pattern varied for each.


Exhibit 4.3.12 summarizes the fi ve-year comparative average ACT composite score performance trends for African American and Caucasian American students in the Birmingham City Schools from 2005-06 through 2009-10.

Exhibit 4.3.12

Five-Year Performance Trends Comparisons on ACT Composite Scores African American and Caucasian American Students


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ACT Composite: Five-Year Trend

African American

Caucasian American

Source: ACT Profi le Report—District, Graduating Class 2010, Birmingham City School District

Exhibit 4.3.12 illustrates:

Composite scores of African American students declined from a high of 17.4 in 2006 to a low of 16.9 • in 2009 and 2010 on the ACT composite score over the last fi ve years

Composite scores of Caucasian American students declined from a high of 27.3 in 2006 to a low of 18.0 • in 2010 on the ACT composite score over the last fi ve years.

The performance of Caucasian American students declined signifi cantly (9.3 scale score points) from • 2006 to 2010, compared to a decline of 0.5 for African American students during the same timeframe.

Though the performance gap between African American and Caucasian American has closed dramatically • over the last fi ve years, the performance trend has moved in a negative direction, thus potentially reducing post high school educational opportunities for some Birmingham City Schools students.


Exhibit 4.3.13 illustrates potential performance trends of African American and Caucasian American students if there is no intervention in their educational experience in the Birmingham City Schools.

Exhibit 4.3.13

Projected Trend Analysis of African American and Caucasian American Students on the ACT Composite Scores


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

African American

Caucasian American

Source: ACT Profi le Report – District, Graduating Class 2010, Birmingham City School District

From the data shown in Exhibits 4.3.13, the following observations can be made:

The performance trend for African American students on the ACT composite score has declined slowly • over the last fi ve years.

The performance trend for Caucasian American students on the ACT composite score has declined • signifi cantly over the last fi ve years.

The trend line for Caucasian American students on the ACT composite score projects a continued slow • decline in performance if there is no intervention by the school district.

Data wall at Robinson Elementary Board shows data collection and charting of student progress on DIBELS assessment data at Gibson Elementary


Summary

Auditors found that overall average student achievement as measured by the variety of assessments included in the Alabama Student Assessment Program (ASAP) for the Birmingham City Schools has remained below state averages on the criterion-referenced tests and below the state and nation on norm-referenced achievement measures. Though performances on some measures have improved over the last two years, performance trends have gone up and down from one year to the next on measures such as Alabama Reading and Mathematics Tests, the Stanford 10 achievement test, and the ACT. Closing the achievement gap between various student groups is a goal of most school districts when closing the gap is a result of improved student achievement for the lowest performing group. In the case of Birmingham City Schools, it is the performance of the highest performing group (Caucasian Americans) that has declined, and if the decline continues, the performance of African American and Caucasian Americans will be about the same in another year or so. Also, illustrative of Birmingham’s student achievement is the fact that many schools do not make AYP based solely on the performance of their profi cient and advanced students. Most of the schools make AYP due to receiving partial credit toward student achievement based on the percentage of students who are partially profi cient on the ARMT and other state tests. In conclusion, student achievement results are below state and national averages, are generally inconsistent, and do not show continual improvement over time.

Finding 4.4: Programs are not formally planned, monitored, or evaluated for effectiveness.

Instructional programs are generally implemented by a district or a school to improve student achievement in identifi ed need areas. Instructional programs are expected to have a positive impact on student achievement in the area for which they were designed. Without effective monitoring and evaluation, district personnel are not able to determine which programs are having positive impacts on achievement. Effective instructional programs meet the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Instructional programs relate to a documented system need, assessments of operational • curriculum effectiveness, and allocation of resources.

Criterion 2: Documents exist to defi ne 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 fi scal resources needed are identifi ed to initiate the program in the • short term and sustain the program in long term.

Criterion 5: Formative feedback and summative evaluation criteria tied to program goals, objectives, • and expenditures are identifi ed.

To determine the extent to which the administrators in the Birmingham City Schools use a consistent model to design, implement, and evaluate programs, the auditors requested district documentation that described the program design, implementation, and evaluation model as well as any relevant board policies that referenced program implementation and evaluation. The following board policies were found to be applicable:

Board Policy 1000: School Board Goals and Objectives• lists as one of the board of education goals, “…to evaluate regularly educational needs and goals.”

Board Policy 2020: Duties and Responsibilities of the Superintendent• requires “…a thorough program of research and evaluation of all aspects of district operations to provide the board with information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the system and set goals priorities and improvements…”

Board Policy 7060: Evaluation of the Instructional Program • states that “the instructional program should be periodically reviewed…”


While board policy clearly delineates the requirement for regular program evaluation, district practice does not match the requirement. No other program implementation or evaluation documents or plans were provided to the auditors for review, nor were any evaluations of actual programs. Currently, programs are not formally planned, monitored, or evaluated for effectiveness in the Birmingham City Schools.

The auditors requested copies of documents for any program assessment or evaluation that had been conducted by the school district or by entities external to the school district. No program assessment or evaluation documents or reports were provided to the auditors. Searching further, the auditors asked for any data related to instructional programs. Copies of a parent survey were provided to the auditors, along with a summary of assessment results for schools implementing single gender classrooms. Each of the reports contained data, but there was no narrative describing or interpreting the data for either of the documents. No summary statements were provided for the two studies; thus, it was left to the reader to determine what the numbers on the documents meant or whether the numbers yielded important information about either program.

Several Birmingham City Schools leaders who were interviewed indicated their impressions of the status of program assessment and evaluation in the school district:

“In the past we tried to put in an evaluation program, but it really wasn’t implemented.” (District • Administrator)

“We don’t do a good job in that area. We keep some because we have always had them. For some, we • look at how long a program has been in place and what it has done for the community. We review the Title I money that we will lose and what we need to make up in that area.” (Board Member)

“I want baseline data, progress-monitoring data, I want outcome data—I want it for all content areas.” • (District Administrator)

“We have a lot of data, but need help with it.” (Principal)•

Had comprehensive program evaluations or a program evaluation model been presented to auditors, they would have assessed the presented documents against the characteristics listed in Exhibit 4.4.1. Even though these characteristics are not being used in this report to evaluate any district document, they are being provided to district offi cials as a reference as they design their own model in the future.

Exhibit 4.4.1

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Program Evaluation Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Program Evaluation Against Audit Characteristics

Characteristics of the Program Evaluation Report/Document:Describes why this program was selected to be evaluated, with reasons that suggest an expected 1. evaluation outcome.Presents a description of the program goals, objectives, activities, individuals served, context, 2. funding source, staffi ng patterns, and expected outcomes.Uses multiple measures of data collection, resulting in both quantitative and qualitative data. The 3. report describes what data were collected from what sources and the collection methodology.Reports clearly describe the program evaluation procedures, fi ndings, and recommendations.4. Clearly describes procedures used in the evaluation process.5. Program evaluation designs are practical, ethical, cost effective, and adequately address relevant 6. political issues.Reports are provided in a timely manner so that timely decisions regarding program effectiveness 7. and continuation can be made.If a sampling technique was used, it was adequate to support the conclusions that were drawn or 8. any generalizations made to different settings or populations.Individuals responsible for the program evaluation were “independent,” or, if not, there was no 9. attempt to control the evaluation results.


Exhibit 4.4.1 (continued)Curriculum Management Improvement Model Program Evaluation Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Program Evaluation Against Audit Characteristics

Characteristics of the Program Evaluation Report/Document:Findings of the evaluation seem to be supported by the evidence reported in the evaluation 10. document.Recommendations are supported by the fi ndings and are practical in that they are within the 11. capacity of the organization to implement.The document contains only substantive and related information.12.

Summary

While the Birmingham City Schools have board policy requiring that “the instructional program should be periodically reviewed,” no documentation was provided to auditors that this policy has been followed. Further, the district does not have a plan for consistently implementing programs or periodically evaluating their effectiveness. No program assessment or evaluation documents were provided to the auditors. School district leaders indicated that there is a need for program evaluation in the school district. The audit program evaluation criteria were provided as an example to be used by the school district administrators when they design a district model (see Recommendation 3).


STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity.Productivity refers to the relationship between system input and output. A school system meeting this standard of the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Audit™ is able to demonstrate consistently improved pupil outcomes, even in the face of diminishing resources. Improved productivity results when a school system is able to create a consistent level of congruence between major variables in achieving enhanced results and in controlling costs.


While the attainment of improved productivity in a school system is a complex process, caused in part by the lack of a tight organizational structure (referred to as “loosely coupled”), common indicators of a school system meeting this audit standard are:

Planned and actual congruence among curricular objectives, results, and fi nancial allocations;•

A fi nancial data base and network that can track costs to results, provide suffi cient fi duciary control, and • be used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions;

Specifi c means that have been selected or modifi ed and implemented to attain better results in the • schools over a specifi ed time period;

A planned series of interventions that have raised pupil performance levels over time and maintained • those levels within the same cost parameters as in the past;

School facilities that are well-kept, suffi cient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of the • instructional program; and

Support systems that function in systemic ways.•


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

Budget development practices have been primarily rollover-based budgeting from the prior year’s budgets and enrollment projections. The development process did not meet the Curriculum Audit™ criteria. Decision making is not explicitly linked to established goals and priorities. The district has enormous looming fi nancial problems in the next year with the loss of federal stimulus funding and the loss of state aid due to proration and enrollment decline. The fund balance is projected to be at a $30 million defi cit unless strong measures are taken to reduce expenditures or increase revenue.

The new or newly-remodeled educational facilities in the Birmingham City Schools were functional and in very good shape. It was obvious to the auditors that district offi cials are providing quality facilities for the students. The revenue received from the county sales tax was very much needed. The older facilities and spaces that have not been remodeled were not of the same quality as those that have. In fact, some were in very poor condition. Cleanliness and housekeeping across the district varied greatly.

Finding 5.1: The Birmingham City Schools budget is developed from projected enrollment, state allocations, and prior year spending and is neither programmatic nor curriculum driven.

A school district’s productivity is improved when clear linkages exist between the curriculum and the budget. Cost-benefi t analysis requires a clear delineation of program costs compared to documented system gains or results obtained from formal assessments. Such linkages provide for a budgetary process that is driven by curriculum needs, priorities, and goals. Linkages between the budget and curriculum are critical and document how the district allocates fi scal resources to support and implement its programs. Thus, the budget is the numerical expression of the curriculum and should mirror program expectations.


Common indicators include the following:

Tangible connections between assessments of curriculum effectiveness and allocation of resources are • completed,

The budget is an expression of instructional priorities and goals, and•

The curriculum drives the budget rather than the budget driving the curriculum.•

A school system’s productivity is improved when clear linkages exist among the budget, the curriculum, and the mission and goals of the organization. These linkages require a budgetary process that is driven by students’ curricular needs, student performance data, program evaluation, and district priorities. The budget provides documentation for how the district allocates fi scal resources to support and implement its programs and, therefore, is the vehicle for expressing in dollars the priority goals of the district. Instead of a static process of year-to-year reallocation, the budget is seen as the resource engine that supports curriculum goals and other system priorities using data from various sources to inform annual decision making. The process should incorporate ongoing cost-benefi t analysis based on data.

The auditors reviewed budget and fi nance documents provided by the administration and interviewed board members, district and school administrators, other staff, and associate district personnel regarding school district budgets and fi nancial decisions. Through this review, the team acquired understanding of the context in which the budget is developed, the process by which budget decisions are made, and the revenue and spending plan produced. During visits to schools, auditors examined the practical implications of past budget decisions related to the condition, operation, and functionality of existing facilities, as well as the budget impact on instruction in the classroom.

The primary responsibility of a board of education in the budgeting process should be to develop policies and provide adequate oversight to assure that resources are planned so as to support the district mission and goals. Boards are generally expected to ensure that the budget is indeed a spending plan that carries out the mission and goals of the school district and its member schools and is a readily understood translation of the educational program into a fi nancial plan.

The board set its expectations for the budget development process through the following policies (see Finding 1.2):

Board Policy 1020: Board Powers and Duties• states, “The Board assumes leadership in acquiring adequate funds for the operation and improvement of the school system” and “approves the budget and receives from the professional staff fi nancial reports and audits.”

Board Policy 4000: Fiscal Management• states, “Proper money management is essential to the adequate support of the school program. To make that support as effective as possible, the Board: expects advance planning through the best possible budget procedures; encourages the exploration of all practical and legal sources of revenue; expects maximum effi ciency in expenditures, accounting, and report procedures.”

Board Policy 4020: Budget Planning• explains, “The purpose of the general budget is to translate into fi nancial terms the educational objectives of the school system and to set up an orderly means of accomplishing those objectives. Expenditures shall not exceed the total budget.”

Board Policy 4021: Local School Budgeting• states, “The Birmingham Board of Education’s budgeting policy requires that the offi cial system-wide budget refl ect an equitable allocation of foundation program funds to each school based on the needs of the students and schools as refl ected in the current year’s actual student population.”

Board Policy 4025: Annual Operating Budget• articulates, “Annually, and as early as necessary data are available, the Superintendent will submit a budget to the Board of Education for which the projected expenditures do not exceed the projected revenue for the year.”


Board Policy 4005: State Required Fund Balance• states, “The Board shall establish and maintain a one-month fund balance as required by State Law.”

In addition to board policies, the auditors reviewed the documents listed in Exhibit 5.1.1 and interviewed administrators and board members regarding the budget planning and approval process.

Exhibit 5.1.1

Financial and Budget Documents Reviewed by AuditorsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Documents DatesBCS Finance Update October 8, 2010BCS Annual Budget FY 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010BCS Proposed Operating Budget FY 2011BCS Financial Audits 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09Source: BCS District Offi cials

In the document entitled Proposed Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2011, district offi cials outlined the budget process as follows:

Department heads have input and prepare their respective budgets.•

District is required to hold two public hearings.•

Board members and employees routinely make suggestions that are considered for implementation. •

Board members must approve the budget. •

Budget is due to the SDE by September 15. •

Overall, the curriculum auditors found that the budget development process in the Birmingham City Schools is primarily a “rollover” budgeting process designed to meet state requirements and is inadequate to meet the Curriculum Audit™ criteria for programmatic, curriculum-driven budgeting. The budget development process, as described in interviews and documents, provides for incidental linkages between the budget and curriculum programs and projected enrollment needs and allocations to the schools. Budget formulae are based on enrollment and, where applicable, specifi c program or federal grant guidelines. Auditors were told that avenues are available for unusual circumstances or unique needs to be addressed outside the allocation formulae as funding sources allow. The only written documentation presented to auditors to support that information was the statement that department heads “have input and prepare their respective budgets.” There is no explicit connection between fi scal support decisions and diagnosed needs and priorities of the district as could be expressed in a focused district strategic plan. The process does not include such elements as required cost-benefi t analysis, data support, or strategies and guidance for prioritizing requests.

The curriculum auditors learned through district fi nancial audits that there were several fi ndings reported over the past fi ve audits. In 2004-05, the district had 12 fi ndings; in 2005-06 the district had 15 fi ndings; in 2006-07 the district had 15 fi ndings; in 2007-08 the district had fi ve fi ndings; and in 2008-09 the district had six fi ndings. Most of the fi ndings dealt with bookkeeping issues at the local school level. Auditors noted a 50 percent reduction in the total number of fi ndings over the past fi ve years.


Financial Context, Revenues, and Expenditures

The state of Alabama utilizes the Education Trust Fund (ETF) to “support, maintain, and develop public education in Alabama, debt service, and capital improvements relating to educational facilities and other functions related to education of the state’s citizens.” Entities that receive funding from the ETF are required to provide a minimum local match. For fi scal year 2010, the match for Birmingham City Schools is $27,456,470, while the state contributed almost $130,000,000. That amount is expected to be reduced for FY2011 to $123,000,000. Local school boards can determine if they want to contribute the minimum match or if they want to exceed the match. This creates disparity in funding from district to district. According to information provided by district offi cials, the Alabama State Department of Education records per student expenditures each fi scal year. Exhibit 5.1.2 displays that information for FY 2008 for the Birmingham City Schools and several of its neighboring school districts:

Exhibit 5.1.2

Local Per Pupil ExpendituresBirmingham City Schools

FY 2008

$6,278

$5,267$5,973

$4,970

$2,063

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

Homewood Hoover Mtn Brook Ves Hills BCS

Source: Proposed Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2011, Dr. Witherspoon and Mr. Watts

As noted in the information in Exhibit 5.1.2, local revenue support allows the Homewood School District to spend more than three times per student than Birmingham City Schools, yet both districts are in close proximity to one another.

While the Education Trust Fund has provided strong support for public schools in Alabama, the state and national economy have hurt the fund. For the past three years revenues to the fund have declined from $5.94 billion to $5.5 billion. Even though appropriations from the fund have declined as well, from $6.73 billion to $5.9 billion, they have exceeded the revenues. That has created the need to further reduce state support for local school districts by more than $2 billion. Those reductions, referred to as “proration,” have been in the following percentages since 2000: 2000-01—6.2 percent; 2002-03—4.4 percent; 2008-09—11 percent; 2009-10—7.5 percent. In FY 2009 Birmingham City Schools lost a total of $16,003,183, and in FY 2010 they lost $12,038,150. In addition to this, the state will lose $170,000,000 when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding ends this year and another $149,000,000 with the completion of the ARRA jobs bill funding. Birmingham City Schools is expecting an additional reduction of $17,313,603 in FY 2012 when this occurs. The impact of this loss will be highlighted in Exhibit 5.1.5.

As noted in the introduction, Birmingham City Schools has had declining student enrollment for several years as well. Because state funding is based on enrollment, the student loss contributes to the fi nancial loss as well. In 2003-04 the district had a weighted average daily membership of 34,275 students. In 2009-10, that number dropped to 26,748 students, a loss of 22 percent.


This past fall, district offi cials highlighted the following challenges concerning the budget:

The cost of employees’ salaries and benefi ts are continuing to increase at alarming rates. This obligates • the board to pay for such increases beyond state allocations.

The cost of goods and services are continuing to increase while we are still losing state dollars. This • also supports our need for additional local support.

Demands for additional resources to address various operational needs. Therefore, local support is • needed to address these needs.

A continuous loss of student enrollment is having a devastating effect on the fi nancial stability of the • district.

Nice science lab at Washington K-8

with few materials or supplies due to budget cutsStudents doing seatwork in a science lab

with very few supplies in the room at Hudson K-8

The curriculum auditors used the fi nancial information contained in district annual certifi ed budgets to establish summary data regarding current revenues and expenditures. Exhibit 5.1.3 summarizes the receipts by fund source, as extrapolated from certifi ed district annual budget reports.

Exhibit 5.1.3

Summary of Revenue by Source of FundingBirmingham City Schools

2006-07 to 2009-10

Fund Categories Fiscal Years Changes:

4 YearsFY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 + or ( )

State 170,062,848 161,648,436 161,802,252 133,889,673 (21%)Federal 42,204,142 41,676,807 41,459,722 66,010,894 56%Local Tax 81,068,378 102,682,277 96,477,881 91,568,671 13%Other 39,924,151 4,196,725 468,025 2,685,568 (93%)

Total 333,259,519 310,204,245 300,207,880 294,154,806 (12%)Source: BCS Annual Budgets: FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010


Overall, revenue has gone down almost 12 percent in the four years.•

State tax receipts have decreased 21 percent.•

Federal tax receipts have increased 56 percent. •


Local tax receipts have increased 13 percent.•

Other revenues have decreased 93 percent. •

The district has $39 million less to spend than it did four years ago. •

Exhibit 5.1.4 shows a summary of expenditures over the same four fi scal years:

Exhibit 5.1.4

Summary of Expenditures by FunctionBirmingham City Schools

2006-07 to 2009-10

Fund CategoriesFiscal Years Changes:

4 YearsFY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 + or ( )

Instr. Services 145,063,625 149,028,843 146,637,021 151,937,558 5%Instr. Supp. Serv. 59,723,733 62,346,908 59,881,040 61,693,377 3%Oper. & Maint. 33,114,992 34,535,797 36,106,326 36,518,854 10%Auxiliary Serv. 24,682,129 25,030,644 23,830,131 23,309,556 (5%)Gen. Admin. 12,020,930 10,387,020 9,276,298 10,625,201 (12%)Capital Outlay 55,081,264 49,685,315 113,434,122 167,061,204 203%Debt Services 2,728,924 4,878,562 5,111,338 5,106,274 87%Other 6,304,203 3,695,977 3,319,499 4,328,639 (31%)

Total 338,719,800 339,589,066 397,595,775 460,580,663 36%Source: BCS Certifi ed Annual Budgets: FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009, FY 2010

As can be noted in Exhibit 5.1.4:

Overall, expenditures increased by more than 36 percent•

Instructional Services increased fi ve percent.•

Instructional Support Services increased three percent.•

Operations & Maintenance increased 10 percent.•

Auxiliary Services declined fi ve percent.•

General Administration decreased 12 percent.•

Capital Outlay has increased by 203 percent. •

Debt Services has increased by 87 percent. •

Other expenses decreased 31 percent. •

District offi cials spent almost $121 million more in 2010 than they did in 2007. However, $112 million • came in the capital outlay fund. When capital outlay is removed from the totals, the difference is a three percent increase.

In 2004, the Jefferson County Commission led an effort to approve a 1-cent county sales tax to raise $1 billion for school construction projects in all of the county’s school districts. The initiative succeeded and is providing almost $400 million to the Birmingham City Schools for school construction. This initiative accounts for the majority of the 203 percent increase in capital outlay expenditures (see Finding 5.2).

Auditors noted these comments concerning this initiative:

“We would have never been able to undertake the buildings that we have; it was used the way it was • supposed to be, and the kids benefi ted from it.” (Patron)


“The person that was chair of the county commission pushed for a 1 cent sales tax increase fi ve or six • years ago. Bonds were then sold and we got $300 million from it. It was done by a vote of the county commission for all districts in the county.” (Administrator)

The next area auditors examined was fund balance. Board Policy 4005: State Required Fund Balance states, “The Board shall establish and maintain a one-month fund balance as required by State Law.” District offi cials provided auditors with a report they presented to the Birmingham Board of Education on October 8, 2010, reviewing current and projected fund balances. Based on current levels of expenditures, and subtracting out the capital outlay projects that are being paid for through the county sales tax initiative, the district should maintain approximately $24 million in the fund balance to comply with board policy and state law.

Exhibit 5.1.5

FY 2008 Actual Fund Balance to FY 2012 Projected Fund BalanceBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Year FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012Beginning Balance 4,000,000 10,600,000 3,100,000 200,000 200,000Funding Reductions -16,200,000 -12,000,000 -6,500,000 -30,500,000Projected Balance 4,000,000 -5,600,000 -8,900,000 -6,300,000 -30,300,000Adjustments to Balance 6,600,000 8,700,000 9,100,000 6,500,000Ending Balance 10,600,000 3,100,000 200,000 200,000 -30,300,000Source: “Financial Update: Birmingham City Schools”, October 8, 2010

Exhibit 5.1.5 refl ects a signifi cant decrease in the fund balances over the fi ve-year period.

The fund balance is projected to decline $40,900,000 during this span.•

The district lost $16,200,000 in funding in 2009 and $12,000,000 in funding in 2010. Administrators • maintained a positive balance of $200,000 at the end of 2010 through adjustments they made in their planned expenditures and having an initial $10.6 million balance.

Administrators are projecting the same $200,000 balance at the completion of FY 2011 because of • federal ARRA and Jobs Bill funding. That money is scheduled to end in FY 2011.

Administrators are projecting a loss of $30,500,000 in FY 2012. This fi gure is arrived at by adding • a projected $17 million from the loss of federal funding, a projected loss of $8 million from student enrollment decline, and a projected $5 million loss from the state.

Several of the people interviewed felt that the fi nancial status of the district was extremely serious. That thought was refl ected in the following comments:

“We’re broke. The last two years we’ve been hit with proration [from the state]—across the board cuts • that cut a percentage from everything.” (District Administrator)

“On September 15 there was another two percent cut for this year. We had to borrow money to make it • through the month. We discussed a property tax increase, but didn’t think the public would vote for it in a referendum.” (District Administrator)

“Finance is a problem area for us. We have had a cutback in funding in many areas.” (District • Administrator)

“We have had a bad perception on management of fi nances.” (District Administrator)•

“We’ve had a huge loss of funding.” (District Administrator)•

“It’s been terrible. It makes it diffi cult to have enough teachers. The arts have suffered. We don’t have • the pupil supply money for each teacher. Until two years ago, each teacher received $500 from the state for supplies. That has been taken away. State library money has dried up. Maintenance of buildings has suffered.” (Board Member)


Budget Development Process

The auditors interviewed district offi cials about the preparation process used to develop the budget. No written instructions to guide overall decision making were presented to the auditors (see Finding 1.1).

The board appoints a fi nance committee to assist in the development of the budget. This past year they began meeting in January, basing their work on the following goals:

Collect as much information as possible;•

Organize the data in a way that will allow for analysis and comparisons; •

Provide information in a format that can easily be shared; and•

Give the board a report that will give clear, measurable priorities to the superintendent as he goes about • the day-to-day operations of the school system.

The budget is initially developed based on enrollment projections for the coming year. Staffi ng needs are reviewed along with the master schedules at the schools. “Foundation Program Units” are determined based on data provided to the Alabama State Department of Education. Auditors were told that during the process the budget was reviewed by central offi ce personnel and that if a principal or department head had a particular request that exceeded an allocated amount, the administrator could make a request during the budget review. Central offi ce administrators would determine if the additional money would be added to that administrator’s budget.

One of the goals of the new superintendent is to implement a zero-based budgeting process. That process is in its infancy, and no documentation used to train principals or department heads on the changes in the system was presented to the auditors for review.

The auditors assessed the process for developing the budget as represented by the district offi cials. They used the six Curriculum Audit™ components of a curriculum-driven budget to carry out that evaluation. Exhibit 5.1.6 lists the criteria used to assess the adequacy of the budget development process and the auditors’ ratings of the district’s performance on these ratings.

Exhibit 5.1.6

Components of a Performance-based Budget and Adequacy of Use in the Budget Development Process


Performance-based Budget CriteriaAuditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateTangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessment of operational 1. curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources. X

Rank ordering of program components is provided to permit fl exibility in budget 2. expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on changing needs or priorities. X

Each budget request or submittal shall be described so as to permit evaluation of 3. consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance or results. X

Cost-benefi ts of components in curriculum programming are delineated in budget 4. decision making. X

Budget requests compete for funding based upon evaluation of criticality of need and 5. relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. X

Priorities in the budget are set by participation of key educational staff in the 6. allocation and decision-making process. Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are refl ected and incorporated in budgeting decisions.

X



Auditors expect a budget process to be rated adequate on at least fi ve of the six criteria to be considered adequately driven by curriculum and related priorities. Exhibit 5.1.6 indicates auditor ratings of the district budget development process as adequate in only one of the six components. In addition, the following comments on the criteria refl ect problems noted in the review:

The auditors noted in reviewing budget and audit documents that the current format of budget preparation • and presentation documents does not provide the kind of information needed to understand the rationale underlying decisions. These documents meet the state requirements but do not provide adequate linkage between the educational priorities of the district and schools and the budget document.

Auditors found no evidence of a rank ordering of program components used prior to funding • decisions.

Cost-benefi t analysis has not occurred routinely and has no program cost accounting breakdowns • to use for baseline data in such an analysis. However, auditors noted that in the 2010 work of the Finance Committee for the Birmingham Board of Education, the committee began to generate limited cost-benefi t analysis for some items. As an example, the committee listed cost-benefi ts for disposal of surplus property, employment of an internal auditor, appointment of an energy management coordinator, submission of E-rate applications, appointment of a single person to manage the Edulog transportation software program, the reduction of contracted services, the need to replace the bus fl eet, and the appointment of a grants research coordinator. While this is a good start in the examination of the budget, it does not meet the requirement for comprehensive cost-benefi t analysis of the components in curriculum programming.

Few indicators exist that show competition among programs in terms of criticality of need. •

Suggestions and requests by teachers and principals/supervisors are included in the decision-making • process. Additionally, the board holds two public hearings to receive input from the community.

The following are representative comments made by administrators and board members regarding their perceptions of the budget process and allocation of resources:

“We want to be sure we have a balanced budget. We meet once or twice a month with the CFO. We • also look at the needs for transportation, books, and student programs.” (Board Member)

“We don’t do a good job in [deciding which programs to go and which to stay]. We keep some because • we have always had them. For some, we look at how long a program has been in place and what it has done for the community. We review the Title I money that we will lose and what we need to make up in that area.” (Board Member)

“I feel good about the budget process. There is a budget process calendar and board members are being • educated regarding that process. It needs to be more open so that board members understand it. There is no written process for the budget. Part of the problem is that some employees in the budget offi ce have moved on and their functions have not been given to another person.” (Board Member)

“Resources are always an issue. We should identify what the priorities are and make sure we have the • funding to support it.” (District Administrator)

Summary

In summary, auditors determined that budget development practices have been primarily rollover-based budgeting from the prior year’s budgets and enrollment projections. The development process did not meet the Curriculum Audit™ criteria. Decision making is not explicitly linked to established goals and priorities. The district has enormous looming fi nancial problems in the next year with the loss of federal stimulus funding and the loss of state aid due to proration and enrollment decline. The fund balance is projected to be at a $30 million defi cit unless strong measures are taken to reduce expenditures or increase revenue (see Recommendation 4).


Finding 5.2: Facility planning does not meet audit criteria for adequacy. Facility quality varies between the new and newly-renovated schools and the older schools.

The physical climate of a school is an important indicator of its ability to deliver the curriculum effectively. Facilities that are well-maintained and clean create a learning environment that is pleasant and does not interfere with the delivery of the overall instructional program. Further, the availability of usable space to deliver varied instructional strategies is an important aspect of the effectiveness of the academic program.

The auditors visited each of the district’s schools and nearly all classrooms, as well as a number of ancillary rooms and facilities, to gather data on the learning environment and any special problems, barriers, or impediments that may exist. Specifi cally the audit team was concerned with overall maintenance, physical atmosphere, accessibility, safety concerns, and capacity and use of the buildings. The audit team also reviewed policies, plans, and practices used by the district to maintain the facilities for instructional purposes and interviewed several district employees and board members.

Auditors reviewed the following documents provided by district administrators:

Birmingham City Schools Five Year Capital Outlay Plan•

Birmingham City Schools Department of Maintenance of Operations Action Plans, 2010-11•

Birmingham City Schools Capital Project Projections•

Birmingham City Schools Building Capacity Chart•

Birmingham City Schools Building Assessed Valuation•

The board addressed the facilities through the following policies (see Finding 1.2):

Board Policy 5110: Maintenance—Goals and Objectives• states, “The Board expects, within the framework of available resources, proper operation and maintenance of the school plant, equipment, and services to set high standards of safety, promote the health of pupils and staff, refl ect the aspirations of the community, and to support environmentally the efforts of the staff to provide quality instruction.”

Board Policy 6010: Facility Planning • requires that “A long-range facility planning program, developed by the administrative staff and updated continuously and reviewed at least annually, will be available as a data base for site acquisitions, planning new facilities, enlarging present facilities, remodeling existing facilities, and disposing of unneeded buildings and grounds. Planning needs will consider:

The expanding and changing education program of the city. ○

Relations with the total community, and projected developments in those relationships. ○

Plant and site asthetics as they affect the education of pupils and feelings of people about their ○schools.

Changing makeup of the population as to age distribution and educational levels. ○

Community planning and zoning. ○

Financial ability of the City. ○

Relationship between the projected new facilities and those already in existence.” ○

Board Policy 6050: Size of Schools• requires that “Schools should be large enough to permit the effective and economical provision of a complete program of required and elective subjects, co-curricular activities, and specialized services.

Board Policy 6100: Renovation of Existing Buildings• states, “Renovations to structurally sound buildings will be made when funds permit so as to provide the highest type educational environment for pupils. In such cases consideration will be given to educational needs, fl exibility, maintenance, equity, and sound economic investment.”


Board Policy 6170: Consolidating Schools and Closing Facilities or Converting to Other Use• states, “Periodically, consideration will be given as to whether the use of the various school facilities is consistent with the general purpose of the school system to provide the optimum educational program in economically feasible and safe locations.”

Through reviewing board policy and district documents, interviewing several people, and conducting site visitations at the schools, auditors found that the district did not have adequate facility planning (see Finding 1.3). Building quality varied greatly between the new and newly-renovated buildings and the older facilities.

The Five Year Capital Outlay Plan obtained from the Alabama State Department of Education contained a list of building projects that are currently under way or are planned to start in the next three years in the district. The plan is in chart form, with the following items highlighted:

Project name• Project classifi cation• Project rationale• Project funding source• Funding year•

Projected completion year• Project budget• Project completion date• Other rationale• Project description•

No other detail is provided in this report.

The Capital Project Projections report lists each of the capital projects that are under way that are being paid by the county sales tax as outlined in Exhibit 5.2.2. There is a single page for each school, listing the category of work, such as electrical, mechanical, security, asbestos abatement, plumbing, carpentry/fi nishes, paint, grounds, roofs, or furnishings. The document also shows the year in which the work will be done.

The Department of Maintenance of Operations Action Plans list the action step to be completed, the person responsible for the action, the measure used to determine completion, the timeline, and documentation or evaluations.

In order to assess the quality of assessment planning, auditors use eight criteria. A district should receive a minimum of six adequate ratings to be considered as having adequate facilities planning. Exhibit 5.2.1 lists the components of strong facilities planning and the auditors’ rating of the practices in the Birmingham City Schools:

Exhibit 5.2.1

Comparison of Facility Planning Efforts to Audit Components of Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities Planning


Components of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities PlanAuditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequatePhilosophical statements that refl ect community aspirations and the 1. educational mission of the district and their relationship to short- and long-range facilities goals

X

Enrollment projections that take into account any known circumstances 2. that may change the pupil population X

The current organizational patterns of the district and identifi cation of 3. possible organizational changes necessary to support the educational program

X

Identifi cation of educational programs considered by designers of capital 4. projects for renovation or addition of school facilities X


Exhibit 5.2.1 (continued)Comparison of Facility Planning Efforts to

Audit Components of Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities PlanningBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

Components of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities PlanAuditors’ Rating

Adequate InadequateA detailed evaluation of each facility, including assessment of structural 5. integrity, mechanical integrity and effi ciency, energy effi ciency, operations and maintenance, and health and safety requirements

X

Prioritization of needs for renovation of existing facilities and the 6. provision of additional facilities X

Cost analysis of potential capital projects to meet the educational needs 7. of the district, including identifi cation of revenues associated with capital construction

X

Procedures for the involvement of all stakeholders of the school 8. community in the development and evaluation of the long-range facilities plan

X


Source: Auditors’ rating of planning adequacy.

Using the above criteria, the audit team found that the Birmingham City Schools had inadequate school facilities planning. Facilities planning met four of eight criteria. To meet adequacy, the plan needed to meet six of the eight criteria. The following items were noted in the review of the plan:

No philosophical statement refl ecting community aspirations and the educational mission of the district • was presented to auditors for review.

Enrollment history was presented to the auditors but no enrollment projections. •

A written master plan for the sales tax capital project existed.•

The plan included appropriate detail for each facility, a prioritization of needs, and a cost analysis of • projects.

There was no information presented to auditors that detailed stakeholder involvement in the plan. •

Multi-year Capital Construction Project

The district is in the midst of a multi-year building plan funded by a 1-cent sales tax passed by the county. Prior to passage of this sales tax initiative, the condition of most of the older facilities in Birmingham City Schools was poor. Funding to refurbish or replace the buildings was nearly impossible to obtain. In 2004 the Jefferson County Commission passed a one cent sales tax for the purpose of remodeling, refurbishing, closing, or rebuilding schools in all of the districts in the county. This effort led to an initial infusion of more than $300 million to the Birmingham City Schools. Compounding interest increased that fi gure to approximately $400 million. This infusion of funding has allowed district offi cials to upgrade some facilities, build new facilities, and close other ones. Exhibit 5.2.2 displays the capital investment spent in the Birmingham City Schools over the past four years.


Exhibit 5.2.2

Capital Project InvestmentBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

School Closure New Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TotalGaston K-8 2011 0Arrington MS 553,500 8,500 500 562,500Arthur Elementary 2010 0Avondale Elementary 438,000 2,000 2,000 442,000Barrett Elementary 1,746,300 2,000 2,000 1,750,000Bush MS 1,535,000 15,000 0 1,550,000Carver HS 222,000 12,000 62,000 296,000Center Street MS 68,000 2,000 2,000 72,000Central Park Elem. 507,800 32,000 40,000 579,800Christian K-8 131,000 2,000 384,000 517,000Councill Elementary 1,502,000 0 0 1,502,000Daniel Payne MS 1,497,600 2,000 695,000 2,194,600EPIC Elementary 1,344,000 40,000 37,000 1,421,000Gate City Elementary 2011 0Gibson Elementary 2012 0Glen Iris Elementary 147,500 2,000 231,600 381,100Glenn MS 2011 0Going Elementary 2011 0Green Acres MS 0Hemphill Elementary 970,800 27,000 2,000 999,800Hill Elementary 2012 0Hudson MS 2009 0Huffman HS 2012 3,500 2,000 0 5,500Huffman MS 1,912,520 363,000 0 2,275,520Inglenook K-8 322,000 322,000Jackson Elementary 2,948,520 47,000 27,000 3,022,520Jackson Olin HS 252,000 2,000 32,000 286,000Lee Elementary 2011 0Lewis Elementary Pending 0Martha Gaskin MS 180,000 2,000 12,000 194,000Minor Elementary 217,000 27,000 153,000 397,000North Birmingham Elem. Pending 0North Roebuck Elem. 2,759,000 443,000 2,000 3,204,000Norwood Elementary 1,762,000 0 0 1,762,000Ossie Ware Mitchell MS 137,000 2,000 12,000 151,000Parker HS 2011Phillips Academy 714,500 2,000 928,000 1,644,500Powderly Elementary 2011Price Elementary 2011Princeton Elementary 474,000 2,000 2,000 478,000Putnam MS 2,233,000 27,000 2,000 2,262,000Ramsey HS 2,317,500 2,000 2,000 2,321,000TOAR (Riggins) 876,000 17,000 2,000 895,000Robinson Elementary 82,000 2,000 6,000 90,000Smith MS 2,096,000 2,000 62,000 2,160,000


Exhibit 5.2.2 (continued)Capital Project InvestmentBirmingham City Schools

December 2010School Closure New Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

South Hampton Elem. 564,500 2,000 2,000 568,500Sun Valley Elementary 285,780 75,000 0 460,780Washington K-8 2009Wenonah Elementary 2011Wenonah HS 75,000 0 45,000 120,000Whatley Elementary 2011Wilkerson MS 309,250 2,000 2,000 313,250Wilson Elementary 2011 2,000 2,000 1,256,000 1,260,000Woodlawn HS 511,500 0 0 511,500Wylam Elementary 2010Source: Financial data provided by district offi cials.

As can be seen in Exhibit 5.2.2, the district has committed considerable funds to building improvements.

Uncovered fl oor drain in boys bathroom on upper fl oor at Councill Elementary

Exposed outer brick wall in unused third fl oor classroom at Councill Elementary

Light fi xtures placed over the top of chalk board at

Whatley K-8 to help students see what is written on the board because the regular lighting in the room is at a very

low level

Portable classrooms at Whatley K-8 that have no ADA accessibility. Additionally, the stairs block access from

the narrow sidewalk


A visual inspection of the facilities was conducted by members of the audit team. These tours included examinations of classrooms, media centers, cafeterias, all-purpose rooms, offi ces, workrooms, restroom facilities, and a general inspection of the grounds. Generally, the condition of the facility correlated to whether or not sales tax funding had been used to improve the facility. If it had, the building was typically in good shape. Conversely, if it had not, the buildings were in marginal or poor shape. Exhibit 5.2.3 displays the auditors’ observation notes.

Exhibit 5.2.3

Observation Notes from Auditors’ Site ToursBirmingham City School

December 2010

School Auditors’ Observation NoteArrington MS Auditors noted several problems in this building. •

It was built in 1985 with few windows. Windows were added in 2005 using frosted glass. • There was poor lighting throughout the building. • Wall paint coverage was poor. • There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling. Air • quality was poor, especially in the computer lab. The building was cluttered and poorly maintained. • The carpet was stained and restrooms were dirty. •

Arthur Elementary The building is scheduled for closure.• Avondale Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Barrett Elementary There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling. Air •

quality was poor on the second fl oor.Auditors observed teachers and students wearing coats in their classrooms in some rooms. •

Brown (@ Tuxedo) Awaiting new facility• Bush MS This building was not ADA accessible.• Carver HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Center Street MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Central Park Elem. This building had small classrooms. •

Auditors noted cracked and broken windows. • There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling.•

Christian K-8 New and remodeled portions of the building were nice and supported the educational • program. Hallway paint coverage was poor. Principal and custodian have painted some of the walls • for better coverage. Glass in hallways is safety hazard during bad weather.•

Councill Elementary Auditors noted bleach cleaner stored in restroom where students could access it. This was • a safety concern. Hallway lighting was poor. • There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling.•

Daniel Payne MS Auditors noted restrooms with no soap or tissue. Students should not avoid using the • restroom because of poor housekeeping.

EPIC Elementary Auditors were told of roof problems. • There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling. • Auditors also noted cleanliness issues throughout the building.•

Gaston K-8 Auditors noted several problems at this school. • Lighting was poor in several areas, especially the hallways. The carpeting was dirty and • stained. An outside door was chained and padlocked, creating a safety concern. • The gym fl oor had a sheet of a vinyl-like surface over concrete, making for a very hard • surface. The building is scheduled for closure.•


Exhibit 5.2.3 (continued)Observation Notes from Auditor Site Tours

Birmingham City SchoolDecember 2010

School Auditor Observation NoteGate City Elementary The building is scheduled for closure.• Gibson Elementary The restroom cleanliness was poor. •

Lighting was poor in the hallways. • The building is scheduled for closure.•

Glen Iris Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Glenn MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Auditors noted a lot of clutter in parts of the school. • Going Elementary The building is scheduled for closure.• Green Acres MS This school was remodeled in last four years. •

There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling.• Hemphill Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Hill Elementary This building was not ADA accessible. •

The building is scheduled for closure.• Hudson MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Huffman HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Auditors noted inconsistencies in HVAC operations. • Huffman MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Lighting was poor in the hallways.• Inglenook K-8 This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Jackson Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

It was not ADA accessible in all areas.• Jackson Olin HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Auditors noted poor cleanliness in several restrooms.• Lee Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Lewis Elementary A decision regarding building closure is pending.• Martha Gaskin MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Minor Elementary Cleanliness varied throughout this building. •

There was inconsistency throughout the building regarding heating and cooling. • The clock system didn’t work. • Hallway paint coverage was poor.•

North Birmingham Elem.

This building was not ADA accessible in all locations. • Many restrooms had no soap or tissue. • A decision regarding building closure is pending.•

North Roebuck Elem. This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Norwood Elementary Auditors noted poor maintenance and repair in several areas. •

The restrooms were dirty. • There was peeling paint in several places. • Some lights had missing fi xtures.•

Ossie Ware Mitchell MS

This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Parker HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Phillips Academy This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

The auditorium has not been renovated, is in poor shape, and is designated as “off limits” • to students. Several windows are broken and are missing panes of glass, allowing for the free entry of water and wind during a rainstorm. This will exacerbate the decay of this facility.


Exhibit 5.2.3 (continued)Observation Notes from Auditor Site Tours

Birmingham City SchoolDecember 2010

School Auditor Observation NotePowderly Elementary Auditors noted peeling paint near the front entryway of the school, making for a poor fi rst •

appearance. Auditors were told that the glass panels in the hallway are a violation of fi re code and • unsafe in bad weather. There in very limited storage. • The master clock system, intercom, and phone lines work intermittently, especially in bad • weather. The building is scheduled for closure.•

Price Elementary The building is scheduled for closure.• Princeton Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Putnam MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Ramsey HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Robinson Elementary Painting coverage was poor in several areas. There was inconsistency throughout the •

building regarding heating and cooling.Smith MS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • South Hampton Elem. Classroom carpets were stained and coming up, creating a tripping hazard for students and •

adults. Tile was also coming up in one classroom. • Lighting in some hallways was poor. •

Sun Valley Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Washington K-8 This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. •

Auditors noted that for a new building, the fl oors were dull and dirty. • Wenonah Elementary The front entry to the school had barbed wire fencing nearby, making for an unattractive, •

unsafe, and intimidating fi rst appearance. The building was in poor shape. • The building is scheduled for closure.•

Wenonah HS This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Whatley Elementary Auditors noted paint peeling from ceilings in several classrooms. •

Lighting was so poor in classrooms that additional lights were added over the chalkboards • so students could see what was written.Library had no computer lab. • The building is scheduled for closure.•

Wilkerson MS This building had inconsistent air quality and temperature. • Wall paint had poor coverage. • Cleanliness varied throughout school.•

Wilson Elementary Auditors noted no soap dispensers or dispensers without soap in restrooms. • The building is scheduled for closure.•

Woodlawn HS Auditors noted dirty restrooms throughout the facility. • Wylam Elementary This school was well maintained and adequately supported the educational program. • Source: Observations by auditors during site visitations.


Overall, the new construction was very nice and modern in design, providing a good educational • environment for students and staff.

There was great disparity in the quality, cleanliness, and maintenance of buildings scheduled for closure • and ones that have recently been renovated or the new facilities. There was signifi cant visual evidence that the sales tax revenue generated by the county helped Birmingham City Schools greatly.


Administrators expressed several concerns regarding inconsistent heating and cooling in their buildings • and their own inability to do anything about it. Auditors noted wide variance in room temperatures.

Air quality was building specifi c, but noted several times for having problems. •

Cleanliness and housekeeping were poor in several buildings. •

Restrooms were not clean and did not have necessary supplies in several buildings. •

Wall paint had poor coverage in several buildings, including some of the new construction. •

Several buildings had unpleasant and unsightly entryways. •

Unattractive, unsafe entryway to

Wenonah Elementary SchoolPaint peeling on overhang at front entryway to Powderly Elementary

Students and teachers wearing coats in their classroom because air temperature is so low at Barrett Elementary

Door to the outside that is chain locked, preventing students from entering or exiting, even during an

emergency, at Gaston K-8

Several people expressed comments to auditors concerning the building quality:

“Our capital improvement plan is helping us a lot.” (District Administrator)•

“We currently have two new high schools that are under construction. When this is completed all of our • HS will be new or renovated within the past 10 years.” (District Administrator)


“The capital improvement program has been very good for us. It gives us a sense of pride.” (District • Administrator)

“On a scale of one to ten, I’d rate us as an eight with regards to our construction projects.” (District • Administrator)

“We run between $9m and $14m a month on this project.” (District Administrator) •

“I had to move some classrooms because the old classrooms were too cold.” (Principal)•

“HVAC—it’s troubling. It’s every year. It’s not just occasionally. We can’t control it from here. When • spring comes, we can’t turn the heat off. It’s the fi rst thing I do every morning—check for heat.” (Principal)

Enrollment Decline and School Building Closure

In 1980 Birmingham City Schools had 50,087 students. That number dropped 46 percent to 27,525 students this current year (see Exhibit 0.3). District offi cials did not provide enrollment projections for the coming 10 years. Auditors plotted two trend lines, one based on actual enrollment data from 1980 to 2010 and the other based on actual data from 2000 to 2010. The fi rst trend line shows a projected enrollment of approximately 22,000 by 2020 (see Exhibit 0.3), and the second trend line shows a projected enrollment of approximately 15,000 (see Exhibit 0.2). More specifi c data generated using a cohort regression formula is needed to accurately project the enrollment for the next 10 years. However, it is important to note that based on both the previous 30 years and the previous 10 years, trend lines project the decline in enrollment to continue.

During this same time period the district dropped from 94 school buildings to 56. District administrators have already announced the closure of 11 schools, with decisions pending on two more in the next two years. While there has been an aggressive plan to close buildings, the district still has a large difference between student capacity and student enrollment. District offi cials told auditors that they are at 62 percent occupancy, leaving as much as 38 percent of total classroom space as overage. Exhibit 5.2.4 displays building-by-building capacity and enrollment data presented to auditors by district offi cials. When added up, this data shows 66 percent occupancy, leaving a 34 percent classroom space overage. Whether the overage in capacity is 62 percent or 66 percent depends on the date the data is collected and the enrollment as of that date. Regardless, it is safe to say that as much as a third of district classroom space is at best underutilized and at worst unneeded. That is a costly surplus in facility support when district offi cials face diffi cult budget cuts this coming year (see Finding 5.1).

Exhibit 5.2.4

Building Capacity versus Current EnrollmentBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

School Capacity Current EnrollmentArrington MS 675 332Arthur Elementary Close 2011 460 433Avondale Elementary 572 485Barrett Elementary 748 487Brown (@ Tuxedo) 440 303Bush MS 810 324Carver HS 2,000 1,112Center Street MS 729 282Central Park Elem. 968 709Christian K-8 565 581Councill Elementary 638 326Daniel Payne MS 378 301EPIC Elementary 500 446


Exhibit 5.2.4 (continued)Building Capacity versus Current Enrollment


School Capacity Current EnrollmentGaston K-8 Close 2011 800 217Gate City Elementary Close 2011 550 378Gibson Elementary Close 2012 594 264Glen Iris Elementary 880 869Glenn MS 654 202Going Elementary Close 2011 396 355Green Acres MS 530 418Hemphill Elementary 814 337Hill Elementary Close 2012 462 459Hudson MS 740 805Huffman HS 1,500 1,191Huffman MS 513 301Inglenook K-8 453 335Jackson Elementary 594 263Jackson Olin HS 1,800 1,393Lee Elementary 688 175Lewis Elementary Pending Decision 506 254Martha Gaskin MS 405 367Minor Elementary 660 474North Birmingham Elem. Pending Decision 484 205North Roebuck Elem. 572 502Norwood Elementary 352 182Ossie Ware Mitchell MS 648 337Parker HS 1,539 884Phillips Academy 700 691Powderly Elementary Close 2011 506 248Price Elementary Close 2011 308 207Princeton Elementary 286 226Putnam MS 540 336Ramsey HS 783 736TOAR (Riggins) 572 0Robinson Elementary 729 417Smith MS 748 349South Hampton Elem. 836 471Sun Valley Elementary 770 559Washington K-8 540 368Wenonah Elementary Close 2011 770 679Wenonah HS 1,200 979Whatley Elementary Close 2011 525 464Wilkerson MS 432 375Wilson Elementary Close 2011 352 267Woodlawn HS 1,793 1,113Wylam Elementary 600 263Total 39,607 26,036Source: Data provided by District Administrators, 12-9-10



The district currently has classroom capacity space for 39,607 students. •

The district currently has student enrollment of 26,036 students.•

The student enrollment represents 66 percent of the building classroom capacity. •

There is a 34 percent surplus in building capacity versus student enrollment. •

There are 11 buildings scheduled to be closed in 2011 or 2012. They represent a student capacity of • 5,723. When they are closed, the overage in student capacity will be reduced from 34 percent to 23 percent.

Two buildings are pending decisions regarding closure. If they are closed, the overage in capacity will • decrease from 23 percent to 21 percent.

If all 13 of these buildings are closed it will reduce the overage in capacity from approximately one-• third of the total space to one-fi fth. Even with the closure of all 13 buildings, there will be signifi cant capacity beyond current enrollment. With enrollment projected to decline in the future, this problem will continue to grow.

Exhibit 5.2.5 displays the occupancy data based on this year’s data with 56 buildings and the occupancy data following the closure of 11 schools using the same enrollment data.

Exhibit 5.2.5

Building Capacity versus Current Enrollment: Graph FormBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

2010-11: 56 Buildings 2012-13: 45 Buildings

Key: Shaded area = Percentage of building space used in district schoolsUnshaded area = Percentage of unused building space (according to building capacity)

District offi cials have taken the diffi cult but necessary task of reducing the number of school buildings to match the reduction of student enrollment. This will help minimize the diffi culties that are coming with the expected budget crunch in the next several years. Illustrating this point, district offi cials currently spend approximately $8 million a year on utilities. The overage in classroom capacity space accounts for approximately $2 million of this amount. The planned closure of the 13 buildings noted in Exhibit 5.2.4 will help reduce utility costs, thereby providing some relief in the coming budget reductions.

Auditors noted one other comparison with regard to the number of schools in Birmingham. Currently, Birmingham City Schools has approximately 25,800 students and 56 schools. That creates an average of 460 students per building. Jefferson County, Alabama has approximately 36,000 students with 57 schools for an


average of 631 students per building. Shelby County, Alabama has approximately 28,000 students and 39 schools, for an average of 718 students per school. If Birmingham City Schools operated their buildings on the same average as Jefferson County, offi cials would need 41 schools. If they operated on the same average as Shelby County, they would need 36 schools. Exhibit 5.2.6 displays this information:

Exhibit 5.2.6

Student Enrollment per Building: Three Alabama DistrictsBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

District Student Enrollment

Number of Students per Building

Number of School Facilities

Birmingham City Schools 25,800 460 56Jefferson County 36,000 631 57Shelby County 28,000 718 39Birmingham City Schools @ Jeff. Co. Average 25,800 631 41Birmingham City Schools @ Shel. Co. Average 25,800 718 36Source: Birmingham City School offi cials


Birmingham City Schools have an average of 460 students per building.•

Jefferson County Schools have an average of 631 students per building.•

Shelby County Schools have an average of 718 students per building.•

If Birmingham City Schools operated their buildings at the per student level of Jefferson County, • Birmingham would need 41 schools. This would provide a reduction of 15 school buildings.

If Birmingham City Schools operated their buildings at the per student level of Shelby County, • Birmingham would need 36 schools. This would provide a reduction of 20 school buildings.

Most often, school reductions have savings associated with them. Typically, a district will save utility costs, custodians, principals and/or assistant principals, counselors, librarians, etc. Estimated savings can easily range from $300,000 to $500,000. If Birmingham City Schools had students per building ratios similar to Jefferson County and were able to reduce 15 buildings, the estimated savings would be between $4,800,000 and $8,000,000 annually. If Birmingham City Schools had students per building ratios similar to Shelby County, and were able to reduce 20 buildings, the estimated savings would be between $6,000,000 and $10,000,000 annually. Considering that district offi cials are projecting a $30,000,000 defi cit next year (see Finding 5.1), this could be a signifi cant reduction in annual expenditures.

Several people commented to auditors concerning the need to close buildings to match the decline in enrollment:

“We have been right-sizing our district for the past several years.” (District Administrator)•

“We are going to close some schools. We currently have a facilities reduction committee.” (District • Administrator)

“Our occupancy is below 62 percent at our buildings.” (District Administrator)•

“Our utilities are killing us. We pay over $8 million a year in electricity.” (District Administrator)•

“This community is real passionate about smaller neighborhood schools, but we frankly can’t afford • it.” (District Administrator)


Auditors reviewed maintenance costs by building for this past school year to determine if the costs varied based on the size of a building and on the student enrollment. That data is listed in Exhibit 5.2.7:

Exhibit 5.2.7

Maintenance Cost Per BuildingBirmingham City Schools

December 2010

School Cost Enrollment Cost/Student Sq. Feet Cost/Sq FtGreen Acres MS 0 418 NA 30,691 NAHudson MS 885 805 1.10 64,921 .01Inglenook K-8 992 335 2.96 23,335 .04Washington K-8 1,361 368 3.70 90,523 .02Brown (@ Tuxedo) 2,629 303 8.68 30,691 .09Going Elementary 2,675 355 7.53 32,045 .08Arthur Elementary 2,774 433 6.41 44,264 .06Powderly Elementary 2,969 248 11.97 36,616 .08Wylam Elementary 3,092 263 11.76 21,435 .14Wilkerson MS 3,299 375 8.80 63,050 .05Hill Elementary 3,730 459 8.13 43,387 .08Price Elementary 3,798 207 18.34 27,736 .14Christian K-8 3,934 581 6.77 49,020 .08Glenn MS 4,122 202 20.41 89,539 .05TOAR (Riggins) 4,450 0 NA 20,000 .22Lee Elementary 4,569 175 26.11 44,150 .10Princeton Elementary 4,740 226 20.97 37,295 .13Wilson Elementary 5,675 267 21.25 39,351 .14Norwood Elementary 8,119 182 44.60 42,613 .19Gaston K-8 8,293 217 38.22 45,675 .18North Birmingham Elem. 8,310 205 40.54 48,822 .17Sun Valley Elementary 8,539 559 15.28 62,400 .14EPIC Elementary 8,687 446 19.47 81,700 .11Barrett Elementary 8,736 487 17.94 78,638 .11Hemphill Elementary 8,791 337 26.09 71,786 .12Glen Iris Elementary 9,891 869 11.38 98,246 .10Minor Elementary 10,534 474 22.22 89,645 .12Robinson Elementary 10,848 417 26.01 124,449 .09Wenonah Elementary 11,311 679 16.66 66,618 .17Ramsey HS 11,548 736 15.69 124,736 .09Gibson Elementary 11,804 264 44.71 60,390 .20Huffman MS 11,910 301 39.57 44,565 .27Lewis Elementary 12,184 254 47.97 73,910 .16Jackson Olin HS 12,707 1,393 9.12 285,000 .04Smith MS 13,415 349 38.44 55,874 .24South Hampton Elem. 14,102 471 29.94 90,500 .16Arrington MS 15,213 332 45.82 64,441 .24Avondale Elementary 15,919 485 32.82 106,700 .15Daniel Payne MS 16,205 301 53083 69,655 .23Councill Elementary 16,367 326 50.21 77,240 .21Whatley Elementary 16,692 464 35.97 41,230 .40


Exhibit 5.2.7 (continued)Maintenance Cost Per Building


School Cost Enrollment Cost/Student Sq. Feet Cost/Sq FtGate City Elementary 17,044 378 45.09 42,355 .40Ossie Ware Mitchell MS 17,630 337 52.31 57,500 .31North Roebuck Elem. 17,830 502 35.52 64,609 .28Putnam MS 18,344 336 54.59 42,070 .44Wenonah HS 18,566 979 18.96 280,000 .07Jackson Elementary 18,694 263 71.07 94,273 .20Bush MS 19,020 324 58.70 62,840 .30Phillips Academy 19,223 691 27.82 219,135 .09Parker HS 21,320 884 24.12 185,546 .11Center Street MS 25,969 282 92.08 88,901 .29Woodlawn HS 27,768 1,113 24.95 217,448 .13Huffman HS 28,510 1,191 23.93 161,598 .18Central Park Elem. 41,695 709 58.81 80,352 .52Carver HS 43,636 1,112 39.24 331,000 .13Martha Gaskin MS 49,773 367 135.62 84,853 .59Total $1,110,493 26,036 $42.65 5,337,046 $.21Note: Schools that are shaded are scheduled to close in the next two years. Source: Birmingham City Schools, Department of Maintenance and Operations, Action Plans, 2010-11

Auditors noted the following items from this data:

Maintenance costs on a per square foot basis ranged from 1 cent to 59 cents. •

Maintenance costs on a per student basis ranged from $1.10 to $135.62. •

There was no discernable difference in per student costs based on the enrollment of the building. • Buildings with a student population of less than 300 students had maintenance costs ranging from $11.76 to $92.08 per student. Buildings with a student population of over 800 had costs that ranged from $1.10 to $39.24 per student. The only thing auditors noted was that the range for the per student cost was greater for the buildings with a smaller enrollment than it was for the buildings with larger enrollments.

There was no discernable difference in square foot costs based on the physical size of the building. • Buildings with a square footage of less than 40,000 had maintenance costs ranging from $.04 per square foot to $.22 per square foot. Buildings with a square footage of more than 100,000 had costs ranging from $.04 per square foot to $.18 per square foot. No trends were identifi ed by auditors regarding the physical size of the building and the per square foot cost of maintenance.

Buildings that are scheduled to close within the next two years had no discernable maintenance cost • differences than those scheduled to remain open.

Summary

The new or newly-remodeled educational facilities in the Birmingham City Schools were functional and in very good shape. It was obvious to the auditors that district offi cials are providing quality facilities for the students. The revenue received from the county sales tax was very much needed. The older facilities and spaces that have not been remodeled were not of the same quality as those that have. In fact, some were in very poor condition. Cleanliness and housekeeping across the district varied greatly. Several buildings have already been closed and more closures are planned. This is a necessary task as district offi cials “right-size” the facility capacity to match the declining student enrollment (see Recommendation 6).


IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSI CURRICULUM AUDIT™ TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLSBased on the three streams of data derived from interviews, documents, and site visits, the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Audit™ Team has developed a set of recommendations to address its fi ndings shown under each of the standards of the audit.

In the case of the fi ndings, they have been triangulated, i.e., corroborated with one another. In the case of the recommendations, those put forth in this section are representative of the auditors’ best professional judgments regarding how to address the problems that surfaced in the audit.

The recommendations are presented in the order of their criticality for initiating system-wide improvements. The recommendations also recognize and differentiate between the policy and monitoring responsibilities of the board of education, and the operational and administrative duties of the superintendent of schools.

Where the PDK-CMSi audit team views a problem as wholly or partly a policy and monitoring matter, the recommendations are formulated for the board of education. Where the problem is distinctly an operational or administrative matter, the recommendations are directed to the superintendent of schools as the chief executive offi cer of the school system. In many cases, the PDK-CMSi audit team directs recommendations to both the board and the superintendent, because it is clear that policy and operations are related, and both entities are involved in a proposed change. In some cases, there are no recommendations to the superintendent when only policy is involved or none to the board when the recommendations deal only with administration.

Audit recommendations are presented as follows: The overarching goals for the board and/or the superintendent, followed by the specifi c objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.”

Recommendation 1: Establish organizational relationships, processes, and plans that promote effective management and hold staff members accountable for student achievement and activities that support the design and delivery of curriculum.

In the current environment, accountability for results is both an educational necessity and a political requirement; laws and the public demand accountability, as do the policies of the Birmingham City Schools. Accountability is dependent on a number of organizational conditions, including:

Stability in top leadership positions,•

An explicit chain of command,•

Communication of clear directives through the chain of command, •

A sound professional development program to give the staff the skills necessary to discharge their • duties, and

An effective system for evaluating individual contributions to the mission of the organization.•

These were not evident in the Birmingham City Schools. Instead, the audit team noted the opposite conditions. Frequent turnover of superintendents deprived the district of the stability necessary for lasting change and made it impossible for the board to hold superintendents accountable for substantive improvements in educational programs and outputs. Staff members cited frequent changes in top leadership as the reason for diminished employee inertia and failure to improve or accept responsibility for results (see Findings 1.1). Directives from the central offi ce staff to principals routinely bypass the chain of command and violate appropriate line and staff relationships, thereby diffusing accountability at both district and school levels (see Findings 1.1 and 1.4). These ineffective communications are facilitated by a poorly designed organizational chart and job descriptions that do not clarify employee relationships (see Finding 1.3). Turnover of human resources directors coincided with the failure of the district to properly implement the state’s personnel evaluation and professional development system (see Findings 1.1 and 1.5). Finally, the board had not effectively discharged responsibilities for which it is accountable, especially in the areas of personnel management, policies, curriculum adoption, and budgeting


(see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 5.1). From boardroom to classroom, district operations neither promote nor refl ect accountability for results.

To remedy these defi ciencies, the audit team suggests the following:

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Board of Education of the Birmingham City Schools:

The board should set an example of accountability by attending to the tasks specifi ed in Board Policy 1020: Board Powers and Duties and identifi ed in G.1.1 through G.1.4, below:

G.1.1: Approving Employment. Stabilize administrative leadership for the district by maintaining in the board’s employ a competent superintendent, committed to the board’s vision and plan for the school system.

G.1.2: Policy Enactment

Direct the superintendent to prepare, for board review, revision, and approval, a change to • Board Policy 1060: Board Committees deleting the requirement for an annual review of all policies. This requirement is unreasonable given the board’s duties and the available time.

Direct the superintendent to group policies into related areas and recommend to the board a multi-year • review schedule based on district operational needs, allowing time for occasional developments that require out-of cycle policy reviews or adoptions.

Direct the superintendent to recommend, for board review, revision, and approval, the data necessary—• in each policy area—to determine if policies are being followed and promote effective operations. When the board approves these data, require the superintendent to present them to the board in a timely manner so that they can support the board’s policy reviews.

G.1.3: Adoption of Curriculum. As part of a written curriculum management plan, direct the superintendent to draft for board review, revision, and approval procedures for board adoption of all written curriculum, regardless of its source, (e.g., state, district, or other) (see also Recommendation 2).

G.1.4: Approving Budgets. Establish transparent connections between planning and budgeting (see Recommendation 4).

G.1.5: Direct the superintendent to draft, for board review, revision, and approval, actions plans to implement the district’s Strategic Plan. This will provide much-needed direction for staff activities.

G.1.6: Direct the superintendent to draft, for board review, revision and approval, the following changes to Board Policy 2020: Duties [and] Responsibilities of the Superintendent:

That the superintendent, as part of his duty to organize the staff, prepare an organizational chart that • accurately refl ects staff positions and their relationships to one another for the coming year, and submit it annually to the board for approval;

That all organizational charts observe the principles identifi ed in • Exhibit 1.4.3 of Finding 1.4; and

That current job descriptions be maintained for all position on the organizational chart and that they • meet or exceed the standard of adequacy stated in Exhibit 1.4.4 of Finding 1.4.

G.1.7: For the immediate future, confi gure the staff to eliminate the defi ciencies noted in Finding 1.4 by adopting the two organizational charts shown in Exhibit R.1.1 (Phase One) and Exhibit R.1.2 (Phase Two) when presented by the superintendent. When approved, include them as appendices to Board Policy 2020. Among other concerns, the proposed charts accomplish the following:

Conform to the principles of sound organizational management by identifying spans of control, chains • of command, logical grouping of functions, separation of line and staff functions, and proper scalar relationships. These principles are listed in Exhibit 1.4.1 of Finding 1.4;


Provide a curriculum director to supervise and coordinate the activities of all curriculum departments • and free the Chief Administrative Offi cer (CAO) from direct supervision of multiple curriculum content areas;

Remove the Director of Testing from the direct supervision of the superintendent and place that position • under the supervision of the CAO. This gives the CAO the capability to discharge her job description responsibility for student assessment in all grades. Also, this staff addition gives the CAO control of the positions necessary to align the written curriculum with what is taught and tested in classrooms, an absolute necessity for student success; and

Include principals and teachers.•

G.1.8: In view of the declining student population and the district’s precarious fi nancial situation, the audit team concluded that it would be prudent for the superintendent to—over time—reorganize the staff to conform to these realities. Therefore, the audit team recommends that the board review, revise, and approve the organizational chart at Exhibit R.1.2 as a goal toward which the superintendent should work as the end state for confi guration of the staff.

G.1.9: Request the superintendent to develop administrative regulations to assure that staff carry out implementation of the Board policies.

G.1.10: Direct the superintendent to establish, implement, monitor, enforce, and periodically report to the board on a data-based employee evaluation system that documents the contributions of teachers and principals to student achievement gains (or losses) and the contributions of supporting staff to the design and delivery of curriculum. The system should also clearly identify areas where employees need to improve and result in individual professional development plans with measurable goals related to student achievement or support (see Recommendation 2).

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of Birmingham City Schools:

A.1.1: When directed by the board, draft for board review, modifi cation, and adoption, a change to Board Policy 1060: Board Committees deleting the required “annual comprehensive review” of all policies.

A.1.2: When directed by the board:

Group policies into related areas and recommend to the board a multi-year review schedule based on • district operational needs, allowing time for occasional developments that require out-of cycle policy reviews and adoptions.

Recommend, for board review, revision, and approval, the data necessary to determine if policies are • being followed and promote effective operations.

When the board approves the data needed to assess policy use and effectiveness, present those data to • the board in a timely manner so that they support the board’s policy review activities.

A.1.3: Prepare, for board review, revision, and approval, procedures for board adoption of all written curriculum, regardless of its source, (e.g., state, district, or other). When the board approves those procedures, include them in the comprehensive written curriculum management plan described in Recommendation 2.

A.1.4: Prepare, for board review, revision, and approval, procedures for establishing links between planning and budgeting (see Recommendation 4).


A.1.5: When directed by the board, draft for board review, revision, and approval, actions plans to implement the district’s Strategic Plan (see Recommendation 7).

A.1.6: When directed by the board, draft, for board review, revision, and adoption, the changes to Board Policy 2020 recommended in G.1.6 and implement those policy provisions.

A.1.7: Recommend that the board approve the organizational charts in Exhibit R.1.1 and subsequently displayed in Appendix E (Phase One) and Exhibit R.1.2 and Appendix H (Phase Two) as the new tables of organization for the district. When the board approves Phase One, direct the staff to reorganize their offi ces accordingly. The charts are listed in two phases. If approved by the board, Phase One should be implemented immediately. Phase Two can be implemented over time, through attrition or through other staff reduction mechanisms. Appendix E displays the full chart for Phase One. For easier viewing Appendix F shows an expanded version of the Academic portion of the chart and Appendix G shows an expanded version of the Operations portion of the chart. Appendix I lists abbreviations for Phase One. Appendix J lists abbreviations for Phase Two.

A.1.8: Update or prepare job descriptions that are aligned with the organizational chart.

A.1.9: Recommend that the board approve the organizational chart in Appendix H as the goal (end state) for confi guration of the Birmingham City Schools’ staff.

A.1.10: When the board approves Appendix H as the end state for the organization of the staff, develop a plan to move the staff toward that confi guration.

A.1.11: Stabilize competent employees in key management positions.

A.1.12: Comply with Board Policy 2090: Administrative Regulations by providing current administrative instructions for the staff so that they may have guidance to implement the policies for which they are accountable.

A.1.13: When directed by the board, establish, implement, monitor, enforce, and periodically report to the board on data-based employee evaluation and professional development systems consistent with the recommendations in G.1.10, above.

A.1.14: Add a position of “ombudsman” that reports to the assistant superintendent of administration. The position should serve as a communications link between patrons and central offi ce administrators and should not have supervisory authority over building principals.

These recommendations are made to establish accountability for results across the district. Several things have contributed to the loss of accountability: the lack of stability of tenure in the superintendency; the lack of explicit chain of command; inadequate professional development and staff evaluation. This is the most important recommendation in this audit and should be given high priority for implementation by the Board and superintendent.


Exhibit R.1.1

Proposed Table of Organization Overview: Phase One (see Appendix E)Birmingham City Schools

December 2010


Exhibit R.1.2

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two (see Appendix H)Birmingham City Schools

December 2010


Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that: clearly delineates both short- and long-term goals; directs curriculum revision to ensure curriculum documents deeply align with high stakes assessments and support quality delivery; defi nes the instructional model district leaders expect teachers to follow in delivering the curriculum; and integrates staff development initiatives to ensure that teacher training supports the effective delivery of curriculum.

The work in school districts of delivering quality instruction to every student and ensuring each child’s academic success is irrefutably daunting. It is also unquestionably a goal that cannot be left to chance. Ensuring that every student has access to and is provided the very best quality instruction and learning must be purposeful and carefully planned at every level of the school system. Therefore, written planning documents must be in place to direct the many levels of personnel ultimately responsible for the primary purpose of any school district: improving student learning. In addition to documents, active planning and training must continue in order to actualize the written plans and maintain a constancy of purpose. Such planning directs the efforts necessary to achieve high quality, deeply-aligned curriculum and a strong system for instructional delivery.

A quality curriculum is based on the principle that the written, taught, and tested curricula are aligned. To be truly effective, not only must they be aligned in content, but in context and cognitive type as well. Context refers to the way in which something is learned or practiced. The cognitive type refers to the type of cognitive functioning children engage in when accomplishing a task or practicing a skill. The fi rst big step in assuring alignment is a quality written curriculum guide that specifi es what content is to be taught and suggests the best ways to approach that content, as well as suggesting the contexts necessary for students to attain mastery and the desired cognitive type of student engagement. The second step lies in ensuring that the written curriculum is delivered using the district-expected strategies and approaches described in the guide and in a way that communicates high expectations for all students and allows for individualization of learning.

Once a district has the key components of the aligned curriculum in the design (all written aspects of the curriculum, including the expectations for what its implementation should look like), managing the delivery of that curriculum involves staff development and monitoring to ensure its implementation as well as feedback to determine whether the delivery is effective. All measures of effectiveness relate back to the impact on student achievement. Programs, teaching practices, student activities, and curriculum are only effective if the students experience increased academic success. In addition, such success must be sought and provided for all students, according to their needs, and continuous evaluation must take place to determine if all subgroups of the student population are to experience that success (see also Recommendation 5).

In Birmingham City Schools, auditors found a high level of commitment in district schools to student success and a culture typifi ed by dedication and care for the students. District staff members are aware of the need to strengthen curriculum management in the district. However, policy direction for the design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and revision of district curriculum is inadequate (see Finding 1.2). Auditors found some components of a curriculum management plan that are located in a variety of documents, but found no system-wide, comprehensive plan to direct all aspects of curriculum management across the district. Birmingham City Schools provides minimal direction for curriculum management and the processes and procedures for developing, monitoring, reviewing, evaluating, and revising curriculum (see Finding 2.1).

The different departments and individuals involved in curriculum development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and revision do not work in concert to ensure an articulated, consistent education program district-wide. The district has curriculum documents in place for most courses and grade levels up to high school, but the scope of the K-12 written curriculum is inadequate in that not all courses and subjects are supported by board-adopted curricula (see Finding 2.2).

In Birmingham City Schools there is a district-wide system of formative assessments, but the quality of the written documents (curriculum documents and formative assessments) is inadequate to convey high expectations for student performance, to give teachers guidance in planning instruction, and to assure student success on future high-stakes assessments.

Expectations for instructional practices are not clearly communicated in all areas of the curriculum or in other documents (see Findings 3.2). There is a shortage of documented direction regarding prerequisite skills in


a curriculum scope and sequence. Assessment linkages are either not provided or lack alignment to specifi c objectives in curriculum documents (see Finding 2.3). In addition, auditors found that some curriculum materials and assessments were not always aligned with Course of Study grade level standards and objectives (see Finding 2.3).

Board policies do not provide adequate guidance for the district-wide coordination of professional development (Finding 3.4). Too many buildings, departments, and programs are conducting staff development independently from one another and without clear linkage to district priorities (see Finding 3.4). No single department is responsible for ensuring that the required training is being delivered or to monitor whether the skills acquired through professional development are being implemented correctly (or at all) in classrooms (see Finding 3.4).

Classroom monitoring was viewed as a priority, but auditors found no policies or documents defi ning the purposes and methods for monitoring curriculum delivery. Principals were inconsistently using materials from walk-through training they received to monitor classroom instruction (Findings 3.3 and 3.4). During visits to schools and classrooms, auditors did not observe the varied and differentiated instructional strategies stated in board expectations (see Finding 3.1).

The leaders of Birmingham City Schools need to develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system to establish and maintain a quality, deeply aligned curriculum that is implemented effectively in every classroom and is continuously evaluated using aligned, formative, and diagnostic assessments. The curriculum management system needs coordination by a single written plan that directs curriculum design, implementation, evaluation, monitoring, and revision. The plan should also integrate staff development across the schools, various methods for monitoring curriculum delivery, and a model for instructional delivery. These processes and procedures must be formalized and institutionalized in policy to ensure smooth transitions in the event of staff turnover and to facilitate orientation of new staff during the future years of growth and expansion in the communities served.

The auditors recommend the following steps to address the weaknesses in curriculum management across the district. These steps will help district leaders prioritize the work that needs to be done and focus all involved personnel on common goals, thereby rendering the attainment of those goals more likely. The recommended steps are organized into the following sections: Curriculum Management Planning, Curriculum Design, and Curriculum Implementation.

I. Curriculum Management Planning


G.2.1: Develop policies that defi ne the roles and responsibilities of the board of education, district administrators, and teachers regarding curriculum. Incorporate into these policies the responsibilities outlined under the administrative functions section of this recommendation.

G.2.2: Direct the superintendent (or a designee) to defi ne a plan for the development, revision, delivery, monitoring, and assessment of curriculum. The plan is intended to serve many purposes: 1) to defi ne the processes surrounding the continuous evaluation and development of curriculum; 2) to provide guidelines for what a fi nished product should look like; and 3) to clarify which tasks and responsibilities are classroom-level, school-level, or district-level. The plan should include all the components outlined in A.2.2 and described in Exhibit 2.1.1, and should also include:

The expectation of an aligned written, taught, and tested curriculum;•

The expectation of K-12 articulation of learning goals, benchmarks, and objectives aligned with • Alabama State Standards;

A requirement that all courses offered be supported by quality written curriculum; and•

Formal board adoption of all curricula prior to implementation.•


Require that planning, particularly timelines, within and among departments and schools be aligned to the curriculum management plan, especially in the area of providing the professional development necessary for effective curriculum delivery.


A.2.1: Assist the board in developing policies that defi ne the roles of the board, district administrators, and teachers regarding curriculum. For example, the board of education is primarily responsible for adopting curriculum; administrators are responsible for overseeing its development, evaluation, and revision, as well as for monitoring its implementation; teachers are responsible for delivering the adopted curriculum and sometimes assisting in the writing or reviewing of the curriculum, with assistance from outside consultants or district administrators.

A.2.2: Develop a curriculum management plan for directing the design, delivery, monitoring, evaluation, and revision of curriculum. The plan should address the following areas:

A philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum: What are the underlying beliefs of district leadership regarding how children learn, what constitutes effective teaching, what is the teacher’s role, what is the student’s role, and what is a district’s role in making available or ensuring a student’s education? Is education a process, a goal, or both? Defi ning the beliefs and philosophy establishes the foundation for what curriculum should look like, what the district’s and schools’ respective roles are in providing each child with an education, and creates a picture of what an effective, engaging classroom might look like. Defi ning the philosophical framework must take place before defi ning an instructional model.

A periodic cycle of curriculum review/development: This ensures that every content area is addressed and has written curriculum guides that facilitate effective, rigorous instruction; and that curriculum is kept up-to-date, particularly with changes in state standards or requirements as well as testing modifi cations or changes. The cycle should also include procedures for conveying the revised/new curriculum and performance expectations to teachers.

Staff roles and responsibilities for curriculum management: Who is responsible for what task? This aspect of the plan delineates which tasks are primarily classroom-based, which are school-based, which are district-based, and which are board-based. For example, it is the board of education’s responsibility to determine the content of the educational program, in congruence with state law, and to approve and adopt curriculum guides. It is the teacher’s role to deliver the curriculum, the principal’s to monitor, etc.

Monitoring of classroom activities should be accomplished by principals and other supervisors to identify and promote productive practices that support learning, correct or eliminate practices that do not, and identify professional development needs.

Timing, scope, and procedures for curricular review: This specifi es what every step is in reviewing, revising, and developing curriculum (for more information, see “curriculum development” section).

A format and included components for curriculum guides: What does the guide need to look like: aspects/components that are consistent for every content area, other aspects that are “fl uid.” Certain criteria may be decided; these are to be decided at the district-level (with input solicited from concerned parties). The format should include, minimally, the criteria presented in section A.2.4.

Direction for how state and national standards will be included in the curriculum: See section on “curriculum development” for more detailed information on integrating state standards and ensuring deep alignment.

Assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness and use of data: What are all the instruments that will be used to measure progress toward meeting goals, including the goal of students mastering curriculum objectives? How will the data be used, who will use them, and how will they be collected, analyzed, and disseminated to teachers, administrators, and concerned stakeholders?


Approaches for using testing results to plan instruction, evaluate programs, and design interventions at all levels: See “Curriculum Implementation.”

A staff development program linked to curriculum design and delivery: Professional development that prepares teachers to deliver the curriculum in accordance with the board’s performance expectations. This includes support in the classroom to ensure that training and curriculum materials are properly used. See also the “staff development” section of curriculum implementation for more detailed information.

A.2.3: Make periodic reports to the board regarding the progress in managing curriculum district-wide, using data from formative and summative assessments as well as from monitoring practices. The importance of quality, deeply-aligned written curriculum for the district cannot be overstated–curriculum is a key element in ensuring better teaching and higher achievement.

II. Curriculum Design

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Birmingham City Schools Board of Education:

G.2.3: Require that efforts to revise the written curriculum documents begin immediately; require that decisions regarding which content areas receive priority be data-based (for example, if math is an area of concern for so many individuals and there is little consistency in its delivery, focusing on that content area fi rst might be prudent).

G.2.4: Review and adopt the curriculum prior to its implementation, based on a thorough consideration of documentation and staff advice. The following are minimum components needed in every guide (see A.2.4):

Aligned, specifi c learner objectives (based on state standards);•

A scope and sequence defi ning prerequisites;•

Assessment instruments and sample test items;•

Instructional resources; and •

Suggested strategies and approaches for teaching the objectives (see the section on curriculum • design).

These are only minimum components; internal alignment, evidence of rigor, and clear descriptions of mastery are all additional elements to be considered for quality guides.

G.2.5: Direct the superintendent (or a designee) to review the concepts of deep curriculum alignment and require that those concepts form the basis for curriculum design efforts across the district (see step A.2.7).


A.2.4: Defi ne what a “model” curriculum guide looks like. The following components are minimum requirements:

Objectives:1. Objectives should be “refi nements” of the state standards or common core standards: a specifi c restatement of the intended skill or knowledge to be learned, the contexts in which it is to be learned and practiced, and the standard of performance by which a teacher knows mastery of that skill or knowledge has been achieved. These should also relate to the student expectations in the state standards and benchmarks/common core standards, but these specifi c learner objectives give the teacher more precise information of what mastery looks like and clearly defi ne which objectives are assigned to which grade or instructional level (because the fi rst grade objective is clearly different from the second, and so on). The number of objectives included in the guide must also be manageable. It is better to focus on fewer objectives and address them more “deeply” than include an entire battery of objectives that teachers “might” touch on. Review all objectives for evidence of rigor (see Bloom’s Taxonomy in Appendix L).


Assessment:2. Specifi c examples of how each objective will be assessed must be included in the guide. District formative assessments must be cross-referenced throughout, specifying when, how, and with which instrument each objective will be evaluated. Relying on released test items is insuffi cient; the sample items to be included should be items based on deconstructed, released test items that have been altered and “deepened” to provide students with a challenging level, ensuring their success on a multitude of test items related to the same content (English and Steffy, 2001). Additional diagnostic assessments are needed to supplement the benchmark tests currently being used so teachers have tools with which to continuously evaluate student progress and move them at the appropriate, individualized pace.

Prerequisites/Scope and Sequence:3. Place the learner objectives (PreK-12) within a scope and sequence document to allow teachers to easily discern what content and skills students come in with and what content and skills they are responsible for seeing students leave with. This will also facilitate greater articulation of the curriculum from one level to the next and assure greater coordination across a single level or course, as the mapping out of objectives is already completed and any “misinterpretation” of the nonspecifi c state standards/common core standards is avoided.

Suggested Strategies and Approaches:4. A critical means to ensuring high expectations for students and achieving deep alignment is to provide teachers, particularly inexperienced teachers, with support in deciding ways to teach the assigned objectives. Flexibility is always allowed in how teachers approach a given objective, but this component provides teachers with invaluable, research-proven suggestions if they want or need them. Suggested strategies should also incorporate those contexts and cognitive types known to be part of the tests in use, and these strategies and suggested student activities and projects allow students to become familiar with the context and cognitive type before encountering them on the high stakes tests. This is the main tenet of the “doctrine of no surprises.”

Resources and Materials5. : Every book, recommended professional resource, audiovisual aid, technological enhancement or program, and other resource is listed (after ensuring teachers have all that are necessary) in the guide and referenced by objective/strategy. Suggested materials and resources have been analyzed for deep alignment to the curriculum and the tests in use; modifi cations are also included in the guide to improve alignment.

Beyond these components, the format for the guides should be determined. These do not necessarily need to be identical for all content areas, but within content areas it is recommended that a common format is selected and adhered to for consistency across the district.

A.2.5: Refl ect in the design of the curriculum the expectation that instruction will be differentiated to accommodate individual student needs (academic) and learning styles. This requires suggestions for remediation as well as enrichment within the guides themselves. See also A.2.10 in “Curriculum Implementation.”

A.2.6: In written curriculum guides, also include the following:

Integrate instructional technology and•

Include strategies for meeting the needs of English language learners, special education students, and • gifted students.

During the curriculum development process:

Obtain feedback from the curriculum review team,•

Use external consultants as “critical friends” to critique the process and products during the design • stage, and

Direct personnel to date curriculum documents and show the department/external agency and person • responsible for the creation or modifi cation of the document.


A.2.7: Engage in a deep alignment analysis to ensure that the objectives, resources, and strategies included in curriculum guides are deeply aligned to the tests in use. Research the methods and ideas presented in the book, Deep Curriculum Alignment, by English and Steffy (2001) or contract for a deep curriculum alignment training (contact PDK and/or CMSi for more information) to gain the skills necessary to analyze and deconstruct released test items, for information on how to successfully prepare for current and future tests in use, and to more successfully anticipate the direction in which the test is moving. This will assist the district in predicting where the state assessments and other external assessments are going and increase student success on current and future forms of the tests in use, by ensuring that the content, context, and cognitive types encountered on any tests are an integral part of daily instruction.

A.2.8: Revise current formative assessments to more deeply align with the common core standards and existing state standards and to more closely refl ect the levels of cognition and type of student performance desired by district leaders. These assessments will provide teachers with diagnostic data on what skills, concepts, and knowledge students have mastered or are still lacking, so that instructional decisions may be made that target those defi ciencies and so that teaching is never redundant. Include diagnostic assessments that target specifi c skills, to round out the battery of assessments teachers can use to constantly monitor student progress toward mastery of a discrete concept, skill, or objective. All assessments used in the district, whether classroom-based or district-level, should integrate a variety of student modes of response and performance-based items, as well as incorporate multiple types of cognition.

The assessments should be concise and yield the needed information in a very brief span of time–a few days, at the most. Ideally, the assessments could be quickly scored at each campus, so teachers receive the data immediately and can adjust instruction accordingly. In addition, continue to return benchmark assessment data to teachers in a timely manner. These formative assessments also allow teachers to monitor every individual student’s progress toward mastering the intended curriculum, and each student’s performance on the state tests will no longer be a surprise or guessing game.

Conduct a statistical analysis on the data from benchmark assessments to determine the degree to which performance on these assessments correlates with performance on the Alabama state tests. This analysis will clarify how well benchmark assessment data can predict student success on the high stakes tests.

A.2.9: Establish a process to ensure that curriculum guides, texts, and instructional materials for all courses, including intervention courses and programs, are presented to the board for adoption.

A.2.10: Work in concert with staff development personnel to prepare trainings for teachers in effectively implementing the new curriculum, using the instructional model as the context for delivering the guides.

III. Curriculum Implementation

Instruction


G.2.6: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to review research-supported instructional strategies that are effective with linguistically, culturally, and economically diverse student populations. Require this review of research to focus especially on those characteristics that have been shown to decrease dropout rates and improve student attitudes regarding schooling (see Appendix K).

G.2.7: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to develop administrative regulations that defi ne the instructional model to be adopted in classrooms throughout the district. Use the philosophical framework and results from the review of research as a foundation (see Appendix K).

G.2.8: Direct the superintendent (or designee) to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of the delivery of curriculum across the district. Such an evaluation should use data from multiple sources: formative assessments, summative assessments, monitoring data from both principals and program specialists (see G.2.10), and formal teacher observations.


G.2.9: Adopt the policies and regulations described above when drafted; direct the superintendent to ensure their implementation.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the Birmingham City Schools:

A.2.11: Assist the board in developing the policies described above.

A. 2.12: Prepare for curriculum implementation. Six months to one year prior to rolling out the new curriculum, consider doing the following:

Field-test the curriculum. Pilot the resource materials, assessments, and any other supporting • materials.

Collect preliminary data concerning the pilot curriculum’s effectiveness in terms of student • achievement.

Revise fi eld-tested curriculum guides based on feedback.•

Submit the curriculum for adoption by the board.•

Provide written curriculum guides for all teachers and extensively train them in its content and in the suggested strategies and approaches, within the context of the recommended instructional model.

A.2.13: Defi ne the instructional model expected to be used in classrooms across the district. This is not intended to be a prescriptive, tightly-held requirement. Rather, the instructional model is intended to provide a clear picture of what district leaders want and expect effective and rigorous instruction to look like. Use the results of the review of research, as well as input from Appendix K on effective instruction with economically and culturally diverse students to inform this defi nition. The model should do the following:

Describe the ways in which the district-adopted curriculum is expected to be delivered. In other words, 1. the types of teaching practices district leadership expects to see and that are proven effective should be specifi cally described in writing and adopted in policy to ensure implementation. Suggested practices should be research-based, developmentally appropriate as well as relevant, and might include:

Implementing higher-order questioning that helps students see the “big picture” of the concepts, • knowledge, and skills being taught, and facilitates a deeper understanding on the part of students;

Differentiating instruction to meet the individual needs of all students;•

Using small group activities, paired tasks, and cooperative learning strategies;•

Comparing/contrasting new concepts, knowledge, and skills with concepts, skills, and experiences • already familiar to students;

Engaging students in experimental inquiry, problem-solving, and investigation—all hands-on • methods of applying or discovering new knowledge and concepts;

Having students set their own learning goals, develop strategies for attaining them, and monitor • their own progress toward meeting those goals;

Engaging students in meta-cognitive activities, whereby they analyze their own thought processes • in approaching test questions, assignments, new information, etc.; and

Using non-linguistic ways to support comprehension of, identifi cation with, and the retention of • new concepts or knowledge, such as pictures, graphic organizers, and outlines;3 and

3 For more information, see Downey, C., English, F., Steffy, B., Frase, L., & Poston, W. (2003). Fifty Ways to Close the Achievement Gap.See also Marzano, R., Gaddy, B. & Dean, C. (2001). What Works in Classroom Instruction. May be downloaded from http://www.mcrel.org/topics/products/110/


Tailoring instruction to the cultural, economic, and linguistic diversity present in every classroom, • recognizing and valuing differences and similarities, and emphasizing the benefi ts of cultural pluralism.4

Require the monitoring of curriculum delivery (see also 2. G.2.10) to include monitoring for these teaching strategies and practices expected to be used in the classroom. The aim is to provide teachers with specifi c feedback regarding what type of strategies they are using, their effectiveness, and how that strategy can be more effective or how perhaps another can be used to improve student achievement.

A.2.14: As part of the instructional model, incorporate the expectation for differentiating instruction in the classroom to meet individual student needs. Differentiation occurs in two important ways: differentiating the content or objective an individual student needs to learn based on where he or she is in the overall sequence of learning, and differentiating the type of activity or performance product the student is expected to accomplish or create. Both types of differentiation are important, but teachers must learn the difference and apply one or the other or both as needed with each individual child, based on the individual child’s need. A critical part of differentiating effectively is having a battery of skill-specifi c diagnostic assessments that give teachers key information on whether a student has mastered a targeted concept or skill. Usage of clinical approaches in instruction, including mastery learning/teaching strategies, is critical to implementing this recommendation.

A.2.15: Communicate the expectations for adherence to the instructional model widely. Integrate throughout all discussions and meetings concerning curriculum delivery the need to not only verbally espouse high expectations for all students, but to model it faithfully in every classroom every day.

The defi nition and adoption of a research-based, student-centered, rigorous instructional model will assist the district in moving forward with improving instruction and student achievement.

Monitoring

Monitoring is the primary means by which district leaders evaluate the degree to which curriculum is delivered with fi delity and to which the instructional model is likewise refl ected in classroom activities and instruction.


G.2.10: Revise principals’ and program specialists’ job descriptions and board policy to include expectations for monitoring. These expectations must:

Defi ne all purposes of monitoring;•

Specify what type of data are to be collected for each purpose, and with what methods;•

Indicate which data are intended to be collected district-wide for district-level feedback (such as for • determining the effectiveness of a staff development initiative), and which data are to be used for teacher evaluation, coaching, and instructional improvement within the building.

Consider two other purposes and types of monitoring that supplement the classroom walk-through: SchoolView trend data collection and Examining Student Work data collection for calibrating student work. SchoolView is simply classroom observational data collected frequently over time to see if dominant teacher and student activities, the objectives taught, and the student work displayed all refl ect the district’s instructional model and expectations for rigor. Examining Student Work is a method for collecting student work to calibrate it against district and state standards and benchmarks to check alignment and determine whether the work is on, above, or below level. All three methods for collecting data are for different purposes and all three comprise one facet of monitoring that contributes to valuable district-level feedback for decision making.

4 See Appendix D for more information on effectively educating urban students.


Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the Birmingham City Schools:

A.2.16: Require monitoring to be the primary responsibility of building administrators, including the CICs, in keeping with their role as instructional leaders. In monitoring, district leaders should not only keep the learner objectives in mind, but the instructional model as well, focusing refl ective questions on those aspects of the model the administrators deem appropriate or desirable.

A.2.17: Use a classroom observation process (in addition to walk-throughs), as described above, to specifi cally evaluate the student artifacts and objectives being used in each classroom, in a collaborative, non-threatening context. Consider the Examining Student Work program (see TASA for more information) to enable teachers and building leaders to gauge the level of student work in the school and determine if it is appropriately on-level and cognitively challenging. This process will also assist teachers in evaluating the work they assign in their classrooms, particularly those activities and resources that are commercially-produced.

Professional Development

A coordinated professional development plan provides for the implementation of the district’s curriculum, integration of the teaching strategies to appropriately deliver the curriculum, and evaluation of the professional development approaches and content to determine if student achievement has improved based on those practices.


G.2.11: Direct the superintendent to revise policy concerning professional development so that it:

Defi nes the purpose and mission of professional development district-wide;•

Requires that all policy, planning, and implementation for professional development incorporate the 18 • Quality Criteria for Staff Development found in Exhibit 3.4.1, as well as the following characteristics:

Clarifi es individual, principal, and district offi ce professional development responsibilities; ○

Defi nes the mechanism for rational coordination of professional development efforts to ensure ○appropriate training and prevent duplication and gaps in required training;

Requires systematic monitoring of instruction specifi cally to determine if the skills acquired through ○the professional development program are being applied (and correctly) in the classroom; and

Requires that the current state-mandated database in which professional development records are ○logged be linked to teacher evaluations and be used to monitor that each employee is participating in professional development opportunities that are needs based.

Requires that professional development training be evaluated in terms of demonstrated teacher ○competence in the classrooms and improved student achievement.

G.2.12: Require the superintendent to formulate administrative regulations to ensure implementation of all new and revised board policies regarding professional development and the implementation of new learning.

G.2.13: Direct the superintendent to create a comprehensive, professional development plan that forms an integral part of the district’s curriculum management plan described in Exhibit 2.2.2 and satisfi es all the criteria presented in Exhibit 3.4.1.

G.2.14: Direct the superintendent to annually report on the comprehensive professional development plan, using data from multiple sources: classroom visits, walk-throughs, formal teacher evaluations, formative assessment data, and summative assessment data. This will help ensure the program is meeting system goals and is aligned with curriculum delivery priorities. The report should include:

An overview of the process used to assess professional development needs.•


A review of the identifi ed professional development needs, including what student learning needs were • identifi ed.

A review of the planning process used to identify and coordinate the best approaches to address the • student needs, including the process to identify what skills and knowledge are required by teachers and administrators to address those student needs.

A review of the major learning outcomes or specifi cally what the district and sites are trying to • accomplish from the training activities.

An overview of the major learning activities offered at both the district and campus levels.•

A categorization showing the alignment of learning activities in relation to the strategies/activities • resulting from curriculum management planning.

An update on the percentage of target teachers who participated in high quality professional development • by content area.

A review of the evaluation procedures used to measure the effectiveness of professional development • activities in relation to planned teacher and student outcomes.


A.2.18: Assist the board in revising existing policy concerning professional development so that all the characteristics described in G.2.5 are included. Develop necessary administrative regulations that direct the policy’s implementation.

A.2.19: Develop a professional development plan that includes the 18 criteria of a sound professional development plan (found in Exhibit 3.4.1). In the plan, explicitly describe procedures for making updates to the plan based on classroom monitoring data as well as student achievement data. The professional development plan forms a sub-plan of the overarching curriculum management plan.

A.2.20: Determine priority areas for professional development across the district, after the development of the district instructional model and analysis of the data contained in this report. Based on the prioritized list, create a schedule for professional development offerings (specifying which are mandatory and which are elective) over the course of the next three years. Collect data concerning the effectiveness of offerings and the subsequent impact on student achievement to make adjustments to professional development offerings.

Focus areas should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

Training in the principles and concepts of deep curriculum alignment.•

Training in effective curriculum development and evaluation (for all engaged in curriculum development, • evaluation, revision).

Training in the instructional model adopted by the district.•

Training in data collection and analysis concerning the level and rigor of materials used in the • classroom.

Training in the effective implementation of newly revised curriculum guides.•

Ensure that administrators attend prioritized trainings, as well, to support the monitoring function across the district.

A.2.21: Assign all professional development duties to the appropriate administrator under the umbrella of curriculum and instruction to ensure that professional development at all levels aligns to curriculum priorities district-wide and supports the directing plan for curriculum management. The responsible administrator should incorporate all professional development planning within ongoing curriculum management planning.


A.2.22: Provide resources and funding necessary to include professional development data as part of the existing data collection and warehousing in the district. This function will enable administrators to track and report on participation in high quality, content area professional development activities. Data analyses regarding professional development participation will enable leaders to differentiate offerings and ensure that every employee has the appropriate professional skills to carry out assigned responsibilities.

A.2.23: Update principals’ and teachers’ job descriptions accordingly (see requirements and expectations, above).

Student Assessment and Program Evaluation


G.2.15: Direct the superintendent to develop a Comprehensive Assessment Plan to include the criteria in Exhibit 4.1.1 and to establish regulations to provide adequate guidance for full implementation of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan. Include uniform guidelines for formative and summative evaluation of program innovations and interventions (see Recommendation 3).

G.2.16: Direct the superintendent to review (and revise, if necessary) policies and regulations in the 7000-series to be sure they are aligned with the expanded board policies and regulations recommended in (G.2.9), and to submit drafts of necessary revisions to the board for review, revision, and adoption (see G.3.1).


A.2.24: When directed by the board, develop a policy requiring a Comprehensive Assessment Plan to include the criteria in Exhibit 4.1.1 and establish regulations to provide adequate guidance for full implementation of said policy. Include uniform guidelines for formative and summative evaluations of program innovations and interventions.

A.2.25: When directed by the board, review (and, if necessary, revise and present for board review, revision, and adoption) policies and regulations in the 7000-series to be sure they are aligned with the expanded board policies and regulations recommended in G.2.9.

A.2.26: Using the attributes described in Exhibit 4.1.1 as a guide, prepare the Comprehensive Assessment Plan required by board policy.

A.2.27: Revise appropriate job descriptions to assign central offi ce and school leaders responsibility for implementing the student assessment and program evaluation plan. Principals should be required to evaluate and report on any programs or interventions that are not part of the regular curriculum.

A.2.28: Direct employees who create documents to date the document and provide the originating staff member and department of origin, so that the district can have a chronological record of curricular decisions.

A.2.29: Execute the strategies in the Birmingham City Schools Strategic Plan, which include supporting teachers and administrators through professional development plans that align with student achievement, developing board processes and training to ensure decision making is focused on student achievement, and utilizing data to develop meaningful curriculum and to communicate the school system’s progress. Monitor the use of data and take action as necessary.

Following the steps outlined above will move the district’s written, taught, and tested curriculum in closer alignment, thereby reducing the likelihood that student performance on tests is predicted by demographic factors rather than by classroom instruction. A key element in curriculum quality is maintaining unwavering focus on how design supports and facilitates delivery: written curriculum must not only integrate test content and contexts, it must provide teachers with the tools they need to teach most effectively. If the district prioritizes hands-on, rigorous instruction that is student-centered and cognitively engaging, the written curriculum must refl ect and support this approach. The auditors offer these recommended steps in establishing a strong system for managing curriculum in the district.


Recommendation 3: To provide for more effective use of data to support implementation of the curriculum and to improve student achievement, develop and implement board policies and a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan that provide for the systematic collection, analysis, dissemination, and application of student achievement and program evaluation results.

School districts should have a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan to support effective implementation of the curriculum. The data generated by these activities help determine the level of student achievement, student achievement trends, and the effectiveness of supporting programs. These data are also used to inform the staff and constituents about student achievement and program effectiveness and to support sound decision making about curriculum, instruction, and programs. When a school system lacks such a plan, the school district personnel, parents, and students may not receive the information necessary to draw sound conclusions about the effectiveness of the system or to make the decisions required to improve it.

Auditors determined that the Birmingham City Schools did not have a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan to provide the feedback necessary to support sound decisions regarding the design and delivery of curriculum (Finding 4.1). Only 36 percent of the taught curricula were actually tested (see Finding 4.2). The audit team also determined that no formal program evaluation was taking place in the school district (Finding 4.4). Though data from state tests and ThinkLinks are being used in the school district (Finding 4.1), student achievement trends are inconsistent from one year to the next and are well below state and national averages.

To remedy the assessment and program evaluation-related discrepancies, the audit team provides the following suggestions to the school system:


G.3.1: Direct the superintendent to prepare, for board review, revision, and approval, a policy that:

Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the program and student assessment plan;•

Directs the superintendent to prepare and maintain such a plan;•

Directs formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade;•

Requires ongoing program evaluation, both formative and summative; and•

Directs the use of data to analyze group, school, program, and system student trends (see • G.2.16).


A.3.1: When directed, assist the board in developing the policy described in action G.3.1, above.

A.3.2: When the policy described in action G.3.1 is approved by the board, prepare and implement a student assessment and program evaluation plan containing the following elements (see A.2.26):

Explicitly includes a formative and summative assessment system to carry out board policy (if such).•

Provides for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, • program, and student).

Provides for frequent diagnostic (formative) instructional assessments aligned to district curriculum, • which teachers use to make ongoing decisions including assigning students learner objectives at the appropriate level of diffi culty (e.g., provides data for differentiated instruction).

Provides a list of assessment tools, purposes, subjects, type of student tested, timelines, and related • information.

Identifi es and provides direction on the use of diverse assessment strategies for multi-purposes at all • levels-district, school, and classroom.


Specifi es the roles and responsibilities of the central offi ce staff and school-based staff for assessing all • functions and operations of the system.

Specifi es the connection(s) between district, state, and national assessments.•

Specifi es overall assessment procedures and analysis procedures to determine curriculum • effectiveness.

Requires aligned assessment examples and tools to be placed in curriculum, instruction, and assessment • guides.

Specifi es how equity issues will be identifi ed and addressed using data sources as well as controls for • bias.

Identifi es the factors, processes, and structures of program assessment and how data will be used to • determine continuation, modifi cation, or termination of a given program.

Provides for appropriate trainings and development for various audiences on assessment.•

Delineates responsibilities and procedures for monitoring formative and summative assessment design, • implementation, and results.

Establishes a process for communicating procedures, results, and trends of student and program • assessment.

Provides a method/means to use program assessments data in cost-benefi t analysis.•

Provides staff development to all teachers and administrators.•

A.3.3: After the policy described in action G.3.1 is approved by the board, develop job descriptions and a plan to staff a research and evaluation unit that reports to the Chief Academic Officer or the Superintendent and hire staff/develop a contract to manage the student assessment and program evaluation function in the school district (see A.2.27).

The job description for the research and evaluation staff or the contractor should contain the skills necessary to carry out the effective implementation of a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan and provide professional development on data analysis and interpretation for school personnel, parents, and students as is appropriate.

These recommendations, if implemented, should give the district a means of generating the data necessary to assess student progress and evaluate programs, analyze the results, disseminate those results to the appropriate staff members, and ensure that those results are used to make sound decisions about curriculum, instruction, and supporting programs. Additionally, assessment and evaluation data can be used to inform student, parents, and other constituencies of how effective the district staff has been in educating students.

Recommendation 4: Design and implement a budget planning process that is more programmatic in focus and includes strategies for effectively prioritizing expenditures and tightening the linkage between resources and results.

Effective school districts link human and fi nancial resource allocation decisions to established system-wide goals and priorities. The budget development process incorporates student assessment and program evaluation data, along with district and school plans, and consistently re-prioritizes annual spending in response to those feedback data.

The auditors found that the Birmingham City Schools budget development process is primarily a “rollover” budgeting process designed to meet state requirements and is inadequate to meet the audit criteria for programmatic, curriculum-driven budgeting (see Finding 5.1). Budget formulae are based on enrollment and, where applicable, specifi c program or federal grant guidelines. Avenues are available for unusual circumstances or unique needs to be addressed outside the allocation formulae as funding sources allow, but there is no clear connection between fi scal support decisions and diagnosed needs and priorities of the district. The general


processes are documented in a budget calendar but do not include such elements as required cost-benefi t analysis, data support, or strategies and guidance for prioritizing requests.

The approach to modifying the budget development process being recommended will take three to fi ve years to fully implement. Instead of fi rst looking at revenues and deciding what will be “allowed,” this process starts with priorities and then determines how resources will be allocated and/or re-allocated to address them. The critical steps are recommended in early stages of the recommended actions, and refi nements can occur each year. It is advisable to begin the change process by including it in the long range plan for the district that clearly articulates goals and priorities. It is this approach that allows the resource allocations to become “means” to the “ends,” or the goals.

In order to ameliorate these fi nancial management defi ciencies, the audit team recommends the following actions to the Superintendent and Board of Education:


G.4.1: Direct the superintendent to draft clearly worded policies regarding budget development and resource decision making that delineate expectations of processes that link the budget to plans, priorities, and needs that are based on data. The expectation of a process that meets the criteria in Exhibit 5.1.6 should be included. Likewise, incorporate a pre-planning step in which the superintendent and board identify and articulate the priorities and goals around which the budget should be developed.

G.4.2: Adopt the policy or policies described above and direct the implementation of the policy with the next budget planning cycle, starting in incremental steps to be described in administrative procedures.

G.4.3: Make board-level decisions congruent with the intent of those policies, requiring data-driven recommendations that have been through preliminary prioritizing based on the criteria in policy, the district plans, and school plans and that have been reiterated by the board and superintendent before the beginning of the budget planning cycle. (Ensure that system-wide input has been incorporated into the various planning goals and priorities that are used as the foundation for decisions.)

G.4.4: Allow three to fi ve years for full implementation of the revised approach to budget development. Request recommendations for refi nements as needed during the implementation.


A.4.1: Provide the draft policy or policies described in G.6.1 for the board. When the policy adoption has occurred, develop administrative procedures for the implementation of budget development procedural changes to accompany and implement the policy. With the chief fi nancial offi cer, develop steps and forms that refl ect the intended changes and methods of organizing information for decision making.

A.4.2: Determine with the board the various levels of desired participation in budget development and prepare accordingly.

A.4.3: Incorporate the changed process associated with program-based budgeting in steps over the next three years. In general, the process should fl ow as follows:

Identify various educational activities or programs and group them into broad areas of need or purpose 1. served. Examples could include elementary instruction, bilingual education, special education, gifted education, district governance, superintendent’s offi ce, fi nancial services, warehousing, personnel services, staff development, specifi c programs or interventions, etc. Divide the organization into the most logical subgroups possible based on the existing operating structure. For the fi rst year, the grouping could even be smaller, such as supplemental reading programs, a cluster of curricular offerings, or similar packages.

Build incremental budget “packages” within each of the groupings by the priority with which they 2. deliver the objectives of the area of need or purpose. For example, any given program could be defi ned


and packaged into units that provide programs and services at (A) 90 percent of last year’s budget, (B) 100 percent of last year’s budget, and (C) 105 percent of last year’s budget level. These percentages will differ over time as the system becomes more sophisticated and data-driven.

Prepare guidelines and recommended steps and provide them to those who will develop the program 3. budgets.

Direct the appropriate directors and managers to prepare concise and meaningful budget packages for 4. their areas with each package representing a level of activity that stands alone but builds sequentially on the previous year’s package.

Attach a goal statement to each program area or budget package that states the program purpose, its 5. criteria for success, and how it will be evaluated. Each budget request shall be described to permit evaluation of the consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of student performance results. Require cost-to-benefi t analysis in this procedure.

Compile goal statements and budget packages and give to appropriate staff to gather data that best 6. describe service levels, program outcomes, and cost benefi ts.

Defi ne organizational performance data with the appropriate involvement of staff (including principals, 7. teachers, and support staff), current and desired service levels, and program objectives. Require that building and program assessment data be used in the development of budgets.

Compile past cost information, especially expenditure percentages of budget, with performance data 8. and recommendations to guide preliminary budget building estimates.

Use existing committees and groups such as other district administrators, parent groups, employee 9. associations, citizen committees, and site councils to obtain input on the budget as it is being developed.

Evaluate and rank budget program packages. This is a fi nancial task force (or executive budget 10. team) responsibility and typically includes the superintendent in a district the size of Birmingham City Schools. Budget requests need to compete with each other for funding based upon evaluation of priority of need and level of program effectiveness. Compile results and publish in a tentative budget with programs and requests listed in priority order.

Build the capital outlay and improvement budget from a zero base each year with multi-year planning 11. for improvements, including life-cycle replacement and preventive maintenance. Prioritization should be based on health, safety, and impact on the learning environment and protection of investment. Many capital funding needs change annually and do not reoccur once met and paid for, such as durable goods and construction costs. The budget planning process should refl ect these changes while projecting life-cycle replacement costs over 5 to 10 years.

Organize the budget team recommendations and provide them to the superintendent, who in turn 12. reviews them and makes the fi nal recommendation to the board of education.

Finalize budget allocations based on revenues available, the appropriation levels to be authorized, 13. program funding priorities, rankings, and recommendation to be taken to the board of education. With a prioritized listing of request packages in place, the “cutoff line” can be drawn when the more precise revenue projection is fi nalized.

Establish fi nal programs and services to be funded at the level approved by the board of education, and 14. set the budget in place.

A.4.4: Retain within the role of the Superintendent the oversight of fi nancial decision making, along with the responsibility for overseeing the mission of the organization. This ensures a comprehensive view of the system as well as connectivity among program and budget and facility planning.


A.4.5: Provide training in program-based, data-driven budgeting to administrators and other key staff as needed.

A.4.6: Annually increase the application of the revised budget development steps until all budgeting follows the procedures. Refi ne and modify as needed to accomplish the end of data-driven, programmatic planning and decision making.

A.4.7: Immediately initiate budget reduction planning for the remainder of the FY 11 school year. The planning and implementation should then carry over for the FY 12 year as well. With the projected loss of $30 million next year, steps such as utility control, a hard or soft freeze on employment hiring, reduction of travel, reduction of employees, further school closure, etc. must be put in place this year to soften the impact of the loss next year. Consideration may be given to offering an early exit incentive program to staff to aid in the needed reduction of employees. A reduction of 100 employees, including administrators, teachers, and classifi ed support, could result in a savings of approximately $5 million. Consideration should be given to the development of a budget reduction team this year. The team could be the budget team described in A.4.3 or could be a budget reduction stakeholders committee if district offi cials want to broaden the scope of participation to include teachers, other staff, building principals, patrons, and parents. Such a committee would be initiated on a short-term basis realizing that the processes described in A.4.3 will take multiple years to implement, but the reductions must be made immediately for next school year.

A.4.8: Develop a plan to build the year end fund balance to the level identifi ed by the state of Alabama. With the current fi nancial climate in the district and community, this will take several years to achieve.

These recommendations are necessary to establish budget processes more tightly linked with the instructional demands of the district. The current roll-over budgeting processes are not meeting these needs and have created an enormous projected defi cit problem of more than $30 million for next year. Budget reduction must happen immediately, followed by the changes recommended within this recommendation for systemically linking the budget to the programmatic needs of the district.

Recommendation 5: Prioritize equity in every facet of managing curriculum and establish procedures for monitoring equity issues across the district. Connect equity for students with actions at all levels: district, building, and classroom, but especially with classroom teaching and learning.

Equity is about ensuring that students have equal access to not only quality programs and services, but also to academic success. Ensuring academic success means providing instruction and resources to students based on their individual needs, not based on what works for the majority of students or even based on a formula or standardized procedure. Equity in the world of public education shifts the district focus from what teachers and administrators want to do for students, to what the students need the teachers and administrators to do. This means a comprehensive shift in priority focusing on individual students and their needs, rather than system-level priorities and needs. Such a shift in focus needs to take place at every level of the system to realize improvement in every student’s academic achievement: system level, building level, and classroom level.

At the system level, areas of inequity must be monitored and addressed through system-wide efforts, such as new policy directives, professional development initiatives, or even staffi ng changes. Identifying areas of inequity in a district is achieved through data analysis, as well as anecdotal evidence collected from district stakeholders. Areas of inequity must also be identifi ed, monitored, and addressed at individual buildings, through data analysis, classroom monitoring (walk-throughs), teacher evaluations, and building-level planning, such as the Site Improvement Plan. In the classroom, teachers monitor equity in similar ways but with a much smaller population, looking at test data by student subgroups, monitoring their own instructional strategies and behaviors, and ultimately evaluating whether students are making appropriate gains in achievement despite any demographic factors that might predict failure. What is fair for one student might in fact be unfair for another; being equitable (fair) many times means teachers must treat children unequally.

The driving philosophy behind the concept of equity is that all students can attain academic success if they are given adequate support, instruction, and time. There are no exceptions; expectations must remain high for


every single child, and failure is never considered to be an option. A child who fails to succeed academically is a failure on the part of the system.

In Birmingham City Schools, auditors visited more than 50 elementary, middle, and high school campuses around the city. Many campuses were brand new with state of the art technology, while others were near 100 years old and were waiting to be closed down and moved to a new location. Students’ access to cutting edge technology was not consistent district-wide (see Finding 5.2), and the educational program students had access to varied from campus to campus. Despite board policy that requires all students to have access to the same courses and educational opportunities, auditors found variation in the educational program offered at the different buildings (see Finding 3.2).

Certain student subgroups are not performing well when compared to other subgroups in the population (see Finding 3.2). Males and students of poverty are less likely to score at profi cient levels on multiple assessments. Secondary students face issues unique to their grade level: high schools students do not have equal likelihood of succeeding academically at every high school campus, and only about 60 percent of freshmen entering high school actually graduate in twelfth grade from the district (see Finding 3.2). In addition, classroom instruction is not geared toward individual needs and preferences, as required by board policy and the state teacher evaluation instrument (see Finding 3.1).

Despite the lack of ethnic diversity in the district, certain subgroups, such as males and Black students, are underrepresented in the gifted program, while others (males) are over represented in special education (see Finding 3.2). The auditors have outlined a series of steps to be taken and processes to implement to address the equity issues prevalent in Birmingham City Schools.


G.5.1: Revise policy to address the issue of equity and prioritize it district-wide. Policy needs to accomplish the following:

Defi ne equity specifi cally, in terms that clearly contrast it with equality. Specify when things are to be • equal (access to resources, materials, courses) and when they are to be equitable (fair, just, and different in order to level the playing fi eld).

Direct the methods to be used in collecting data on equity across the district; specify the instruments, • measures, and procedures to be used to identify equity problems and to determine probable causes.

Require the disaggregation of ALL centrally-collected assessment data by student subgroups and • monitor their performance. Direct district leaders to pay close attention to achievement gaps that fail to narrow over a reasonable amount of time, such as two years.

Require, when problems with equity are evident, multiple measures to evaluate reasons for achievement • gaps; identify the key factors that contribute to maintaining the gap. Determine the suitability of current efforts to ameliorate the gaps based on the new data.

Require that the factors contributing to inequities, when they are within the scope of the district’s • control, be targeted and eradicated using whatever means necessary to make changes that will result in ameliorating exiting inequities.

Establish the importance of high quality, student-centered instruction. Describe specifi cally what such • instruction looks like in the classroom and require teachers to adhere to the model for instruction (see Recommendation 2).

Institutionalize the importance of equity in all curriculum management functions throughout the district: • all planning, monitoring, curricular revisions, curriculum delivery, etc.

Direct professional development to be deployed where and when needed (based on the identifi cation • and monitoring of equity issues); evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development initiatives


through ongoing data collection and analysis. Consider any subgroup, no matter how small, of equal importance.

Establish high expectations for all students, regardless of race, income level, or gender. Specifi cally • describe how those expectations are to be actualized in classrooms.

G.5.2: Request periodic updates from the superintendent regarding equity across the district, using measures congruent with methods for equity data collection defi ned in policy (as directed in G.5.1). The data collected and reviewed for the reports should evaluate the district’s success in maintaining an equitable educational program.


A.5.1: Assist the board in revising policy to prioritize equity across the district and level the playing fi eld for all students.

A.5.2: Monitor achievement by student subgroup at ALL levels: through state assessments, district-wide formal assessments, benchmark assessments, and a random sample of classroom-based assessments.

A.5.3: Work through facilities planning and with the curriculum department to ensure that students have equal access to all programs throughout the district. Where open enrollment or inter-district transfer is the only means by which a student has access to a particular course of program, provide transportation to that student so that socioeconomic status is not a determinant in whether or not a student takes advantage of the opportunity.

A.5.4: Require an instructional model that is centered around individual student needs: both for curriculum and for activities (see also Recommendation 2). The model should refl ect the latest research concerning effective approaches and activities for urban students of poverty, as described in Appendix K. Such approaches are typically characterized by individualized instruction at the appropriate level for each child, in congruence with existing policies in Birmingham City Schools.

A.5.5: Train both teachers and administrators in what effective instruction for the Birmingham City Schools looks like (see also Recommendation 2). Monitor instruction for evidence of the instructional model, and monitor test scores for student gains in achievement. Gains means monitoring a single cohort of students over time—from year to year—to ensure that their performance is improving. Academic improvement should not be consistent for every child—students who are below grade level must have accelerated instruction and learning opportunities so they make faster gains than other students, to ensure that they do not fall farther and farther behind.

A.5.6: Train principals aggressively in the new Alabama teacher evaluation system. Coach them in using it effectively to improve teachers’ instruction and their students’ achievement. Monitor the principals’ use of the evaluation system, particularly with teachers who are struggling with instructional differentiation and in using diagnostic assessment data to drive their teaching and planning.

A.5.7: Coordinate all human resource, curriculum delivery, and building administrator functions to prioritize teacher quality in Birmingham City Schools. Model and maintain an emphasis on meeting students’ needs and demonstrating high expectations. Integrate these functions with teacher evaluation and monitoring; in addition, teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations should remain in their current building (not be allowed to transfer) until documented problems are resolved.

A.5.8: Focus staff development on areas of individual teacher needs; require staff development for issues that are identifi ed in teacher evaluations and that impede student success. Beyond offering or requiring staff development for teachers and administrators, require the implementation of new learning in the classroom. Collect classroom observational trend data to determine whether professional development is having the desired impact on teaching and learning. This differs from the walk-through in that the observational data are collected and analyzed in the following areas:

Dominant student activities observed;•


Dominant teacher activities observed;•

Evidence of student work that gives testimony to adherence to the adopted instructional model;•

Evidence of powerful instructional strategies; and•

Evidence of cognitive rigor, in both the materials/resources being used as well as in the students’ • activities.

Implementing the steps described above will serve to move Birmingham City Schools forward in leaders’ efforts to serve every student in the district and to ensure their academic success.

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement a long-range facilities plan.

A detailed, comprehensive, current, and high quality facilities review does not exist for the Birmingham City Schools.

A quality instructional program is dependent, in part, upon the facilities in which the program operates. Finding 5.2 cited numerous concerns with facilities including too much physical capacity for the district enrollment. Well-maintained facilities support the instructional program and student achievement. A plan for preventive maintenance, when implemented, strengthens the educational environment. School facilities that are well maintained, adequate in quality and space, safe, orderly, and that provide for all curriculum needs, support the delivery of instruction.

In order to develop a comprehensive master plan for facilities, all phases of the program need to be analyzed including enrollment patterns and projections, instructional programs and arrangements, and support service requirements. A comprehensive long-range facilities plan provides the administration and the board with information necessary for them to carry out two key functions: planning for educational facilities to meet the needs of the community and the goals of the district, and allocating adequate fi nancial resources to support the facilities plan.

In order to ameliorate these facilities management defi ciencies, the audit team recommends the following actions to the Superintendent and Board of Education:


G.6.1: Enact board policy that requires the development, monitoring, evaluation, and periodic revision of an adequate facilities plan. Require the plan to address the criteria referred to in Exhibit 5.2.1.

G.6.2: Direct the superintendent to establish a long-range facilities planning committee that includes representatives from all stakeholder groups including their outsourced provider. This can be an outgrowth of the committee that worked on the development of the capital plan generated from the county sales tax revenue.

G.6.3: Work with the superintendent to provide suffi cient budgetary support for implementation of the facilities plan through local and state funding.

G.6.4: Hold the superintendent accountable for implementation of the facilities plan and for proper maintenance of existing facilities in order to facilitate and enhance the instructional delivery process at all campuses.


A.6.1: Establish a long-range facilities planning committee that includes representatives from all stakeholder groups within the school system and the community.

A.6.2: Develop a long-range facilities plan incorporating a description of the district’s educational program, including history and trends, the community and demographics (projected and current), and educational goals and practices. The plan should also include detailed description of the current educational facilities of the district, which presents an analysis of present and future educational and support needs of the district together


with an assessment of those qualitative factors that refl ect the characteristics and capacity of each facility. This description should include:

Evaluation procedures; •

Summary of facilities use, capacity, and current conditions;•

Compilation of plot plans for each site;•

Detailed facility utilization and capacity for each school; •

A detailed evaluation of the condition of each school;•

A demographic study of the district including:•

maps, zoning studies, and projections of future use; ○

collections of statistics on the population, type and level of business development, tax base, income ○levels, educational levels, and community resources; and

enrollment projections. ○

A detailed plan for building and refurbishing school facilities including review of board policy, federal • accessibility requirements, state educational facilities code, local building codes, other requirements related to school construction, identifi cation of facilities requirements, and implementation procedures including timeline and scheduling of projects;

A plan for evaluating facilities development including procedures for evaluating the long-range facilities • plan and procedures for updating the long-range facilities plan; and

A plan for school closure that matches building capacity with student enrollment.•

A.6.3: Develop a written action plan and schedule for maintenance of all facilities. Include as integral components of the facilities plan:

A checklist and timeline for preventive maintenance that notes tasks to be performed by district • personnel and those to be contracted out;

Equipment and major component (e.g. HVAC systems, roofs) replacement cycles;•

Adequate training of maintenance and custodial supervisors and staff; and•

Development of an evaluation system that incorporates a customer satisfaction component and the • establishment of benchmarks using industry standard performance criteria.

These recommendations are necessary to establish a long-range facilities program beyond the current Capital Construction Project. Several of the components for long-range facilities planning were not addressed in the current project. This recommendation delineates the missing components necessary to carry out well beyond the completion of the current project.

Recommendation 7: Establish policy-directed planning processes that provide clear direction for district initiatives, improve connectivity and coordination of staff efforts, support school plans, and enhance the accomplishment of achievement goals.

Effective planning is essential for focusing and organizing district resources to meet changing student needs. Long-range planning provides a systematic means to sustain constancy of purpose as the district works toward achieving its goals. Comprehensive planning increases the probability that effective programs, practices, and facilities will be available to students regardless of demographic, economic, personnel, and other inevitable changes.

The auditors found that the board of education had established district goals and priorities in its Strategic Plan, but that action plans had not been developed to provide the tactics, program, resources, measures, and monitoring necessary to pursue those goals and priorities (see Finding 1.3). The district also had a Technology


Plan (see Finding 1.3) that was much better developed than the Strategic Plan. However, both district-level plans and school continuous improvement plans lack transparent links to available resources (see Finding 5.1). Also, there was no comprehensive policy or administrative framework to guide planning and the production of plans (see Finding 1.3). Finally, plans were missing for personnel evaluations (see Finding 1.5), curriculum management (see Finding 2.1), student assessment (see Finding 4.1), program evaluation (see Finding 4.5), and budgeting (see Finding 5.1).

To remedy these defi ciencies, the audit team recommends that appropriate policies and planning documents for curriculum be developed and/or expanded, and implemented over the next 12 months.


G.7.1: Direct the superintendent to draft, for board review, revision, and adoption, a policy that provides overall direction for the planning function and for the development of long- and short-range plans in the school system. It should include the following:

The purposes, structure, and processes for planning;•

Required plans and their delivery schedules;•

Persons (by position) or bodies responsible for producing plans;•

A requirement that all plans refl ect district goals and priorities and that plans for the entire district, the • departments, and schools be integrated with each other, synchronized with the budgeting process, and contain transparent links to specifi c resources, including personnel and funding; and

Establish a stringent quality control process to ensure that plans conform to state and local requirements, • and the criteria in Finding 1.3 of this report.

As a minimum, district policies should require the following plans:

A long-range or strategic plan (see • Finding 1.2);

A personnel management plan that conforms to state requirements and provides for the recruitment, • hiring, training, and retention of highly qualifi ed staff, for personnel evaluations, and for the separation of staff members who are ineffective (see Findings 1.1 and 1.5);

A professional development plan (see • Recommendation 2);

A technology plan to ensure effective use of technological resources for the improvement of teaching, • learning, and administration (see Finding 1.3);

A facilities management plan to conserve resources, keep facilities aligned with student enrollments, • and provide an adequate working and learning environment for teachers, students, and administrators (see Recommendation 6);

A comprehensive curriculum management plan to provide direction for the design, delivery, and • evaluation of the curriculum (see Recommendation 2);

A student assessment and program evaluation plan to provide feedback for decision making (see • Recommendation 3);

School comprehensive improvement plans; and•

Other appropriate departmental plans to provide the necessary monitoring and resources for schools so • that they may attain their goals.

G.7.2: Revise Board Policy 2020: Duties & Responsibilities of the Superintendent to: (1) make the superintendent responsible for the full range of district short- and long-range plans specifi ed in G.7.1, above, and (2) require the superintendent to make regular reports to the board on the status of those plans.


G.7.3: Direct the superintendent to complete the action plans necessary to implement the Strategic Plan and revise the Technology Plan so that it refl ects the amount of funds being contributed by each source identifi ed in the plan.


A.7.1: When directed by the board, draft for board review, revision, and adoption a policy consistent with the recommendation in G.7.1 that provides a framework for planning and developing district, department, and school level plans to achieve the board’s goals and priorities and to conform to state requirements.

A.7.2: When directed by the board, draft for board review, revision, and approval actions plans to implement the district’s Strategic Plan.

A.7.3: Revise the district Technology Plan to conform to the quality planning criteria in Exhibit 1.3.1, Finding 1.3 and, in particular, ensure that it refl ects the amount of funds being contributed by each source identifi ed in the plan.

A.7.4: When the board approves the planning policy described in G.7.1, develop a planning manual in the form of administrative instructions to:

Organize and guide staff planning efforts;•

Provide templates for the development of plans at district, department, and school levels;•

Provide for quality control of plans;•

Provide support for schools in attainment of their planning goal; and•

Provide guidance for periodic reports to the board on the status of plans.•

In the latter instance, build on the current school improvement plan monitoring and support efforts initiated by the Chief Academic Offi cer (see Finding 1.3).

A.7.5: Direct the staff to develop or appropriately revise the plans identifi ed in recommendation G.7.1, above.

These recommendations are necessary to provide long range planning for the district, complete with action plans needed for implementation, and with appropriate linkages to building level plans. Such work is important to assure that the resources of the district are used in the most productive way in carrying out the mission of the Board.


V. SUMMARYA Curriculum Audit™ is basically an “exception” report. That is, it does not give a summative, overall view of the suitability of a system. Rather, it holds the system up to scrutiny against the predetermined standards of quality, notes relevant fi ndings about the system, and cites discrepancies from audit standards. Recommendations are then provided accordingly to help the district improve its quality in the areas of noted defi ciency.

Data are gathered by the auditors from three sources—documents, interviews, and on-site visits—and compared to audit standards and indicators. A school system is not compared to other systems and rated accordingly. This would be an inappropriate practice since there is no national or state system of education in place. Education is a local matter, and substantial authority and control remain vested in the hands of locally elected or appointed boards of education.

The auditors subjected the Birmingham City Schools to a comparison of predetermined standards and indicators of quality, noting any discrepancies. These constitute the fi ndings of the audit. The auditors then provided recommendations to help the district ameliorate the discrepancies noted in the report. The recommendations represent the auditors’ “best judgment” about how to meet the discrepancies disclosed in the report. It is a reasonable expectation that the superintendent and his staff and the board may demur with the recommendations. However, they form the starting point for a discussion of how to deal with the documented fi ndings.

In normal audit practice the board of education receives the audit; they do not accept it. After review of the audit report, the board requests a response concerning the audit of its superintendent of schools. When the superintendent’s response is received, the board is in a position to act upon these two sets of recommendations. In this manner, the superintendent and the board are always accountable for what occurs in the school system after an audit report

At the time of the audit site visit, the superintendent had been on the job for less than a year. With his recent arrival there were many things that were “under review.” Much of what is reported in the fi ndings fi ts this description.

The auditors found the Birmingham City Schools to be an underperforming school system. Several issues confronting the system are worthy of focus and attention in the future and need improvement:

Auditors found that the district leadership did not have suffi cient control of district resources. Problems • were cited in control of the curriculum, assessment, fi nances, and planning, resulting in limited ability to impact student achievement.

Board policies lacked adequate content to provide direction to the staff on most key issues. Further, • policies are not subject to regular review, as required by the board. Many have not been reviewed in more than 20 years. Therefore, the audit team found the body of policies they reviewed inadequate to provide the guidance necessary for sound curriculum management.

Plans and planning do not meet audit standards for adequacy. With the exception of state documents, • there are no policies, regulations, or other comprehensive, written guidance on planning functions at the district or school levels. The district’s Strategic Plan is incomplete and not linked with school plans. Planning at the school level as well as monitoring and support efforts by the district staff were focused on attainment of school AYP goals. Plans and planning are not visibly linked to available resources.

The designs for both the organizational chart and the job descriptions are inadequate. They do not meet • audit standards, and their most signifi cant fl aw is that they do not clarify reporting relationships for district employees. Further, implementation of the principles of chain of command and separation of line and staff relationships is ineffective.

There are no organized and monitored arrangements for managing the evaluation system in the • Birmingham City Schools. The required procedures and plans are not in place, forms are not completed in accordance with instructions in the state manual, evaluations do not hold teachers and principals accountable for student achievement, and personnel evaluations do not result in meaningful professional


development activities. Both personnel evaluations and professional development activities, as refl ected in personnel records, are ineffective in improving employee performance. If the reports viewed by auditors are typical of all reports, implementation of the personnel evaluation process does not refl ect state requirements or the board focus on accountability for results and does not provide adequate feedback to improve job performances.

Auditors found no comprehensive curriculum management plan or documentation of the curriculum • management process currently in place in the Birmingham City Schools. Although some expected elements of a curriculum management plan exist in a few documents, no clear explanation of the intended process was evident.

Auditors found that the elementary and middle schools had written documents intended to guide • instruction in all core and non-core area courses and subjects. At the high school level, three of the four core areas had adequate written curriculum. Overall K-12, curriculum coverage was inadequate since not all core courses or subject areas have written curriculum documents to guide instruction.

In evaluating the curriculum guidance documents for quality, the auditors found the current guides to • be inadequate when assessed against audit criteria. They found that the district’s curriculum documents lacked consistency in format and in providing adequate information for the alignment of a written, taught, and tested curriculum. The guides provided minimal direction to teachers regarding assessment, selection of instructional strategies, resources, and prerequisite skills.

The auditors also found that programs in Birmingham City Schools are not systemically designed, • implemented, monitored, and evaluated to provide alignment with the curriculum and to increase student achievement. No evidence of procedures, standards, or selection criteria for programs implemented in the district was presented to the audit team.

The instructional strategies and student activities observed in classrooms in the Birmingham City • Schools are mostly whole-group in nature. Students are most often engaged in seatwork at the secondary level and in whole-group approaches at the elementary level. The elementary students were far more likely to be observed in small group instruction than secondary students, but small group instruction was almost exclusively tied to reading. Differentiation of content and activities was not observed. Curriculum delivery does not refl ect individualized, personally relevant, hands-on/student-centered, and cognitively challenging instruction that incorporates real life contexts and current technology, as described in board policy and the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards.

During classroom observations and auditor’s review of documents guiding instruction, auditors noted • ineffectual classroom teaching strategies and low complexity of curricular documents. There were few lessons observed that contained high cognitive types of instruction.

Student subgroups across the district are not experiencing similar academic success, nor are the subgroups • enrolled in special programs at rates that are proportional with their overall district enrollment. Black male students perform below other subgroups, and students of poverty are equally disadvantaged on the SAT 10. Students from different high schools experience different success on the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. In addition, the district has a high dropout and leave rate. Around 40 percent of any class leaves the district between ninth and twelfth grades. Students do not have equal access to programs, particularly fi ne arts and electives, across the district.

Principals almost all attested to visiting classrooms frequently and informally and being aware of • instruction, but observed classroom practices did not refl ect quality instruction. The new appraisal system ultimately supports monitoring but is not adequate in defi ning how monitoring is to occur and how frequently. Current methods for monitoring curriculum vary widely. There are many different forms and checklists in use in the schools, but there is no specifi c written guidance at the district level.

There is a strong commitment to professional development, at the building and system levels, evident • in the district. However, Birmingham City Schools’ professional development is fragmented, uneven in quality, and not evaluated for effectiveness in improving instruction and student achievement. System-


level efforts are not coordinated with building-based initiatives, the number of trainings and areas of focus increases fragmentation, and there is no centralized control over the goals, purposes, design, differentiation, and results of professional development.

The lack of planning for student assessment and program evaluation does not allow the district to take • a coordinated and rational approach to student assessment and program evaluation.

The scope of the assessment of the written curriculum is inadequate to monitor student achievement and • to guide instructional decision making. The scope of the core area subjects that are formally assessed from grades Kindergarten through 12 is 34.6 percent; therefore, the scope of assessment does not meet the minimum audit standard of 70 percent coverage of the curriculum.

Student achievement, as measured by the variety of assessments included in the Alabama Student • Assessment Program (ASAP) for the Birmingham City Schools, has remained below state averages on the criterion-referenced tests and below the state and nation on norm-referenced achievement measures. Though performances on some measures have improved over the last two years, performance trends have gone up and down from one year to the next on measures such as the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Tests, the Stanford 10 achievement test, and the ACT.

While the Birmingham City Schools have board policy requiring that “the instructional program • should be periodically reviewed,” no documentation was provided to auditors that this policy has been followed. Further, the district does not have a plan for consistently implementing programs or periodically evaluating their effectiveness. No program assessment or evaluation documents were provided to the auditors.

Budget development practices have been primarily rollover-based budgeting from the prior year’s • budgets and enrollment projections. The development process did not meet the Curriculum Audit™ criteria. Decision making is not explicitly linked to established goals and priorities. The district has enormous looming fi nancial problems in the next year with the loss of federal stimulus funding and the loss of state aid due to proration and enrollment decline. The fund balance is projected to be at a $30 million defi cit unless strong measures are taken to reduce expenditures or increase revenue.

The new or newly-remodeled educational facilities in the Birmingham City Schools were functional • and in very good shape. It was obvious to the auditors that district offi cials are providing quality facilities for the students. The revenue received from the county sales tax was very much needed. The older facilities and spaces that have not been remodeled were not of the same quality as those that have. In fact, some were in very poor condition. Auditors also noticed that cleanliness and housekeeping across the district varied greatly.

Despite these issues, the board of education and the superintendent have set out on a path to lead the Birmingham City Schools to educational excellence. To make sure they are heading toward this goal, they held their own perspectives up for validation, and they willingly requested this exacting review of the quality of the system. The Curriculum Audit™ provides information that the board and superintendent can use in the coming months and years to fully achieve their worthy and vital goal. Given the district’s attention to the fi ndings of this audit, its commitment to use the recommendations as an agenda for improvement, and the strong support expressed for the new superintendent and for educational excellence, the audit team believes that the future for the Birmingham City Schools is promising.


VI. APPENDICES


Appendix A

Documents Reviewed

DocumentActual Teacher Evaluations Sample• Administrative Regulations• Alabama Department of Education• AP Course Curriculum And Syllabi• Appraisal Procedures• Approved District Budget• Assessed Value of Facilities• Audit Statement• Board Minutes• Budget Calendar• Budget Planning Process Description• Building Capacity Levels• Capital Projects Five Year Plan• Class Size Data By School And Grade• Comprehensive Guidance Plan• Computer Inventory• Council Of Great City Schools Report• Course Description Books• CPA’s Audit• Curriculum Guides• AL Curriculum Standards 6-8• AL Curriculum Standards K-5• Curriculum Support Plan• Data for the BCS• Demographic Data by District• Demographic Data By School• Discipline Referral Statistics• District Background Information • District Mission Statement And Goals • District Strategic Plan• District Technology Refresh Plan• Documents On Grouping• Documents On Retention • Documents On Student Placement• Employee Contracts • Enrollment 1980, 1990• Enrollment In Special Programs• Facilities Studies• Federal Program Implementations• Financial Update, BCS• Five Year Capital Outlay Plan• Follow-Up Studies• Fund Balance Report• Grade Distribution Reports• Guidelines For Fund Raising• Highly Qualifi ed Teachers•


History Of The School System• Homework Policies• Instructional Time Allocations• Intervention Lists by Schools (Partial)• Job Descriptions• Job Postings• Key Performance Indicators: Athletics• Library Book Count • List Of Board Members • List Of Committees• List of Course Offerings• List Of Superintendents• Local Tax Comparison Report• Magnet School Curriculum• Maintenance Logs• Master Schedule For Each Building• Minutes of Board Policy Committee• Minutes Of Curriculum Meetings• OCR Reports - online• Operations Department Action Plan• Planning Documents• Program Evaluation Model• Program Evaluations • Program Innovations• Programs Of Study• Proposed Operating Budget, FY 11• Salary Schedules• Sample Curriculum Memorandum• Samples Of Internal Memoranda• School Board Policies• School Consolidation Plan• School Improvement Plans• School Mission Statement And Goals• School Student Assessment Reports • Security and Safety Plan, 10-11• Staff And Faculty Handbooks• Staff Development Plans• Staffi ng Formulas• State Program Implementation• State Testing Program• State, SAT, ACT, AP, PSAT• Student Assessment Plan• Student Test Data• Surveys• Table Of Organization• Tests Administered• Textbook Adoption Process• Textbook Department Action Plan• Textbook Samples: English/LA• Textbook Samples: Mathematics •


Textbook Samples: Think Link• Title 1 Continuous Improvement Plans• Title 1 Family Involvement Reports• Title 1 School Inventories• Title 1 Staffi ng• Turnover Statistics• Website Documents and Data• Work Schedules•


Appendix B

Alabama Quality Teaching Standards

Key Indicators

Human DevelopmentA.

Knowledge of the physical, emotional, and social development of young people and of the relationship of these 1. to learning readiness and to cognitive development.Knowledge of the role of language in learning.2. Knowledge of the general characteristics of disabilities and of their impact on cognitive development and 3. learning.Knowledge of developmentally appropriate instructional and management strategies.4. Ability to teach explicit cognitive, metacognitive, and other learning strategies to support students in becoming 5. more successful learners.Ability to use knowledge about human learning and development in the design of a learning environment and 6. learning experiences that will optimize each student’s achievement.Ability to recognize individual variations in learning and development that exceed the typical range and use this 7. information to provide appropriate learning experiences.

Organization and ManagementB.

Knowledge of the importance of developing learning objectives based on the Alabama courses of study and the 1. needs, interests, and abilities of students.Knowledge of the principles underpinning a sound age-appropriate classroom organization and management plan 2. and of supportive behavior management strategies.Knowledge of the components and characteristics of collaboratively designed and implemented individual 3. behavioral support plans.Knowledge of confl ict resolution strategies, school emergency response procedures, and juvenile law.4. Ability to plan and implement equitable and effective student access to available technology and other resources 5. to enhance student learning.Ability to plan teaching and learning experiences that are congruent with the Alabama courses of study and 6. appropriate for diverse learners.Ability to collect and use data to plan, monitor, and improve instruction.7. Ability to organize, allocate, and manage the resources of time, space, and activities to support the learning of 8. every student.Ability to organize, use, and monitor a variety of fl exible student groupings and instructional strategies to support 9. differentiated instruction.

Learning EnvironmentC.

Knowledge of norms and structures that contribute to a safe and stimulating learning environment.1. Knowledge of factors and situations that promote or diminish intrinsic motivation.2. Ability to develop a positive relationship with every student and to take action to promote positive social 3. relationships among students, including students from different backgrounds and abilities.Ability to communicate with parents and/or families to support students’ understanding of appropriate behavior.4. Ability to create learning environments that increase intrinsic motivation and optimize student engagement and 5. learning.Ability to use individual behavioral support plans to proactively respond to the needs of all students.6. Ability to create a print-/language-rich environment that develops/extends students’ desire and ability to read, 7. write, speak, and listen.Ability to encourage students to assume increasing responsibility for themselves and to support one another’s 8. learning.

Instructional StrategiesD.

Knowledge of research and theory underpinning effective teaching and learning.1. Knowledge of a wide range of research-based instructional strategies and the advantages and disadvantages 2. associated with each.


Knowledge of strategies that promote retention as well as transfer of learning and the relationship between these 3. two learning outcomes.Knowledge of the importance of parents and/or families as active partners in planning and supporting student 4. learning.Ability to select and support the use of instructional and assistive technologies and to integrate these into a 5. coherent instructional design.Ability to make developmentally appropriate choices in selecting teaching strategies to assist diverse learners in 6. meeting instructional objectives.Ability to evaluate, select, and integrate a variety of strategies such as cooperative learning, discussion, discovery, 7. problem-based learning, and direct instruction into a coherent lesson design.Ability to adjust instruction in response to information gathered from ongoing monitoring of performance via 8. formative assessment.Ability to use questions and questioning to assist all students in developing skills and strategies in critical and high 9. order thinking and problem solving.Ability to use strategies that promote the independence, self-control, personal responsibility, and self-advocacy 10. of all students.

AssessmentE.

Knowledge of the purposes, strengths, and limitations of formative and summative assessment and of formal and 1. informal assessment strategies.Knowledge of the relationship between assessment and learning and of how to integrate appropriate assessments 2. into all stages of the learning process.Knowledge of measurement-related issues such as validity, reliability, norms, bias, scoring concerns, and ethical 3. uses of tests and test results.Knowledge of current Alabama assessment requirements and procedures.4. Ability to design and use a variety of approaches to formal and informal assessment to plan instruction, monitor 5. student understanding and progress toward learning, modify teaching and learning strategies, and measure and report student progress related to learning objectives.Ability to collaborate with others to design and score common assessments and to use results to share and compare 6. instructional practice and plan new instruction.Ability to collaborate with others to incorporate accommodations into all assessments as appropriate.7. Ability to provide a variety of ways for students with diverse needs, including students with disabilities, to 8. demonstrate their learning.Ability to develop rubrics and to teach students how to use them to assess their own performances.9. Ability to develop and select appropriate performance assessments.10. Ability to engage all students in assessing and understanding their own learning and behavior.11. Ability to interpret and use reports from state assessments and results of other assessments to design both group 12. and individual learning experiences.

Standard 3—Literacy: To improve student learning and achievement, teachers use knowledge of effective oral and written communications, reading, mathematics, and technology to facilitate and support direct instruction, active inquiry, collaboration, and positive interaction.

Rationale. Research clearly indicates that one of the strongest correlates to effective teaching is a high level of literacy. Not only do effective teachers demonstrate effective use of the spoken and written language, reading, mathematics, and technology, they also model and actively teach their students the fundamentals of reading, writing, and oral communications across all content areas. Additionally, in this culture where technology is ubiquitous, teachers demonstrate mastery of appropriate instructional technology and integrate technology into instruction of their subject areas.

Oral and Written CommunicationsA.

Knowledge of standard oral and written communications.1. Knowledge of the impact of native language and linguistic background on language acquisition.2. Knowledge of media communication technologies that enrich learning opportunities.3. Ability to model appropriate oral and written communications.4. Ability to demonstrate appropriate communication strategies that include questioning and active and refl ective 5. listening.Ability to foster effective verbal and nonverbal communications during ongoing instruction using assistive 6. technologies as appropriate.


Ability to integrate skill development in oral and written communications into all content areas that one teaches.7. Ability to use effective nonverbal communication and respond appropriately to nonverbal cues from students.8.

ReadingB.

Knowledge of strategies associated with accelerated, highly specialized, explicit instruction in phonemic 1. awareness, phonics, fl uency, vocabulary, and comprehension that signifi cantly expands and increases students’ pace of learning and competence in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.Knowledge of assessment tools to monitor the acquisition of reading strategies, to improve reading instruction, 2. and to identify students who require additional instruction.Ability to integrate reading instruction into all content areas that one teaches.3. Ability to stimulate interest in and foster appreciation for the written word, promote reading growth, and increase 4. the motivation of students to read widely and independently for information and pleasure.

MathematicsC.

Knowledge of the role that mathematics plays in everyday life.1. Knowledge of the concepts and relationships in number systems.2. Knowledge of the appropriate use of various types of reasoning, including inductive, deductive, spatial and 3. proportional, and understanding of valid and invalid forms of reasoning.Knowledge of both metric and customary measurement and fundamental geometric concepts, including shapes 4. and their properties and relationships.Ability to solve problems using different strategies, to verify and interpret results, and to draw conclusions.5. Ability to communicate with others about mathematical concepts, processes, and symbols.6.

TechnologyD.

Knowledge of available and emerging technologies that support the learning of all students.1. Knowledge of the wide range of technologies that support and enhance instruction, including classroom and 2. school resources as well as distance learning and online learning opportunities.Ability to integrate technology into the teaching of all content areas.3. Ability to facilitate students’ individual and collaborative use of technology, including classroom resources as 4. well as distance and online learning opportunities when available and appropriate.Ability to use technology to assess student progress and manage records.5. Ability to evaluate students’ technology profi ciency and students’ technology-based products within content 6. areas.

Standard 4—Diversity: To improve the learning of all students, teachers differentiate instruction in ways that exhibit a deep understanding of how cultural, ethnic, and social background; second language learning; special needs; exceptionalities; and learning styles affect student motivation, cognitive processing, and academic performance.

Rationale. Teachers who respect and build upon diversity create a learning environment in which all students feel valued and supported in their learning. Respect for diversity grows out of knowledge of differences, including differences in students’ cultural, ethnic, language, social, and experiential backgrounds; differences in their physical, emotional, and social development; differences in their readiness for a particular curricular goal; and differences in their learning styles and strengths. Teachers have a rich understanding of these and other important areas of diversity as well as knowledge of curricular and instructional modifi cations that improve the learning of the wide range of individual learners in their classrooms.

Key Indicators

Cultural, Ethnic and Social DiversityA.

Knowledge of the ways in which student learning is infl uenced by individual experiences and out-of-school 1. learning, including language and family/community values and conditions.Knowledge of cultural, ethnic, gender, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences and of how these may affect 2. individual learner needs, preferences, and styles.Knowledge of the characteristics of one’s own culture and use of language and of how they differ from other 3. cultures.Ability to develop culturally responsive curriculum and instruction, i.e., model, teach, and integrate multicultural 4. awareness, acceptance, and appreciation into ongoing instruction.


Ability to communicate in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to diversity such as appropriate use of eye contact, 5. interpretation of body language and verbal statements, and acknowledgement of and responsiveness to different modes of communication and participation.

Language DiversityB.

Knowledge of the process of second language acquisition and strategies to support the learning of students whose 1. fi rst language is not English.Ability to differentiate between learner diffi culties that are related to cognitive or skill development and those that 2. relate to language learning.Ability to collaborate with teachers of English language learners and to assist those students with full integration 3. into the regular classroom.

Special NeedsC.

Knowledge of the major areas of exceptionality in learning, including the range of physical and mental disabilities, 1. social and emotional disorders, giftedness, dyslexia, and attention defi cit disorder.Knowledge of the indicators of the need for special education services.2. Ability to identify and refer students for diagnosis for special services.3. Ability to address learning differences and disabilities that are prevalent in an inclusive classroom.4.

Learning StylesD.

Knowledge of research and theory related to learning styles and multiple intelligences.1. Knowledge of a range of curricular materials and technologies to support the cognitive development of diverse 2. learners.Ability to help students assess their own learning styles and to build upon identifi ed strengths.3. Ability to design learning experiences that engage all learning styles.4.

GeneralE.

Knowledge of how personal/cultural biases can affect teaching and learning.1. Ability to involve families, community agencies and organizations, and colleagues in helping support academic 2. achievement of diverse learners.Ability to create a learning community in which individual differences are respected.3. Ability to assess and diagnose individual student’s contexts, strengths, and learning needs and to tailor curriculum 4. and teaching to address these personal characteristics.

Standard 5—Professionalism: To increase the achievement of all students, teachers engage in continuous learning and self improvement; collaborate with colleagues to create and adopt research-based best practices to achieve ongoing classroom and school improvement; and adhere to the Alabama Educator Code of Ethics and federal, state, and local laws and policies.

Rationale. Current research relates teacher collaboration, shared responsibility for student learning, and job-embedded learning in professional community to higher levels of student achievement. This research challenges the independence and isolation that has historically characterized the teaching profession and calls for deprivatization of practice. An underlying premise of professional learning communities is the power of ongoing, continuous learning that takes place in a culture where risk and experimentation are rewarded. In schools where there is a strong professional community, teachers actively participate in creating and sustaining such a learning environment and in maintaining its focus upon improved student learning. Beyond collaboration, teachers exhibit professionalism by demonstrating a personal commitment to continuous learning and improvement; by adhering to high ethical standards; and by maintaining currency with regard to federal, state, and local laws and policies. Teachers assume increased leadership for school-wide improvement initiatives and for mentoring of colleagues as they move along their professional pathways.

CollaborationA.

Knowledge of the purposes, processes, structures, and potential benefi ts associated with collaboration and 1. teaming.Knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of members of different types of teams including, but not limited to, 2. Building Based Student Support Teams.Knowledge of roles and responsibilities of para-educators and other paraprofessionals.3. Ability to involve parents and/or families as active partners in planning and supporting student learning.4.


Ability to share instructional responsibility for students with diverse needs, including students with disabilities, 5. and to develop collaborative teaching relationships and instructional strategies.Ability to share responsibility for all students’ learning across the school and collaborate with colleagues to 6. support every student’s growth.Ability to participate as refl ective members of different types of teams including, but not limited to, Building 7. Based Student Support Teams.Ability to collaborate in the planning of instruction for an expanded curriculum in general education to include 8. Individual Education Plans and other plans such as Section 504 goals for students with disabilities.Ability to communicate and collaborate effectively with colleagues, students, parents, guardians, and signifi cant 9. agency personnel who are included and valued equally as partners.Ability to exhibit the professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards while 10. working with students, colleagues, families, and communities.

Continuous, Lifelong Professional LearningB.

Knowledge of a range of professional literature, particularly resources that relate to one’s own teaching fi eld(s).1.

Knowledge of a range of professional learning opportunities, including job-embedded learning, district- and state-2. sponsored workshops, university offerings, and online and distance learning.

Knowledge of the processes and skills associated with peer coaching and mentoring.3.

Ability to articulate and refl ect on a personal philosophy and its relationship to teaching practice and professional 4. learning choices and commitments.

Ability to use best practices, professional literature, and collegial assistance to improve as a teacher and a 5. learner.

Ability and willingness to inquire into one’s own practice by designing action research to determine the 6. effectiveness of identifi ed instructional strategies.

Ability to participate in the creation and nurturance of a learning environment that supports standards-based 7. inquiry, refl ective practice, and collaborative learning for teachers at all stages of their careers.

Alabama-Specifi c Improvement InitiativesC.

Knowledge of current and emerging state initiatives and programs including, but not limited to, the Alabama 1. Reading Initiative (ARI); the Alabama Math, Science, and Technology Initiative (AMSTI); and Alabama Connecting Classrooms, Educators and Students Statewide (ACCESS) and their relationship to student achievement.Knowledge of Alabama’s state assessment requirements and processes.2. Ability to integrate statewide programs and initiatives into the curriculum and instructional processes.3. Ability to communicate with students, parents, and the public about Alabama’s assessment system and major state 4. educational improvement initiatives.

School ImprovementD.

Knowledge of research relating collective responsibility for student learning to increased achievement for all 1. students.Knowledge of the principles of individual and organizational change and a commitment to assume personal 2. responsibility for leading and supporting others in results-oriented changes.Ability to participate in school improvement planning by working collaboratively with teams focused on specifi c 3. improvement initiatives.Ability to assume increased leadership responsibility in school, district, and state improvement initiatives over the 4. course of one’s professional career.

EthicsE.

Knowledge of appropriate professional behavior and dispositions expected of professionals as outlined in the 1. Alabama Educator Code of Ethics.Knowledge of safe, responsible, legal, and ethical uses of technologies including fair-use and copyright guidelines 2. and Internet-user protection policies.Ability to use and maintain confi dential student information in an ethical and professional manner.3. Ability to practice safe, responsible, legal, and ethical use of technology and comply with school and district 4. acceptable-use policies including fair-use and copyright guidelines and Internet-user protection policies.


Local, State, Federal Laws and PoliciesF.

Knowledge of laws related to students’ and teachers’ rights and responsibilities and the importance of complying 1. with those laws, including major principles of federal disabilities legislation (IDEA, Section 504 and ADA), as well as Alabama statutes on child abuse and neglect, and the importance of complying with those laws.Ability to access school, community, state, and other resources and referral services.2. Ability to access resources to gain information about federal, state, district, and school policies and procedures.3. Ability to keep accurate records including IEPs, especially records related to federal, state and district policies, 4. and other records with legal implications.

Source: http://alex.state.al.us/leadership/alqts_full.pdf


Appendix C

Birmingham City Schools Current Organization Chart: Key Positions


Appendix D

Birmingham City Schools Current Organization Chart: Chief Academic Offi cer


Appendix E

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One

BO

E

Su

perin

tend

ent

Lega

l

C

omm

Chi

ef O

ff.

Fi

nanc

e

C

hief

Off

.

Hum

.Res

.

C

hief

Off

. A

cade

mic

C

hief

Off

. O

pera

tions

AS

Sup

A

S El

A

d

A

S Se

c A

d

ED

C

I

EM S P

EM I T

EM Nut

EM Fac

EM Sa

f

Mgr

Pur

M

gr

Pay

M

gr

Com

D

irA

tte

D

ir D

rp

Prin

Dir

PD

Dir

Fed

D IT

Dir

Cur

Dir

SpE

Mgr

Trn

G

en

Acc

A

ccPa

y

Su

p C

er

Su

p C

er

Su

p C

la

C

oo

Fam

Coo

H

ea

Coo

C

ur

Su

p N

ut

Su

p Tr

n

Spe

Drp

Spe

Gui

Spe

Sup

Sp

e PD

Sp

e Fa

c

Sp

e C

ur

Spe

SpE

Sp

e Su

p

Sp

e A

rea

Fo

r

Fo

r

Emp

Ast

Soc

Wkr

H

ear

Off

Nur

Teac

hers

Su

p Te

a

Sup

Tea

Su

p Te

a

Su

p Te

a

Ex

In

t

A

sb

Ps

y

Pr

i Te

a

Ti

me

Com

p


Appendix F

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One Expanded Academic Program

B

OE

Su

perin

tend

ent

Lega

l

C

omm

Chi

ef O

ff.

Fi

nanc

e

C

hief

Off

.

Hum

.Res

.

C

hief

Off

. A

cade

mic

C

hief

Off

O

pera

tions

AS

Sup

A

S A

d

A

S A

d

ED

C

I

Dir

Atte

D

ir D

rp

Prin

Dir

PD

Dir

Fed

D

ir IT

D

ir C

ur

D

ir Sp

E

Coo

Fa

m

Coo

H

ea

Coo

C

ur

Spe

Drp

Spe

Gui

Spe

Sup

Sp

e PD

Sp

e Fa

c

Spe

Cur

Spe

SpE

Soc

Wkr

Hea

r O

ff

Nur

Teac

hers

Su

p Te

a

Sup

Tea

Sup

Tea

Su

p Te

a

Ex

In

t

Ps

y

Pr

i Te

a

Ti

me

Com

p


Appendix G

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One Expanded Operations Program

BO

E

Su

perin

tend

ent

Lega

l

C

omm

Chi

ef O

ff.

Fi

nanc

e

Chi

ef O

ff.

H

um.R

es.

C

hief

Off

A

cade

mic

s

C

hief

Off

. O

pera

tions

EM S

P

EM I T

EM N

ut

EM Sa

f

EM Fac

Mgr

Pur

M

gr

Pay

M

gr

Com

Mgr

Trn

G

en

Acc

Acc

Pay

Sup

Cer

Su

p C

er

Su

p C

la

Sup

Nut

Su

p Tr

n

Spe

Sup

Spe

Are

a

For

For

Em

pA

st

Asb


Appendix H

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two

BO

E

Su

perin

tend

ent

Lega

l

C

omm

Chi

ef O

ff.

Fi

nanc

e

C

hief

Off

. A

cade

mic

C

hief

Off

. O

pera

tions

AS

El

Adm

A

S S

ec

Adm

Mgr

Bud

M

gr

Acc

Mgr

C

om

D

ir Su

p

Prin

cipa

ls

D

ir C

I

D

ir Te

st

D

ir Sp

E

M

gr

SpP

M

gr

HR

Mgr

IT

Mgr

N

ut

M

grTr

n

Mgr

M

ai

C

oo

Fam

Coo

H

ea

C

oo

PD

Coo

C

ur

C

oo

IT

Coo

Fe

dC

ooSp

E

Su

p C

ert

Su

p C

ert

Su

p C

las

Su

p N

ut

Su

p Tr

n

Sp

e A

tt

Spe

Drp

Spe

Gui

For

Fo

r

Soc

Wkr

H

ear

Off

Nur

Teac

hers

Sup

PDSu

pC

ur

Su

p IT

Sup

Tea

Ex

Int

A

st

Cou

Ar

Sup

Asb

In

sp

Psy

Pri

Tea

Ti

me

Com

p


Appendix I

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase One List of Abbreviations

BOE Board of EducationSuperintendent SuperintendentLegal Legal CounselComm Communications Offi ceChief Off Finance Chief Offi cer: FinanceChief Off. Hum Res. Chief Offi cer: Human ResourcesChief Off. Academic Chief Offi cer: Academic Program Chief Off. Operations Chief Offi cer: OperationsAS Sup Assistant Superintendent: Support ServicesAS El Ad Assistant Superintendent: Elementary AdministrationAS Sec Ad Assistant Superintendent: Secondary AdministrationED CI Executive Director: Curriculum and InstructionEM S P Executive Manager: Special ProjectsEM IT Executive Manager: Information TechnologyEM Nut Executive Manager: Child NutritionEM Fac Executive Manager: FacilitiesEM Saf Executive Manager: Safety and SecurityMgr Pur Manager: PurchasingMgr Pay Manager: PayrollMgr Com Manager: ComptrollerDir Atte Director: AttendanceDir Drp Director: Student DropoutsPrin PrincipalsDir PD Director: Professional DevelopmentDir Fed Director: Federal ProgramsDir IT Director: Instructional TechnologyDir Cur Director: Curriculum: Car. Tech., Math, English/LA, Science, NJROTC, Soc StDir Test Director: TestingDir SpE Director: Special EducationMgr Trn Manager: TransportationGen Acc Supervisor: General AccountingAcc Pay Supervisor: Accounts PayableSup Cer Supervisor: Certifi ed StaffSup Cla Supervisor: Classifi ed StaffCoo Fam Coordinator: Family InvolvementCoo Hea Coordinator: Children’s HealthCoo Cur Coordinator: Curriculum: Media, Fine Arts, Community EducationSup Nut Supervisor: Child Nutrition Sup Trn Supervisor: TransportationSpe Drp Specialist: Dropout PreventionSpe Gui Specialist: Guidance and CounselingSpe Sup Specialist: Student Support ProgramsSpePD Specialist: Professional DevelopmentSpe Fac Specialist: Federal Programs FacilitatorSpe Cur Specialist: Curriculum: ELL, Physical Education, International LanguageSpe SpE Specialist: Special EducationSpe Area Specialist: Area Supervisor


For ForemanEmp Ast Employee Assistance CounselorSoc Wkr Social WorkerHear Off Hearing Offi cerNur NurseTeachers TeachersSup Tea Support TeachersEx Int Executive InternsPsy PsychologistPri Tea Private School TeachersTime Comp Time Compliance TechniciansAsb Asbestos Inspector


Appendix J

Proposed Table of Organization: Phase Two List of Abbreviations

BOE Board of EducationSuperintendent SuperintendentLegal Legal CounselComm Communications Offi ceChief Off Finance Chief Offi cer: FinanceChief Off. Academic Chief Offi cer: Academic Program Chief Off. Operations Chief Offi cer: OperationsAS El Ad Assistant Superintendent: Elementary AdministrationAS Sec Ad Assistant Superintendent: Secondary AdministrationMgr Bud Manager: BudgetMgr Acc Manager: AccountingMgr Com Manager: ComptrollerDir Sup Director: Student Support ServicesPrin PrincipalsDir C I Director: Curriculum and InstructionDir Test Director: TestingDir SpE Director: Special EducationMgr SpP Manager: Special ProjectsMgr HR Manager: Human ResourcesMgr IT Manager: Information TechnologyMgr Nut Manager: NutritionMgr Trn Manager: TransportationMgr Mai Manager: MaintenanceCoo Fam Coordinator: Family InvolvementCoo Hea Coordinator: Children’s HealthCoo PD Coordinator: Professional DevelopmentCoo Cur Coordinator: Curriculum (all areas)Coo IT Coordinator: Instructional TechnologyCoo Fed Coordinator: Federal ProgramsCoo SpE Coordinator: Special EducationSup Cert Supervisor: Certifi ed StaffSup Clas Supervisor: Classifi ed StaffSup Nut Supervisor: Child Nutrition Sup Trn Supervisor: TransportationSpe Att Specialist: AttendanceSpe Drp Specialist: Dropout PreventionSpe Gui Specialist: Guidance and CounselingFor ForemanSoc Wkr Social WorkerHear Off Hearing Offi cerNur NurseTeachers TeachersSup PD Support Teachers: Professional DevelopmentSup Cur Support Teachers: Curriculum and InstructionSup IT Support Teachers: Instructional TechnologySup Tea Support Teachers: Special EducationEx Int Executive Interns


Psy PsychologistPri Tea Private School TeachersTime Comp Time Compliance TechniciansAst Cou Employee Assistance CounselorAr Sup Area SupervisorAsb Asbestos Inspector


Appendix K

Characteristics of Effective Urban Schools

Characteristics of Effective Urban Schools

Dr. Holly Kaptain

What is the purpose of education? For many that are involved in schools in the United States today, the signifi cance and importance of this question gets lost amid the daily business of classrooms. Many would answer that the purpose of public education is to prepare students to be contributing members of society. Others would argue that it is to create an educated person, to develop the whole person. Linda Darling-Hammond argues that the purpose of schools is two-fold: talent development, or developing the strengths that each individual brings; and empowering people to pursue their view of the good for themselves and for their society. As John Dewey once said, “It’s not enough for a man to be good, he must be good for something.” Dewey saw education as the primary means by which one is equipped to participate fully in democracy and the way to raise the consciousness of present conditions and insight into needed/desired changes. To be so educated requires one to be able to think critically, to critically analyze and evaluate circumstances and conditions, reach conclusions, solve problems, and perhaps even conceive of new ideas based on this deeper understanding of one’s circumstances. What is required to be able to function at such cognitive levels? Many would argue that men must fi rst crawl before they can walk, and fi nally run. To apply this analogy to education means that children must fi rst possess basic, rudimentary knowledge before they can think critically. This idea encompasses the notion that critical thinking follows basic skills and knowledge. In this paper, this notion will be challenged and fi ndings from research concerning what is best practice with at-risk urban populations will be discussed.

Many researchers testify that critical thinking and problem solving must not follow the acquisition of basic skills and knowledge; rather, they should facilitate it (Bowers, 2000; Gordon, 2003; Marzano, Gaddy & Dean, 2000). Therefore, students who come to school lacking certain prerequisite, “basic” skills actually benefi t more from involvement in cognitively challenging activities and critical thinking. Does this apply even to students of the most at-risk backgrounds? Many philosophers, sociologists, and researchers argue yes, and that effective urban schools focus on just that type of learning in classroom instruction. In fact, public education may be the only hope of some of the residents of the most disadvantaged communities, as it is the best way to gain access to employment and to participate fully in the democracy that governs the U.S. Indeed, without the participation of all members of our society, are all needs best being met, are all voices being heard? Education can empower people to understand current situations, question their validity, question the status quo, and seek answers as well as solutions.

A key question is whether urban schools that serve the neediest, most at-risk populations are achieving that purpose and achieving success in serving their clientele. The majority are not. Poor, minority students usually found in inner-city schools perform at the lowest levels on standardized assessments. Kati Haycock, of the Education Trust, documents the achievement gap and progress made over the last three decades to narrow that gap.

Between 1970 and 1988, achievement among low-income and minority students and the schools that served them improved dramatically, and the gap between those students and other students narrowed appreciably. Beginning in 1988, though, that progress stopped dead in its tracks. Since that time, the gap has either remained the same or in many subjects actually has begun to widen again. In most subjects and in most grade levels, the gap in 1996 was wider than in 1988 (Freel, 1998).

In addition to the issue of the achievement gaps, urban schools with the highest at-risk factors have higher dropout rates, higher rates of illness and/or absence, as well as higher incidences of violence and disciplinary actions. In some states, that dropout rate is almost 50 percent (Vail, 2002), and over a fourth of all students in other states will fail ninth grade. These statistics are frightening as well as worsening. At-risk schools


also suffer from high teacher turnover, a high level of teacher absenteeism (and thus a greater dependence on substitute teachers compared with nonurban schools), and in some cases, a low level of classroom instructional and management skills (Bowers, 2000). Recognizing and diagnosing the problems are obvious; what is less obvious is determining solutions. Some contend a lack of funding is to blame, and while there is no question that greater resources must be directed to greater needs, it does not solve the problem to wait to act until funding arrives. Much can be done with funds that are currently available; it’s not about working harder, but about working smarter. Sarason stated in 2002, “So many of the problems in [at-risk] urban schools are more attributable to a lack of knowledge about what works and about good ideas than they are to the availability of adequate fi nancial resources” (in Bainbridge, Lasley, & Sundre, 2003). In reading the literature regarding effective schools that have high percentages of at-risk populations, certain characteristics are common among them. These characteristics were fi rst documented by Ronald Edmonds in 1979, and include:

Strong administrative leadership; 1.

a climate of expectation in which “no children are permitted to fall below minimum but effi cacious 2. levels of achievement;”

an orderly, but not rigid, atmosphere that is “conducive to the instructional business at hand;” 3.

an attitude which makes it clear that “pupil acquisition of the basic skills [or 4. essential skills] takes precedence over all other school activities;”

the ability to divert resources “from other business in furtherance of the fundamental objectives,” when 5. necessary;

means for frequent monitoring of pupil progress, specifi cally, means “by which the principal and the 6. teachers remain constantly aware of pupil progress in relationship to instructional objectives” (Druian & Butler, 1988).

As Edmonds found, there is much to be learned from schools that are successfully educating the neediest, most disadvantaged students, as measured by the tests in use as well as by other criteria. Looking at successful schools in traditionally unsuccessful areas may chart the course for other urban schools seeking to replicate their success. It is the intent of this paper to outline what those characteristics are. For the ease of discussion, the characteristics (as determined by Edmonds and other researchers) will be categorized under: leadership, climate, and classroom instruction. Each category, along with corresponding issues and supporting research, will be discussed.

All research supports that strong, positive leadership is a main characteristic of effective schools with historically low-performing students. This leadership is characterized in two ways: by a clear vision, usually supported by a plan; and by a building administrator who serves to support the vision and lead the school staff’s efforts. Having a vision is described by many people as the unifying focus of their school. One study by Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell (2001) reports the profound impact their vision played in the schools examined.

A singular element manifested itself in each of the four schools. Each school regarded school success as a process–an ongoing journey–and their goal was beyond merely reaching a destination, it meant “going the extra mile.” Going the extra mile meant looking beyond the goal, extending the curriculum, not accepting the restrictions of readily available funds or resources, not being satisfi ed with merely “getting by,” not always “painting within the lines.” Essential in every case was a shared vision of a common goal–the success of every single child–and the essential role that each stakeholder played in reaching that goal. The schools became living organisms within their communities, greater than the sum of their parts.

The vision and mission statements may vary in wording, but the content is remarkably similar. The emphasis is always on the educational success of each child–no exceptions. “Every child can succeed and every child will succeed” (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001) is the vision statement in one inner-city school. A well-known secondary school in New York, Central Park East Secondary School (CPESS) has as its mission: “to teach students to use their minds well.” In this school (CPESS), researchers have found that the clarity and


steadfastness of the mission is apparent in every facet of the school’s activities (Raywid, 1999). In another study looking at urban school districts around the nation that have realized signifi cant gains in student achievement on external tests in use, one shared characteristic is the existence of a strategic plan. The plans all identify the mission, name the key objectives that support achieving that mission, and assign responsibility for those objectives to key stakeholders (Vail, 2002). The message conveyed in the mission statement of effective schools is one of very high expectations for every student (no exceptions). This belief permeates the very atmosphere of the building; the effect of high expectations and their relationship to climate will be discussed in the next section.

The second aspect of leadership is the key individual(s) who coordinate building efforts in realizing the goals set forth by the plan, or inherent in the mission. This individual is the school administrator, a leader who takes a strong interest in the operation of the educational program (Druian & Butler, 1987). This role goes well beyond the role of manager and disciplinarian; one principal describes the role of the principal as this: “What works for me is developing a positive mindset, always thinking of the total learning environment, being the best instructional leader I can be, and never being afraid to stretch my own and others’ comfort zones” (Krajewski & Sabir, 2000). The focus for these leaders, as well as for all stakeholders, is on student learning. One study which sought to probe more deeply into the characteristics of the effective leaders of successful urban schools found that the most outstanding characteristic that all the principals shared was not accepting the view that there might be barriers in the road to their students’ success (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). When asked what were barriers she encountered when trying to do her job, one principal responded, “What barriers? There are no barriers. You know what you want to do and fi nd a way to do it. It’s as simple as that” (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). Other characteristics included indefatigable energy, political savvy, and the courage to be creative: i.e., in tapping unusual sources of revenue, as well as in employing new curricula and instructional strategies. In every case where leadership was effective, the leadership style implemented by each individual might vary considerably. The means of achieving strong leadership may differ, but the effect is the same and equally powerful.

The building administrator’s visibility has a tremendous impact on many aspects of a school, not the least of which is student achievement. Studies have actually linked important outcomes such as improved teacher self-effi cacy, improved classroom instruction, improved student discipline, and higher student achievement across cultural lines and SES levels (Downey, et. al., 2003) with principal visits to the classroom. In several of the schools described in the articles reviewed, the principals were not only visible instructional leaders, but knew every student by name and were familiar with their families. Administrator visibility and availability can have a signifi cant impact on building climate, as well.

The climate of effective urban schools is another key factor in achieving success. Climate is greatly infl uenced by the leadership of the building. One report stated, “All breakthrough school principals stressed the importance of a positive school climate and were unanimous in the belief that developing an effective climate for the school was the principal’s most important job” (Glidden, 1999). Climate is characterized by several important factors. The fi rst factor, as well as the most important, is high expectations for all students. These expectations are usually congruent with the mission of the school, and are the single most infl uential factor in improved student achievement. While the relationship between high expectations and improved student performance has been more diffi cult to quantify, what has been proven is that low expectations have a decided and profoundly negative impact on student achievement. Low expectations are also one of the most powerful determinants of dropping out, along with low grades and disciplinary problems. One of the necessary side effects of maintaining high expectations is the eradication of low expectations. Teachers in urban schools can easily assume low expectations for their students, particularly if they adopt a cultural-defi ciency viewpoint; many students from an inner-city neighborhood begin kindergarten lacking many of the basic skills that are possessed by their suburban counterparts, and teachers may then modify their teaching to adjust for this perceived defi ciency. In other words, teachers may inadvertently exacerbate the problem of students for whom they have low expectations by treating them differently than if they had high expectations for them. This phenomenon has been documented by various researchers. Brophy (1972) found that teachers treated high expectation students more appropriately, working to obtain good responses from them and reinforcing such responses when they succeeded in obtaining


them. In contrast, teachers gave up more easily rather than persist in trying to obtain responses from the low expectation students, and even when they did obtain good responses, they often failed to reinforce them appropriately. Thus, teachers were slower to praise and quicker to criticize the students who most needed patience and encouragement (Brophy, 1972). In addition, teachers who hold low expectations for their students are more likely to “dumb down” the instructional content; offer lower-quality instruction (less emphasis on meaning and conceptualizations, more emphasis on rote drill and practice activities); give low expectation students the answer, rather than trying to improve their responses through questioning and giving clues; give inappropriate reinforcement, such as rewarding inappropriate behavior or incorrect answers; pay less attention to low expectation students or interact with them less frequently; call on low expectation students less often to respond to questions; seat lows farther away from the teacher; and smile less and offer less nonverbal warmth, as well as less eye contact (Brophy, 1983).

Maintaining a climate in which high expectations are the prevalent message to all stakeholders is a necessary step if one wishes to avoid the possible consequences of low expectations. Among senior teaching staff, this can be a considerable task–it requires the teacher to assume full responsibility for each student’s individual performance, rather than allowing him or her to blame it on the child’s home life, family, cultural background, or (even worse) on their “native ability.” Many teachers simply fi nd it hard to believe that it can be done, and these underlying beliefs will directly impact their effectiveness as instructors (Marshall, 2003). Adhering to high expectations is as much an absolute refusal to accept the possibility of failure as it is a belief in one’s ability to succeed. This charge has to be led by the building administrator and accepted wholeheartedly by the entire teaching staff if it is to become the prevailing climate in the school. Only then will it invade the psyches of students and their families.

A second important factor in climate is the collegiality of the staff. The staff must be able to work collaboratively, to problem-solve, to analyze data to inform decision making, and to minimize “maverick” teaching (teachers teaching unaligned content in isolation from one another). The idea of collaboration is essential when one considers the nature of the goal: realizing the mission of improved student achievement, or successful students. When all work together, greater effectiveness is achieved than when individuals work toward different and sometimes confl icting goals. One report states, “The primary characteristic of successful programs for at-risk youth seems to be a strong, even intense, level of commitment on the part of the instructional staff” (Druian & Butler, 1987). CPESS is described as a “well-developed professional community with a great deal of collegial interaction and collaboration” (Raywid, 1999). Part of this collaboration is also the creation of a “learning community,” which extends to the stakeholders of the community in which the school is located. This includes not only parents, but community leaders and businesses, as well, and can not only improve the community’s perception of the quality and effectiveness of the school, but increase students’ opportunities to interact with businesses fi rst-hand (Durkin, 1998).

Teachers in urban schools have high demands placed on them, and require added support. In order to support teachers and maintain a positive climate focused on the mission, professional development plays a key role, and is the third factor of climate. Some schools have set up “professional development centers” right on the school grounds (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001), and almost all effective schools testify to the emphasis placed on providing teachers with training in improving their instruction, level/depth of content knowledge, and their students’ performance on tests in use. Staff development should be seen as a means to attain the established goals, by equipping teachers with necessary skills, background knowledge, and training in implementing curricula. Providing teachers with needed support is another way to minimize teacher absenteeism and attrition, and build the collegiality and teamwork necessary to be successful.

A fourth factor of climate is ensuring that the school is a safe, welcoming, and orderly environment (most conducive to learning). Descriptive statements of successful urban schools include:

Clean, orderly schools–pleasant environment (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001)•

Classrooms were bright, full of positive aphorisms and many teaching aides. Some teachers painted • their own rooms (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001)


An atmosphere in the school that is both businesslike and accepting. [The school must be] the safest • and most inviting location in the community for many of their students (Glidden, 1999).

Some eighth graders…listed among the things that they liked about their school that “it is safe and • clean” (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001).

The importance of cleanliness and safety should not be underestimated when one considers the crime rate, drug traffi cking, prostitution, gang warfare, and violence so prevalent in many at-risk, inner-city neighborhoods–sometimes right next to or on school grounds. These successful schools maintain a pleasant environment, even in the face of such social ills so close at hand, especially within the classrooms. The welcoming atmosphere is also critical in creating a learning community. Parents must be made to feel welcome, as well as their children, if they are expected to be involved in their child’s education. In order to solicit parental involvement and to make parents feel welcome, effective urban schools offer a variety of suggestions. Some have a parent-liaison offi cer, who sits on the school planning committee, other schools have events every week that parents may attend: student readings or performances; coffee/doughnut time every Wednesday morning, when parents may air any concerns or grievances; or regular parent-teacher meetings monthly (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). One school does home visits everywhere in the community, and has a parent advocate who teaches classes on topics such as parenting, sewing, cooking, stimulating babies to learn, and spending time with your child (Krajewski & Sabir, 2000).

Maintaining an orderly environment is essential for learning. Schools with high percentages of at-risk students have higher rates of disruptive behavior as well as overcrowding. The latter has been shown to have a dire impact on student learning and can negatively affect classroom activities, instructional techniques, student concentration, classroom order, and the scheduling of the school day (Bowers, 2000). Disciplinary problems, truancy being the most common offense, are also powerful determinants of dropping out (Bowers, 2000). One of the strongest criticisms of schools made by dropouts is that the discipline is unfair and arbitrary. Successful programs that serve dropouts are characterized as having fair–though sometimes tough–programs of discipline (Druian & Butler, 1987). Effective management techniques are essential for teachers teaching in at-risk schools; the emphasis must be on the prevention of, rather than on reaction to, student misbehavior. Many believe that much of the misbehavior that occurs in urban schools is due to students “acting out” in defi ance of unfair expectations, arbitrary rules, or the perceived attempts to acculturate students to the dominant culture. Lack of consistency in discipline often contributes to the problems of at-risk youth who may be, in effect, penalized for being at risk (Druian & Butler, 1987). In addition, the very teaching strategies implemented in urban school settings, when characterized by rote “drill and kill” practice sessions and individual seatwork that fail to engage students cognitively, may frustrate those who require greater sensate experiences in the context of their learning (Gordon, 2003) and result in increased misbehavior.

A fi fth factor in climate is accountability. “Teachers see themselves personally responsible for the success of every student– They’re (staff in effective schools) always looking at their data to try to fi gure out what’s wrong. In schools that are showing real gains, the principals and teachers look at data all the time…” (Freel, 1998). Taking responsibility for each child’s success plays a very important role in effective urban schools. The message is that you can’t leave anybody behind (Freel, 1998), and teachers are held responsible for their students’ outcomes (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). One study by Cawelti and Protheroe (in Glidden, 1999) recommends that schools institute data-based decision making. Experience shows that school systems that “mine” data routinely have improved results. More important, schools that know how to use that data to inform instructional decisions truly create value-added opportunities for their students (Bainbridge, Lasley, & Sundre, 2003). In this way, differentiated instruction becomes possible: identifying and addressing individual learners’ needs, rather than a “one size fi ts all” approach. It isn’t enough to generate and possess the data; one must make use of it for feedback. Holding themselves accountable and paying attention to data is key, and contributes to school stakeholders’ sense of “we’re all in this together.” Studies have attributed the success of some schools serving at-risk minority students to the school’s rejection of the cultural defi cit paradigm and refusal to make any excuses for student failure. They emphasize the importance of the development of “learning communities” where parents, students, teachers, and principals are all accountable and principals have the freedom to be creative (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001).


A fi nal aspect of climate mentioned in many studies but of a more intangible nature is the aspect of teaching the “whole child.” This factor would fall under the description of “caring;” it means seeing the students as individuals with needs that go beyond academic, but that certainly affect their academic success. One principal described establishing a preventive health clinic with a full-time registered nurse that offers separate health programs for three- and four-year olds, after school programs, and health awareness programs for students, parents, and the community on such topics as quitting smoking, asthma, weight reduction, and nutrition. In that school, students now miss much less school time due to illness (Krajewski & Sabir, 2000). Another study details the relationship one principal has with her students and families. “I like the discipline here because the principal treats the students just like they are her children. She loves them, but she don’t take no stuff” (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). In all the schools of this study, “most of the teachers showed signs of love, respect, and affection toward their students” (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). Principals show a great respect for parents, and are familiar with their students’ home lives (Towns, Cole-Henderson, and Serpell, 2001). Another study advocates policy initiatives to increase the availability of early childhood education programs, as well as to create initiatives to improve the diets of inner-city students. “Children from poor home environments miss opportunities for intellectual and social growth, and we as a society reap the results of our dereliction of duty for years to come through less educated workers, higher rates of poverty and crime, and increased medical and insurance costs” (Bainbridge, Lasley, & Sundre, 2003). The rationale for improving children’s diets also implies academic impact: “Although neurologists have documented that high-protein diets are necessary for brain growth and development of young children, the economically disadvantaged continue to be subjected to high-carbohydrate diets. Far too many children come to school either hungry or malnourished” (Bainbridge, Lasley, & Sundre, 2003). Effective schools in at-risk communities do not view students’ academic success as being isolated from their affective, physical, and relational lives.

The fi nal category under which characteristics of urban schools will be discussed is classroom instruction. Classroom instruction includes a pedagogy of success vs. a pedagogy of poverty, the importance of rigorous, challenging standards and corresponding curriculum, the importance of quality teaching strategies, and the need for aligned written, taught and tested curricula. Many of these characteristics overlap to a certain degree, but due to their importance will be discussed individually.

The pedagogy of poverty is an insidious part of too many schools who serve economically disadvantaged, at-risk populations. A pedagogy of poverty is one in which “both teachers and their students are immersed in maintaining the status quo of the students’ lives” (Bowers, 2000). The pedagogy of poverty can “determine the way pupils spend their time, the nature of the behaviors they practice, and the basis of their self concepts as learners” (Bowers, 2000), and undergirding beliefs include the notion that “teaching is what teachers do; learning is what students do,” rather than encouraging students to take responsibility for and an active interest in their own learning (Bowers, 2000). Additional characteristics of the pedagogy of poverty are that ranking of some sort is inevitable, and basic skills are prerequisites before students are involved in challenging cognitive tasks; therefore, a more directive pedagogy must be used to teach students their basic skills (Bowers, 2000). This philosophy sees children as “empty vessels” that need to be fi lled up with the knowledge external forces have decided they lack, and no move is made to connect that knowledge and learning with the personal experiences and culture of the child. However, this kind of pedagogy has proved itself to be ineffective in economically disadvantaged, at-risk settings. Students must be active participants in their own learning, and that learning must connect to their personal experiences, as well. This notion coincides with research regarding effective teaching strategies; Marzano (1998) has documented the effect connecting new knowledge with prior knowledge and experiences has on student learning. This has also been documented by educational psychologists.

Bartlett demonstrated that in learning new material, a person uses existing bits of knowledge [from prior experiences] to anchor the new knowledge. Piaget advanced the notion that intellectual development is based on assimilation–the use of existing schemata to understand and interpret phenomena experienced–and accommodation–the development of new schemata based on the adjustment and elaboration of existing schemata to fi t the demands of new experience (Gordon, 2003).


In other words, students acquire new skills and knowledge more effectively if those new skills and knowledge are “anchored” to information they already know. A pedagogy of success not only guarantees students opportunities to be successful in the classroom, but validates the student’s background and cultural identity, as well as affi rming the child’s worth and success as a learner. “Learning is most effective when–and may in fact be impossible unless–the learner is engaged in the manipulation and transformation of the information that forms the content of knowledge. This is a constructivist conception of the learning process–if a person’s thinking processes are systematic and if that person is actively engaged in the use and restructuring of knowledge, learning will inevitably occur; conversely, when a person is passive and the learning task is primarily absorptive, learning is less likely to occur” (Gordon, 2003).

In a more constructivist pedagogy, teaching is culturally relevant: students’ real life experiences are legitimated as part of the “offi cial curriculum” (Bowers, 2000); students are the center of instruction, not the knowledge, skills, and processes being taught. In successful urban schools, “teachers organize instruction around prescribed academic standards, integrating them within culturally relevant contexts” (Bowers, 2000). In addition to building on students’ experiences and making teaching culturally relevant, many inner-city youth need opportunities to be successful, to see themselves as capable, successful learners. Schools must provide young people with experiences of success in order to counteract the messages of failure… these young people are constantly receiving (Wehlage, in Druian and Butler, 1986).

Another aspect of culturally-relevant teaching is the specifi c needs of certain ethnic groups. In one study by Boykin and Allen (in Gordon, 2003), they contend that the immediate environments of certain African American children, marked by high sensate stimulation, cultivate in them a special receptivity to heightened variability and intensity of stimulation. To the extent that learning tasks incorporate increased sensate stimulation (hands-on, experiential learning), enhanced performance for these children can be expected. This means traditional, passive learning activities (such as seatwork) for these students may be setting them up for failure, if not for dropping out entirely.

Much of the research literature regarding effective urban schools emphasizes the importance of a challenging and rigorous curriculum, which supports the high expectations espoused by teachers and principals within the school. Many times, however, the rigor is imposed by external standards, without a change in the written curriculum at the school. Teachers are expected to make relevant changes in the curriculum, to support the successful teaching of the standards. Teachers have a critical need for new curricula that meet the standards…. Putting high standards on top of a low-level curriculum is not going to work (Freel, 1998). This is equally true if the textbooks serve as the curriculum. Textbooks are often cognitively low and incorporate seatwork-type activities that discourage hands-on, collaborative, real-life learning situations. Student attendance in classes is actually higher when they are more challenged, and when more is expected of them (Druian & Butler, 1987). Having a quality written curriculum that refl ects a constructivist pedagogy, culturally relevant teaching practices, and high expectations for student performance, will only serve to make an inner-city school teacher’s job easier. A strong written curriculum can also ameliorate the effects of teachers who lack adequate content knowledge, a problem currently of great concern across the nation (Freel, 1998).

Quality teaching strategies are another critical aspect of classroom instruction in urban schools. At CPESS, the mission is to teach students to use their minds. Such an emphasis has been tremendously successful over the last few decades; students not only do well on the external tests in use, but also demonstrate the ability to think independently as well as critically. Teachers give a great deal of attention to making learning authentic for their students, to engaging them, and to developing higher level intellectual processes (Raywid, 1999). The founding principal (Meier 1987) describes what went into the development of CPESS’s program:

Our roots went back to early progressive traditions, with their focus on the building of a democratic community, on education for full citizenship and for egalitarian ideals. We were looking for a way to build a school that could offer youngsters a deep and rich curriculum that would inspire them with the desire to know; that would cause them to fall in love with books and with stories of the past; that would evoke in them a sense of wonder at how much there is to learn. (Raywid, 1999).


Education can and should be seen as an exciting adventure, rather than an unpleasant task (Good and Brophy, 1984). The strategies used by teachers in the classroom can have tremendous impact on not only the students’ enjoyment in their learning, but on their mastery of that learning as well. Marzano, in a landmark meta-analysis of effective teaching strategies, has presented a list of the nine teaching strategies that have a signifi cant statistical impact on student achievement scores (Marzano, 1998). What is interesting to note regarding these strategies is that they represent much of what is deemed important and integral to a pedagogy of success, such as connecting new knowledge with prior knowledge and experience, involving the students in personal goal-setting, and involving students in thinking critically regarding the skills, processes, and knowledge being taught. The key factor in most of these approaches is the active nature of students’ involvement. Marzano’s list includes:

Identifying similarities and differences (comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, creating • analogies);

Summarizing and note taking;•

Reinforcing effort and providing recognition;•

Using nonlinguistic representations (graphic organizers, picture and pictographs, mental pictures, • concrete representations, kinesthetic activities);

Implementing cooperative learning;•

Involving students in setting goals and providing feedback;•

Engaging students in generating and testing hypotheses;•

Activating prior knowledge (cues and questions, advance organizers) (Marzano, Gaddy, & Dean, • 1998).

Using effective strategies when teaching rigorous academic content not only ensures greater student achievement, but higher interest levels and cognitive functioning, as well.

The fi nal aspect of classroom instruction that is a key part of successful schools in economically-disadvantaged, at-risk areas is ensuring the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curricula. If achievement is simply measured learning, as measured by the tests in use, then the proof of what students have learned is in their performance on state or national tests. The argument whether tests are “neutral,” or “culturally biased,” is ongoing; the testing scenario in this country is certainly imperfect. However, tests are no longer just evaluating kids’ ability to regurgitate facts, as some would contend. James Lee, in an article for the Kappan, contends, “Some of the knowledge is taught at a recognition level primarily for testing purposes…” (Lee, 2003). This writer completely disagrees with this assertion. Tests, whether one agrees with their validity or no, are becoming more and more sophisticated and are expecting students to use higher levels of cognition, even on those tests that are multiple-choice (English & Steffy, 2001). Process is being given as much attention as factual knowledge, as well as problem solving ability. The National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment now integrates many extended response items that require students to write paragraphs and defend opinions, rather than just bubble in the answer (www.nces.org). Those who are engaged in developing tests have noted a marked change in their construction, and many state tests are the product of groups of teachers who come up with their best effort at determining what mastery looks like, which includes students showing their work, explaining how they arrived at their answer, or writing short, expository paragraphs to demonstrate mastery of writing skills. This writer has seen state tests that actually require students to cut out and put together models of three-dimensional fi gures. The important point to remember is that students can be taught to be successful on the tests in use, no matter what their cultural background or socio-economic status may be. The key is whether the tested curriculum is embedded in the taught and written curricula. One administrator in KS remarked on the importance of alignment when asked about the success of their urban district: “What gets tested gets taught” (Vail, 2002). The focus in that district is on improved student achievement and on narrowing the achievement gap among races. It is a common sense approach. Students do better on tests if you teach them what they’re tested on than if you don’t (English & Steffy, 2001). Making sure the tested content (and context, as well!) is a


daily part of a rich, culturally-relevant and cognitively challenging classroom environment will ensure greater success on tests in use.

Reformers have long discussed what changes are needed to begin successfully educating this country’s urban youth. The time for discussion is over; it is time for action. “If you keep doing what you’ve always been doing, you will reap the results you’ve always obtained” (English, 2001). As Kati Haycock describes, the current treatment of disadvantaged, inner-city youth is not only ineffective, but unethical:

The facts suggest that we’re taking kids who enter school with less and systematically giving them less in school. First, we teach different kids different things. Poor, minority kids are often separated early on from other kids, either in separate schools or on separate tracks, and are systematically taught less. They get less-rigorous curricula from elementary through high school. In high school, poor minority kids are much less likely to be placed into the college prep track and much more likely to be placed in either general or vocational tracks than are white and Asian kids….Third and most devastating, we expect more of some kids than we do of others. For example, in urban middle schools, students get more coloring assignments than writing and mathematics assignments. They also get As for work that would earn a C or D in the suburbs (Freel, 1998).

It is time to begin to educate all our children in this country successfully, to offer to all children equal opportunities for success. Haycock goes on to say,

We see schools all over the country that are expecting high achievement from poor and minority kids and are getting it. There are just too many high-poverty schools where the kids are knocking the top off the state’s exam, so I can’t believe that poverty or neighborhood violence or single parent homes–or any other excuses–are the real culprits. I think the real culprit is low expectations (Freel, 1998).

As Ron Edmonds said over 25 years ago, “We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need in order to do this. Whether we do it must fi nally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far” (Marshall, 2003). The stakes are higher today than ever before; the need is greater than ever before. The time has come–we know what we need to know in order to do it. There are those who have lit the way before us, it is now up to us to follow.


Bibliography

Bainbridge, W. L., Lasley, T. J., II, Sundre, S. M., (2003). Policy initiatives to improve urban schools. Education

and Urban Society, 35 (3), 292-299.

Bowers, R.S., (2000), A pedagogy of success: meeting the challenges of urban middle schools. The Clearing

House, 73(4), 235-238.

Brophy, J. (1972). A study to determine if teachers communicated differential performance expectations to

students. Final report. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Research and Development.

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfi lling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 75 (5), 631-661.

Druian, G., & Butler, J. A., (1987), Effective schooling practices and at-risk youth: what the research shows.

Washington, D.C.: Offi ce of Educational Research and Improvement.

Durkin, R., (1998), Islands of opportunity in America’s urban schools. The High School Magazine, November/

December 1998, 25-27.

English, F. & Steffy, B. (2003). Deep Curriculum Alignment. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Freel, A., (1998), Achievement in urban schools: what makes the difference? A conversation with Kati Haycock

of the Education Trust. CitySchools, Spring, 1998, 7-11.

Glidden, H. G., (1999), Breakthrough schools: characteristics of low-income schools that perform as though

they were high-income schools. ERS Spectrum, Spring 1999, 21-26.

Good, T., and Brophy, J. (1984) Looking in Classrooms (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Gordon, E. W., (2003), Urban education. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 189-207.

Krajewski, B., & Sabir, L., (2000). Every child a success: reaching for a vision. Principal, 79(4), 44-47.

Lee, J. O., (2003), Implementing high standards in urban schools: problems and solutions. Phi Delta Kappan,

84(6), 449-455.

Marshall, Kim (2003). A principal looks back: standards matter. Phi Delta Kappan 85 (2), 104-113.

Marzano, R. J., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C., (2000). What Works in Classroom Instruction. Mid-Continent

Research for Education and Learning, Aurora, CO.

National Assessment of Education Progress, www.nces.org. Downloaded July 26, 2010.


Raywid, M. A., (1999), Central park east secondary school: the anatomy of success. Journal of Education for

Students Placed at Risk, 4(2), 131-151.

Towns, D. P., Cole-Henderson, B., & Serpell, Z., (2001), The journey to urban school success: going the extra

mile. Journal of Negro Education, 70 (1/2), 4-18.

Vail, K., (2002), Urban success stories. American School Board Journal, 189(12), 44-46.


Appendix L

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Excerpts taken from: Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.), (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and

assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete edition, New York: Longman.

TAXONOMY TABLE FOR BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

The Knowledge Dimension

The Cognitive Process Dimension 1

Remember2

Understand3

Apply4

Analyze 5

Evaluate 6

Create

A. Factual Knowledge

B. Conceptual Knowledge

C. Procedural Knowledge

D.MetacognitiveKnowledge


THE MAJOR TYPES AND SUBTYPES OF THE KNOWLEDGE DIMENSION

MAJOR TYPES AND SUBTYPES EXAMPLES

A. FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE – The Basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it

Aa. Knowledge of terminology Technical vocabulary, musical symbols

Ab. Knowledge of specific details and elements

Major natural resources, reliable sources of information

B. CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE – the interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together

Ba. Knowledge of classifications and categories

Periods of geological time, forms of business ownership

Bb. Knowledge of principles and generalizations

Pythagorean theorem, law of supply and demand

Bc. Knowledge of theories, models, and structures

Theory of evolution, structure of Congress

C. PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE – How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods

Ca. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms

Skills used in painting with watercolors, whole number division algorithm

Cb. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods

Interviewing techniques, scientific method

Cc. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures

Criteria used to determine when to apply a procedure involving Newton’s second law, criteria used to judge the feasibility of using a particular method to estimate business costs

D. METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE – Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition

Da. Strategic knowledge Knowledge of outlining as a means of capturing the structure of a unit of subject matter in a textbook, knowledge of the use of heuristics

Db. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge

Knowledge of the types of tests particular teachers administer, knowledge of the cognitive demands of different tasks

Dc. Self-knowledge Knowledge that critiquing essays is a personal strength, whereas writing essays is a personal weakness; awareness of one’s own knowledge level


THE SIX CATEGORIES OF THE COGNITIVE PROCESS DIMENSION AND RELATED

COGNITIVE PROCESSES

ProcessCategories Cognitive Processes and Examples

1. REMEMBER—Retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term memory. 1.1) Recognizing Locating knowledge in long-term memory that is consistent with

presented material (e.g., Recognize the dates of important events in U.S. History)

1.2) Recalling Retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory (e.g., Recall the dates of important events in U.S. History)

2. UNDERSTAND—Construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication.

2.1) Interpreting Changing from one form of representation (e.g., numerical) to another (e.g., verbal) (e.g., Paraphrase important speeches and documents)

2.2) Exemplifying Finding a specific example or illustration of a concept or principle (e.g., Give examples of various artistic painting styles)

2.3) Classifying Determining that something belongs to a category (e.g., concept or principle) (e.g., Classify observed or described cases of mental disorders)

2.4) Summarizing Abstracting a general theme or major point(s) (e.g., Write a short summary of the events portrayed on videotape)

2.5) Inferring Drawing a logical conclusion from presented information (e.g., In learning a foreign language, infer grammatical principles from examples)

2.6) Comparing Detecting correspondences between two ideas, objects, and the like (e.g., Compare historical events to contemporary situations)

2.7) Explaining Constructing a cause-and-effect model of a system (e.g., Explaining the causes of important 18th century events in France)

3. APPLY—Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation. 3.1) Executing Applying a procedure to a familiar task (e.g., Divide one whole

number by another whole number, both with multiple digits) 3.2) Implementing Applying a procedure to an unfamiliar task (e.g., Use Newton’s

second law in situations where it is appropriate) 4. ANALYZE—Break material into constituent parts and determine how parts

relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose. 4.1) Differentiating Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant parts or important from

unimportant parts of presented material (e.g., Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant numbers in a mathematical word problem)

4.2) Organizing Determining how elements fit or function within a structure (e.g., Structure evidence in a historical description into evidence for and against a particular historical explanation

4.3) Attributing Determine a point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying presented material (e.g., Determine the point of view of the author of an essay in terms of his or her political perspective)


5. EVALUATE—Make judgments based on criteria and standards. 5.1) Checking Detecting inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product;

determining whether a process or product has internal consistency; detecting the effectiveness of a procedure as it is being implemented; (e.g., Determine if a scientist’s conclusions follow from observed data)

5.2) Critiquing Detecting inconsistencies between a product and external criteria, determining whether a product has external consistency; detecting the appropriateness of a procedure for a given problem (e.g., Judge which of two methods is the best way to solve a given problem)

6. CREATE—Put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganize elements into a new pattern or structure.

6.1) Generating Coming up with alternative hypotheses based on criteria (e.g., Generate hypotheses to account for an observed phenomenon)

6.2) Planning Devising a procedure for accomplishing some task (e.g., Plan a research paper on a given historical topic)

6.3) Producing Inventing a product (e.g., build habitats for a specific purpose)


FIGURE 1 HOW AN OBJECTIVE (THE STUDENT WILL LEARN TO APPLY THE REDUCE-REUSE-RECYCLE

APPROACH TO CONSERVATION) IS CLASSIFIED IN THE TAXONOMY TABLE.

Educational ObjectiveThe student will learn to apply the reduce-reuse-recycle approach to conservation

Noun the reduce-reuse-recycle approach to conservation

Verbapply

Knowledge Dimension A. Factual Knowledge B. Conceptual Knowledge C. Procedural Knowledge (the reduce-reuse-recycle approach to conservation) D. Metacognitive Knowledge

Cognitive Process Dimension1. Remember 2. Understand 3. Apply (apply) 4. Analyze 5. Evaluate 6. Create

The Cognitive Process Dimension The Knowledge Dimension 1

Remember2

Understand3

Apply 4

Analyze 5

Evaluate 6

Create

A.Factual Knowledge

B. Conceptual Knowledge

C. Procedural Knowledge

D. Metacognitive Knowledge

X

The student will learn to apply the reduce-reuse-recycle approach to conservation


THE COGNITIVE PROCESS DIMENSION Bloom’s Taxonomy – The Cognitive Process Dimension CATEGORIES

ANDCOGNITIVE PROCESSES

ALTERNATIVE NAMES DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES

1) REMEMBER – retrieve relevant knowledge from long term memory 1.1)RECOGNIZING

Identifying Locating knowledge in long-term memory that is consistent with presented material (e.g., Recognize the dates of important events in U.S. History)

1.2) RECALLING Retrieving Retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory (e.g., Recall the dates of important events in U.S. History)

2) UNDERSTAND – construct meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication 2.1)INTERPRETING

Clarifying, paraphrasing,representing,Translating

Changing from one form of representation (e.g., numerical) to another (e.g., verbal) (e.g., Paraphrase important speeches and documents)

2.2)EXEMPLIFYING

Illustrating,Instantiating

Finding a specific example or illustration of a concept or principle (e.g., Give examples of various artistic painting styles)

2.3)CLASSIFYING

Categorizing, Subsuming

Determining that something belongs to a category (e.g., concept or principle) (e.g., Classify observed or described cases of mental disorders)

2.4)SUMMARIZING

Abstracting,Generalizing

Abstracting a general theme or major point(s) (e.g., Write a short summary of the events portrayed on videotape)

2.5) INFERRING Concluding, Extrapolating,Interpolating,Predicting

Drawing a logical conclusion from presented information (e.g., In learning a foreign language, infer grammatical principles from examples)

2.6)COMPARING

Contrasting, mapping,matching

Detecting correspondences between two ideas, objects, and the like (e.g., Compare historical events to contemporary situations)

2.7)EXPLAINING

Constructing models

Constructing a cause-and-effect model of a system (e.g., Explaining the causes of important 18th

century events in France) 3) APPLY – Carry out or use a procedure in a given situation 3.1) EXECUTING Carrying out Applying a procedure to a familiar task (e.g., Divide

one whole number by another whole number, both with multiple digits)

3.2)IMPLEMENTING

Using Applying a procedure to an unfamiliar task (e.g., Use Newton’s second law in situations where it is appropriate)


4) ANALYZE – Break material into its constituent parts and determine how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose 4.1)DIFFERENTIATING

Discriminating, Distinguishing, Focusing, Selecting

Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant parts or important from unimportant parts of presented material (e.g., Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant numbers in a mathematical word problem)

4.2) ORGANIZING Finding coherence, integrating, outlining, parsing, structuring

Determining how elements fit or function within a structure (e.g., Structure evidence in a historical description into evidence for and against a particular historical explanation)

4.3) ATTRIBUTING Deconstructing Determine a point of view, bias, values, or intent underlying presented material (e.g., Determine the point of view of the author of an essay in terms of his or her political perspective)

5) EVALUATE – make judgments based on criteria and standards 5.1) CHECKING Coordinating,

detecting,monitoring, testing

Detecting inconsistencies or fallacies within a process or product; determining whether a process or product has internal consistency; detecting the effectiveness of a procedure as it is being implemented; (e.g., Determine if a scientist’s conclusions follow from observed data)

5.2) CRITIQUING Judging Detecting inconsistencies between a product and external criteria, determining whether a product has external consistency; detecting the appropriateness of a procedure for a given problem (e.g., Judge which of two methods is the best way to solve a given problem)

6) CREATE – Put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganize elements into a new path or structure 6.1) GENERATING Hypothesizing Coming up with alternative hypotheses

based on criteria (e.g., Generate hypotheses to account for an observed phenomenon)

6.2) PLANNING Designing Devising a procedure for accomplishing some task (e.g., Plan a research paper on a given historical topic)

6.3) PRODUCING Constructing Inventing a product (e.g., build habitats for a specific purpose)


Appendix M

Auditors’ Biographical Data

Dr. Kevin Singer, Lead Auditor

Dr. Kevin Singer is the superintendent of the Topeka Public Schools in Topeka, Kansas. He has served at the district administrative level, as a building principal, and as a middle and elementary school teacher. Singer received his B.A. at Washburn University, and both his master’s and doctorate at the University of Kansas. He is certifi ed as a senior lead auditor with the Curriculum Management Services, Inc. and has served as a consultant to the Ministries of Education in Moscow, Russia and Bermuda. Singer has participated in audits

and as a trainer in more than 20 states following his audit training in Pueblo, Colorado.

Patricia E. Braxton

Patricia E. Braxton is the Director of Curriculum and Instruction for the Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District in Woodstown, New Jersey, and has over 36 years experience in education. She held various teaching and administrative positions in Camden City Schools in Camden, New Jersey, including; Project Manager/Coordinator for the Teaching Essential Life Skills (TELS) program and the Cooper’s Poynt Professional Development School, elementary reading center teacher, secondary reading department chairperson, and as coach/

trainer with the Offi ce of Staff Development. She began her career as a fi fth grade teacher in Newport News Public Schools in Virginia and has taught at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

Mrs. Braxton completed her undergraduate studies at Hampton Institute in Virginia and earned master’s degrees in Psychology of Reading (Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and in School Administration (Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey). She is certifi ed as an elementary teacher, reading specialist K-12, supervisor, and school administrator. Pat completed her Curriculum Management Audit training in 2006 and has served on audit teams in Maryland, Michigan, Arizona, and Missouri.

Dr. Holly Kaptain

Holly J. Kaptain is a research assistant with the National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center at Iowa State University in dual language and two-way immersion programming. She also coordinates teacher and administrator training in effective instruction for dual language programs and consults with districts regarding ESL and curriculum competence programs. She is a CMSi (Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.) licensed trainer in deep curriculum alignment and has participated in over two dozen audits in 11 different states

since 1996. Dr. Kaptain graduated with a B.A. from St. Olaf College in Minnesota and completed curriculum management audit training in St. Paul, Minnesota in July of 1996. She completed her M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction and her Ph.D. in Educational Administration at Iowa State University. She has presented at regional and national conferences on bilingual education research, instructional effi cacy, and curriculum design. Dr. Kaptain is a member of Phi Delta Kappa, the National Association for Bilingual Education, the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages, as well as other honor and professional organizations.


Appendix M (continued)Auditors’ Biographical Data

Dr. Sarah Mitchell

Dr. Sarah Mitchell is the Director of Secondary Education for the Frontier Regional and Union #38 School Districts. She has 20 years of professional experience in the fi eld of education including teaching students in grades PK through college. In her current role as the Director of Secondary Education, Dr. Mitchell supervises curriculum development, student assessment and testing programs, district professional development, and is responsible for writing and managing her district’s state and federal grants. At the University of Massachusetts, Ms.

Mitchell received her B.S. in Animal Science, her Masters degree in Environmental Health Sciences and her Doctorate in Education, Policy and Administration.

Dr. James Scott

Dr. Scott serves as an educational consultant for PDK/CMSi projects. He is a former Executive Director for Human Resources for the Gary, Indiana, public schools, and taught at Frankfurt American High School in Germany and the University of Maryland, European Division. Dr. Scott has held positions as an instructor, auditor, chief of staff, and director of U.S. Army education and training programs. He earned master’s degrees in Business (Central Michigan University) and Public Administration (University of Missouri at Kansas

City). His Ph.D. in Educational Administration was awarded at Iowa State University. Dr. Scott completed Curriculum Management Auditor training in January 1991 in San Diego, California, and has participated in audits in the United States and overseas. His areas of expertise include program-driven budgeting, leadership training, professional development, personnel management, and strategic planning. He authored the fi rst nation-wide study of educational equity attitudes among public school stakeholders.

Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr.

Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Educational Studies and Leadership in the doctoral Educational Leadership program at Bowie State University in Maryland. Until his September 2010 retirement, he was the Director of Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) at the United States Department of Education, where he administered the Title I, Title III, and School Improvement Grant programs. Prior to being named Director of SASA, he served as the program Deputy Director for three years and as

the group leader for standards, assessment, and accountability where he was responsible for implementing and providing technical assistance to states implementing the NCLB assessment and accountability provisions. Stevenson has served as a regional coordinator for research, testing and accreditation for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. He has been the assessment and/or research director for several large school districts including the District of Columbia Public Schools, the Baltimore City (MD) Public Schools and the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Schools (NC). He earned the Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.