A Curriculum Audit™ · improve curriculum delivery ... plan documents that meet audit criteria and are communicated to all stakeholders. Use system performance data to identify

A Curriculum Audit™of the

Kenosha Unified School District

Kenosha, Wisconsin

Students in the Kenosha Unified School District engage in an early morning group learning activity

International Curriculum Management Audit Center Phi Delta Kappa International

320 W 8th Street, Suite 216 Bloomington, Indiana 47404

September 2013

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page iii

A Curriculum Audit™

of the

Kenosha Unified school district

Kenosha, Wisconsin

Conducted Under the Auspices of International Curriculum Management Audit Center

Phi Delta Kappa International PO Box 7888

Bloomington IN 47407-7888

(Copyright use authorization obtained from Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

5619 NW 86th Street, Suite 500, Johnston, IA 50131)

Date Audit Presented: September 2013

Members of the Kenosha Unified School District Audit Team:

Lead AuditorRandall Clegg, Ed.D.

AuditorsOlive Mc Ardle Kulas, Ed.D.

Eve Proffitt, Ed.D.Kim Nisbett, Ed.D.

Sue Shidaker, M.Ed.Dr. Jeffrey Tuneberg

Sue Van Hoozer, M.Ed.

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page iv

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page v

Table of Contents

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

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

Audit Background and Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................8

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit ..............................................................................................9

Approach of the Audit ...........................................................................................................................10

II. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................11

The Model for the Curriculum Audit™.......................................................................................................11

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control .......................................................................................11

Standards for the Auditors ...........................................................................................................................12

Technical Expertise ...............................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Independence .............................................................................................................12

The Principle of Objectivity .................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Consistency ................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Materiality ..................................................................................................................13

The Principle of Full Disclosure ...........................................................................................................13

Data Sources of the Curriculum Audit™ ....................................................................................................14

Standards for the Curriculum Audit™ ........................................................................................................14

III. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................17

STANDARD 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. ........17

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Kenosha Unified School District: ...........................................17

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Kenosha Unified School District: .......................................17

Finding 1.1: Evidence of planning was found in the Kenosha Unified School District, but planning processes, plans, implementation strategies, action steps, and communication protocols are inadequate to provide a clear focus and guide district initiatives, program direction, and system operations. The Transformation Plan as a strategic document lacks sufficient clarity to focus district decision making. ...................................................................................................................................18

Finding 1.2: Although efforts to define curricula to guide instruction are evident, the lack of a centrally defined and adopted curriculum has resulted in a fragmented instructional program that lacks sufficient coordination and consistency to focus instruction, assessment, professional development, and deployment of resources. ...............................................................................................................29

Finding 1.3: Board policies lack content and sufficient specificity to provide the adequate quality control needed for effective management of curriculum and other district functions. ........................41

Finding 1.4: The organizational chart does not meet audit criteria for determining sound general management of the school district. Job descriptions are inadequate in quality to communicate complete and current roles and responsibilities in relationship to the delivery of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. ..................................................................................................................57

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page vi

Finding 1.5: The teacher appraisal process is not linked to district instructional priorities, does not support the professional growth of teachers, and rarely informs professional development and retention and non-retention decisions. ..................................................................................................67

Finding 1.6: The board of education has not engaged in establishing clear instructional focus for the school district. Dissension among members of the board is impeding its ability to focus board efforts on addressing district needs. .................................................................................................................74

STANDARD 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. ......................81

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Kenosha Unified School District: ...........................................81

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Kenosha Unified School District: .......................................81

Finding 2.1: Kenosha Unified School District lacks a documented planning process and a comprehensive management plan that provides coordinated direction of the design, delivery, and evaluation of the curriculum. ................................................................................................................82

Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate at all instructional levels to provide a cohesive framework of goals and objectives for student learning. .....................................................114

Finding 2.3: The quality of all Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides is inadequate to direct delivery of the written, taught, and tested curricula. ................................................................132

Finding 2.4: Curriculum guides are inadequate to support effective instruction and student success on state assessments; they lack feasibility and alignment with Common Core Standards in the match of content, context, and cognition. ..........................................................................................................148

Finding 2.5: Two supplemental programs used in the Kenosha Unified School District schools align sufficiently with Wisconsin Common Core State Standards to support students’ mastery of the intended learning; two other programs reviewed did not reveal adequate alignment in the audit sampling. .............................................................................................................................................167

STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. ..................................................................................................................183

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Kenosha Unified School District: .........................................183

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Kenosha Unified School District: .....................................183

Finding 3.1: The lack of consistency among district programs and initiatives inhibits the district’s ability to establish clear direction and focus on improving student achievement. .............................184

Finding 3.2: The district provides an array of professional development opportunities, but the absence of a professional development plan limits the district’s ability to guide system-wide improvement of instructional practices over time. Professional development efforts are not consistently evaluated and in terms of desired student achievement. ............................................................................................189

Finding 3.3: A deep analysis of district practices, policies, and pedagogy has not been initiated to address aspects of the organizational culture that perpetuate inequalities in student access to comparable programs, services, and learning opportunities. ..............................................................203

Finding 3.4: The district’s technology plan meets audit criteria, but instructional technology is not being integrated as prescribed by the Transformation Plan to promote technology and media literacy. ................................................................................................................................................213

Finding 3.5: Teaching strategies observed during classroom visits and student work samples were not consistent with expectations expressed by district leadership and stated in the district’s Transformation Plan. Monitoring of instruction by building principals lacks sufficient focus to improve curriculum delivery. ..............................................................................................................225

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page vii

STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. ..................................................................235



Finding 4.1: The district lacks a comprehensive planning approach to student assessment and program evaluation to provide direction for producing expected learning results. ............................236

Finding 4.2: The scope of formal assessment is inadequate for core and non-core K-12 courses to guide curriculum and instructional decision making. .......................................................................242

Finding 4.3: Student performance on state assessments has remained lower than the state average in almost all grade levels over the past four years, and substantial achievement gaps exist among ethnic and subgroup populations, which, based on trend analyses, are likely to persist barring intervention. ........................................................................................................................................248

Finding 4.4: Formative and summative data are not available to evaluate all courses taught, and data use for key functions such as planning, curriculum management, professional development, program evaluation, budgeting, and facility management is not in place to improve the design and delivery of services that impact student achievement. ..........................................................................................270

Finding 4.5: Evaluation processes have not been established to guide the district in adopting, implementing, and analyzing instructional programs for cost-benefits or for their effectiveness in meeting the system’s desired outcomes for student achievement. ......................................................278

STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity. ..................................................................289



Finding 5.1: The district’s budget process does not meet the audit’s standards of adequacy to be designated as a curriculum-driven budget. Allocation of budgetary resources is not driven by strategic priorities or an assessment of program effectiveness. ..........................................................290

Finding 5.2: The majority of district facilities are well maintained and adequate to support the district’s educational programs. There is no formal, multi-year facilities plan in place to inform and guide planning and funding of facility improvement projects. ...........................................................303

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSI CURRICULUM AUDIT™ TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE KENOSHA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT .....................................................311

Recommendation 1: Develop a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan that addresses the findings and recommendations contained in the Curriculum Audit™ report. Align district decision and actions toward closing gaps identified in the audit findings. .......................................................311

Recommendation 2: Ensure clarity through consistent district planning. Develop cohesive written plan documents that meet audit criteria and are communicated to all stakeholders. Use system performance data to identify gaps between the current status and desired outcomes. .......................315

Recommendation 3: Review, revise, adopt, and implement board policies to provide for a sound system of curriculum management and control. ................................................................................318

Recommendation 4: Revise, adopt, and implement a table of organization and job descriptions that provide for control of district functions and lead to intended student outcomes. ...............................323

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement a curriculum management system that establishes an aligned curriculum available to all students and supports attainment of student proficiency. ............326

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page viii

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for student assessment and program evaluation that requires data use at district and site levels to close the achievement gaps persistent among ethnic populations and subgroups, to raise the level of achievement for all students, and to provide feedback for decisions regarding curriculum management and program adoption, implementation, continuation, expansion, modification, or termination. Align student and program assessment with the curriculum management system and support long-range planning. ..................330

Recommendation 7: Design and implement a comprehensive professional development process that provides for coordination with the curriculum management plan and for the use of student achievement data in the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional development efforts. ..........334

Recommendation 8: Design and implement a comprehensive, curriculum-driven budget development process that emphasizes cost-benefit analyses that links resources to instructional priorities. ..........338

V. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................343

VI. APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................347

Appendix A: Auditors’ Biographical Data .........................................................................................349

Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed .......................................................................................353

Appendix C: Recommended Table of Organization ..........................................................................369

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page ix

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 0.1 Elementary, Middle School, and High School Enrollment ........................................................3

Exhibit 0.2 Student Enrollment by Demographic ........................................................................................4

Exhibit 0.3 Student Enrollment by Demographic and School Site ..............................................................4

Exhibit 0.4 Personnel Information ...............................................................................................................7

Exhibit 0.5 Fund Sources and Amounts .......................................................................................................7

Exhibit 0.6 Operational Budget ....................................................................................................................8

Exhibit 1.1.1 District Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors ..............................................................19

Exhibit 1.1.2 Auditors’ Rating of Characteristics of Quality Planning Design, Deployment, and Delivery ...................................................................................................................................20

Exhibit 1.1.3 Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality (Design, Deployment, and Delivery) and Auditors’ Rating of the Transformation Plan ...........................................................................23

Exhibit 1.1.4 Characteristics of Department and School Improvement Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery .......................................................................................................27

Exhibit 1.2.1 The Function of Effective Board Policy In the State of Wisconsin Accountability (Centralized) System ...............................................................................................................30

Exhibit 1.2.2 Policies, Rules, Administrative Regulations Addressing Curriculum .....................................31

Exhibit 1.3.1 Board Policies, Rules, and Regulations Reviewed by PDK/CMSi Auditors ..........................42

Exhibit 1.3.2 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy, Rules, and Regulations on Audit Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...........................................................................45

Exhibit 1.3.3 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .......................................................................48

Exhibit 1.3.4 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Three to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .......................................................................50

Exhibit 1.3.5 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Four to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .......................................................................52

Exhibit 1.3.6 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Audit Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .......................................................................54

Exhibit 1.3.7 Summary Ratings of the Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy, Rules, and Regulations to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...........................................................................57

Exhibit 1.4.1 Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................58

Exhibit 1.4.2 Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................59

Exhibit 1.4.3 Principles of Sound Organizational Management ...................................................................59

Exhibit 1.4.4 Auditors’ Analysis of Two Organizational Charts ...................................................................60

Exhibit 1.4.5 Job Descriptions: Administrative, Instructional, and Instructional Support ............................62

Exhibit 1.4.6 PDK-CMSi Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions ................................................................64

Exhibit 1.4.7 Auditors’ Assessment of Selected Job Descriptions ................................................................64

Exhibit 1.5.1 Description of Teacher Professional Performance Assessment Criteria ..................................69

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page x

Exhibit 1.5.2 Teacher Appraisal Scoring of Sample Evaluations ..................................................................71

Exhibit 1.5.3 Number of Teachers on an “Out of Sequence” Performance Review Cycle ...........................72

Exhibit 1.6.1 Frequency Distribution of Board of Education Action Items ..................................................77

Exhibit 2.1.1 Board Policies Related to Curriculum and Instruction ............................................................83

Exhibit 2.1.2 Key Curriculum Planning Documents and Other Sources .....................................................86

Exhibit 2.1.3 Curriculum Management Planning Characteristics and Auditors’ Assessment of the District Approach ..................................................................................................................................88

Exhibit 2.1.4 Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to Curriculum .............................................90

Exhibit 2.1.5 Curriculum Guide Documents Presented to Auditors ...........................................................108

Exhibit 2.2.1 Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades K-5 .......................................................................115

Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 6-8 ........................................................................116

Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 9-12 for Core Subject Areas .................................118

Exhibit 2.2.4 Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 9-12 for Non-Core Subject Areas.........................122

Exhibit 2.2.5 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Instructional Level .......................................................131

Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis: Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specificity ..........................................133

Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Rating of Elementary Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria ..........................................................................134

Exhibit 2.3.3 Auditors’ Rating of Middle School Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria ..........................................................................135

Exhibit 2.3.4 Auditors’ Rating of High School Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria ..........................................................................136

Exhibit 2.3.5 Auditors’ Rating of Elementary School Non-Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria .........................................................139

Exhibit 2.3.6 Auditors’ Rating of Middle School Non-Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria .........................................................139

Exhibit 2.3.7 Auditors’ Rating of High School Non-Core Curriculum Guides on the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria ..........................................................................141

Exhibit 2.3.8 Mean Rating of Curriculum by Audit Guide Criteria ............................................................146

Exhibit 2.4.1 Analysis of Feasibility of Learning Targets for Literacy .......................................................150

Exhibit 2.4.2 Analysis of Feasibility of Learning Targets for Mathematics ...............................................151

Exhibit 2.4.3 Internal Consistency of Sample Learning Target to the Common Core Standards for Literacy, Grades K-5 .............................................................................................................................152

Exhibit 2.4.4 Internal Consistency of Representative Literacy Instructional Resources and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets ..................................................................................................156

Exhibit 2.4.5 Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Instructional Resources and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets ....................................................................................159

Exhibit 2.4.6 Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Assessment Items and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets ..................................................................................................162

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xi

Exhibit 2.4.7 Literacy Unit of Study Design Elements Alignment to Common Core Standards ................164

Exhibit 2.4.8 Mathematics Unit of Study Alignment to Common Core Standards ....................................165

Exhibit 2.5.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Thinking (Revised, Evans Newton, Inc.) Resource Used for Assessing Cognitive Alignment of Standards and Programs ................................................169

Exhibit 2.5.2 Alignment of Compass Learning Program Elements with Ten Randomly Selected Wisconsin Common Core Standards for English Language Arts: Reading Standards for Reading, Literature, Non-Fiction Standards .........................................................................................170

Exhibit 2.5.3 Alignment of Rosetta Stone (Levels 1-3) Program Components with Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Guidelines from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Using the Beginning and Developing Levels for Spanish, Grades K-5 ...............173

Exhibit 2.5.4 Alignment of Tell Me More Program Elements for Spanish with Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages .................................................................................................................175

Exhibit 2.5.5 Alignment of ALEKS Math Program Elements with Twelve Randomly Selected Standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Mathematics 6-8, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, and High School Geometry ..................................................................................178

Exhibit 3.2.1 Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to Professional Development ...................190

Exhibit 3.2.2 Summary of Professional Development Topics Covered During the 2012-13 School Year .195

Exhibit 3.2.3 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Staff Development Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Staff Development Program ..........................................................................197

Exhibit 3.3.1 Gender of District Staff and Students ....................................................................................204

Exhibit 3.3.2 Ethnicity of District Staff and Students .................................................................................205

Exhibit 3.3.3 Student Suspensions by Ethnicity vs. District Percentages ...................................................206

Exhibit 3.3.4 Student Retentions by Gender, Ethnicity, English Proficiency and SWD vs. District Percentages ............................................................................................................................207

Exhibit 3.3.5 Ethnicity of Charter School Student Enrollment vs. District Enrollment .............................208

Exhibit 3.3.6 Special Programs in Charter Schools Enrollment vs. District Enrollment ............................210

Exhibit 3.3.7 District Enrollment in Special Programs by Ethnicity .........................................................212

Exhibit 3.4.1 Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Program and Auditors’ Assessment ..............215

Exhibit 3.4.2 Computer Inventory by School Including Computer to Student Ratios ................................218

Exhibit 3.4.3 Funding Sources for Campus Technology 2012 and 2013 ...................................................220

Exhibit 3.4.4 Available Instructional Technology ......................................................................................222

Exhibit 3.4.5 Use of Available Classroom Technology ...............................................................................223

Exhibit 3.5.1 Frequency of Observed Student Orientation by Category .....................................................227

Exhibit 3.5.2 Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Cognitive Process Dimensions ................................................228

Exhibit 3.5.3 Cognitive Types of Observed Classroom Activity ................................................................229

Exhibit 3.5.4 Cognitive Types of Collected Student Artifacts ....................................................................229

Exhibit 3.5.5 Instructional Activity Classifications Used by Auditors to Collect Snapshot Data ...............230

Exhibit 3.5.6 Table of Frequency of Observed Classroom Activities by Grade Groupings ........................231

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xii

Exhibit 3.5.7 Instructional Practices Identified as Priorities by Building Administrators ...........................232

Exhibit 4.1.1 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and Program Evaluation Plan .....239

Exhibit 4.2.1 Formal Assessments of Student Performance ........................................................................243

Exhibit 4.2.2 Scope of the Formal Assessment, Kindergarten through Fifth Grade ...................................245

Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of the Formal Assessment, Grades 6-8 .......................................................................246

Exhibit 4.2.4 Scope of the Formal Assessment, Grades 9-12 .....................................................................247

Exhibit 4.2.5 Summary of Scope of the Formal Assessment, K-12 ............................................................247

Exhibit 4.3.1 New Cut Score Increases Required to Attain Proficiency on WKCE in 2012 Reading and Mathematics ...........................................................................................................................251

Exhibit 4.3.2 Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Reading, Grades 3 through 8 and 10 .................................252

Exhibit 4.3.3 Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Mathematics, Grades 3 through 8, and 10 .........................253

Exhibit 4.3.4 Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Language Arts, Grades 4, 8, and 10 ...................................254

Exhibit 4.3.5 Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Science, Grades 4, 8, and 10 ..............................................254

Exhibit 4.3.6 Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Social Studies, Grades 4, 8, and 10 ...................................255

Exhibit 4.3.7 Comparison: Percentage of Students by Ethnicity Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading ..................................................................................................................256

Exhibit 4.3.8 Comparison: Percentage of Students by Ethnicity Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics ..........................................................................................................257

Exhibit 4.3.9 Comparison: Percentage of Economically and Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading ..................................................258

Exhibit 4.3.10 Comparison: Percentage of Economically and Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics ..........................................259

Exhibit 4.3.11 Comparison: Percentage of Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading ..................................................260

Exhibit 4.3.12 Comparison: Percentage of Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics ...........................................261

Exhibit 4.3.13 Comparison: Percentage of English Language Learner and English Proficient Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading ...................................................262

Exhibit 4.3.14 Comparison: Percentage of English Language Learner and English Proficient Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics ...........................................263

Exhibit 4.3.15 District Trend: Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading and Mathematics ......................................................................................................264

Exhibit 4.3.16 Estimated Years to Achieve Parity English Proficient/Limited English Proficient Students on the WKCE Reading in Grades 5, 8, and 10 .......................................................................265

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xiii

Exhibit 4.3.17 Estimated Years to Achieve Parity Students without Disabilities/Students with Disabilities in Grades 5, 7, and 10 White Students/Black Students in Grades 4, 8, and 10 WKCE Reading .....................................................................................................................266

Exhibit 4.3.18 Percentage Scoring 3 and Above by Ethnicity and Participation Rates by Ethnicity Advanced Placement Exam (AP) ...........................................................................................267

Exhibit 4.3.19 Scores by Ethnicity and Participation Rates by Ethnicity American College Test (ACT) ................................................................................................268

Exhibit 4.4.1 Documents Presented to Auditors for Review .......................................................................272

Exhibit 4.4.2 Formative Student Assessment Instruments, Data, and Use Characteristics of an Adequate Instructional Approach ...........................................................................................................273

Exhibit 4.4.3 Characteristics of Summative Student Assessment Data Use for an Adequate Instructional Approach Auditors’ Ratings of District Approach .................................................................275

Exhibit 4.5.1 Characteristics of a Quality Program Evaluation Plan or Process and Auditors’ Assessment of the District’s Approach ..........................................................................................................281

Exhibit 4.5.2 Quantity of Program Evaluations Presented for Instructional Programs ...............................283

Exhibit 4.5.3 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Program Evaluation Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Program Evaluation against Audit Characteristics ........................................284

Exhibit 5.1.1 Summary of Revenues by Source ..........................................................................................293

Exhibit 5.1.2 Summary of Expenditures by Area ........................................................................................293

Exhibit 5.1.3 Comparison: Revenues and Expenditures .............................................................................294

Exhibit 5.1.4 Summary Operating Fund Balances ......................................................................................295

Exhibit 5.1.5 Student Enrollment ................................................................................................................296

Exhibit 5.1.6 Staffing ...................................................................................................................................296

Exhibit 5.1.7 Components of Curriculum-Driven Budgeting and Ratings of Adequacy ............................297

Exhibit 5.1.8 Per Pupil Allocations by Campus ..........................................................................................299

Exhibit 5.2.1 Comparison of Facilities Planning Efforts to Components of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities Plan .........................................................................................................................306

Exhibit 5.2.2 Student Enrollment and Building Capacity ...........................................................................308

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xiv

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xv

Table of Photographs

Students in the Kenosha Unified School District engage in an early morning group learning activity .............. i

Student work on display at Indian Trail High School. .....................................................................................113

Students engaged in an elementary math activity at Frank Elementary School. .............................................132

Learning targets called “I Can” statements were observed in classrooms throughout the Kenosha Unified School District. ................................................................................................................................................167

A number of online supplemental programs are used in Kenosha Unified Schools like SpellingCity®, a vocabulary development program used at Stoker Elementary School. ...........................................................168

Students fabricating a part they designed at Lakeview Technology Academy. ...............................................188

Students using manipulatives to solve math problems at Kenosha School of Technology Enhanced Curriculum, one of several charter schools in the Kenosha Unified School District. .....................................211

Kenosha eSchool, which enrolls 136 students, offers full- and part-time enrollment options for students in grades K-12. .....................................................................................................................................................213

Availability of instructional technology varied across the Kenosha Unified School District. A computer lab not in use at Lance Middle School. ..................................................................................................................220

Students reading independently using iPads at Pleasant Prairie Elementary School. .....................................225

An English class listening to their teacher read at Bradford High School. ......................................................234

Students working independently at Bullen Middle School. ............................................................................234

Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) is used by district teachers to place students in instructional settings. ............................................................................................................242

Students working on a small group lab activity at The Brompton Elementary School. ..................................248

A variety of data walls, used by teachers to document the academic progress of their students, were noted in many classrooms. .............................................................................................................................................277

Multiage classrooms have been implemented in Kenosha Unified School District elementary classrooms. Posters clarifying the difference between multiage classrooms and split classrooms have been posted in district schools. ................................................................................................................................................303

Kenosha Technology Enhanced Curriculum School, which is leased from the City of Kenosha, is the oldest school building in Kenosha. .............................................................................................................................308

School buildings in the Kenosha Unified School District were found to be generally well maintained. The media center at Nash Elementary School displays a Nash automobile, which was produced in Kenosha. ....310

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page xvi

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Report Page 1

A Curriculum Audit™of the

Kenosha Unified School District

Kenosha, Wisconsin

I. INTRODUCTIONThis document constitutes the final report of a Curriculum Audit™ of the Kenosha Unified School District. The audit was commissioned by the Kenosha Unified School District’s Superintendent within the scope of her decision-making authority. It was conducted during the time period of April 29 through May 3, 2013. Document analysis was performed off site, as was the detailed analysis of findings and site visit data.

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

Background

Kenosha is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Wisconsin. Located on the shores of Lake Michigan, Kenosha is considered one of the top 50 high-tech economies in the country and is a bedroom community for the Chicago and Milwaukee metropolitan areas. With a variety of transportation options, nearly half of the Kenosha workforce commutes outside of Kenosha County for employment.

The name Kenosha has its origins in the Potawatomi name for the fish called pike or Kenozia. What is now the City of Kenosha was officially established in 1850 as Southport. Although a shipping port, Southport never became as productive as the ports located in nearby Milwaukee or Chicago. That, however, did not prevent the area from becoming a hub of commercial and manufacturing activity. Early manufacturers included the Simmons Company, which made mattresses; Jockey, which made nylons and underwear; and the Allen Tannery, which processed hides into leather. Beginning in the early 1900s and spanning eight decades, Kenosha was an automobile manufacturing center producing cars under the marquees of Rambler, Nash, Hudson, American Motors, and Daimler-Chrysler. Today, manufacturing continues to serve as the economic foundation for the area, with over 85 industries located in the area, including such well-known brands as Honeywell, Rust Oleum, Snap-On, Ocean Spray, and Uline, Inc.

From the beginning, the Kenosha area attracted people from the eastern United States and many European countries. The Irish were one of the first immigrants to arrive in the area in 1837, followed by the Germans, Irish, English, and Scotts. By the 1870s the population of Kenosha had grown to 9,066 residents, of which half were European immigrants. After the turn of the century, Italian families began settling in the area. Families of Latino/Hispanic origins did not begin to move into the area until after World War II. Population growth continues in Kenosha, and over the past three decades the area has grown 28 percent, approaching 100,000 residents. Ethnically, the area is still primarily of European descent, with 12 percent of the population of Hispanic or Latino descent and seven percent African American.

Kenosha has a long history of valuing the importance of public education. The first open free school was established in 1836 by Reuben Deming, a minister who believed that educating children was important. Many of the children living in Kenosha at the time attended the open free school he established. The first schoolhouse was constructed shortly thereafter in 1837. In 1839 the first regular academy opened in a new school building.

A notable figure in the history of Kenosha public education was Mary Bradford. Mary Bradford was a teacher and later became the state’s first female superintendent, serving as superintendent in Kenosha from 1878 through 1894, and again from 1910 through 1921. During her career Mary Bradford also served as president of the


Wisconsin Teachers’ Association, began the first kindergarten in Wisconsin, established the state’s first junior high school, and later opened a vocational school to prepare students for jobs. Mary D. Bradford High School is named for this historic Kenosha educator.

After operating for decades as part of Kenosha city government, the Kenosha schools unified with the schools in the Village of Pleasant Prairie and the Town of Somers, becoming the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1. In 1994, by referendum, the district became what is known in Wisconsin as a common school district and is required to hold a meeting of all electors annually although the school district retains the title “Kenosha Unified School District.” Today, the Kenosha Unified School District is the third largest school district is the state of Wisconsin, serving 22,570 students. Bound by the Illinois border to the south, the Racine County line to the north, Lake Michigan to the east, and Interstate Highway 94 to the west, the Kenosha Unified School District encompasses 85 square miles. The Kenosha Unified School District provides its educational programs through its six high schools, five middle schools, 24 elementary schools, and five charter schools.

Ensuring a vibrant K-16 educational environment, the Kenosha area supports a variety of post-secondary educational choices including a public university, private liberal arts colleges, and a technical college. Post-secondary institutions in the areas include the University of Wisconsin – Parkside, Carthage College, Cardinal Stritch University, Concordia University, Herzing University, and Gateway Technical College. Overall, nearly 54 percent of the population, ages 25 years and older, living in the Kenosha area have some post-secondary education.

Vision-Mission Statement

In 2010, the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education engaged in a strategic planning process. The strategic planning process produced the following vision and mission statements guided by three transformational principles, which were adopted by the board of education in 2011.

Vision: Maximizing the brilliance of children.

Mission: The Kenosha Unified School District Mission is to assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.

Transformational Principles:

• Blended Personalized Learning—Adaptable to individual needs, flexible in access and delivery and interactive, engaging learning.

• Multi-Dimensional Life and Career Skills—Creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving and communication and collaboration.

• Relevant Global Knowledge—Content/information/media literacy and social and cross-cultural competencies.

Governance Structure

The Kenosha Unified School District is governed by a seven-member board of education. Each member is elected at large to serve for a three-year term. Currently the board members are:

Name Initial Election Term ExpiresMary Snyder 2009 2015Kyle Flood 2013 2016Jo Ann Taube 2008 2014Carl Bryan 2009 2015Tamarra Coleman 2012 2015Robert (Bob) Nuzzo 2011 2014Rebecca Stevens 2007 2016Source: Information obtained from district officials.


Superintendent

The Superintendent is hired by the board and is responsible directly to them for the education and support functions of the school district. Dr. Michele Hancock assumed the leadership role as the district’s Superintendent in July 2010, replacing Dr. Joseph T. Mangi who served as Superintendent of Schools from September 2007 through June 2010. Dr. Hancock is the fourteenth superintendent to serve the Kenosha Unified School District, after serving as a teacher, curriculum specialist, literacy specialist, assistant principal, and an elementary school principal in the Rochester, New York school district. Prior to working in Rochester, New York, Dr. Hancock served 10 years as a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools. Following is a list of superintendents that have served the Kenosha Unified School District and their length of service.

• Harold R. Maurer, Superintendent, 1949 - 1967

• Donald W. Smitley, Superintendent, 1967 - 1969

• Otto F. Huettner, Superintendent, 1970 - 1979

• Dr. John J. Hosmanek, Superintendent, 1979 - 1989

• Dr. Anthony F. Bisciglia, Superintendent, 1989 - 1995

• Dr. Joseph T. Mangi, Interim Superintendent, 1995 - 1996

• Dr. Michael L. Johnson, Superintendent, 1996 - 2001

• Dr. Joseph T. Hentges, Interim Superintendent, August 2001 - May 2002

• Daniel Tenuta, Interim Superintendent, June 2002 - April 2003

• Dr. R. Scott Pierce, Superintendent, April 2003 - August 2007

• Dr. Joseph T. Mangi, Superintendent, September 2007 - June 2010

• Dr. Michele Hancock, Superintendent, July 2010 to the present

Student Enrollment

There are 40 schools operating in the Kenosha Unified School District including, 24 elementary schools, five middle schools, six high schools, and five charter schools. A summary of student enrollments at each level and for all schools combined for the past five years is presented in Exhibit 0.1:

Exhibit 0.1

Elementary, Middle School, and High School EnrollmentKenosha Unified School District

2008-2013

Grade Level 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09Elementary 11,019 11,206 11,361 11,316 11,200Middle School 4,513 4,807 4,642 4,561 4,581High School 6,902 6,892 6,983 7,056 6,991K-12 eSchool 136

22,570 22,905 22,986 22,933 22,772Source: Wisconsin Department of Instruction website

As can be noted in Exhibit 0.1, total student enrollment in the Kenosha Unified School District has remained stable from year to year. The largest year-to-year variance in enrollment occurred between the 2011-12 school year and the 2012-13 school year when total enrollments declined by 335 students or 1.5 percent.

The Kenosha Unified School District serves a racially diverse student population. A summary of the racial and socioeconomic composition of the district’s student enrollment for the 2012-13 school year compared to the 2008-09 school year is presented in Exhibit 0.2.


Exhibit 0.2

Student Enrollment by DemographicKenosha Unified School District

2008 and 2013

Race2008-09 2012-13

Enrollment Percentage of Total Enrollment Enrollment Percentage of

Total EnrollmentAmerican Indian/Alaska Native 107 0.5 51 0.2Asian/ Pacific Islander 404 1.8 372 1.6Black/African American 3,786 16.6 3,495 15.5Hispanic/Latino 4,502 19.8 5,545 24.6Two or More Races NA NA 793 3.5White 13,973 61.4 12,314 54.6Total 22,772 100 22,570 100Low SES 9,225 40.5 11,413 50.6Special Education 2,976 13.1 2,780 12.3

English Proficiency 1,606 7.1 1,858 8.2Source: Wisconsin Department of Instruction website

As can be noted in Exhibit 0.2, the percentage of students identifying themselves as other than white has increased from 38.4 percent of the overall student population in 2008 to 45.4 percent in 2012. The percentage of students categorized as low socioeconomic increased from 40.5 percent of the overall student population in 2008 to 50.6 percent of the student population in 2012. The percentage of students qualifying for special education services has declined by 6.5 percent from 2,976 students in 2008 to 2,780 students in 2012. The number of students categorized as not English proficient increased by 15.7 percent.

Exhibit 0.3 presents a summary of the racial and socioeconomic composition of each school in the Kenosha Unified School District for the 2012-13 school year.

Exhibit 0.3

Student Enrollment by Demographic and School SiteKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Scho

ol

Am

eric

an

Indi

an/A

lask

a N

ativ

e

Asi

an/P

acifi

c Is

land

er

Bla

ck/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

His

pani

c/L

atin

o

Two

or M

ore

Rac

es

Whi

te

Low

SE

S

Sp. E

d

Eng

lish

Profi

cien

cy

Elementary Schools

Bose 2(0.5%)

9(2.1%)

67(16.0%)

93(22.2%)

24(5.7%)

224(53.5%)

273(65.2%)

77(18.4%)

33(7.9%)

Brass 2(0.4)

2(0.4)

184(41.7)

156(35.4)

14(3.2)

83(18.8)

387(87.8)

76(17.2)

61(13.8)

Brompton 0 6(3.0)

19(9.5)

22(11.0)

3(1.5)

149(74.9)

54(27.1)

13(6.5)

4(2.0)

Cesar Chavez 0 4(2.4)

41(25.0)

81(49.4)

11(6.7)

27(16.5)

164(100.0)

3(1.8) 0

Dimensions Academy

2(0.9)

9(4.0)

17(7.5)

36(15.9)

17(7.5)

145(64.1)

54(24.0)

11(4.9)

12(5.3)


Exhibit 0.3 (continued)Student Enrollment by Demographic and School Site

Kenosha Unified School District2012-13

Scho

ol

Am

eric

an

Indi

an/A

lask

a N

ativ

e

Asi

an/P

acifi

c Is

land

er

Bla

ck/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

His

pani

c/L

atin

o

Two

or M

ore

Rac

es

Whi

te

Low

SE

S

Sp. E

d

Eng

lish

Profi

cien

cy

Elementary Schools (continued)Edward Bain Creative Arts

1(0.2) 0 194

(36.8)236

(44.8)15

(2.8)81

(15.4)482

(91.5)61

(11.6)90

(17.1)Edward BainDual Language 0 1

(0.3)23

(6.6)285

(82.1)5

(1.4)33

(9.5)272

(78.4)20

(5.8)148

(42.7)

Forest Park 1(0.2)

3(0.6)

29(6.1)

106(22.4)

24(5.1)

309(65.5)

251(53.2)

46(9.7)

42(8.9)

Frank 0 0 180(38.4)

208(44.3)

17(3.6)

64(13.6)

442(94.2)

62(13.2)

115(24.5)

Grant 1(0.4) 0 51

(18.9)81

(30.0)30

(11.1)107

(39.6)202

(74.8)30

(11.1)27

(10.0)

Grewenow 0 2(0.5)

33(8.6)

91(23.7)

20(5.2)

237(61.9)

239(62.4)

62(16.2)

30(7.8)

Harvey 0 2(0.6)

14(4.5)

56(18.1)

12(3.9)

236(72.9)

127(41.0)

51(16.4)

15(4.8)

Jefferson 0 0 90(31.3)

116(40.4)

17(5.9)

64(22.3)

243(84.7)

38(13.2)

46(16.0)

Jeffery 0 2(0.6)

6(1.8)

52(15.5)

23(6.9)

252(75.2)

126(37.6)

41(12.2)

23(6.9)

KTEC 2(0.4)

14(3.0)

25(5.4)

61(13.1)

2(0.4)

362(77.7)

142(30.5)

39(8.4)

32(6.9)

McKinley 0 1(0.3)

74(22.3)

119(35.9)

17(5.1)

120(36.2)

266(80.4)

47(14.2)

40(12.1)

Nash 0 32(5.0)

46(7.2)

111(17.3)

42(6.6)

410(64.0)

141(22.0)

66(10.3)

49(7.6)

Pleasant Prairie 0 35(5.9)

31(5.2)

78(13.1)

42(7.0)

410(68.8)

140(23.5)

69(11.6)

42(7.0)

Prairie Lane 2(0.4)

9(1.8)

19(3.8)

53(10.7)

12(2.4)

401(80.8)

127(25.6)

47(9.5)

16(3.2)

Roosevelt 2(0.4)

7(1.6)

37(8.4)

93(21.0)

27(6.1)

276(62.4)

219(49.5)

58(13.1)

25(5.6)

Somers 0 8(1.8)

30(6.7)

58(12.9)

14(3.1)

340(75.5)

169(37.5)

44(9.8)

21(4.7)

Southport 0 2(0.4)

41(9.0)

98(21.6)

24(5.3)

288(63.6)

231(51.0)

64(14.1)

52(11.5)

Stocker 0 18(3.5)

61(11.9)

133(26.0)

40(7.8)

260(50.8)

241(47.1)

70(13.7)

46(9.0)

Strange 0 1(0.2)

104(20.7)

206(41.0)

32(6.4)

159(31.7)

396(78.9)

71(14.1)

117(23.3)

Vernon 0 5(1.3)

70(18.3)

114(29.8)

18(4.7)

175(45.8)

281(73.6)

64(16.7)

38(9.9)

Whittier 0 4(0.9)

28(6.3)

51(11.5)

12(2.7)

349(78.6)

146(32.9)

65(14.6)

18(4.0)


Exhibit 0.3 (continued)Student Enrollment by Demographic and School Site


Scho

ol

Am

eric

an

Indi

an/A

lask

a N

ativ

e

Asi

an/P

acifi

c Is

land

er

Bla

ck/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

His

pani

c/L

atin

o

Two

or M

ore

Rac

es

Whi

te

Low

SE

S

Sp. E

d

Eng

lish

Profi

cien

cy

Elementary Schools (continued)

Wilson 1(0.5)

1(0.5)

90(42.6)

97(46.0)

5(2.4)

17(8.0)

188(89.1)

19(9.0)

60(28.4)

Middle Schools

Bullen 1(0.1)

9(1.0)

157(18.0)

279(31.9)

12(1.4)

415(47.5)

504(57.7)

104(11.9)

141(16.1)

Hillcrest 1(1.8) 0 31

(55.3)9

(16.1)1

(1.8)14

(25.0)42

(75.0)24

(42.8)4

(7.1)

Kenosha eSchool 0 2(1.5)

9(6.6)

20(14.7)

4(2.9)

101(74.3)

47(34.5)

19(14.0)

2(1.5)

Lance 5(0.5)

5(0.5)

53(5.0)

198(18.7)

45(4.2)

753(71.1)

379(35.8)

92(8.7)

47(4.4)

Lincoln 4(0.5)

1(0.1)

211(27.1)

218(28.0)

25(3.2)

319(41.0)

551(70.8)

120(15.4)

86(11.1)

Mahone 4(0.3)

38(3.2)

160(13.5)

265(22.4)

37(3.1)

679(57.4)

478(40.4)

154(13.0)

91(7.7)

Harborside Academy 0 7

(1.2)74

(12.3)121

(20.1)8

(1.3)393

(65.2)224

(37.1)54

(8.9)28

(4.6)

Washington 1(0.2)

1(0.2)

149(24.0)

215(34.7)

13(2.1)

241(38.9)

452(72.9)

78(12.6)

83(13.4)

High Schools

Bradford 4(0.2)

27(1.6)

294(17.9)

374(22.8)

15(0.9)

927(56.5)

737(44.9)

259(15.8)

127(7.7)

Indian Trail 5(0.3)

58(3.0)

305(16.0)

475(25.0)

40(2.1)

1020(53.6)

852(44.8)

208(10.9)

129(6.8)

Lakeview 2(0.5)

10(2.4)

12(2.8)

45(10.7)

4(0.9)

348(82.7)

91(23.3)

31(7.4)

6(1.4)

Reuther 2(0.4) 0 145

(32.6)110

(24.7)10

(2.2)40

(10.0)304

(68.3)46

(10.3)38

(8.5)

Tremper 6(0.3)

31(1.7)

228(12.7)

267(14.8)

48(2.7)

1215(67.6)

631(35.1)

255(14.2)

56(3.1)

Source: Wisconsin Department of Instruction website

As shown in Exhibit 0.3, among the 40 schools in the Kenosha Unified School District there are considerable differences in the demographic composition of each respective school. The percentage of students categorized “low income” and qualifying for free and reduced price meals ranged from a low of 22.0 percent at Nash Elementary School to a high of 100 percent at Cesar Chavez Learning Center. The percentage of students categorized as “low income” in 13 schools exceeded the district average of 50.6 percent by 20 percent or more. The percentage of students categorized as “nonwhite” ranged from a low of 17.3 percent at Lakeview High School to a high of 92 percent at Wilson Elementary School.


Employees

During the 2012-13 school year, 2,358 individuals were employed by the Kenosha Unified School District. Exhibit 0.4 depicts the types of positions and number of personnel.

Exhibit 0.4

Personnel InformationKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Position Number of Employees Full-Time EquivalentAdministrators 112 112.0Teachers 1,582 1,549.4Educational Assistants 247 236.74Interpreters 11 11.0Secretarial & Clerical 124 122.76Service & Carpenters 194 194.0Miscellaneous 88 85.77Total 2,358 2,311.67

Financial Background

For the 2013 fiscal year, the board of education adopted a budget with anticipated receipt of funds from local, state, and federal sources totaling $238,769,194. Exhibit 0.5 indicates the sources and amounts of funds budgeted by the board.

Exhibit 0.5

Fund Sources and AmountsKenosha Unified School District

Fiscal Year 2013

Funding Source Budgeted Amount PercentLocal $93,569,886 34.0State 160,907,787 58.6Federal 18,687,642 6.8Miscellaneous 1,661,809 0.6Total $274,827,124 100Source: Data extrapolated from the Kenosha Unified School District’s 2012-2013 Adopted Budget


Exhibit 0.6 presents the 2013 fiscal year operational budget by function.

Exhibit 0.6

Operational BudgetKenosha Unified School District

Fiscal Year 2013

Function Approved Budget PercentInstruction $158,522,409 58.5Support Services 51,988,846 19.2Non-Instructional Operations 42,215,000 15.6Debt Service 17,599,214 6.5Capital Projects 558,553 0.2Total $270,884,022 100Source: Data extrapolated from the Kenosha Unified School District’s 2012-2013 Adopted Budget

Audit Background and Scope of Work

The Curriculum Audit™ is a process that was developed by Dr. Fenwick W. English and first 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 final 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 Kenosha Unified School District 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 defined 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 findings of the audit.

In some cases, ancillary findings 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 officially assisting in the certification of PDK/ICMAC-CMSi curriculum auditors.

This audit was conducted in accordance with a contract between Kenosha Unified School District and the International Curriculum Management Audit Center at Phi Delta Kappa International. All members of the team were certified by Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

The names of the curriculum auditors in this audit included the following individuals:

• Randall Clegg, Ed.D., Leader Auditor, Superintendent, Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District, Burnsville, Minnesota.

• Olive Mc Ardle Kulas, Ed.D., Education Consultant, Napa, California.

• Eve Proffitt, Ed.D., Co-Director, P20 Innovation Lab at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

• Kim Nisbett, Ed.D., Coordinator of School Counseling, Roosevelt School District, Long Island, New York.

• Sue Shidaker, M.Ed., Educational Consultant, Tacoma, Washington.

• Dr. Jeffrey Tuneberg, Director of Curriculum, Mercer County Educational Service Center, Celina, Ohio.

• Sue Van Hoozer, M.Ed., Education Specialist, Education Service Center, San Angelo, Texas.

Biographical information about the auditors is found in the appendix.

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit

This audit has been conducted upon the request of the Kenosha Unified School District. The purpose for the audit, as expressed by district leadership, is to reveal the extent to which the district has implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management.

The Curriculum Audit™ is essential in helping district leadership determine whether district programs and services are properly suited for the Kenosha Unified School District and if they are keeping up with current educational practices.

This is the second Curriculum Audit commissioned by the Kenosha Unified School District. A previous Curriculum Audit was completed and presented to the district’s leadership in 1995. The 1995 Curriculum Audit cited discrepancies from audit standards that were noted at the time and provided recommendations to address the areas of noted deficiency. Discrepancies were noted in the district’s governance and management structure, quality of the district’s written curriculum, equity in access to the district’s educational programs, the lack of a comprehensive assessment system, and budgeting practices that were not based on educational needs. Recommendations for ameliorating cited deficiency addressed policy development, organizational structure, planning, curriculum development, implementing a student assessment plan, and designing a program-driven budgeting process.


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 finance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky. The Curriculum 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 the 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 financial audit, it is governed by some of the same principles. These are:

Technical Expertise

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

The Kenosha Unified School District Curriculum Audit™ Team selected by the Curriculum Management Audit Center included auditors who have been school superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals and assistant principals, as well as elementary and secondary classroom teachers in public educational systems in several locations: Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, New York, California, and Washington.

The Principle of Independence

None of the Curriculum Audit™ Team members had any vested interest in the findings or recommendations of the Kenosha Unified School District Curriculum Audit™. None of the auditors has or had any working relationship with the individuals who occupied top or middle management positions in the Kenosha Unified School District, nor with any of the past or current members of the Kenosha Unified School District 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 verifiable and grounded in the data base, though confidential interview data may not indicate the identity of such sources. Findings must be factually triangulated with two or more sources of data, except when a document is unusually authoritative such as a court judgment, a labor contract signed and approved by all parties to the agreement, approved meeting minutes, which connote the accuracy of the content, or any other document whose verification is self-evident.

Triangulation of documents takes place when the document is requested by the auditor and is subsequently furnished. Confirmation by a system representative that the document is in fact what was requested is a form of triangulation. A final form of triangulation occurs when the audit is sent to the superintendent in draft form. If the superintendent or his/her designee(s) does not provide evidence that the audit text is inaccurate, or 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-certified 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-certified auditors have broad implied and discretionary power to focus on and select those findings 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 reconfigure 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. Confidentiality is respected in audit interviews.

In reporting data derived from site interviews, auditors may use some descriptive terms that lack a precise quantifiable definition. For example:

“Some school principals said that ... ”

“Many teachers expressed concern that ... ”

“There was widespread comment about ... ”

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

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

Descriptive Term General Quantification 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 specific 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 officers, all principals, and the executive board of the teachers’ association or union. While teachers and parents are interviewed, they are considered in a status different from those who have system-wide responsibilities for a district’s operations. Students are rarely interviewed unless the system has made a specific request in this regard.

Interviewed Representatives of the Kenosha Unified School District

Superintendent School Board MembersAssistant Superintendents District AdministratorsBuilding Principals DirectorsCoordinators K-12 TeachersParents Community MembersTeacher’s Organization Officers Parents (voluntary, self-referred)District Employees (voluntary, self-referred)

Approximately 160 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 Kenosha Unified School District 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 briefly all classrooms, gymnasiums, labs, playgrounds, hallways, restrooms, offices, and maintenance areas to properly grasp accurate perceptions of conditions, activities, safety, instructional practices, and operational contexts.

Standards for the Curriculum Audit™

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

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

A school system that is using its financial and human resources for the greatest benefit of its students is 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 five standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Audit™ in Kenosha Unified School District were:

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

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

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

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

5. The school district has improved productivity.


A finding 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 five audit standards.

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

Unlike accreditation methodologies, audits do not have to reach a forced, summative judgment regarding the status of a school district or 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 Kenosha Unified School District:

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 defined and adopted by the board of education;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Kenosha Unified School District:

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

The Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education, through its policies or actions, has not clearly focused on its primary responsibility of establishing goals for the district, aligning district resources with adopted goals, and monitoring district outcomes. The auditors found that board policies are inadequate to guide all necessary aspects of curriculum management and the educational program and to establish quality control. Specifically, the current policy framework for the management of curriculum and instruction and improving student achievement fails to do more than restate Wisconsin statutes and regulations. The lack of trust between members of the board of education has contributed to the perception that the board of education is dysfunctional and impeding the efforts of the school system employees to address the needs of the district.


The Transformation Plan has created a vision for the Kenosha Unified School District, which is generally recognized across the district at a thematic level. Major goals, strategies, and numerous action steps have been identified and school improvement plans have been developed in an effort to achieve the district’s strategic mission. The quality of district planning documents, however, is insufficient to allow the district to achieve its mission and increase academic achievement for all students.

When examining the organizational chart and job descriptions, auditors found that the current organizational chart does not meet audit criteria for sound organizational management. Job descriptions were found to be inadequate to create clear linkages to roles and responsibilities associated with the design and delivery of curriculum.

Auditors found a teacher evaluation system in place, directed by statutory and policy expectations. In examining a sample of formal evaluation summaries, auditors found that written evaluation comments provided to teachers lacked sufficient specificity to provide them constructive feedback concerning their professional practice. The current teacher evaluation system does not sufficiently discriminate among the performance ratings received by teachers. Building principals report a greater number of teachers as “failing” to meet performance expectation than was noted in formal teacher evaluation ratings.

Finding 1.1: Evidence of planning was found in the Kenosha Unified School District, but planning processes, plans, implementation strategies, action steps, and communication protocols are inadequate to provide a clear focus and guide district initiatives, program direction, and system operations. The Transformation Plan as a strategic document lacks sufficient clarity to focus district decision making.

The needs of society and students are continually evolving. A characteristic of an effective school system is the ability to consistently engage in long- and short-range planning focused on the attainment of agreed-upon goals and priorities. The planning function in a school system serves to chart the course for progress. Structured planning establishes the vision and mission for all district efforts and affords district leadership the opportunity to assess and re-assess its beliefs, values, commitments, and resources in terms of its vision and mission. Long-range planning is crucial to the success of district efforts to identify, prioritize, and respond to the continually evolving needs of those it services. Long-range planning provides a process whereby district personnel can anticipate emerging needs, develop a framework for systematic action toward the attainment of organizational goals, and strategically focus activities that create the future. Such planning provides clear direction and serves to sustain focus over time while also guiding growth and improvement in an atmosphere of change.

To determine the status of planning in the Kenosha Unified School District, the auditors reviewed various district plans, board policies, and other documents provided by district personnel. Interviews were conducted with board members, administrators, teachers, and community members regarding the status and impact of planning in the district.

Auditors found that planning does occur in the Kenosha Unified School District. However, current efforts are inadequate to fully achieve the intended effects of planning, that of focusing the district’s attention, energy, and resources toward achieving the board’s mission. Planning across the system lacks connectivity, is not consistently implemented, and varies in documented information format and content. The quality of school and departmental plans varies, and, in some departments, these plans do not exist.

Auditors reviewed board policies and other district documents to determine whether clear expectations have been established regarding short- and long-range planning. The following board policies were reviewed regarding district instructional expectations:

• Board Policy 1120: Parent/Caregiver Involvement states, “Parents/guardians/caregivers are full partners in the decisions that affect children and families and are involved in developing district school improvement plans and site-based strategic planning initiatives.”

• Board Policy 2110: Benchmarks states, “The Kenosha Unified School District shall establish accountability through the adoption of yearly District benchmarks as recommended by the Superintendent of Schools and approved by the School Board. These benchmarks will be established on a school-by-school basis as determined by consistent criteria.”


• Board Policy 2720: Shared Decision Making expands on the expectation for shared decision making: “Shared decision making opportunities shall be made available in the District through a variety of means, including but not limited to the following: strategic planning teams, school site councils, District and school advisory committees, councils, and task forces.”

• Board Policy 8520: Board Goal Setting references the board’s role in planning: “It is the belief of the School Board that an annual goal setting process will be beneficial to the Board and District. The goal setting process is to assist the Board in fulfilling its primary responsibility of establishing the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement needed by District students.”

The preceding policies, while making general references to planning, fail to specifically address the development of system-wide, long-range plans that are congruent and incorporate student achievement targets. No policy expectation was found requiring the development of written plans in the areas of curriculum, assessment, professional development, school improvement planning, or facilities planning (see Finding 1.3).

In order to understand how the Kenosha Unified School District carries out the planning process, a number of district documents were reviewed. Planning documents presented to auditors for review are included in Exhibit 1.1.1.

Exhibit 1.1.1

District Planning Documents Reviewed by AuditorsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

District Document DateKenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan 2011-2014Transformation Plan Goals and Steps for the following ESC departments:• Teaching and Learning• Elementary School Leadership• Secondary School Leadership• Communications Department• Educational Accountability Department• Business Service (HR, Facilities, Transportation, Food) Department• Finance DepartmentSelected Building Level Improvement Plans 2012-13Information and Technology Plan 2011-2014Early Education Professional Development Plan 2012School-wide Title I Plans for Title I Eligible Schools 2012-132011-12 Capital Projects Plan 2011Talent Development Long-Range Plan Update January 2013Kenosha Unified Curriculum Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics October 2012Common Core Cadre Action Plan No Date

Audit Approach to Analyzing Planning and Plans

To determine the quality of the district’s planning process, the auditors analyzed the district’s planning documents. Three levels of analysis were used by auditors. The first level of analysis dealt with the district planning process as a whole. This analysis looked at the planning function within the Kenosha Unified School District and how it has been carried out at various levels within the system. The second level of analysis looked at what the Kenosha Unified School District considers its key strategic planning document. In this case, it was the Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan. The third level of analysis focused on an analysis of the school improvement planning process and used a sample of available school improvement plans for analysis.


Auditors found that found that within Kenosha Unified School District there is evidence of both short- and long-term planning. The document most often referenced by staff regarding planning was the Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan. This plan describes the planning process completed by members of the school district and school community, provides an assessment of the current state of student learning, includes a list of goals, and presents strategies for creating the conditions for desired outcomes.

The following details the auditors’ findings on the three levels of analysis.

Current planning efforts in the district are inadequate to achieve the purposes of planning.

To determine the quality of the planning function within the Kenosha Unified School District, the auditors used eight characteristics of quality planning for design, deployment, and delivery. This level of analysis approached the planning functions across the district, at the central office level, across content or department areas, and at school sites. Exhibit 1.1.2 lists the audit characteristics of quality planning and the auditors’ rating of the Kenosha Unified School District’s planning processes. An “X” in the “adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. An “X” in the “inadequate” column indicates that the characteristics were not met and no points were assigned. In order for the auditors to rate the quality of the planning process as adequate, at least six of the characteristics must receive an adequate rating. A discussion of the auditors’ rating follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 1.1.2

Auditors’ Rating of Characteristics of Quality Planning Design, Deployment, and DeliveryKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

There is evidence that… Auditors’ RatingAdequate Inadequate

1. Policy Expectations: 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 flexibility as needed.

X

2. Vision/Direction: 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

3. Data-driven: Data influence the planning and system directions/initiatives. X4. Budget Timing: Budget planning for change is done in concert with other

planning, with goals and actions from those plans driving the budget planning.X

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

X

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

X

7. Deliberate Articulated Actions: 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

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

X

Total 2 6Percentage of Adequacy 25%


As noted in Exhibit 1.1.2, of the eight characteristics of quality planning, the district was rated adequate on two (25 percent) of the criteria, failing to meet audit standard of being rated adequate on at least six of the characteristics of quality planning.

The following discussion provides more information on what the auditors found with respect to each of the characteristics above.

Characteristic 1: Policy Expectations

This characteristic was rated adequate. Auditors identified two board policies that addressed the planning function. Board Policy 8520 requires the board to engage annually in a goal setting process to assist the board in identifying the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement for students in the district. Board Policy 2720 requires the involvement of all stakeholders, including parents, students, staff, community members, school board members, and school administrators, in shared decision making including serving on strategic planning teams, school site councils, district and school advisory committees, councils, and task forces.

Characteristic 2: Vision/Direction

This characteristic was rated adequate. Board Policy 6100 was revised by the board of education in June 2011. Through this policy the board establishes a mission and goals for the Kenosha Unified School District. The district’s mission as stated in Board Policy 6100 is to “assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” Board goals for the district are stated as 1) Improve student achievement; 2) Expand collaborative partnerships with families, community, and industry; and 3) Secure resources (time, people, finances, and operating processes) to support learning.

The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan brands the district’s strategic plan around the theme of “Maximize the Brilliance of Children.” The Transformation Plan expands on the transformation principals and goals contained within Board Policy 6100. School and department level plans are being developed in response to the Transformation Plan, but the work has not occurred consistently across the district.

During interviews with district personnel at various levels in the organization, auditors received many comments indicating that the Transformation Plan has been embraced by district administrators. The plan, however, does not appear to be as fully embraced by other staff in the district. Following is a representative sample of comments received by auditors regarding the district’s Transformation Plan:

• “Everything we do is related to the Transformation Plan.” (District Administrator)

• “Collaborative work is a goal of the Transformation Plan so we have it through the schools.” (District Administrator)

• “Our educational direction of the district is solid with the Transformation Plan.” (District Administrator)

• “Although we have been forced to make changes based on the Transformation Plan, it will be good for the district in the long run.” (Building Administrator)

• “We have shared decision making in our district – they make it and then they share it with us.” (District Administrator)

• “I don’t see the Transformation Plan taking a good district and making it great.” (Teacher)

• “There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for the Transformation Plan to be a success.” (Teacher)

• “The slogan ‘Maximizing potential of all students’ applies only to the lower performing students.” (Parent)

Characteristic 3: Data-driven

This characteristic was rated inadequate. State assessment data, including graduation rates, are available within the system and part of the intended outcomes of the Transformation Plan. Auditors found some references in


board policies for the use of data for school improvement. However, there was no clear policy expectation found that required the use of data for evaluating the effectiveness of the school district in improving learning for all students. The use of data was found in the development of Title I plans and other improvement goals that comprise much of building level planning that takes place in the district.

Characteristic 4: Budget Timing

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Based on interviews with district administrators and a review of district documents, auditors found that there is a minimal relationship between the ongoing planning efforts in the district and the budget development process. While the Business Services Department has developed SMART goals and outcomes, the predominance of outcomes are procedural, consisting of timelines and completion goals, and are not directly related to programming goals and educational initiatives within the district. District planning and budget planning are for the most part two separate processes in the Kenosha Unified School District. Additionally, school improvement plans are linked closely to Title 1 funding, particularly in relation to professional development opportunities and acquisition of technology equipment for classrooms (see Finding 5.1).

Characteristic 5: Day-to-Day Decisions

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Building level plans contain SMART goals that are linked to the district Transformation Plan strategies and action steps. Many of the goals and indicators in building improvement plans are simply one word titles or phrases (e.g., vocabulary, constructed response, reading comprehension) that mimic the title of a Transformation Plan strategy and provide little information or direction to guide the daily decision making of district staff. Auditors were not provided with any planning documents or policy statement that required the linkage of site level building plans to an overarching district vision. In addition, job descriptions were found to be outdated or inadequate and do not establish a clear expectation among district level administrators for monitoring of school improvement plans (see Finding 1.4).

Characteristic 6: Emergent/Fluid Planning

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The opportunity for emergent and fluid planning exists within the planning process utilized by the district as part of the Transformation Plan. Board Policy 2110 requires the adoption of yearly benchmarks as recommended by the Superintendent of Schools and approved by the school board. Board Policy 8520 requires the board to engage in an annual goal setting process to guide the board in “establishing the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement needed by district students.” Auditors found no evidence that the board has recently engaged in establishing yearly benchmarks or annual goals as required by board policy. The most current benchmarks were last updated in 2010-11 and based on benchmarks established in 2005-06. A review of recent board and board committee meeting agenda and minutes found no indication that the board has been actively engaged in annual goal setting, limiting the board’s ability to adapt to constantly changing conditions. The planning process that exists for building level planning is expected to be linked to the Transformation Plan and, where applicable, Title I requirements. Guidelines are missing, however, to coordinate planning efforts among programs, departments or schools. Communications from the central office to the building level about changes that are taking place and how the change efforts are to be initiated, implemented, or supported is emergent.

Characteristic 7: Deliberate Articulated Actions

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Articulation between various planning efforts and actions across district departments and schools was inadequate. While there was general awareness of the Transformation Plan goals, interpretation and execution on the plan was not consistently evident across the district. Auditors found no guiding documents that would direct staff in how to align district efforts in a deliberate and purposeful way to meet an articulated vision.

Characteristic 8: Aligned Professional Development

This characteristic was rated inadequate. While there are many professional development opportunities offered to staff, staff development planning is inadequate and does not clearly connect student outcomes to staff


development needs either across the district or within buildings. Building level staff development is limited in those buildings that do not receive Title 1 funds. Additionally, district staff reported in interviews that the professional development often did not support the change effort or was absent from plans (see Finding 3.2).

Overall, auditors found evidence of planning and plans at the district and school site levels. Board policies provide some support for planning but were considered weak in directing the coordination of district planning efforts. Some decision making is driven by available system performance data, but they are used inconsistently in the planning process. The budget planning process is not formally linked to district improvement planning processes.

The quality of district-wide planning is inadequate to guide decisions and create intended change.

If the auditors find planning is present in the system, they then proceed to determine if there are written plans, and, if so, examine these plans for certain change characteristics. Auditors found evidence of planning at the district and site levels. The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan was used as the primary plan document for analysis of the district-wide plan.

Development of the Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan was initiated in early 2010. The intent of the planning process was to review progress achieved through the previous Strategic Plan and to create an updated operational blueprint to guide district decision-making over the next three years. A committee composed of 25 teachers, parents, and administrators was convened to develop a mission statement, objectives, and strategies for a new strategic plan then called a Transformation Design. In developing an updated strategic plan, this committee reviewed the prior Strategic Plan, current student demographic trends, student achievement data, and other measures of organizational culture and climate including student attendance rates, discipline referral numbers, and high school dropout rates. Once strategic goals were identified, planning teams were organized involving more than 90 staff and community representatives and charged with writing specific strategies for each Transformation Plan goal along with specific steps and timeframes for reaching each goal. The Transformation Plan was unanimously approved by the board of education on December 14, 2010.

Exhibit 1.1.3 lists the characteristics of a quality planning document and the auditors’ assessment of adequacy of the Transformation Plan. An “X” in the “adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. An “X” in the “inadequate” column indicates that the characteristics were not met and no points were assigned. If the plan meets five of the seven characteristics, the audit criteria have been met. A discussion of the auditors’ ratings follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 1.1.3

Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality (Design, Deployment, and Delivery) And Auditors’ Rating of the Transformation Plan

Kenosha Unified School District May 2013

Characteristics Auditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Reasonable and Clear: The plan is reasonable; it has a feasible number

of goals and objectives for the resources (financial, time, people) available. Moreover, the goals and objectives are clear and measurable.

X

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

X

3. Change Strategies: 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

4. Deployment Strategies: 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 proficiencies needed to bring about the change, communication regarding planned change).

X


Exhibit 1.1.3 (continued)Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality (Design, Deployment, and Delivery)

And Auditors’ Rating of the Transformation PlanKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Characteristics Auditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate5. Integration of Goals and Actions: All goals and actions in the plan are

interrelated and congruent with one another. X

6. Evaluation Plan and Implementation: 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 modified as needed. There is both frequent formative evaluation and annual summative evaluation, so that plans are revised as needed.

X

7. Monitoring: 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.

X


As noted in Exhibit 1.1.3, the Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan met two (29 percent) of the seven audit characteristics for quality district-wide plans. The Transformation Plan failed to meet the audit standard by being rated adequate on at least five of the seven planning characteristics.


Characteristic 1: Reasonableness

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The Transformation Plan states a vision to “Maximize the Brilliance of Children.” To achieve this vision three transformational principles are identified, including Blended Personalized Learning, Multi-Dimensional Life and Career Skills, and Relevant Global Knowledge. To direct the work of the organization, three goals, each with four strategies, and a combined 80 action steps are listed. The 80 action steps are to be implemented over a three-year period, with action steps implemented according to their relevance to each department or school building.

After a review of the Transformation Plan, available district resources, and consideration of time available, auditors deemed that it was not reasonable to expect the Transformation Plan to be fully implemented as written. While the number of goals (three) within the transformation plan may be reasonable, the complexity of implementing 12 strategies and coordinating 80 actions steps combined with the critical financial exigency of the district that resulted in the loss and/or reassignment of district personnel, makes the successful implementation of the Transformation Plan uncertain.

Characteristic 2: Emergent

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The focus of the Transformation Plan is preparing children for future success through blended personalized learning, multi-dimensional life and career skills, and relevant global knowledge. There is no information contained within the Transformation Plan that clearly articulates how the transformation principles are linked to and will lead toward improved teaching and learning throughout the system. Neither are there any references to how the 12 strategies and 80 action steps are directly related to identified district needs or based on common change strategies.

Some emergent practices can be found in school improvement plans within the district, but there is no indication within the district plan of an expectation for connection between the building plans and the district plan or


fluidity across the district based on building vs. district level needs. This has hampered the ability of the district to be responsive to student needs in the district. The result has been a “try-anything” approach, resulting in a laundry list of initiatives and programs to see what might work.

Characteristic 3: Change Strategies

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The change strategies most frequently commented upon during auditors’ interviews with district administrators and teachers were personalized learning, multi-aged classrooms, and incorporation of technology into classrooms. At the time of the audit, no common definition or models of personalized learning had been developed. During interviews with auditors, district and building level leadership were unable to provide clear examples of what personalized learning would look like if implemented in classrooms. Multi-age classrooms were frequently cited as a Transformation Plan strategy. Auditors were unable to find any specific references to the implementation of multi-age classrooms within the Transformation Plan. Yet, the Kenosha Unified School District has aggressively implemented multi-age classrooms across the school district. During site visits auditors observed a variety of interpretations of multi-age classrooms in use. There are many references within the Transformation Plan to the use of technology to expand learning opportunities for students. During site visits to each of the district’s 40 schools, auditors noted a wide range of access to technology for teachers and students. However, they observed limited use of technology by students (see Finding 3.4).

The strategies listed in the Transformation Plan are worded in very broad and generic terms and do not invoke a clear sense of how the Kenosha Unified School District is going to significantly change its professional practices in order address identified system needs – particularly reducing the predictive factor of a student’s race and family income on academic achievement. While each of the strategies contained within the transformation plan may have some merit as part of an overall improvement process, alone they do little to build the capacity of staff to achieve different results.

Characteristic 4: Deployment

This characteristic was rated adequate. The plan delineates numerous action steps, with timelines, which are to be implemented in support of the attainment of stated goals and strategies. Part of any major change initiative is communicating a clear, consistent message to staff and other stakeholders what the key changes are and what issues they are addressing. While there was a high degree of awareness of a Transformation Plan, there was little common understanding among staff of the actual intent or goals of the plan. This was apparent when during interviews staff members and community representatives consistently ascribed recent budget and staff reductions as a result of the Transformation Plan. Based on a review of audio recordings from recent school board meetings, it was clear that the board of education lacked a clear understanding of the Transformation Plan. Auditors were provided with no plan describing how staff were to have been oriented to the Transformation Plan including its focus and priorities. While building administrators indicated that their planning efforts were linked to the Transformation Plan, there is no consistent process in place to ensure that school improvement plans are directly linked to the Transformation Plan and its goals.

Characteristic 5: Integration of Goals and Actions

This characteristic was rated adequate. The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan lists a series of goals with corresponding strategies and actions steps. While the strategies and actions steps appear loosely related to the transformation goals, it is unclear how, if fully implemented, the actions steps listed would actually improve student achievement, expand collaboration and partnerships, and secure resources to support learning. Many of the actions steps are vaguely worded without clear definitions or explanations provided. As an example, for the action step “Develop a culture of collegiality in each school,” there is no statement indicating what problem this action is trying to solve, how this action is related to “personalized learning,” when implemented how it will contribute to improved student achievement, or what is meant by “collegiality” and what it would look like if achieved. The lack of clear congruence between action steps, strategies, and goals leaves a great deal of the transformation plan open to individual interpretation regarding intent, design, implementation, and evaluation.


Characteristic 6: Evaluation

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan does not contain a written plan for monitoring or evaluating the implementation of actions steps or the attainment of the transformation goals. Auditors were provided with implementation plans for the 2011-12 school year from various departments within the district including elementary and secondary school leadership. Within implementation plans some SMART goals were listed; however, many of the SMART goals were vaguely written. Examples of vaguely written goals included the following samples: “Elementary Principals will report increased collegiality and demonstrate authentic collaboration with Education Support Center administrators by the end of the 2011-12 school year”; “Teacher performance and evaluation documents will provide clear evidence and recommendations by June of 2012”; “Secure funding to further develop the district’s parent and adult education program and AOD Prevent Campaigns.” Goals referencing improved academic achievements were essentially identical and stated as “There will be a 10% increase in the WKCE proficient and advanced scores for students who are underperforming for the 2011-12 school year.” There did not appear to be any consistent discrimination in how action steps were linked to specific strategies.

Characteristic 7: Monitoring

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No plan for monitoring the status of plan activities, analyzing results obtained, or reporting outcomes was evident. Analysis of results and the impact of the transformation strategies is not clearly required, nor is there any indication of when results will be shared with the board of education for review. Although there is an expectation to achieve plan goals within three years, this requirement is not timely and is therefore inadequate to provide any meaningful support to school staff.

Overall, auditors found the quality of the district-wide Transformation Plan document inadequate to guide its implementation and ensure attainment of the desired results. The Transformation Plan was found to be adequate in articulating a deployment strategy and the integration of goals and strategies. The design of the plan was considered inadequate in terms of the reasonable feasibility of implementing the plan within the context of the district’s current financial status. The Transformation Plan was considered inadequate in its ability to clearly connect the stated strategies and goals with remediating identified needs within the system. The plan was also considered inadequate in the lack of a clear plan for monitoring and evaluating plan implementation and attainment of results.

The quality of school and department planning documents is limiting their potential to increase student achievement.

School improvement plans provide direction for aligning school and district resources toward the attainment of high student achievement. When school improvement planning is poorly designed, or there is no planning at all, desired goals may not be attained and resources may not be effectively used. For the planning process to have maximum impact there needs to be a tight line of control that provides the necessary structure throughout district planning efforts and still allows for creativity and flexibility at all levels. When properly structured, systemic planning reduces slack within the organization. Slack occurs when connections among the district, departments, and schools are not clearly defined.

The approach used for analyzing department and school level plans is the same auditors used to analyze the district-wide Transformation Plan. This analysis traces the connectivity, monitoring, and evaluation of planning efforts from district document(s) (e.g., the strategic plan) to school and department improvement plans. To assess the quality of departmental and school planning, auditors analyzed a sample of school and departmental improvement plans. Plans selected for review included departmental plans and 10 school improvement plans for the 2012-13 school year, including Title I improvements plans.

Exhibit 1.1.4 lists the characteristics of quality school and department level planning and the auditors’ assessment of adequacy. An “X” in the “adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. An “X” in the “inadequate” column indicates that the characteristics were not met and no points were assigned. If the plans meet six of the eight characteristics, the audit standard has been met. A discussion of the auditors’ ratings follows the exhibit.


Exhibit 1.1.4

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


CharacteristicsAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Congruence and Connectivity: Goals and actions are derived from,

explicitly linked to, and congruent with the district plan’s goals, objectives, and priorities.

X

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

X

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

X

4. Change Strategies: 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

5. Deployment Strategies: 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 proficiencies needed to bring about the change, communication regarding planned change).

X

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

X

7. Evaluation Plan and Implementation: 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 modified as needed. There is both frequent formative evaluation and summative evaluation, so that plans are revised as needed.

X

8. Monitoring: 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


As noted in Exhibit 1.1.4, the building and departmental plans met one (12 percent) of the eight planning characteristics. The plans were found to be adequate for Deployment Strategies but were judged inadequate in all other areas and, as a result, did not meet the audit standard.


Characteristic 1: Congruence and Connectivity

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Building level planning documents reviewed by the auditors were not linked to district goal priorities. Auditors noted a lack of common vocabulary, specificity, and consistency between the Transformation Plan and school improvement plans. For example, one building level plan may state a goal as simply “vocabulary,” while another building level plan may state a goal as “students will all feel as if they belong,” and yet another plan may state a goal as “Increase reading scores at 5% per year.” While each of these goals may be important, the lack of use of common language and specificity weakens the designed


congruence with the Transformation Plan goals. Auditors also found a lack of consistency in what is considered a plan by district staff. Plans submitted to auditors ranged in format from state required Title 1 plans, to SMART goals, committee action plans, narrative statements, and PowerPoint presentation slides. While the format in which a plan is presented is not as critical as the content of the plan itself, the lack of consistency in format makes it difficult for district leadership to efficiently monitor plan implementation and the results achieved.

Characteristic 2: Reasonableness

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Each building and departmental plan describes three or four goals that were not consistently aligned with the district’s Transformation Plan. Each goal further delineates three to 12 strategies that are to be implemented in addressing the goal. As a result, individual building level plans contain dozens of strategies, in addition to requisite action steps, to implement in the course of a school year. Thus, building level improvement plans lack a clear focus with which to guide and direct the work of building level staff. Also, the plans reviewed did not include any references concerning what financial resources will be required to implement stated goals and strategies.

Characteristic 3: Emergent/Fluid

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Among site level administrators, auditors noted an expectation for the annual development of school improvement plans. How the plans are developed and who is involved in site level plan development vary across the district. There is an expectation within board policies that parents and other stakeholders will be involved in developing school improvement plans. Auditors were provided no indication as to what strategies were employed at the district and site levels to ensure that site level plans are evolving to meet the unique learning needs of students. While there is an expectation within board policies that site plans are aligned with district goals and priorities, no indication was found as to how individual site plans reflected the unique needs for student learning within each respective building that may differ from broader district needs.

Characteristic 4: Change Strategies

This characteristic was rated inadequate. An effective school improvement plan focuses, in part, on building the capacity of professional staff to achieve different student achievement results because of their efforts. Achieving different results often requires engaging in different professional practices. While site-level leaders are expected to guide change strategies within their respective schools, there is no district-wide strategy in place that articulates how to support the changing of professional practices employed by adults in order to meet the needs of students. Many of the site level plans reviewed indicated performance targets and listed events or activities but did not specifically address how improved student achievement results would be obtained. Reform strategies listed in Title I plans generally were designed around the purchase of technology or skill remediation software, the use of resource specific strategies, or the implementation of specific software programs. If professional development was identified as a reform strategy, it tended to focus on the use of specific software, resources or technology hardware as opposed to refining and reinforcing specific instructional strategies that are related to improved student achievement.

Characteristic 5: Deployment Strategies

This characteristic was rated adequate. The presence and specificity of deployment strategies varied from building to building and department to department. Schools developing Title I school improvement plans tended to have more detailed deployment strategies than schools that were not required to development Title I plans.

Characteristic 6: Integration of Goals

This characteristic was rated inadequate. There is a general expectation within the Kenosha Unified School District that goals within building level and department level plans would be aligned with the district’s Transformation Plan. Generally, building level plan goals focused around the areas of numeracy, literacy, and culture. However, auditors found no indication that any guidelines had been developed at the district level to guide goal development to ensure alignment with district goals and coordination of goals across the district.


Department level plans frequently focused on developing funding sources or partnerships with outside agencies, with no clear linkages established with the work taking place at individual school sites.

Characteristic 7: Evaluation Plan

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Evaluation plans across the building and department are not used to determine whether the objectives of the plan have been met. Evaluation is limited to completion of activities or attendance requirements at meetings and trainings, with no mention of sustainable changes in adult behavior (teaching strategies, leadership skills, etc.) that might impact student learning. The evaluation of individual strategies, other than completion dates, is not provided. No formative or ongoing assessment of the implementation is included to support modification of the plans, as needed.

Characteristic 8: Monitoring

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Building principals are primarily responsible for monitoring the implementation of school improvement plans, although in some elementary schools, Instructional Coaches were assigned responsibilities for monitoring the attainment of improvement plans goals. From a planning perspective, auditors found that monitoring functions were either absent or poorly detailed. Auditors found that there were no clear processes through which school or department performance results are used to adjust plan strategies or action steps during the course of a school year or from one year to the next.

Overall, building and department level plans met one of the eight audit characteristics necessary to ensure quality plans. Some plans contained specific strategies for implementing each respective plan, which were considered adequate; however, as a whole, building and department level plans were inadequate in all other characteristics considered necessary to ensure quality plans. Most building and departmental levels plans are not written as improvement plans but rather are a listing of goals, strategies, and actions coupled with extensive lists of potential activities for any given year. There are no linkages to other district plans, no strategies to be resilient and fluid, and little uniform planning to deploy change strategies or monitor the effectiveness of either the change strategies or the plan.

Summary

Overall, the auditors found that district-wide planning is not of sufficient quality to lead the district toward achievement of its intended goals and to accomplish desired improvements. District-wide, school, and departmental plans are disjointed and varied in format and specificity. Most planning documents contain an excess of strategies and action steps and are not evaluated for either effectiveness or results. While the district Transformation Plan provides some guidance in the development of school and departmental plans, the Transformation Plan goals do not always coincide with the realities of student needs in individual schools (see Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).

Finding 1.2: Although efforts to define curricula to guide instruction are evident, the lack of a centrally defined and adopted curriculum has resulted in a fragmented instructional program that lacks sufficient coordination and consistency to focus instruction, assessment, professional development, and deployment of resources.

A school system with strong curriculum management has a comprehensive management plan with established guidelines and procedures for the design and delivery of the curriculum and a thorough system of quality control. Curriculum management involves continually developing, implementing, evaluating, monitoring, and revising curriculum to ensure the highest quality instruction for all students. Managing these processes is accomplished through quality planning, which keeps all participants in an organization focused on the same goals within a clearly defined framework for approaching the tasks necessary to achieving those goals. It is this framework that clarifies roles and responsibilities, identifies priorities among the many tasks involved, and specifies how discrete departments and functions within the organization can and will work together.

The importance of a sound, comprehensive, and relevant policy framework cannot be overestimated in efforts to increase student success and close academic achievement gaps. Effective policies that provide direction for a curriculum management system must do more than mimic minimal state and legal requirements. Effective


policies, which will direct administrative and instructional personnel, have to be based on research-informed practices, and these usually are scaffolded on minimal state and legal requirements. From this perspective, it is easy to see how a school system can be in legal compliance with all state laws, but still not be able to maximize achievement for all of its students. Unless policies include practices that will actually lead to closing achievement gaps, merely following the law or a mission regarding such attainment does not provide enough direction and constancy to be successful.

The function of effective policy in such circumstances as it pertains to a systemic response is shown in Exhibit 1.2.1. Such policy provides clarity, a framework for a curriculum management system, a framework for establishing consistency, a requirement to use feedback, and an expectation that results will become the focal point for subsequent change. Such expectations are essential, especially in situations where a state defined and driven accountability system exists. Centralized accountability requires a centralized system in regards to curriculum, and a localized response as it pertains to instruction. What this means is, a school system functioning within the type of state accountability system legislated by Wisconsin must clearly define its curriculum in order to create congruity, consistency, and continuity, but encourage wide instructional differentiation in the individual school units. This response is both logical and workable. The curriculum (the content of the classroom) must be tightly held by the system to ensure alignment. Conversely, the means to attain such ends must be loosely held to encourage sufficient variation and differentiation in order to be successful with all children. However, the opposite conditions are at work in Kenosha Unified School District. The auditors went to current board policies to determine direction of functions for administrators and teachers. Here is what the auditors would expect to find in the policies of a school district functioning within the accountability system in Wisconsin.

Exhibit 1.2.1

The Function of Effective Board Policy In the State of Wisconsin Accountability (Centralized) System

Source: 50 Ways to Close the Achievement Gap

Exhibit 1.2.1 is an illustration that shows what centralized testing requires in a school system. School systems functioning in centralized testing states (such as Wisconsin) require System A and not System B. However, when there is functional fragmentation—a lack of total system “control,” a history of site-based management, coupled with a prevalent resistance to testing—the results are a school system with a flattened differentiated instructional model as illustrated in System B – and as found in the Kenosha Unified School District.

In order to establish a school system capable of functioning within the context of state driven centralized testing, structures that contribute to function fragmentation and the lack of system control must be carefully and systematically undone and corrected with “constancy of purpose.” To achieve this there first must be in place board policies that establish clear expectations for the following:


• A centrally defined curriculum, which is aligned with state frameworks and assessment systems, and which does not permit exceptions that may jeopardize the achievement of students based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status (the achievement gap). Viewed within these terms, curricular variation serves to supplement and not supplant a common core of expected attainment however defined.

• A wide umbrella of instructional differentiation, which encourages creative teacher responses to student learning needs. This is the “how” of teaching. Teaching is expected to show great variation in the implementation of any adopted curriculum. Board policies should clearly indicate that the board expects more than worksheets and textbooks to dominate instruction in its schools.

• The delineation of the notion that a program is not a curriculum. For example, the adoption of a reading program or a reading textbook does not constitute the adoption of a curriculum. School districts should first develop their reading curriculum prior to reviewing and selecting any textbook, resources, or programs to support the delivery of the adopted curriculum. The only sound way to evaluate the effectiveness of a reading program is to determine how well it moves the specific reading curriculum forward. To neglect this is to fail to recognize the difference between means and ends.

• The expectation that pupil performance results, however measured, will become the source of change in programs over time in order to show consistent improvement.

• The expectation that staff development be connected to the content of the adopted curriculum. The “what” of staff development is centrally held. The “how” of implementation of the central curriculum can be site-based.

• All programs adopted in the district should be evaluated against the explicit expectations of a board-adopted curriculum.

Auditors examined 35 policies of the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education that provide guidance in the areas of curriculum and instruction. No single policy or combination of policies adequately set into place the kind of policy framework necessary to establish direction for curriculum and instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District and to increase student achievement and close the student achievement gap. Exhibit 1.2.2 displays the policies reviewed by the auditors and key statements related to curriculum and instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District.

Exhibit 1.2.2

Policies, Rules, Administrative Regulations Addressing CurriculumKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Policy, Rule, Administrative

GuidelineTitle Statements Regarding Curriculum, Instruction, and Programs

Policy 2110 Benchmarks The Kenosha Unified School District shall establish accountability through the adoption of yearly District benchmarks as recommended by the Superintendent of Schools and approved by the School Board. These benchmarks will be established on a school-by-school basis as determined by consistent criteria.

Policy 2111 Recruiting and Hiring -Administrative, Supervisory and Technical Personnel

Responsibilities for all administrative, supervisory and technical personnel shall be defined in position descriptions

Policy 2400 School Administration The principal is the chief administrative and instructional officer of the school and is directly responsible to the Executive Director or Director to whom he/she has been assigned. The principal is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.


Exhibit 1.2.2 (continued)Policies, Rules, Administrative Regulations Addressing Curriculum

Kenosha Unified School DistrictMay 2013



Policy 2410 School Support Staffing - Administrative

The School Board recognizes and values the strong instructional leadership that needs to exist within each elementary, middle, and high school. The role of principals is complex and requires establishing a clear focus on student learning, internal and external interactions and relationships, positive school culture, and in-depth knowledge of instruction. The principal is accountable for the academic and social progress for every student within the building. They are the instructional leaders and disciplinarians, who advocate for students and partner with parents/guardians/caregivers. It is their responsibility to develop, implement, and evaluate a school improvement plan that establishes goals each year. The supervision and mentoring of building level staff including teachers, educational assistants, and secretarial staff is the role of principals. They are accountable for the discretionary District budgets, all grant funding, and any other revenue sources specific to their school. Daily, principals are responsible for monitoring all of the programs within the building that could range from breakfast and zero hour classes to after school and evening courses.

The District will review student enrollment trends, programs, and building level data to ensure that the expectations and responsibilities of the administrative staff can be maintained. This information will be used to determine administrative support staffing.

Policy 3110 Annual Operating Budget

…This budget is the financial plan for the operation of the District. It provides the framework for both expenditures and revenues for the year and translates into financial terms the educational programs and priorities for the District. The purpose of the annual operating budget is to identify financial resources for the educational program of the District and to pro-vide a basis for accountability in fiscal management.

Policy 4330 Staff Selection and Hiring Process

Since the quality of the staff hired by the Board of Education is the major component of an effective educational program, the Board and Adminis-tration of the District will make every effort possible to attract and retain the best-qualified personnel

Policy 4351.1 Teaching Load The teaching load for elementary and secondary teachers should be established in accordance with sound educational practices to ensure quality education for every student. The teaching load may have to be modified for specialized programs or where other special considerations are present.

Rule 4351.1 Teaching Load The regular elementary classroom teacher shall be responsible for the elementary instructional program in accordance with the prescribed elementary curriculum.

Elementary specialists in art, music and physical education shall provide instruction in those areas in accordance with the scheduling guidelines set forth in Policy 6140.1 as approved by the School Board.

Regular elementary classroom teachers shall be released from classroom duties during the time when the art, music or physical education teacher is instructing the class, as provided above. The release time for the el-ementary teacher is to be used for instructional preparation only.






Policy 4370 Staff Development The School Board recognizes the importance of providing high quality professional development inservice education opportunities. District staff development inservice courses are designed to:• Deepen knowledge of subject content • Expand research-based

instructional skills • Provide ongoing classroom assistance in implementing new skills

• Provide classroom assessment skills • Encourage innovation, teach state of the art practices, share new ideas and practices • Provide diversity instruction

• Provide for job-related growth for improved operations. Inservice courses are aligned with District goals and initiatives.

Policy 5118.1 Promotion Promotion is the action that advances a student from one grade to the next on the basis of demonstrated academic accomplishment. Generally, students are promoted at the close of the school year.

Students may be promoted from one grade to another at other times pro-vided that the quality of the work warrants it.

Policy 5118.3 Retention and Acceleration

Students will normally progress through the grades on an annual basis. Exceptions to this progression will be made when it is deemed in the best interests of the student’s academic achievement.

Retention is providing the student with another opportunity to gain or reinforce learning based on the adopted course of study and objectives, by being reassigned to the same grade level.

Acceleration is providing the student, who has advanced academic achievement, with a more appropriate learning environment by being reassigned to a higher grade level.

Policy 5475 Students with Disabilities

Students with disabilities shall conform to the policies set forth by the School Board. The Board recognizes that the needs manifested by students with disabilities dictate a high level of understanding and consideration. To accomplish such level of understanding and support, various program models shall be developed such as: special schools, self-contained classes, resource rooms, and itinerant services. These program models will be utilized within the following general guidelines: …






Policy 6100 Mission, Principals, Goals, Results

The Kenosha Unified School District Mission is to assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success. Transformation Principles We value…• Blended Personalized Learning(Adaptable to individual needs, flexible in access and delivery and interactive, engaging learning)• Multi-Dimensional Life and Career Skills(Creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving and communication and collaboration)• Relevant Global Knowledge(Content/information/media literacy and social and cross-cultural competencies)

Transformation Goals

We will…• Improve student achievement.• Expand collaborative partnerships with families, community, and

industry.• Secure resources (time, people, finances, operating processes) to

support learning.

Transformation Student Results

Every student will…• Be engaged• Demonstrate proficiency• Show continuous growth• Graduate

Policy 6200 School Organizational Plan

The District shall offer a program of instruction extending from pre-kindergarten through grade 12.

Instruction shall be organized as follows:• Elementary School: Grades Pre-Kindergarten through 5• Middle School: Grades 6 - 8• High School: Grades 9 - 12

In addition to the regular schools, alternative/charter schools and classes may be provided.

Policy 6300 Curriculum Development and Improvement

A PK-12 curriculum shall be established and maintained in accordance with state law, the needs of society, the local community, and the individual student. The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.

Recommendation for additions or deletions to the established curriculum shall be reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning and provided to the Superintendent of Schools for approval.






Policy 6310 Elementary School Curriculum

The program of instruction in regular elementary schools will encompass the language arts including reading, writing, speaking, and listening; social studies; mathematics; science; physical education; health; and fine arts.

In all content areas, the Standards and Benchmarks relating to Informational Literacy, Lifelong Learning, and Instructional Technology are to be included. The District Content Standards and Benchmarks will serve as the guidelines for the development of instruction

Policy 6320 Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review

The District shall consider new program adoption and implementation in an orderly manner. Requests for new programs shall be presented to the School Board by the Superintendent and shall contain the following items: Rationale, program description; budget, evaluation method and benchmarks. The instructional program review format will be followed to provide consistency as various areas go through the review process.

Rule 6320 Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation

All requests shall be first referred to the Superintendent of Schools and then presented to the School Board as an agenda item with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools. The program if approved by the School Board, shall be implemented in accordance with prevailing School Board policies and standards and benchmarks of the District. Programs shall become a part of the District’s Instructional Program Review Cycle, Rule 6320A. If the program is found to be ineffective in its program purposes, it shall be terminated upon recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools and approval of the School Board. Program reviews will include narrative information outlining what has been reviewed, how it was assessed, what types of data were collected, and how they were analyzed. The format will be as follows: executive summary, mission, goals, historical perspective, program components, findings/participation, budget, program plan, administrative recommendation.

Rule 6320A Instructional Program Review Cycle

Chart lays out schedule for review of all major programs from 2002 through 2010. No revised chart was noted in policy.

Policy 6421 Services for Students with Disabilities

In recognizing its responsibility to provide a complete and appropriate education for all students of the District, the School Board shall provide services for all students with disabilities. The District shall ensure that all related services needed to assist an individual student to benefit from special education services will be provided. Students with disabilities will be educated within the least restrictive environment that will satisfactorily meet their educational needs. These procedures shall meet state and federal law requirements, including child find activities, least restrictive environment, Individualized Education Program and due process.






Policy 6423 Talent Development Program

The District is committed to providing the best possible education for every student, in every classroom, in the District. The District recognizes that each student has needs based upon his/her own uniqueness of character, ability and circumstance and that each student has his/her own special talent. It is the District’s responsibility to provide all students with appropriate educational experiences to meet their needs and to help all students develop their talent to its fullest potential. A comprehensive talent development program exists in the District to address the special needs of gifted and talented students in grades K-12. The program is designed with the following broad goals in mind…

Adm Reg 6423 Grade K-5 Enrichment Elementary Resource Support

…Resources and support through the resource personnel are available to classroom teachers in accommodating the emerging and developing talents of any student…

Policy 6426 Student Program or Curriculum Modification

Any student’s parent(s)/guardian, or the student, with parent/guardian permission, may request program or curriculum modifications. At the beginning of each school year, students and parents/guardians shall be notified of this policy and the decision-making process to be used responding to such requests…

Policy 6430 Instructional Arrangements

Teachers shall make every effort to devote sufficient time and resources to assist every student to achieve success commensurate with student’s ability.

Policy 6432 Class Size The School Board will maintain class sizes in accordance with sound educational practices.

Policy 6434.2 Youth Options Program

The Youth Options Program (YOP) allows all Wisconsin public high school juniors and seniors who meet certain requirements to take postsecondary courses at a Wisconsin technical college system school, a University of Wisconsin system school, tribally controlled college or private, nonprofit institution of higher education in Wisconsin. Online courses offered by eligible postsecondary institution providers should be treated in the same manner as courses offered on a postsecondary institution campus. YOP opens the door to greater learning opportunities for students who are considering a technical career, students wishing to begin college early or students who want to prepare to enter the workforce immediately after high school graduation. All freshman, sophomore and junior students enrolled in the District shall be informed of the Youth Options Program annually. Decisions regarding comparability of courses, satisfaction of District graduation requirements and the awarding of high school credit for courses taken through the Youth Options Program are made in accordance with state law and established District procedures. Through the Youth Options Program, students may receive both high school and postsecondary credit for successfully completed courses.

Policy 6452 Student Progress Reporting

Teachers shall make periodic reports informing the parent/guardian of their student’s progress. Academic progress shall be measured against School Board approved standards and benchmarks as identified by grade level or course/class.






Policy 6454.1 Fourth and Eighth Grade Promotion

The District is committed to successfully educating all students to reach their fullest intellectual, academic, social/emotional and physical potential. Beginning with the 2002 - 2003 school year, students shall meet established District criteria to be promoted from fourth to fifth grade and from eighth to ninth grade. The promotion criteria is designed to afford students several different ways to demonstrate their knowledge of subject matter.

Policy 6456 Graduation Requirements

Academic credits shall be awarded for mastery of standards in grades nine through twelve. A student must earn 23 with a maximum 28 high school credits as described in Rule 6456 to graduate from the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 and a student must also complete one of the following:1. Earn a score of basic or above in three of five subtests on the high

school Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (WKCE)2. Earn a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of at least 1.5 on an

unweighted scale through the seventh semester of high school; i.e., January of senior year

3. Meet one of the following test scores requirements:a. ACT Assessment - 18 or aboveb. SAT I Exam - 870 or above

4. Successfully complete an approved Individual Education Plan (IEP), Limited Language Plan (LLP), and/or Section 504 Plan.

Students may audit classes, enroll in Youth Option courses, or enroll in summer school offerings in excess of the 28 credits. A procedure describing how these options can be accessed will be established by administration.

Beginning with the class of 2016, all KUSD students must fulfill the online learning graduation requirement along with the existing KUSD graduation criteria






Policy 6460 Testing/Assessment The District shall establish and maintain a program of testing for the purposes of diagnosis, assessment, instruction and accountability. The testing program will provide:• An assessment of the educational program of the District for purposes

of reporting the overall status of the District and charting the growth of its students, by grade level and by school from year to year.

• Appropriate reports to the School Board, parents/guardians and the public, disaggregating all test data by ethnicity, gender, special education, and socio-economic status.

• District and building Report Cards including disaggregated data by student group as required by federal law.

• Interpretation and use by teachers, administrators and other professional staff members so that the test findings will influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students.

• Data for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.

• World language versions of widely recognized tests, when available and necessary.

Academic testing in the District may include, but not necessarily be limited to: standardized achievement tests, behavior assessments, performance assessment measures, language proficiency assessments and subject area diagnostic tests.

Policy 6600 Instructional Resources

Textbooks will be furnished to students at School District expense. Students may be required to purchase such supplementary materials as needed in specific areas. No student shall be deprived of supplementary materials because of inability to pay. Students who lose, deface, damage, or destroy any book, material, or equipment shall be required to pay for such loss or damage. The Superintendent of Schools is empowered to set rules regarding the distribution, purchase or rental of other equipment and supplies authorized for use in the educational program

Policy 6610 Selection of Instructional Materials

The selection of instructional materials, including required textbooks and supplementary books and materials, shall be recommended to the School Board by the Superintendent of Schools, in accordance with District rules and regulations. The Board shall make the final determination regarding selection of materials. Textbooks and other materials which are required to be read by all students shall be evaluated and recommended to the Superintendent by the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction and the curriculum study committee. This committee is charged with the responsibility of screening materials and preparing recommendations for selection and adoption of instructional materials

Policy 6700 Extracurricular Activities and Programs

Extracurricular activities are recognized as an integral part of the educational program. The District will sponsor such activities which are beneficial to a student’s development. The School Board encourages the full participation of elementary, middle and high school students in extracurricular and recreational programs and activities offered in the District. For purposes of Board policy, “full participation” means fair and equal participation to the extent that the budget, facilities or type of activity allows.






Policy 8855 Board Committees The School Board believes committees can be useful in the decision-making process and in the conducting of Board business. By using a Board committee structure, the Board is able to conduct its business in an efficient and effective manner, study issues facing the District more in depth, and take more ownership in things happening in the District. The Board shall have four standing committees: (1) Audit, Budget and Finance, (2) Curriculum and Program, (3) Planning, Facilities and Equipment, and (4) Personnel and Policy.

The roles of the Curriculum committee will be to: 1) review all matters related to existing or new curriculum and programs; 2) review survey, test and evaluation results of the district; Monitor curriculum adoption and implementation schedule; Review all grant proposals in terms of program components; review teaching materials, book selections, etc.; review all proposed board policies related to education, teaching or support programs; review comprehensive staff development plan and implementation.

Source: Board Policies provided by District

From a review of the policies listed in Exhibit 1.2.2, auditors noted the following:

• Kenosha Unified School District has multiple policies addressing different aspects of an educational program.

• None of the policies requires a curriculum management plan or a comprehensive coordinated system to manage the educational program.

• None of the policies defines who is responsible for curriculum.

• None of the policies requires a written, taught, and tested curriculum.

• None of the policies requires that the roles and responsibilities for curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation be defined.

• None of the policies addresses how courses will be developed and provided.

• None of the policies requires board adoption of written curriculum.

• None of the policies requires teaching of the board adopted curriculum at all levels.

• None of the policies requires monitoring of the implementation of the curriculum.

• None of the policies requires feedback and evaluation of the curriculum’s impact related to student achievement.

• One policy (rule) provided for a curriculum review process; however, the years provided in the process are expired.

Auditors reviewed additional district documents, visited all school sites, and conducted interviews with administrators, board members, teachers, parents, and district staff. The lack of policy guidance was noted during these interviews. Auditors also found that the lack of curricular direction has resulted in many job roles lacking sufficient direction to guide the improvement of student achievement and the development of quality staff. Without board policy requiring a curriculum management system, the lack of a curriculum management plan impedes the district’s ability to guide and coordinate communications regarding the district’s curricular


goals and desired outcomes. Without a clear curriculum to quantify the desired student learning outcomes there cannot be an assessment system capable of reporting student attainment of learning objectives (see Findings 1.3 and 2.1).

The State of Wisconsin has promulgated explicit directions regarding expectations for student learning at all levels and codified them in Wisconsin state statutes. These standards were previously known as the Wisconsin State Standards and now are referred to as the Common Core State Standards. The state standards are assessed through an assessment program known as the Wisconsin Knowledge and Skills Evaluation System.

The District Transformation Plan focused on Maximizing the Brilliance of Children, as approved by the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education, should have a significant impact on the design and delivery of curriculum if district efforts were aligned to the plan. For example, auditors selected Strategic Goal 1 and three of its supporting strategies and action steps to illustrate the implications these actions have for professional development, curriculum design, and instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District:

Strategic Goal 1: Improve Student Achievement

• Strategy A: Create models of personalized learning that encompasses collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and communication around meaningful learning targets

○ Action Step 6: Implement a curriculum that provides opportunities for authentic assessment is designated to occur 2013-14.

• Strategy B: Ensure all students and staff are proficient in information, technology, and media literacy to be successful in the global economy.

○ Action Step 6: Ensure that staff implements best practices and instructional strategies that embed 21st century technology resources and tools in their teaching to assure student learning is implemented 2011 through 2014.

• Strategy C: Establish authentic learning environments that require research based instructional strategies, to promote student use of communication, creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking skills.

○ Action Step 3: Incorporate culturally responsive curriculum as part of authentic learning environments.

The sample of three strategies and three actions steps that are intended to support attainment of Strategic Goal 1: Improve Student Achievement has significant implications for the content of professional development and the design of district curricula. In the area of professional development, the strategies and actions steps listed above would suggest the need for professional development in the following areas:

• Models of personalized learning;

• Teaching strategies that effectively develop students’ critical thinking skills;

• Teaching strategies that effectively engage students in meaningful collaboration;

• Teaching strategies that are capable of actuating students’ creativity;

• Strategies for effectively utilizing technology tools (hardware and software) to activate students’ creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making skills;

• Strategies for utilizing technology to increase student collaboration with peers and others; and

• Culturally responsive teaching strategies including effectively strategies for teaching English limited proficient students.

In the area of curriculum design, the strategies and actions steps listed above would suggest the need for the following:

• Clearly identify the relevance of essential learning targets;


• Identify and vet technology tools (hardware and software) that effectively enhance student creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making skills;

• List suggested teaching strategies that have been vetted for effectiveness, for embedding technology tools into classroom instruction;

• Design formative and summative assessment tools that effectively allow for students to demonstrate their learning through the execution of authentic tasks; and

• Identify curriculum content and resources that embrace a number of cultures.

Throughout the Transformation Plan, there are strategies and action steps that have significant implications associated with planning professional development, the use of instructional coaches to support best changes in professional instructional practices, and the development of a resource bank of instructional units, lessons, and activities that support the delivery of curriculum in authentic learning environments. Transformation plans developed by the Teaching and Learning Department, however, fail to adequately address the professional development and curriculum development implications contained within the district’s Transformation Plan. In a comparison of the Teaching and Learning Department Transformation Plan to the district’s Transformation Plan, auditors noted that only one of the strategies and action steps listed above (Goal 1.B.6) is directly addressed. The Teaching and Learning Department’s response to this goal is to focus on building trainings, hiring of instructional coaches, and establishing of 21st Century cadre teams.

Summary

Auditors found the board policy framework in place inadequate to guide local administrative and instructional practices, direct the management of curriculum and instruction, and improve student achievement in the Kenosha Unified School District. A review of board policies, which are intended to provide direction regarding the design and delivery of curriculum, indicates that they are simply reiterations and amplifications of existing Wisconsin state laws and regulations. The board of education has not adopted policies that build upon state laws and regulations and provide specific direction to guide the work of district administrators and teachers (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).

Finding 1.3: Board policies lack content and sufficient specificity to provide the adequate quality control needed for effective management of curriculum and other district functions.

In order for policies to provide the necessary operational framework, they must be useful in determining and directing decision making. Policies must reflect the expectations set by the board and focus the resources of the district toward specific goals. In order for policies to drive practice, they must be specific, easily referenced, and the first- source documents to provide individual and system guidance. Conversely, when policies are absent, outdated, vague, or ignored, there is not effective guidance for administrators or staff. The result may be that decision making is left to individual or special interest discretion. In such instances, there is a lack of coherence in systems, operations, and actions. Educational outcomes may be unpredictable and/or fragmented and may not reflect the intent of the board.

The auditors examined all policies, rules and regulations provided by the school district. They selected for further analysis those policies most directly related to curriculum management and organizational support and assessed them by comparing their content to 26 policy criteria that comprise the Curriculum Management Improvement Model (CMIM). This model serves as the basis for evaluating key documents in a PDK/CMSi Curriculum Audit™. Interviews were conducted with board members, administrators, and staff to identify the extent to which board policies are used in the district to guide decisions about educational programs and the curriculum.

The auditors found the Kenosha Unified School District’s board policies, rules, and regulations to be inadequate in both content and specificity to guide all necessary aspects of curriculum management and the educational programs. Several policies in the curriculum management areas of control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity were either weak or absent.


Wisconsin statutes give school boards broad powers and wide discretion in exercising the powers granted by the legislature. The following statutes were noted granting school boards the authority to manage the school district:

• Wisconsin Statute 118.001 states, “The statutory duties and powers of school boards shall be broadly construed to authorize any school board action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by the laws of the federal government or of this state.”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.12 states, “Subject to the authority vested in the annual meeting and to the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers, have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district…”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.13 also states, “The school board of a common or union high school district may do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education, including establishing, providing and improving school district programs, functions and activities for the benefit of pupils…”

The board of education, through its adopted policies, establishes its governance role in developing policies and directing the superintendent to develop such rules and regulations as are necessary. The following policies reference the role of the school board in establishing district policies:

• Board Policy 8500: School Board Powers and Duties states, “The School Board’s major role is policy-making. The School Board formulates and adopts School Board policies regarding the employment of staff personnel, educational programs, rules governing pupils, physical plant and equipment, finances and public information.”

• Board Policy 8510: School Board Policy Development and Revision states, “The School Board shall provide policy statements or guides for the operation of the school system. Board policies shall be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.”

• Board Policy 8511: Administrative Leeway in Absence of District Policy states, “In any situation which arises within the District where the School Board has not adopted policies or other guidelines for administrative action, the Superintendent of Schools or designee shall have the authority to use professional judgment and shall advise the School Board of such lack of policy.”

• Board Policy 8512: Development of Administrative Rules and Regulations states, “The School Board shall delegate to the Superintendent of Schools the formulation of administrative rules and regulations governing the operations of the School District. Such rules and regulations shall be consistent with policies adopted by the School Board and state and federal law requirements.”

Auditors obtained for review and analysis copies of 278 local board policies, rules, and regulations from the Kenosha Unified School District’s website. Exhibit 1.3.1 lists the 74 curriculum management system policies, rules, and regulations that were selected by auditors for analysis.

Exhibit 1.3.1

Board Policies, Rules, and Regulations Reviewed by PDK/CMSi AuditorsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Policy Code Policy and Guideline Titles Adoption/ Review Date

1110 Parent/Guardian/Caregiver Surveys Dec. 20061120 Parent/Guardian/Caregiver Involvement Dec. 20061212 Non-English Language Version Printed Materials Dec. 20061330 Facilities Use Dec. 20122110 Benchmarks June 20072211 Recruiting and Hiring – Administrative, Supervisory and Technical Personnel June 2007


Exhibit 1.3.1 (continued)Board Policies, Rules and Regulations Reviewed by PDK/CMSi Auditors



2250 Evaluation – Superintendent June 20072251 Evaluation – Administrative, Supervisory and Technical Personnel June 20072300 Educational Support Center – Administration June 20072400 School-Administration June 20072410 School Support Staffing – Administrative June 20072710 Line and Staff Relations June 20072720 Shared Decision Making June 20073110 Annual Operating Budget Sept. 20123111 School Board Budget Dec. 20073112 Budget Administration Sept. 20123113 Fiscal Impact Statement Oct. 20033220 Funding Proposals and Grants Dec. 20073270 Rental and Sale of District Owned Real Estate Dec. 20073280 Student Fees July 20113511 Transportation Dec. 20073520 School Nutrition Programs Dec. 20073522 Milk Program Dec. 20073600 School Safety Dec. 20073651 Hazardous Chemicals Dec. 20073700 Facilities Management Dec. 20073710 Facilities Maintenance Dec. 20073711 Improvement or Maintenance Projects Dec. 20074200 General Personnel Policies June 20004211 Staff Communications to the School Board June 20004224 Employee Code of Ethics June 20004330 Staff Selection and Hiring Process April 20054370 Staff Development Opportunities Sept. 20024380 Employee Evaluations June 20005110 Equal Educational Opportunity Discrimination Complaint July 20015118.1 Promotion Nov. 19965118.3 Retention/Acceleration Nov. 19965311 Summer School Sept. 19975432 School Buses Sept. 19975475 Students with Disabilities Sept. 19995580 School Wellness April 20066100 Mission, Principles, Goals, Results June 20116120 Core Values Sept. 20066200 School Organizational Plan Jan. 20026300 Curriculum Development and Improvement Dec. 20116310 Elementary School Curriculum Jan. 20026320 Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review Sept. 20026413.1 Family Life Education Jan. 2002


Exhibit 1.3.1 (continued)Board Policies, Rules and Regulations Reviewed by PDK/CMSi Auditors



6421 Programs for Students with Disabilities Jan. 20026422 Homebound Instruction Jan. 20026423 Talent Development Program Jan. 20026427 Individual and Remedial Services Jan. 20026430 Instructional Arrangements Jan. 20026452 Student Progress Reporting Sept. 20036454.1 Fourth and Eighth Grade Promotion July 20026460 Testing Assessment April 20126520 Field/Co-Curricular Trips July 20126600 Instructional Resources Jan. 20026610 Selection of Instructional Materials Jan. 20026620 Library Resources April 20126634 Assistive Technology Nov. 20056810 Teaching About Controversial Issues May 20027200 Facilities Planning Sept. 20057311 Preliminary and Working Drawings Sept. 20077320 Consultant Services Sept. 20018300 School Board Legal Status July 20018500 School Board Powers and Duties July 20018510 School Board Policy Development and Revision July 20018511 Administrative Leeway in Absence of District Policy July 20018512 Development of Administrative Rules and Regulations July 20018520 Board Goals Setting Jan. 20048610 School Board Member Authority July 20018650 School Board Ethical Code of Conduct April 20058850 School Board Committees June 2010

Auditors analyzed the policies, rules, and regulations listed in Exhibit 1.3.1 for congruence with audit standards using 26 criteria, each with three defining characteristics. The auditors assessed the quality of the board policies, rules, and regulations by comparing the content to audit criteria for good curriculum management. The 26 criteria are organized into five categories—control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity—that mirror the five standards of the audit. Relevant policies, rules, and regulations were selected from those noted in Exhibit 1.3.1 for further study and review.

The auditors examined each relevant policy, rule, and regulation to determine if the audit criteria were met. For each criterion, a score of 0 to 3 points was given based on the characteristics of the policy, rule, and regulation. If a policy, rule, and regulation (or several considered together) met any of the defining characteristics, the policy, rule, and regulation was given the corresponding score (1-3). If a policy or regulation was considered too weak to meet the characteristics or if there was no policy, rule, or regulation regarding the criterion, a rating of 0 was given. To be considered adequate, 70 percent of the total possible points for a standard (set of criteria) had to be given. The criteria and results of this analysis are contained in Exhibits 1.3.2 through 1.3.7.


Exhibit 1.3.2

Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy, Rules, and 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 curriculum• Requires the taught and assessed curriculum to be aligned to the district’s written

curriculum6300; 6310 0

• Addresses the alignment of the district’s written curriculum with state and national standards for all subject areas and grades (includes electives)

0

• 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

0

1.2 Philosophical statements of the district instructional approach• Has a general philosophical statement of curriculum approach, such as standards-

based, competency-based, outcome-based, etc.6100; 6120; 6430

1

• Directs adherence to mastery learning practices for all content areas and grades involved in local, state, and national accountability

0

• Directs adherence to mastery learning practices for all grade levels and content areas, including electives

0

1.3 Board adoption of the written curriculum• Requires the annual review of new or revised written curriculum prior to its

adoption 6300; 6320 0

• Directs the annual adoption of new or revised written curriculum for all grade levels and content areas

0

• Directs the periodic review of all curriculum on a planned cycle over several years 01.4 Accountability for the design and delivery of the district curriculum through roles and responsibilities• Directs job descriptions to include accountability for the design and delivery of

the aligned curriculum2110; 2211; 2250; 2251; 2300; 2400; 2410; 4224; 4330; 4380

0

• Links professional appraisal processes with specific accountability functions in the job descriptions of central office administrators, building administrators, and regular classroom teachers

0

• Directs professional appraisal processes to evaluate all staff in terms of gains in student achievement

0

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 flexibility without prescribing a particular template)

1120; 2110; 2720; 8520

0

• 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 measures

0

• Expects 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

0


Exhibit 1.3.2 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy, Rules, and Regulations on

Audit Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013Standard One—Provides for Control:

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



Auditors’ Rating

1.6 Functional decision-making structure• Expects an organizational chart that is annually reviewed, presented to the board,

and approved by the superintendent 2710; 4211; 4224; 8500; 8510; 8511

1

• 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 met

0

• Directs and specifies 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

0

Standard One 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 1.3.2 presents the auditors’ ratings of the district policies, rules, and regulations related to Standard One, which provides for control. Auditors found that board policies lacked sufficient content, specificity, and direction to meet this audit criterion. At least 70 percent of the characteristics must be met for the policies to be considered adequate; the auditors found that two out of 18 (11 percent) of the criteria were met.

The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings on Standard One:

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

Two board policies referencing curriculum alignment were found. Board Policy 6300 states, “The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.” Board Policy 6310 states, “The District Content Standards and Benchmarks will serve as the guidelines for the development of instruction. No policy references were found that would require alignment of the district’s curriculum with national standards or high-stakes assessments. There is no policy expectation that the district’s curriculum be more rigorous than state and national standards or that district assessments be aligned with the district’s adopted curriculum. No points were awarded for this criterion.

Criterion 1.2: Philosophical statements of the district instructional approach

Board Policy 6100 establishes an expectation that “Every student will be engaged, demonstrate proficiency, show continuous growth, graduate.” Board Policy 6430 states that “Teachers shall make every effort to devote sufficient time and resources to assist every student to achieve success commensurate with student’s ability.” No policy statement was found requiring mastery learning practices to be employed at all grade levels and for all content areas including electives. One point was awarded for this criterion.

Criterion 1.3: Board adoption of the written curriculum

References to the board’s role in adopting academic standards and considering new programs were found in Board Policies 6300 and 6320. Board Policy 6300 states, “The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional


program development in the District.” Board Policy 6320 states, “Requests for new programs shall be presented to the School Board by the Superintendent…” No clear policy expectation for a planned curriculum review process and board adoption of the written curriculum was found in board policies. No points were awarded this criterion.

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

Auditors found no policies that directly required job descriptions to include accountability for the design and delivery of curriculum. Board Policy 2211 states, “Qualifications for specific administrative, supervisory and technical positions are determined by the Superintendent of Schools and submitted to the Board for approval. Such qualifications shall include the essential functions of the job and the general qualifications for such positions outlined in the current employment practices policy for administrative, supervisory and technical personnel.” Board Policy 4224 states, “Employees shall give their support to the education of Kenosha youth and shall faithfully discharge their professional duties to the District in accordance with the official job descriptions pertaining to their individual assignments.”

Several policies were found that referenced professional appraisal but lacked sufficient linkages between the appraisal process and critical job functions. Board Policy 4380 states, “Personnel shall be evaluated periodically and recommendations for further employment shall be made by the Superintendent of Schools or designee.” Board Policy 2251 adds, “Administrative, supervisory and technical personnel shall be evaluated annually by their immediate supervisor in accordance with state law requirements and established District procedures.” Board Policy 2110 states, “Accountability items will be reflected in the evaluation instruments of the Superintendent and the administrative staff.” Board Policy 2250 states, “The School Board shall conduct a formal evaluation of the Superintendent of Schools annually in accordance with established District procedures. This evaluation shall be directly related to the Superintendent’s position description and to annual performance goals established by mutual agreement by the Board and Superintendent.”

Policy references to gains in student achievement were found, but the reference was limited to building principals and did not include all staff. Board Policy 2400 states, “The principal is the chief administrative and instructional officer of the school,” and, “The principal is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.” Board Policy 2410 states, “The principal is accountable for the academic and social progress for every student within the building.” No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 1.5: Long-range, system-wide planning

District policies referencing district planning include Board Policy 1120, Board Policy 2720, and Board Policy 8520. More specifically, Board Policy 1120 states, “Parents/guardians/caregivers are full partners in the decisions that affect children and families and are involved in developing District school improvement plans and site-based strategic planning initiatives.” Board Policy 2720 further expands on the expectation for shared decision making, stating, “Shared decision making opportunities shall be made available in the District through a variety of means, including but not limited to the following: strategic planning teams, school site councils, District and school advisory committees, councils, and task forces.” Board Policy 8520 references the board’s role in planning: “It is the belief of the School Board that an annual goal setting process will be beneficial to the Board and District. The goal setting process is to assist the Board in fulfilling its primary responsibility of establishing the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement needed by District students.” Auditors, however, found no policies that specifically addressed the development of system-wide, long-range plans that are congruent and incorporate student achievement targets. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 1.6: Functional decision-making structure

Policies establishing an expectation that the superintendent will develop an organizational chart depicting lines of authority were identified. Board Policy 2710 states, “The School Board desires the Superintendent of Schools to establish a clear understanding on the part of all personnel of the working relationships in the school system. Lines of direct authority should be those approved by the Board and shown on the District’s


organizational chart,” and “The established lines of authority represent direction of authority and responsibility as well as avenues for a two-way flow of ideas to improve the program and operations of the District.” No policy expectation was noted that required job descriptions to be maintained for each person depicted on the organizational chart. Policies referencing processes for forming decision-making bodies were not present. One point was awarded this criterion.

Exhibit 1.3.3

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:



Auditors’ Rating

2.1 Written curriculum with aligned, criterion-referenced formative assessments for all subject areas at all grade levels• Requires enough specificity so that all teachers can consistently describe how

students will demonstrate mastery of the intended objective6300; 6310; 6320; 6460

0

• Requires formative assessment instruments that align to specific curriculum objectives

0

• Directs that suggestions be provided to teachers for differentiating curriculum to meet students’ needs as diagnosed by formative assessments

0

2.2 Periodic review/update of the curriculum and aligned resources and assessments• Requires the development of procedures to both formatively and summatively

review the written curriculum for all grade levels and content areas6300; 6320; 6460

0

• Requires the annual review of test banks, benchmark assessments, and other assessment instruments for alignment with the district or state accountability system

0

• Evaluates assessment instruments for alignment to the district curriculum in all three dimensions: content, context, and cognitive type

0

2.3 Textbook/resource alignment to curriculum and assessment• Requires textbooks/resources to be regularly reviewed and the resource revision/

adoption cycle to align with the curriculum revision cycle6600; 6610; 6620

0

• Directs review of all new instructional resource materials for content, context, and cognitive type alignment to the district curriculum and assessment

0

• Directs 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.)

0

2.4 Content area emphasis• Directs the yearly identification of subject areas that require additional emphasis

based on a review of assessment results6310 0

• Within subject areas, requires identification by administration of specific objectives, contexts, cognitive types, and instructional practices to receive budgetary support

0

• Requires focused professional development and coaching to support the instructional delivery of the identified priorities within the content areas

0


Exhibit 1.3.3 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on

Audit Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013Standard Two—Provides for Direction:




Auditors’ Rating

2.5 Program integration and alignment to the district’s written curriculum• Directs 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

6320; 6413.1; 6421

0

• Requires written procedures for both formative and summative evaluation of all new subject-related and school-wide programs before submission to the board for approval

1

• Directs administrative staff to prepare annual recommendations for subject-related and school-wide program revision, expansion, or termination based on student achievement

0

Standard Two Rating (number of points for the five criteria with a possibility of 15) 1Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—15) 6.7%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 1.3.3 presents the auditors’ ratings of the district policies, rules, and administrative regulations related to Standard Two, which provides for direction. Auditors found that board policies lacked sufficient content, specificity, and direction to meet this audit criterion. At least 70 percent of the characteristics must be met for the policies to be considered adequate; the auditors found that one out of 15 (6.7 percent) of the criteria was met.

The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings on Standard Two:

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

Auditors found no policies that addressed the alignment of the written curriculum with criterion-referenced assessments. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 2.2: Periodic review/update of the curriculum and aligned resources and assessments

Auditors found no district policies that required review of the district curriculum, resources, and assessments on a periodic basis. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 2.3: Textbooks/resource alignment to curriculum and assessment

Auditors found two policies that reference the selection of textbooks and supplemental materials. Board Policy 6610 states, “The selection of instructional materials, including required textbooks and supplementary books and materials, shall be recommended to the School Board by the Superintendent of Schools, in accordance with District rules and regulations.” In addition, “Textbooks and other materials which are required to be read by all students shall be evaluated and recommended to the Superintendent by the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction and the curriculum study committee,” and “Supplementary materials which are to be used for particular programs in individual schools may be selected by teachers, teacher committees or departments with the approval of the principal, the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, and the Superintendent/designee.” Board Policy 6620 states, “Materials purchased shall be supported by professional journal reviews.” No clear policy expectation was found that requires alignment of resources with the district’s curriculum and assessments. No points were awarded this criterion.


Criterion 2.4: Content area emphasis

Auditors did not find any policies containing characteristics associated with this criterion. Specifically, no policy statements were found requiring professional development in support of curriculum delivery. No policy expectation was noted requiring identifying subject areas that require additional emphasis and budgetary support. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 2.5: Program integration and alignment to the district’s written curriculum

Board Policy 6320 provides some direction regarding a review of programing, stating, “Program reviews will include narrative information outlining what has been reviewed, how it was assessed, what types of data were collected, and how they were analyzed.” Board Policy 6320 lacked specificity regarding program alignment to the curriculum and assessments. One point was awarded this criterion.

Exhibit 1.3.4

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 another• Requires the vertical articulation and horizontal coordination of the curriculum within

schools0

• Requires vertical articulation across grade levels and horizontal coordination among schools at a given level for all content areas

0

• Directs the identification of prerequisite skills and their placement in the written curriculum at the appropriate grade/instructional level

0

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

4370 1

• Requires a process whereby staff are coached over time in the implementation of professional development initiatives

1

• Directs the regular evaluation of the impact of professional development on student achievement, using both formative and summative measures

0

3.3 Delivery of the adopted district curriculum• Requires all staff to deliver the curriculum as approved by the board 0• Requires building principals and all central office staff with curriculum responsibilities

to review disaggregated assessment results and identify areas where curriculum delivery may be ineffective

0

• Requires an annual report for the board regarding the status of curriculum delivery 03.4 Monitoring the delivery of the district curriculum• Directs building principals to develop and implement a plan to monitor the delivery of

the district curriculum on a weekly basis2410; 4380 0

• Directs central office curricular staff to assist the principal in monitoring the delivery of the district curriculum

0

• Requires 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

0


Exhibit 1.3.4 (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 environment• Requires 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

1212; 3280; 5110; 5118.1; 5118.3; 5475; 6421; 6423; 6427; 6430

1

• Directs the development of procedures for fast-tracking students who lack sufficient prerequisite skills for courses such as AP, honors, etc., but need more challenging content

0

• Requires 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

0

Standard Three Rating (number of points for the five criteria with a possibility of 15) 3Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—15) 20%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 1.3.4 presents the auditors’ ratings of the district policies, rules, and regulations related to Standard Three, which provides for connectivity and equity. Auditors found that board policies lacked sufficient content, specificity, and direction to meet this audit criterion. At least 70 percent of the characteristics must be met for the policies to be considered adequate; the auditors found that three out of 15 (20 percent) of the criteria were met.

The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings on Standard Three:

Criterion 3.1: Predictability of written curriculum from one grade and/or instructional level to another

Auditors found no policies that addressed articulation and coordination of the curriculum. No points were awarded this criterion.

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

References to professional development were found in Board Policy 4370, which states, “District staff development inservice courses are designed to deepen knowledge of subject content; expand research-based instructional skills; provide ongoing classroom assistance in implementing new skills…” Also, this policy states, “Inservice courses are aligned with District goals and initiatives.” And, “Staff development opportunities shall be provided consistent with the District, school and department staff development plan.” No policy was found that establishes an expectation that the impact of professional development be based on student achievement. Two points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 3.3: Delivery of the adopted district curriculum

Auditors found no policies that required delivery of the approved curriculum or use of assessment results to identify areas of curriculum delivery that may be ineffective. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 3.4: Monitoring the delivery of the district curriculum

Board Policy 2410 states, “Daily, principals are responsible for monitoring all of the programs within the building that could range from breakfast and zero hour classes to after school and evening courses.” No policy expectation was found that specifically required principals to monitor the delivery of curriculum on a weekly


basis or use the data to monitor the status of curriculum delivery across the district. No points were awarded this criterion.

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

Several policies were found that established a clear expectation that students could not be denied access to the district’s education programs. Board Policy 3280 states, “No student shall be denied the opportunity to participate in school programs or activities because of his/her family’s inability to pay necessary fees and charges.” Board Policy 5110 states, “No student may be denied admission to, be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any curricular, extracurricular, student services, recreational or other program or activity because of the student’s sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, religion, color, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability or handicap.” And, Board Policy 6423 states, “It is the District’s responsibility to provide all students with appropriate educational experiences to meet their needs and to help all students develop their talent to its fullest potential.” No policy references were found requiring review of equity data or the development of procedures for fast-tracking students who lack sufficient skills for courses such as AP, honors, etc. One point was awarded to this criterion.

Exhibit 1.3.5

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 process• Requires 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

6460 0

• 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 measures

0

• Requires assessment instruments to be more rigorous in content, context, and cognitive type than external, high stakes assessments

0

4.2 A program assessment process• Directs the development and implementation of a district program evaluation process 6320; 6460 1• Requires each proposed program to have an evaluation process (The process includes

both formative and summative evaluations) before that program is adopted and implemented

0

• Directs the program assessment process to link with district planning initiatives, including site improvement plans and the strategic/long-range plan

0

4.3 Use of data from assessments to determine program and curriculum effectiveness and efficiency• Requires the disaggregation of assessment data at the school, classroom, student

subgroup, and student level to determine program and curriculum effectiveness and efficiency

2110; 6320; 6460

1

• Requires classroom teachers to track and document individual student mastery in core content areas

1

• Requires the development of modifications to the curriculum and/or programs as needed in response to disaggregated assessment data to bring about effectiveness and efficiency

1


Exhibit 1.3.5 (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 effectiveness• Requires yearly reports to the board regarding program effectiveness for all new

programs for the first three years of operation2110; 6320 0

• Requires reports to the board every three years for long-term programs 0• Requires summative reports to the board every five years for all content areas before

any curriculum revisions or major materials acquisition, with the reports delivered prior to the curricular adoption cycle

0

Standard Four Rating (number of points for the four criteria with a possibility of 12) 4Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—12) 33.3%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 1.3.5 presents the auditors’ ratings of the district policies, rules, and regulations related to Standard Four, which provides for feedback. Auditors found that board policies lacked sufficient content, specificity, and direction to meet this audit criterion. At least 70 percent of the characteristics must be met for the policies to be considered adequate; the auditors found that four out of 12 (33.3 percent) of the criteria were met.

The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings on Standard Four:

Criterion 4.1: A student assessment process

Auditors found one policy reference to establishing an assessment program in the district. Board Policy 6460 states, “The District shall establish and maintain a program of testing for the purposes of diagnosis, assessment, instruction and accountability.” No policy references were found requiring district assessments to go beyond that which is required for state accountability, or a system that is differentiated or more rigorous than external high stakes assessments. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 4.2: A program assessment process

Board Policy 6320 states, “Programs shall become a part of the District’s Instructional Program Review Cycle… If the program is found to be ineffective in its program purposes, it shall be terminated upon recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools and approval of the School Board.” Policy requiring program assessment processes to be linked to district planning initiatives, including strategic and long-range planning, were not present. One point was awarded this criterion.

Criterion 4.3: Use of data from assessments to determine program and curriculum effectiveness and efficiency

Board Policy 2110 states, “Reports shall be presented to the School Board on District and school-by-school achievements delineated to the extent feasible by gender, ethnicity and socio/economic status by the first Board meeting in November each year.” Board Policy 6460 also addresses disaggregation of testing data, stating, “The testing program will provide appropriate reports to the School Board, parents/guardians and the public, disaggregating all test data by ethnicity, gender, special education, and socio-economic status.” Board Policy 6460 also requires the use of “Data for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform,” and, “Interpretation and use by teachers, administrators and other professional staff members so that the test findings will influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students.” Three points were awarded this criterion.


Criterion 4.4: Reports to the board about program effectiveness

Board Policy 2110 requires accountability benchmarks to be adopted by the board annually. This policy is silent regarding the accountability focus of the benchmarks. There is no expectation stated in this policy that annual benchmarks are to be used for monitoring program effectiveness. Board Policy 6320 states, “Programs shall become a part of the District’s Instructional Program Review Cycle, Rule 6320A. If the program is found to be ineffective in its program purposes, it shall be terminated upon recommendation of the Superintendent of Schools and approval of the School Board.” No policy expectation was found requiring annual reports to the board during the first three years of implementing a new program. The Program Review Cycle referenced in this policy is based on a five-year rotation. No points were awarded this criterion.

Exhibit 1.3.6

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 budgeting• Directs development of a budget process that requires program evaluation,

identification of specific measurable program goals before the budget process begins, and documented costs to ensure that expenditures are aligned within revenues and cost-benefit analysis is facilitated

3110; 3111 0

• 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.)

0

• 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.)

0

5.2 Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities• Requires a budget that allocates resources according to documented needs,

assessment data, and established district curriculum and program goals and priorities

3110; 3111; 3112; 3113; 8500

0

• 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 needs

0

• Directs 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

1

5.3 Environment to support curriculum delivery• Directs facilities that enable teachers to work in an environment that supports

adequate delivery of the curriculum 1330; 3270; 3600; 3651; 3700; 3710; 3711; 7200; 7311; 7320

1

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

1

• 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

1


Exhibit 1.3.6 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on

Audit Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of AdequacyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013Standard Five—Provides for Productivity:




Auditors’ Rating

5.4 Support systems focused on curriculum design and delivery• Provides a clear connection between district support services and the achievement

of the district curriculum design and delivery, and evidence of optimization within the system

1120; 3511; 3520; 3522; 5311; 5432; 5580

0

• Requires formative and summative evaluation practices for each support service to provide data for improving these services and documented evidence of improvement over time

0

• Requires periodic reports to the board with recommendations for continuing, revising, and/or developing new support services to enhance fulfillment of the mission, including needs-based data

0

5.5 Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning• Directs the development of specific requirements for data analysis that lead to

improved student learning for the core curriculum areas and electives1110; 2110; 6320; 6460

0

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

0

• Directs the development of specific requirements for data analysis that lead to improved student learning for all operations of the district

0

5.6 Change processes for long-term institutionalization of district priority goals• Requires the identification of strategies, grounded in documented assessment

of program success or efficacy, to be used by the district to ensure long-term institutionalization of change

2410 0

• Directs the development of school improvement plans that address the use of specific change strategies at the building level to ensure the institutionalization of change and improved results or performance

0

• Directs 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

0

Standard Five Rating (number of points for the six criteria with a possibility of 18) 4Percentage of Adequacy (points divided by the number of possible points—18) 22.2%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 1.3.6 presents the auditors’ ratings of the district policies, rules, and regulations related to Standard Five, which provides for productivity. Auditors found that board policies lacked sufficient content, specificity, and direction to meet this audit criterion. At least 70 percent of the characteristics must be met for the policies to be considered adequate; the auditors found that four out of 18 (22.2 percent) of the criteria were met.


The following presents information about the auditors’ ratings on Standard Five:

Criterion 5.1: Program-centered budgeting

Auditors found no policy expectation requiring implementation of a program-centered budget process. No points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 5.2: Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities

Board Policy 3110 states, “The School Board shall establish an annual operating budget in accordance with state law. This budget is the financial plan for the operation of the District. It provides the framework for both expenditures and revenues for the year and translates into financial terms the educational programs and priorities for the District.” In addition, “The annual operating budget shall be the financial plan for the operation of the District…” Board Policy 3113 states, “During this budget preparation and approval period, the Board evaluates the various budget assumptions, alternative funding recommendations, and current programs to allocate the available financial, human and physical resources to effectively implement the policies and programmatic objectives of the District.” Policy expectations requiring the development of multi-year budgets based on documented needs were not found. One point was awarded this criterion.

Criterion 5.3: Environment to support curriculum delivery

Auditors found several policies referencing facilities, facilities planning, and facilities maintenance. Board Policy 3600 states, “A safe and orderly environment is necessary for a healthy learning situation.” Board Policy 3710 requires, “Facilities maintenance shall include annual and long-range programs as well as emergency procedures.” Board Policy 3711 states, “A Major Maintenance Projects list shall be developed annually by the Department of Facilities Services. This list shall be reviewed by the Superintendent of Schools and/or designee for adherence or compliance with the District’s Strategic Plan and Goals.” Board Policy 7200 states, “Existing school buildings shall be evaluated in terms of instructional developments and their ability to meet future enrollment and educational needs. The Superintendent of Schools or designee shall establish a Long-Range Facilities Planning Committee for the purpose of developing a five-year plan that will be reviewed annually.” A comprehensive long-range facilities plan should consider several factors, including the educational program to be offered. Three points were awarded this criterion.

Criterion 5.4: Support systems focused on curriculum design and delivery

One policy was noted that referenced the connection between support services and student learning. Board Policy 5580 states, “It is the District’s intention to help students learn and participate in positive dietary and lifestyle practices and to provide a school environment that supports these efforts….The food service department will promote healthy meals and meal alternatives by ensuring that all meals offered through the National School Breakfast and Lunch Programs meet and follow all USDA requirements applicable to the schools, including established nutritional standards.” References connecting other support services such as transportation, technology, or nursing services to student learning were not found. No policy statements were found that would require the evaluation of support services or periodic reports to the board. No points were awarded for this criterion.

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

No policy statements were noted that referenced the use of data analysis to improve student learning. Board Policy 1110 states, “A District-wide survey shall be conducted once every three years to obtain parent/guardian/caregiver opinions regarding school operations and student success.” No points were awarded for this criterion.

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

No policies were noted that referenced change or implementing change processes. No points were awarded this criterion.

Exhibit 1.3.7 shows the percentage of adequacy of board policies, rules, and regulations for each of the five standards and an overall percentage of adequacy for all five standards.


Exhibit 1.3.7

Summary Ratings of the Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy, Rules, and Regulations 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 2 11.1Two 5 15 1 6.7

Three 5 15 3 20.0Four 4 12 4 33.3Five 6 18 4 22.2

Overall Rating For All Criteria 26 78 14 17.9

As can be noted, district policies, rules, and regulations scored 14 out of a possible 78 points. Scores for each of the five categories are as follows: Control—2 of 18, Direction—1 of 15, Connectivity and Equity—3 of 15, Feedback—4 of 12, and Productivity—4 of 18. To be considered adequate, an overall score of 57 points, or 70 percent, is required. With an overall score of 14 points, or 17.9 percent, auditors determined that the policies, rules, and regulations of the Kenosha Unified School District did not meet the audit standard for effective governance and are considered inadequate.

Summary

In summary, the auditors compared governing policies, rules, and regulations to audit criteria for quality in the areas of control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity. It was determined that board policies, rules, and regulations are inadequate to direct the superintendent and staff for effective management of curriculum and other district functions (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).

Finding 1.4: The organizational chart does not meet audit criteria for determining sound general management of the school district. Job descriptions are inadequate in quality to communicate complete and current roles and responsibilities in relationship to the delivery of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

Administrative role relationships are important to an educational organization in the productive grouping and management of its tasks and functions. Without this grouping, there can be no economy of scale in administrative deployment. A functional, accurate, and timely delineation of administrative relationships is generally depicted in graphic form and called an Organizational Chart or Table of Organization.

A functional organization has an administrative structure that arranges personnel to ensure the effective and efficient design and delivery of curriculum and provides for sound system operations and functions. Administrative operations, which are solely under the superintendent’s authority, provide the mechanism for the board of education to translate its values, goals, policies, and intentions into action.

In an educational institution, positions are required in five key areas:

• Defining organizational focus, goals, and purposes (policy and planning)

• Designing the work with authorized outcomes and suggested ways and means to accomplish organizational objectives (curriculum)

• Implementing the work within organizational specifications and guidelines (instruction)

• Measuring achievement of the work and providing feedback on results (assessment)

• Managing functions to support the work (finance, human resources, support services)


Job descriptions are clearly written descriptions of duties and qualifications of persons employed by the school district. They provide employees with information regarding the necessary background to successfully prepare for the job and how positions are to function within the organization, including assignment of supervisory relationships and the critical components of the job. A clear set of job descriptions supports the district’s internal and external communications by explaining who performs what duties within the organization. Adequately designed job descriptions also allow the district to graphically depict administrative relationships on the table of organization.

The auditors reviewed relevant board policies and other supporting documents to identify the board’s direction regarding job descriptions. Job descriptions were reviewed to determine the extent to which they are adequate in content to provide clear role direction for organizational functions to support the design and delivery of curriculum. In addition, interview data were used to gain perspective on job descriptions’ content and to understand their currency and accuracy.

What the auditors found were job descriptions that were inadequate in communicating clear linkages to roles and responsibilities associated with the design and delivery of curriculum. The organization charts presented to auditors were determined to be inadequate to reflect sound general management of the school system when evaluated against audit criteria. No board policies were found requiring the development of and revision of job descriptions.

Organizational Structure

In order to analyze the adequacy of the Kenosha Unified School District Table of Organization (organizational chart), auditors reviewed appropriate board policies, district provided management compensation schedules, and job descriptions, and they also conducted interviews with district administrators and staff.

Auditors were presented with two Tables of Organization for the Kenosha Unified School District. The first is contained within Board Policy 2710: Organizational Chart and is displayed in Exhibit 1.4.1.

Exhibit 1.4.1

Organizational ChartKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

District Mission and Strategic Plan

Kenosha Unified School District No. 1Organizational Chart

Executive Director ofHuman Resources

Executive Director ofEducational

Accountability

Executive Director ofCurriculum and

Instructional ServicesExecutive Director ofSchool Leadership

Director ofFinance

Coordinator ofHuman Resources

Manager ofHuman Resources

Coordinator ofFine Arts

Director ofTitle I/BilingualCoordinator of

Research

Minority AcademicAffairs Specialist

Principals- High Schools- Middle Schools- Elementary

Schools

Principals- High Schools- Middle Schools- Elementary

Schools

Public Relations

Board of Education

Superintendent of Schools

Executive Director ofSchool Leadership

Information Services

Coordinator ofAthletics, Activities,

Health, Phy. Ed.

Director ofDevelopmentProfessional

Principals-Charter Schools

Coordinator ofCareer, Technical &Service Education

Specialist forLibrary Media &

InstructionalTechnology

Principals-Selected Title ISchools

Director ofSpecial Education

Coordinator ofStudent Support

Director ofSchool Leadership

Approved 04/09/07

Director ofFood Services

Director ofFacilities

Supervisor ofTransportation


The second Table of Organization was found within the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), 2012, and is displayed in Exhibit 1.4.2.

Exhibit 1.4.2

Organizational ChartKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

The auditors used the PDK-CMSi principles of sound organizational management to critique the Kenosha Unified School Districts’ organizational structure depicted in the documents reviewed. The principles used by the auditors to examine the district’s organizational structure are presented in Exhibit 1.4.3. The audit expectation is that all principles listed in the exhibit will be met.

Exhibit 1.4.3

Principles of Sound Organizational Management

Principle Explanation

Span of Control The range of supervisors to personnel should be 7-12 as a maximum number of persons who are supervised on a daily face-to-face-basis.

Chain of Command

A person should have only one superior to avoid being placed in a compromised decision-making situation.

Logical Grouping of Functions

The clustering of similar duties and tasks is employed in order to keep supervisory needs to a minimum (ensuring economy of scale).

Separation of Line and Staff

Functions

Those administrators carrying out the primary mission of the district should not be confused with those supporting it. Also, note that in reporting relationships, line administrators should report only to other line administrators, never staff administrators. This keeps the line of accountability for the primary mission of the district uncomplicated.


Exhibit 1.4.3 (continued)Principles of Sound Organizational Management

Principle ExplanationScalar

RelationshipsRoles of the same title and remuneration should be depicted graphically on the same general horizontal plane.

Full Inclusion All persons working within the district carrying out its essential functions should be depicted on the table of organization.

The auditors reviewed the Kenosha Unified School Districts’ two tables of organization, job descriptions, and lists of district personnel. In addition, the auditors discussed the organizational charts during interviews with the superintendent, board members, and district staff. The auditors found both tables of organization inadequate to provide for sound curriculum and instructional management. Specifically, the district’s two organizational charts failed to meet PDK-CMSi criteria in the following five areas:

• Span of Control

• Chain of Command

• Logical grouping of functions (partial)

• Scalar relationships

• Full inclusion

Exhibit 1.4.4 presents the auditors’ assessment of the Kenosha Unified School District’s Tables of Organization (see Exhibits 1.4.1 and 1.4.2) based on the six criteria presented in Exhibit 1.4.3.

Exhibit 1.4.4

Auditors’ Analysis of Two Organizational ChartsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Organizational Chart Presented in Board Policy 2710

Displayed in Exhibit 1.4.1

Organizational ChartPresented in Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report 2012Displayed in Exhibit 1.4.2

Span of ControlCriterion Not Met: Several positions have a number of direct reports that exceeds the range for this criteria including:• Superintendent (17, including board of

education); Board Policy 2300, Educational Support Center - Administration requires that all Executive Directors and Directors report directly to the superintendent.

• Executive Director of School Leadership (40+); Two positions listed as Executive Director of School Leadership are displayed on the organizational chart

• Director of Special Education (1 coordinator and all special education teachers)

Criterion Not Met: Several positions have a number of direct reports that exceeds the range for this criteria including:• Superintendent (17, including board of

education); Board Policy 2300, Educational Support Center - Administration requires that all Executive Directors and Directors report directly to the superintendent.

• Assistant Superintendent Teaching and Learning (15)

• Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Leadership (25+)

• Assistant Superintendent of Secondary School Leadership (13)

• Director of Special Education (2 coordinators and all special education teachers)


Exhibit 1.4.4 (continued)Auditors’ Analysis of two Organizational Charts


Organizational Chart Presented in Board Policy 2710

Displayed in Exhibit 1.4.1

Organizational ChartPresented in Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report 2012Displayed in Exhibit 1.4.2

Chain of CommandCriterion Not Met: Not all direct reports with supervisory responsibilities are depicted. This organizational table does not accurately depict the district’s current organizational structure. Several teaching positions report to both a supervisor and a principal, including teachers of fine arts, special education, and gifted.

Criterion Not Met: Not all direct reports with supervisory responsibilities are depicted. Several teaching positions report to both a supervisor and a principal, including teachers of fine arts, special education, and gifted.

Logical Grouping of FunctionsCriterion Not Met: Charter School principals reports to the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, while all other principals report to Executive Director of School Leadership.

Criterion Not Met: The Title I Coordinator reports to the Executive Director of Information and Accountability. This appears to be the only coordinator with programmatic responsibilities reporting to this executive director’s position.

Separation of Line and Staff FunctionsCriterion Met: Board Policy 2710: Line and Staff Relations requires adherence to this principle and this representation of the organizational chart met this audit criterion.

Criterion Met: Board Policy 2710: Line and Staff Relations requires adherence to this principle and this representation of the organizational chart met this audit criterion.

Scalar RelationshipsCriterion Not Met: There is no consistency in how positions with varying degrees of responsibilities are depicted on the organizational chart. For example, Executive Director of Human Resources, Executive Director of Educational Accountability, and Executive Director of School Leadership are all depicted on the same plane, yet their salaries and responsibilities, in terms of number of direct reports, vary considerably. High school principals are depicted on a lower plane compared to elementary principals and some coordinator positions.

Criterion Not Met There is no consistency in how positions with varying degrees of responsibilities are depicted on the organizational chart. For example, the positions of Chief Financial Officer; Executive Director Business Services; Executive Director Systems, Data, Management and Evaluation; Assistant Superintendent Teaching and Learning; Assistant Superintendent Secondary School Leadership; Assistant Superintendent Secondary Leadership and the Executive Director Community Partnerships and Media Relations are all depicted on the same plane, yet their salaries and responsibilities, in terms of the number of direct reports, vary considerably.

Full InclusionCriterion Not Met: Not all positions involved in the instructional program, such as teachers, are depicted on the organizational chart.

Criterion Not Met: Not all positions involved in the instructional program, such as teachers and coordinators, are depicted on the organizational chart.

On the district website, there is an expanded version of the organizational chart presented in Exhibit 1.4.2. This organizational chart provides a detailed depiction of direct and indirect reports for each of the executive directors and assistant superintendent positions. When compared to the Principles of Sound Organizational


Management, the expanded organizational chart fails to meet PDK-CMSi criteria. Specifically, the expanded organizational chart did not meet the following criteria:

• Span of Control: Several positions have a number of direct reports that exceeds 12 employees.

• Chain of Command: Several teaching positions report to both a supervisor and a principal, including teachers of fine arts, special education, and gifted.

• Logical Grouping of Functions: The Title I Coordinator reports to the Executive Director of Information and Accountability. This appears to be the only coordinator with programmatic responsibilities reporting to this position.

• Scalar Relationships: There is no consistency in how positions with varying degrees of responsibilities are depicted on the organizational chart.

• Full Inclusion: Teachers, who are involved in the instructional program, are not depicted.

The presence of two organizational charts creates confusion regarding roles, responsibilities, and control over programs. While the organizational chart contained in Board Policy 2710 and displayed in Exhibit 1.4.1 appears to be the only organizational chart approved by the board of education, the organizational chart contained in the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and displayed in Exhibit 1.4.2 more accurately reflects the current organizational structure of the district.

While the organizational chart displayed in Exhibit 1.4.2 more accurately reflects the current organizational structure within the district, not all positions depicted on the organizational chart are supported by an accurate and updated job description. For example, the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning, the main officer responsible for the development and implementation of the curriculum, has a job description that was last updated in 1998. Some program directors have responsibility to evaluate teachers within their programs (gifted, fine arts, special education), which presently conflicts with the role of the building principal.

In summary, auditors were presented with two organizational charts depicting different organizational structures for the district. Neither organizational chart met audit criteria for principles of sound organizational management. Neither organizational chart adhered to audit criteria for span of control, chain of command, logical grouping of functions, scalar relationships, and full inclusion.

Job Descriptions

Auditors were presented with 154 job descriptions for administrative, teaching, and staff positions. Auditors selected for review those job descriptions that have been recently updated and those that have direct responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. The 59 positions for which job descriptions were reviewed by auditors are presented in Exhibit 1.4.5.

Exhibit 1.4.5

Job Descriptions: Administrative, Instructional, and Instructional SupportKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Job Description DateAssistant Superintendent of Business 7/2010Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability 4/2012Assistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership 4/2012Assistant Superintendent of Secondary School Leadership 3/1998Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning 3/1998Athletics Coordinator 7/1999Chief Communication Officer 3/2009Chief Financial Officer 4/2012Community School Relations Manager 12/2010


Exhibit 1.4.5 (continued)Job Descriptions: Administrative, Instructional and Instructional Support


Job Description DateCompensation and Benefits Manager 7/2011Computer Educational Technology Resource Teacher MissingCoordinator – Language Acquisition Program 9/2010Coordinator - Talent Development 7/2010Coordinator of Human Resources 10/2000Coordinator of Organization Training and Development 4/2012Coordinator of Special Education 3/2008Coordinator of Special Education and Student Support 4/2012Coordinator of Title One 4/2012Counselor - Elementary School 3/2012Counselor - High School 3/2012Counselor - Middle School 3/2012Curriculum Coordinator - Instructional Technology and Library Media 8/2011Curriculum Coordinator – Literacy 4/2012Curriculum Coordinator – Mathematics and Science 7/2010Curriculum Coordinator – Science 7/2010Curriculum Coordinator – Social Studies 7/2010Dean of Students MissingDirector of Facilities Services 4/2012Director of Food Services 4/2012Director of Human Resources 4/2012Director of Information Services 4/2012Director of Instruction 3/1998Director of Pre-School MissingDirector of Special Education and Student Support 4/2012Dual Language Support Teacher MissingElementary Librarian 4/1983Elementary Resource Teacher MissingElementary School Principal 3/2013Fine Arts Coordinator 3/2013Head Start Administrator 2/2002Human Resources Specialist 9/2012Instructional Coach 5/2012Instructional Technology Teacher 3/2012K-8 Coordinator 3/1998Middle School Assistant Principal 1/2000Middle School Principal 10/1984Pre-School Coordinator MissingProfessional Development Specialist 11/2009Professional Development Teacher Consultant 10/2010Program Evaluation Coordinator 3/1998Program Support Teacher 4/2010Senior High School Principal 10/1984


Exhibit 1.4.5 (continued)Job Descriptions: Administrative, Instructional and Instructional Support


Job Description DateStudent Engagement and Equity Coordinator 6/2011Superintendent of Schools (Draft) MissingSupervisor of Technology Services 3/1998Teacher Consultant ESL MissingTeacher Position 8/2010Testing and Assessment Coordinator 10/1999Title One Behavior Intervention Specialist for Behavior 8/2010

To determine the quality of the Kenosha Unified School District’s job descriptions, auditors evaluated the job descriptions using five rating indicators ranging from Missing to Exemplary. The rating indicators are presented in Exhibit 1.4.6.

Exhibit 1.4.6

PDK-CMSi Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions

Rating ExplanationMissing No statement made

Inadequate Statement made, but missing basic ingredientsAdequate Clear statement, but weak in curriculum quality control statements

Strong Clear statement, including several aspects of curriculum qualityExemplary Clear statement, including curriculum and delivery of curriculum

N/A Not applicable

To analyze the adequacy of a job description’s design, the auditors rated each job description on four critical elements:

• Qualifications;

• Links to Chain of Command;

• Functions, Duties, and Responsibilities; and

• Relationship to the Curriculum (where relevant).

Exhibit 1.4.7 presents the job descriptions reviewed and the auditors’ assessment of their adequacy. For a job description to be considered strong, the four critical elements must be rated as adequate or higher.

Exhibit 1.4.7

Auditors’ Assessment of Selected Job DescriptionsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Job Title QualificationsLink to

Chain of Command

Responsibilities Curriculum Link

Assistant Superintendent of Business Inadequate Adequate Adequate N/AAssistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Superintendent of Secondary School Leadership Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateAssistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate


Exhibit 1.4.7 (continued)Auditors’ Assessment of Selected Job Descriptions



Chain of Command


Athletics Coordinator Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateChief Communication Officer Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateChief Financial Officer Inadequate Adequate Adequate N/ACommunity School Relations Manager Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCompensation and Benefits Manager Inadequate Adequate Adequate N/AComputer Educational Technology Resource Teacher Missing Missing Inadequate InadequateCoordinator – Language Acquisition Program Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCoordinator - Talent Development Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCoordinator of Human Resources Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCoordinator of Organization Training and Development Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateCoordinator of Special Education Inadequate Adequate Inadequate AdequateCoordinator of Special Education and Student Support Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCoordinator of Title One Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCounselor - Elementary School Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateCounselor - High School Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateCounselor - Middle School Adequate Inadequate Adequate AdequateCurriculum Coordinator - Instructional Technology and Library Media Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate

Curriculum Coordinator – Literacy Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateCurriculum Coordinator – Mathematics and Science Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateCurriculum Coordinator – Science Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateCurriculum Coordinator – Social Studies Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDean of Students Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Facilities Services Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateDirector of Food Services Inadequate Adequate Adequate N/ADirector of Human Resources Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Information Services Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateDirector of Instruction Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDirector of Pre-School Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateDirector of Special Education and Student Support Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateDual Language Support Teacher Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateElementary Librarian Missing Inadequate Adequate InadequateElementary Resource Teacher Inadequate Missing Inadequate InadequateElementary School Principal Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateFine Arts Coordinator Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateHead Start Administrator Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateHuman Resources Specialist Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateInstructional Coach Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateInstructional Technology Teacher Inadequate Inadequate Adequate InadequateK-8 Coordinator Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateMiddle School Assistant Principal Adequate Adequate Adequate AdequateMiddle School Principal Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequatePre-School Coordinator Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateProfessional Development Specialist Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate


Exhibit 1.4.7 (continued)Auditors’ Assessment of Selected Job Descriptions



Chain of Command


Professional Development Teacher Consultant Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateProgram Evaluation Coordinator Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateProgram Support Teacher Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateSenior High School Principal Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateStudent Engagement and Equity Coordinator Inadequate Adequate Adequate AdequateSuperintendent of Schools (Draft) Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateSupervisor of Technology Services Inadequate Adequate Adequate N/ATeacher Consultant ESL Inadequate Adequate Adequate InadequateTeacher Position Inadequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateTesting and Assessment Coordinator Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate InadequateTitle One Behavior Intervention Specialist for Behavior Adequate Adequate Inadequate InadequateMissing 2 2 0 0Inadequate 47 9 14 30Adequate 10 48 45 24Strong 0 0 0 0Exemplary 0 0 0 0NA 0 0 0 5

Of the 59 job descriptions selected for review by auditors, auditors rated 127 (53.8 percent) of the critical elements as adequate. However, only six (10 percent) of the job descriptions were judged strong, with all four of the critical elements rated as adequate or higher. Fifty-three (53), or 90 percent, of the job descriptions reviewed received a rating of inadequate on at least one of the four critical elements. The critical elements receiving the fewest ratings of adequate or higher were Qualifications (17 percent) and Link to the Curriculum (44 percent). Based on the analysis reflected in Exhibit 1.4.7, the auditors found job descriptions inadequate in design to communicate roles and responsibilities associated with the design and delivery of curriculum. Additional auditor comments regarding the job descriptions are offered below:

Current: Auditors noted that some of the job descriptions (23.7 percent) were considered outdated, with no indication that the job description had been reviewed within the past 10 years. Seven job descriptions did not have an origination date, so auditors were unable to determine when they were last reviewed or updated. Several of the recently updated job descriptions were revised by adding expectations for the use of technology, but there were no indications that the entire job description had been reviewed for currency and adequacy. Not all job descriptions were found to align with either of the district’s two organizational charts. Auditors were presented job descriptions for positions that no longer exist in the district, and auditors were presented with multiple job descriptions for the same position. Finally, the job description for the Superintendent of Schools is in draft form only and does not appear to have been approved by the board of education. The job description for the Superintendent of Schools was considered inadequate in the statement of qualifications and establishing clear curriculum linkages.

Qualifications: Ten (10) of the job descriptions reviewed were considered to have an adequate statement of qualifications. While many of the job descriptions listed general qualifications pertaining to licensure and years of experience, they were not specific to the position. The majority of job descriptions lacked sufficient specificity to fully inform others about the types of education required, degree preferences, or any specialized training necessary to fulfill the stated job description.


Chain of Command: Auditors found that 48 or (81 percent) of the reviewed job descriptions contained an adequate statement in the area of chain of command. Job descriptions rated as inadequate identified more than one direct supervisor.

Responsibilities: Auditors found the statement of job responsibilities in 45 (76 percent) of the job descriptions reviewed to be adequate. While duties and responsibilities were adequately detailed in a majority of the job descriptions reviewed, the statement of responsibilities may not be relevant in the job descriptions that had not been reviewed or updated in more than 10 years.

Curricular Linkages: Curricular linkages in 24 (44 percent) of the job descriptions reviewed were considered adequate. The job descriptions rated as inadequate for curricular linkages generally lacked sufficient references to the design and delivery of curriculum that could be reasonable associated with that position. Auditors also noted that there was no district position(s) directly responsible for the oversight of the development and implementation of required school improvement plans.

In interviews with the audit team, school personnel highlighted problems with current job descriptions in general:

• “Job descriptions? Yes. But current job description does not reflect the scope of work particularly after the staff lay-offs.” (District Administrator)

• “Don’t know if there is a job description; have never seen one.” (District Teacher)

• “Job descriptions for instructional coaches were just written last year.” (District Administrator)

• “Our job as Instructional Coaches can best be described as ‘Other.’ That part of the job description that says, ‘Other Duties As Assigned.’” (District Teacher)

• “My job description? I do everything…I haven’t looked at it…in terms of specifics.” (District Administrator)

Summary

The Organizational Chart, as a graphic representation of district roles and relationships, does not meet audit criteria and is considered inadequate to reflect sound management of the school system. Job descriptions reviewed did not meet audit criteria and were judged inadequate to communicate roles and responsibilities (see Recommendations 3 and 4).

Finding 1.5: The teacher appraisal process is not linked to district instructional priorities, does not support the professional growth of teachers, and rarely informs professional development and retention and non-retention decisions.

The extent to which students achieve the objectives of the written curriculum is directly related to the quality of instruction they receive in the classrooms of the district. Implementing a comprehensive system of staff appraisal and supervision that provides administrators and teachers with constructive feedback is one process that can significantly influence the effective delivery of curriculum and professional growth of the individuals.

To assess the district’s staff appraisal system, auditors reviewed state statutes, board policies, administrative guidelines, written evaluation procedures, evaluation instruments, and a random sample of anonymous teacher and administrative observation and evaluation reports. The auditors also interviewed administrators and teachers to determine the extent to which the staff appraisal process is achieving its purpose and is fostering professional growth.

The auditors’ found a system for completing formal teacher evaluations as required by Wisconsin statutes and board policies. However, the teacher appraisal system, as it is currently implemented, does not provide teachers with meaningful feedback critical to improving their professional practice.


The auditors reviewed district board policies and found one policy that provides general direction concerning the district’s personnel evaluation system.

• Board Policy 4380: Employee Evaluations states, “Personnel shall be evaluated regularly and recommendations for further employment shall be made in accordance with applicable state laws, provisions of current employee bargaining agreements and established District procedures.” Additionally, “The Personnel Office shall establish the evaluation period for all employees, including the necessary evaluation schedule, forms, processes and filing.”

In a review of Wisconsin state statutes and administrative guidelines, auditors found specific requirements related to personnel evaluation. Following are excerpts from Wisconsin state statutes and administrative guidelines related to personnel evaluations:

• Wisconsin Statutes 121.02(1)(q) requires school boards to “Evaluate, in writing, the performance of all certified school personnel at the end of their first year and at least every 3rd year thereafter.”

• Wisconsin Administrative Code PI 8.01(2)(q) requires the following:

○ Each school district board shall establish specific criteria and a systematic procedure to measure the performance of licensed school personnel. The written evaluation shall be based on a board adopted position description, including job related activities, and shall include observation of the individual’s performance as part of the evaluation data.

○ The school district board shall ensure that evaluations, including those for purposes of discipline, job retention or promotion, shall be performed by persons who have the training, knowledge and skills necessary to evaluate professional school personnel.

Auditors reviewed district job descriptions for administrative and supervisory personnel. Auditors found references related to the evaluation in the following job descriptions:

• Elementary, Middle School, and Senior High School Principal: Job descriptions for building principals require that they supervise and evaluate staff in order to assist in the improvement of performance,provide a minimum of three half-hour classroom teaching evaluation visits to each teacher being formally evaluated, and provide a written performance evaluation or conduct a post observation conference relating to each formal evaluation visit.

• Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning: This job description requires the assistant superintendent to communicate with administrators regarding individual teacher evaluations, review all district staff evaluations submitted by the instructional administrators, and supervise the process for providing a minimum of three half-hour classroom teaching evaluation visits to each teacher being formally evaluated.

• Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development: This job description requires that they shall evaluate teachers at the building sites in collaboration with the building principals.

• Coordinator of Talent Development: This job description states that they shall lead, supervise, and evaluate staff (two to four itinerant teachers).

Wisconsin state statutes and administrative rules and Kenosha Unified School District board policies and job descriptions provide an expectation for the supervision and evaluation of instructional personnel. Board policies do not establish as a specific purpose for the evaluation system the improvement of student achievement. Wisconsin administrative rules establish discipline, job retention, or promotion as the purpose for personnel evaluations. Job descriptions for building principals indicate that one of the purposes for conducting personnel evaluation is to assist in the improvement of performance.

Auditors reviewed district documents that provide guidance pertaining to teacher evaluation. The Employee Evaluation Guide contains several documents that describe the evaluation process, including evaluation timelines, evaluation instruments, evaluation, coaching and feedback guidelines, and key board policies for


reference. Also included in the Employee Evaluation Guide are document templates administrators may use as part of the teacher appraisal system, including:

• Continuous Growth Plan, Preface

• Professional Growth Plan, Reflection Summary Report

• Notification of Professional Improvement Plan (PIP)

• Performance Improvement Plan

• Intensive Review Remediation Plan

• Intensive Review and Recommendation Form

• Notification of Critical Review

• Critical Review Remediation Plan

• Critical Review Assessment and Recommendation Form

• Performance Review Plan

The Teacher Professional Performance Assessment provides the foundational framework upon which the Kenosha Unified School District teacher appraisal system is based. The Teacher Professional Performance Assessment identifies aspects of a teacher’s work that define what teachers should know and be able to do. The primary purposes for the Teacher Professional Performance Assessment are to improve student learning and to determine employment status by reflecting upon professional practice; identifying use of effective strategies; providing meaningful feedback respectful of individual experience, assignment, and style; supporting professional growth; and establishing professional dialogue among colleagues.

The Teacher Professional Performance Assessment is based on The Framework for Teaching as published by The Danielson Group. The framework for teaching describes the many different aspects of teaching that are related to improved student learning. Exhibit 1.5.1 lists 21 components of teaching activities clustered into five domains of responsibility upon which Kenosha Unified School District teachers are evaluated.

Exhibit 1.5.1

Description of Teacher Professional Performance Assessment CriteriaKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Domain 1: Planning and PreparationStandard Number Description

1.1 Demonstrates Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy1.2 Demonstrates Knowledge of Students1.3 Demonstrates Knowledge of Resources1.4 Designs Coherent Instruction and Selects Appropriate Instructional Activities1.5 Assesses Student Learning

Domain 2: The Classroom EnvironmentStandard Number Description

2.1 Creates an Environment of Respect and Rapport2.2 Establishes a Culture for Learning2.3 Manages Classroom2.4 Manages Student Behavior2.5 Organizes Physical Space


Exhibit 1.5.1 (continued)Description of Teacher Professional Performance Assessment Criteria


Domain 3: InstructionStandard Number Description

3.1 Communicates Clearly and Accurately3.2 Uses Questioning and Discussion Techniques3.3 Engages Students in Learning3.4 Provides Feedback to Students3.5 Demonstrates Flexibility and Responsiveness

Domain 4: Professional ResponsibilitiesStandard Number Description

4.1 Reflects on Teaching4.2 Maintains Accurate Records4.3 Communicates Professionally4.4 Contributes to School and District4.5 Contributes and Develops Professionally4.6 Shows Professionalism

Domain 5: Goal(s) AssessmentLinked to individual teachers’ annual goal

The 21 criteria are loosely aligned to the performance expectations described in teacher job descriptions. The framework for teaching does provide a more detailed description of the general expectations described in the teacher job description, which lists essential duties for teachers as follows:

• Demonstrate knowledge of and skills in setting goals and objectives based on student development, content, assessment, standards, and benchmarks. Challenge and motivate all learners. Provide coherent instructions and curriculum development and evaluations. Use materials resources and incorporate staff/community resources.

• Demonstrate knowledge of and skills in organizing physical space. Establish a focused learning environment. Develop an environment of respect and rapport. Maintain effective classroom procedures while managing the behavior of students.

• Demonstrate knowledge of and skills in using a variety of instructional methods. Communicate clearly and accurately. Implement discussion/questioning techniques. Teach all learners interdisciplinary teaming, integrated instruction, and inclusive instructional strategies, maximizing student engagement. Assessing and evaluating student learning, responding to individual learners needs and reporting student progress.

• Demonstrate commitment to advocating for all students. Professional communication with students, parents, colleagues. Belief that all students can learn. Reflective teaching through professional development, school/community activities and lifelong learning.

• Demonstrate knowledge of and skills in use of technology in planning, instructions and professional purposes. Other duties as assigned.

The Employee Evaluation Guide establishes specific timelines for completion of the teacher evaluation cycle and some guidance regarding the frequency of classroom observations and follow-up conferences. Following are expectations established for the evaluation of probationary and non-probationary teachers and teachers who have been placed on an “out of sequence” review cycle for performance reasons :


• Probationary Teaching Staff: “All probationary teaching staff shall have at least two (2) formal observations and post-observation conferences conducted prior to the completion of the first semester, with at least one (1) more observation and post-observation conference prior to the end of the school year.”

• Non-Probationary Teaching Staff: “All Non-probationary teaching staff shall have at least one (1) formal observation conducted prior to the end of the first semester, with at least two (2) more observations and post-observation conferences prior to the end of the school year.”

• Intensive or Critical Review Process (Teaching Staff): “During the period of Intensive Review, the teacher will be provided with strategies for improvement and will be subject to observation and evaluation no less than approximately every four school weeks.”

Auditors reviewed a random sampling of anonymous teacher appraisals that were completed during the 2011-12 school year. At the conclusion of an evaluation cycle teachers are awarded a numerical rating based on their observed teaching performance. On each of the five domains listed in Exhibit 1.5.1, teachers are assigned a numerical rating of 0-4. An average of the domain scores constitutes a teacher’s final performance rating. Teachers who earn a rating below 2.51 on any one domain or overall are classified as “Not Meeting District Expectations” and placed in the “out of sequence” evaluation process for further support and observation. Exhibit 1.5.2 provides a summary of the performance ratings assigned to teachers included in the random sampling of teacher appraisals reviewed by auditors.

Exhibit 1.5.2

Teacher Appraisal Scoring of Sample EvaluationsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Composite Scoring Range (0.00 – 4.00) Number of teachers in each score range

3.51 – 4.00 243.01 – 3.50 412.51 – 3.00 70.00 – 2.50 0

Number of teachers receiving <2.51 on overall composite rating 0Number of teachers receiving <2.51 on any of the five domains 0

Source: Random sample of anonymous teacher evaluations, KUSD, May 2013

As can be noted from Exhibit 1.5.2:

• All 72 teachers received a “Meets District Expectations” rating in all five domains.

• No teachers rated a score of “Does Not Meet District Expectations” in any of the five domains or the overall average rating.

Teachers that receive a rating below 2.51 on their performance appraisal are placed in an evaluation cycle, referred to as “out of sequence,” for more frequent and focused performance evaluations. Teachers may move in and out of the cycle depending on their classroom performance. The number of teachers at various stages of the “out of sequence” process varies from year to year as teachers can move out of the cycle after any evaluation once proficiency is determined. The length of time a teacher may spend at any one stage may vary from six to 12 months. A summary of the number of teachers at various stages of the “out of sequence” cycle is displayed in Exhibit 1.5.3.


Exhibit 1.5.3

Number of Teachers on an “Out of Sequence” Performance Review CycleKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Ratings Number of District Teachers

Number on Professional Improvement Plan 6Number on Out-of-Sequence Review Cycle 18Number on Intensive Review 3Number on Critical Review/Non-Renewal Path 7*Number Non-recommended for reemployment (2013) 0*As of May 2013, all 7 teachers on a non-renewal path have either retired or resigned.Source: Human Relations Department, KUSD, May 2013.

As can be noted in Exhibit 1.5.3:

• Eighteen (18) teachers are in “Out of Sequence” Review.

• Three teachers are in Intensive Review.

• Although seven teachers are on a Non-Renew Path, all seven have either retired or resigned. As a result, no teachers are presently scheduled to be Non-Renewed this year.

A comprehensive teacher appraisal system provides an accurate assessment of the capacity of district teachers to deliver the written curriculum. Auditors’ reviewed a random sampling of anonymous teacher evaluations and noted the number of teachers that were rated as “Meets District Expectations” and “Does Not Meet District Expectations.” As displayed in Exhibit 1.5.2, all 72 teachers included in the random sampling of teacher evaluations “Met” district expectations. During interviews with building principals, auditors asked principals to indicate the number of teachers working in each of their respective schools they considered “marginal or ineffective.” In total, building principals indicated 140 teachers were either “marginal or ineffective.” The number of teachers identified as either “marginal or ineffective” differs from the summary of teacher performance ratings presented in Exhibit 1.5.2 and the number of teachers on an “out of sequence” performance review cycle presented in Exhibit 1.5.3.

Well-written formal evaluations allow building principals and others who observe and coach teachers an opportunity to provide meaningful feedback to individual teachers about their job performance. Teachers profit from regular feedback about their instruction. The more specific the feedback provided teachers, the more information they have to monitor and strengthen their teaching and impact student achievement.

In their review and analysis of a random sampling of anonymous teacher evaluations, auditors read the written evaluation comments provided teachers. What auditors were looking for were evaluative comments that were aligned with the evaluation criterion and that were detailed enough to give teachers specific feedback about their work. Written evaluation comments were rated as to whether the comment was judged constructive or non-constructive in nature. Constructive feedback is defined as evaluative comments that would provide a teacher with specific feedback about his or her job performance. Non-constructive feedback is defined as evaluative comments that restated the performance criteria, paraphrased the performance criteria, or lacked specificity about the teacher’s work.

In their analysis of written performance comments provided teachers, auditors found that few written comments (less than 30 percent) were constructive and capable of providing teachers with meaningful and specific feedback about their individual job performance. Auditors noted that comments were primarily written across the first four domains of the teacher evaluation criteria. There were few comments noted written for the fifth domain (annual teacher goals) as this domain is the focus of the teacher evaluation post-conference discussion.


Examples of written evaluation comments judged by auditors to be constructive include the following:

• “Teacher learned backward design principles this year and wrote well detailed assessment plans that include both long term and short term learning targets aligned with assessments.”

• “She has no classroom management issues and has procedures set up for the beginning and ending of class periods that make for efficient record keeping and student maximization of time.”

Examples of written evaluative comments judged by auditors to be non-constructive included the following examples:

• “Teacher attends staff development opportunities when specifically asked.”

• “Teacher used physical resources adequately.”

• “Teacher supports and participates in parent-teacher activity when specifically requested.”

• “Teacher has a friendly, joking relationship with students, which allows the class to relax and have fun.”

• “The students were generally responsive to teacher as she engaged in a large group dialogue with students around learning skills.”

• “Teacher works seamlessly with her team.”

• “Various forms of presentation and communication have been used in her course.”

• “Teacher is proactive and a great advocate for her students and their capabilities.”

• “Teacher is highly prepared and very professional in her approach to teaching and learning.”

• “Teacher is respected by students and staff.”

• “She is a team player and she collaborates very well with her team.”

• “Teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies on a daily basis.”

• “Teacher is effective in this Domain.”

• “Teacher is creative in her lessons, which allow her students to be fully engaged in the lesson.”

During interviews with teachers, administrators and board members, a variety of comments were noted concerning the teacher appraisal program in Kenosha Unified School District. Following is a representative sample of comments received by auditors:

• “Teacher evaluation data is not aggregated at the district level.” (District Administrator)

• “Teacher appraisal…we have our process here, it is like the widget effect—we are a prime example. We have a system, they might evaluate teachers, then they might not.” (District Administrator)

• “We have put principals in a lot of training on feedback for teacher evaluation. I only have 2 who can effectively do this.” (District Administrator)

• “My teacher evaluations are a dog and pony show.” (District Teacher)

• “I was evaluated on the last day of school. What good does that do me?” (District Teacher)

• “Some teachers that received low evaluations just transfer to another school.” (Site Administrator)

Summary

Auditors found a comprehensive teacher evaluation system in place in the Kenosha Unified School District. There are general policy and statutory expectations guiding teacher evaluations. The teacher appraisal system is loosely linked to teacher performance requirements as outlined in the district’s teacher job descriptions. Written evaluation comments were found to lack sufficient specificity to provide teachers with constructive feedback concerning their professional practice. The teacher evaluation system, as currently implemented, is insufficient to support professional growth related to delivery of the written and tested curriculum adequately (see Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 7).


Finding 1.6: The board of education has not engaged in establishing clear instructional focus for the school district. Dissension among members of the board is impeding its ability to focus board efforts on addressing district needs.

Members of the board of education are elected to represent the interests of the public by providing strategic direction, establishing policies, and hiring a superintendent to implement those policies. School boards, through their work, serve an important role in improving student achievement by communicating clearly through their mission, vision, and beliefs a commitment for high expectations in student learning. Boards support the work of the school system by prioritizing the allocation of financial and human resources to improve student learning. A school board holds the system accountable for results by identifying and monitoring evidence or progress in improving student achievement. School boards also support the work of instructional improvement by aligning board policies with district planning. When the role of the school board and relationships between board members are not clearly defined, optimal organizational performance is hampered.

To assess the clarity of role definitions and the relationships that exist between the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education and district staff, auditors reviewed Wisconsin state statutes, board policies, and other district documents that address the role and responsibility of the board of education. In addition, auditors interviewed board members, administrators, teachers, staff, and community members and listened to audio recordings of board meetings.

What the auditors found was the Kenosha board of education has not clearly focused its actions on establishing clear goals for the district or providing district leadership with clear direction. Acrimonious relationships between members of the board are impeding efforts of the board to function effectively.

The board of education has broad discretion in its ability to establish rules and regulations deemed necessary to the operation of the school district. The authority of the Kenosha board of education is granted by the state legislature and codified in Wisconsin state statutes. The following sections of the Wisconsin statutes establish the authority of school boards to govern:

• Wisconsin Statute 118.001 states, “The statutory duties and powers of school boards shall be broadly construed to authorize any school board action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by the laws of the federal government or of this state.”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.05 states, “The members of a school board shall be the officers of a school district.” And “…the school board shall annually elect a school district president, vice president, treasurer and clerk from among its members at a school board meeting held on or within 30 days after the 4th Monday in April.”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.12 states, “Subject to the authority vested in the annual meeting and to the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers, have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district…”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.13 also states, “The school board of a common or union high school district may do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education, including establishing, providing and improving school district programs, functions and activities for the benefit of pupils…”

• Wisconsin Statute 120.15 states, “The school district president of a common or union high school district shall:…Act as chairperson of school board meetings and see that minutes of the meetings are properly recorded, approved and signed.”

The board of education has the authority to establish policies, monitor their implementation, and provide for the major functions of the school district. Board policies not only provide a means for the board to establish clear expectations to staff for their operation of the district, but policies also provide guidance to the board in how it intends to govern itself. Board policies that clearly describe the standards upon which the board will conduct its business lessen the risk of conflicts. When the policies of the board are unstated or unclear, it allows individuals the right to interpret and implement policies as they see fit. When ambiguity exists or policies


governing conduct are absent, the ability of the board to function consistently and avoid conflicts is limited. Auditors reviewed policies of the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education to determine the extent to which these policies provide clear definitions for the roles and responsibilities of the board and whether these policies provide any rules or structure for how the board will function as a governing body.

• Board Policy 8300: School Board Legal Status states, “The School Board of the Kenosha Unified School District derives its authority to govern the local schools directly from the Wisconsin Constitution and state statutes. The District is classified as a common school district and the School Board shall govern it accordingly.”

• Board Policy 8500: School Board Powers and Duties states, “The School Board shall have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the District and adopt an annual budget to fund the education program and operation.” Also, “The School Board can take official action only when its individual members meet together in legal session.” This policy also establishes policy-making as the board’s major role and assigns to the superintendent execution policies of the board.

• Board Policy 8510: School Board Policy Development and Revision states, “The School Board shall provide policy statements or guides for the operation of the school system” and “The School Board shall also adopt bylaws dealing with Board operating procedures that are in accordance with state law and the needs of the School District.”

• Board Policy 8512: Development of Administrative Rules and Regulations states, “The School Board shall delegate to the Superintendent of Schools the formulation of administrative rules and regulations governing the operations of the School District.”

• Board Policy 8520: Board Goal Setting commits the board to an annual goal setting process, which is to assist the board in providing a framework upon which to identify areas requiring greater emphasis, communicate to the public, and establish standards for accountability.

• Board Policy 8610: School Board Member Authority states, “Individual members of the School Board are a member of a corporate body, representing the community, which makes policy decisions for the District.” The individual participation of board members is through discussion, deliberation, debate, and voting.

• Board Policy 8650: School Board Ethical Code of Conduct outlines a code of conduct to which the board subscribes. Within the code of conduct, the board commits to honoring the basic function of the board in “policymaking” and respecting their relationships with each other, the superintendent, and district staff.

• Board Policy 8810: Rules of Order establishes that the school board will conduct all of its meetings in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order with some additional provisions such as allowing the board president to vote on all matters coming before the board and limiting debate on motions during regular meetings to one five-minute discussion period followed by one three-minute rebuttal period per person.

In their analysis of Wisconsin state statues and Kenosha Unified School District board policies, auditors noted the following:

• The Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education is delegated broad discretion in governing the school district. Wisconsin state statutes grant local school boards the power to establish policies and regulations for the operation of the school district.

• Board policy clearly establishes that the board functions only as a corporate body.

• Board policy establishes that the board shall be the policy-forming body of the school district and will exercise its authority through its written policies.

• The responsibility for establishing goals, communicating the goals of the district, adopting a budget to enable the school system to carry out its policies and education mission, and monitoring of the effectiveness of the system is vested in the board of education.


• The board, through its policies, has established rules governing its conduct as a governing body.

Members of the board of education communicate their priorities by placing emphasis on the items that are most important to them. Board Policy 8520 establishes that it is the responsibility of the board through a goal setting process to establish areas requiring greater emphasis. To determine how the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education focuses its time at board meetings, auditors examined adopted minutes for regular and special board meetings covering the time period of July 2010 through March 2013. This 33-month time span provided 72 sets of board minutes for review by auditors. These minutes contained 294 agenda action items. In review of the agenda items, auditors grouped them into the following categories:

Policies: included in this category were board action items that involved the adoption of new board policies and the review and revision of existing board policies. Board Policies 8500 and 8510 establish the board’s role in policymaking and the responsibility to adopt policies regarding personnel, educational programs, rules governing pupils, physical plant and equipment, finances, and public information.

Planning/Goal Setting: included in this category were any agenda items dealing with the development, adoption, and revision of short- and long-range plans or goals by the board of education. Board Policy 8110 requires the adoption of yearly benchmarks as recommended by the superintendent. Board Policy 8520 requires the board to engage in annual goal setting to guide the board in fulfilling its primary responsibility of establishing the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement.

Curriculum and Instruction: included in this category were agenda items that dealt with academic standards, curricular programs, textbook adoptions, review of program results, student placement, staff training, and charter school contracts. Board Policy 6300 requires academic standards to be adopted by the board, which will then serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the district. Board Policy 6320 requires requests for new programs to be presented to the board by the superintendent. Board Policy 6610 requires the board to make the final determination regarding selection of instructional materials including the adoption of required textbooks.

Financial Issues: included in this category were agenda items that dealt with approving budget assumptions, approving donations, approving short-term borrowing, approving payments prior to budget adoption, adopting the annual operating budget, certifying of the tax levy, approving budget modifications, and approving grant applications. Board Policy 3110 requires the board to establish the annual operating budget, which is the financial plan for the district. Board Policy 3111 requires the board to annually establish a separate budget for the operations of the school board. Board Policy 3113 requires the board to evaluate annual budget assumptions including funding options and the financial, human, and physical resources necessary to achieve the educational mission of the district.

Facility Issues: included in this category were issues dealing with leases, approval of utility easements, and approves of capital project plans. Board Policy 3270 requires the board to receive an annual report on rental agreements for vacant land owned by the school district. Board Policy 3711 requires board approval of the plans and specifications for projects included on the annual list of maintenance projects.

Personnel Issues: included in this category were issues that dealt with approval of employee handbooks, administrative appointments, ratification of collective bargaining contracts, approval of employee salaries, and the issue of notices of teacher nonrenewal. Board Policy 2211 requires board approval of the qualifications and appointment of administrative, supervisory and technical personal. Board Policy 2250 requires the board to evaluate the superintendent based in part on annual goals.

Support and Operations: included in this category were agenda items that dealt with the general operations of the school district, including appointments, food programs, and transportation. Board Policy 3511 requires the board to review the student transportation program annually. Board Policy 3520 requires board approval of the food service program, including the meal pricing strategy.

Other: included in this category were issues that dealt with approving consent agendas, establishing the rules of order, setting salaries for the board, selecting board officers, presenting awards, establishing a date for the annual meeting, legislative advocacy, and receiving reports.


Using these descriptors, Exhibit 1.6.1 presents what auditors found concerning the board action items reported in 72 sets of board minutes covering the time period of July 2010 through March 2013. Not included in the auditors’ categorization of board actions were public comments, informational items, reports from the board president and superintendent, or executive sessions.

Exhibit 1.6.1

Frequency Distribution of Board of Education Action ItemsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Policies Planning Curriculum&

Instruction

Financial Facilities Personnel Support Other

Perc

enta

ge o

f Age

nda

Item

s

2010-11 2011-13 2012-13


• During the 33-month period reviewed, “Other Issues” represented 15.9 to 34.8 percent of the agenda items acted upon by the board during the July 2010 through March 2013 time period. The majority of these “other” items dealt with approval of the consent agenda, board operations, receiving reports, and presenting awards.

• Financial issues consistently represented more than 20 percent of board action items over the 33-month time period. The majority of financial issues consisted of approving donations, approving the borrowing of funds, adopting the operating budget, and certificating the annual tax levy.

• Between 16.8 and 17.4 percent of board action items noted in board meeting minutes were related to policy adoption. Board policies were reviewed and recommended through a board policy committee.

• Agenda items associated with the district’s curricular programs accounted for 28 (9.5 percent) of the 294 agenda items noted by auditors. Agenda items associated with curriculum and instruction included approval of charter school contracts, consideration of grant applications, and approval of changes in course offerings. Auditors did not note any agenda items associated with the adoption of content standards, textbooks, the review of program results, or student achievement data.

• Planning and goal setting accounted for only 10 (3.4 percent) of agenda items reviewed over the 33-month period. Plans approved by the board during this time period included acceptance of the Framework for Transformation, approval of the Transformation Plan, approval of the Information and Technology Plan, receiving an update on a secondary school transformation plan, and approval of planning grants.

• Between July 2010 and March 2013, personnel issues represented 11.2 percent of the agenda items acted upon by the board. Personnel issues included appointments, approval of collective bargaining contracts and employee handbooks, and issuing notices of non-renewal.


• Facility issues represented 2.9 to 8.9 percent of agenda items acted upon by the board. Facilities issues were associated with leases, utility easements, and the approval of capital projects.

• Topics related to support services included food service and transportation and accounted for only two of the 294 agenda items reviewed.

Overall, based on a review of 33 months of board meeting minutes, auditors concluded that the Kenosha Unified Board of Education has not aligned its decision making and actions with its own policies or those aspects of school governance that have the potential to directly impact student achievement, including planning and goal setting, curriculum adoption, and aligning human and fiscal resources with clearly established goals and priorities.

The role of the board of education is complex and is communicated to the staff and community through actions of the board. When a board focuses its discussions and actions on establishing goals for the district, identifying processes for measuring educational outcomes, and ensuring that resources support the adopted vision, goals, objectives, and tasks of the school system, it builds trust and confidence among stakeholders. Stability and confidence in the leadership of the board is considered necessary to ensure that the board is able to effectively focus the energy and resources of the organization toward the achievement of desired goals.

The role of the school board also assumes that vigorous discussions will be encouraged allowing for opinions, beliefs, and ideas to be debated. Debate and dissent is a critical function employed by effective school boards in the process of democratic governance. Each member of the board brings their opinions and ideas to the conversation. It is through the utility of debate and dissent that encourages divergent thinking and facilitates communications while avoiding groupthink. While debate and dissent is expected, how it is handled and how it is employed, either contributes to a school board’s effectiveness or creates a climate marked by animosity and distrust. Effective school boards understand that debate and dissent are more effective when practiced within a culture of civility and develop the skills necessary to remain in critical conversations until shared solutions are developed.

Auditor interviews with board members, administrators, teachers, parents, and community members indicate that the board is deeply divided and that trust has broken down among members of the board, which is impeding the board’s efforts to articulate the district’s mission, core values, vision, and strategic direction. Following is a representative sample of comments made to auditors during their interviews with board members, administrators, teachers, parents, and community members regarding board relationships:

• “There is a history in Kenosha of dysfunction on the board.” (Site Administrator)

• “We have a divided board.” (District Administrator)

• “There is conflict on the board—they do not all get along.” (District Administrator)

• “There is a political majority/minority on the board of education – the divide on the board is between a board for the union and a board for students.” (Site Administrator)

• “We used to be a very unified board. Within the last six months that has all changed.” (Board Member)

• “I do not see the board ever becoming cohesive again. They are not civil to each other.” (District Teacher)

• “Some board members are totally unqualified. They are on the board because of an ego trip.” (Board Member)

• “There is a lot of conflict over what the role of the board is and the role of administration.” (Board Member)

• “I think some board members want to give others the perception that they are in control.” (Board Member)

• “The board adopted a set of protocols when Dr. Hancock was hired. Some board members have chosen to ignore the protocols, which is resulting in huge trust issues.” (Board Member)


• “The district lacks a vision that is consistently stated and reflected at all level.” (District Teacher)

• “The board’s dysfunction is inhibiting progress in the school district. If everyone on the board would make decisions that are best for kids we would be better off.” (Community Member)

• “I am tired of reading about board meetings in the newspaper—the bickering.” (District Parent)

• “The board is redefining themselves and they need to find out what that means.” (District Administrator)

As part of their review of district documents and artifacts, auditors were able to listen to audio recordings made of board meetings held from May 2012 through April 2012. A total of 20 hours of audio recordings of regular board meetings were heard. Following is a summary of the auditors’ assessment of board operations as synthesized after listening to 20 hours of audio recordings:

• Adopting an operating budget and providing financial direction for the district has been difficult for the board of education. Not all board members indicated having an adequate understanding of the budget development process or the content of the budget as finally approved by the board. Some board members publicly admitted they were confused.

• The board never clearly linked the adopted budget to stated goals and priorities.

• Auditors noted that the board had not provided district administrators with clear direction regarding desired budget priorities prior to the start of the budget development process.

• Interactions between board members were not always conducted with public civility. On multiple occasions board members were heard publicly criticizing the understanding, intelligence, wisdom, and intentions of other board members.

• Board members struggled with adhering to the board’s operational policies and the board’s group norms established in July 2010. Specifically, interpretation of the board’s Rule of Order, as outlined in Board Policy 8810, has been contentious. Areas of contention included interpretation of Robert’s Rule of Order and limitations Board Policy 8810 places on the amount of time individual board members may debate an issue, and when board members may pose questions to district administrators and what is considered germane to the agenda item.

• On politically sensitive issues, such as the operational budget and the district’s Transformation Plan, board members consistently moved from questions and statements concerning governances such as “Why?” “To what end?” “At what cost?” and “Through what policies?” and to questions and statements concerning the “What?” “When?” And “How?” of management.

• The work of a school board assumes that there will be times when varied levels of agreement will occur on a particular topic. The act of voting, however, is when the board creates a single position. Auditors noted on several occasions individual board members publicly criticizing majority decisions of the board, ignoring the board’s code of conduct established through Board Policy 8650.

Summary

The auditors found that the Kenosha Unified School District of Education, through its meeting agendas and actions, has not established a clearly focused priority on developing goals for the district, ensuring a viable curriculum is in place, aligning district resources with adopted strategic goals, or monitoring district outcomes. Actions of board members have contributed to the perception of the board as dysfunctional and divided. Relationships between members of the board have been characterized by a lack of public civility and trust, which is impeding the efforts of the school system to address the needs of the district (see Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).



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 find 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 findings that follow in the area of Standard Two. Details follow within separate findings.

Various documents, including board policies, job descriptions, and district level documents, provide some direction for curriculum management functions. However, the Kenosha Unified School District lacks a comprehensive written curriculum management plan to provide formal direction for the design, delivery, deployment, and revision of curriculum.

Policy does not exist to direct the development of roles and responsibilities for monitoring or managing curriculum delivery. Analysis and use of data to direct instructional decisions is primarily site-based and varies from school to school; no system-wide procedure exists to provide standardization to the process.

The scope of the written curriculum was inadequate at all school levels both for the core content courses as well as the non-core courses. Overall, the scope of the curriculum aligned to the Wisconsin State Standards and/or the Common Core State Standards for all levels in the Kenosha Unified School District is inadequate to direct instruction. The quality of the written curriculum documents is inadequate to direct teaching, promote deep alignment, and provide a rigorous educational program for student achievement. Few single-source comprehensive curriculum guides exist, and access to all documents is fragmented and problematic.

The curriculum documents vary greatly in level of adequacy for addressing prerequisite skills, assessment tools, resources, and instructional strategies. Guiding documents are variably formatted files available to teachers through the district intranet and website. Curriculum guidance resources contain mixed levels of internal


consistency between learning objectives, instructional materials, and instructional practices, impeding cohesive instruction and effective student learning. The cognitive complexity required in curriculum materials, classroom activities, and assessment items to enhance and extend student learning is not consistent.

Of the four programs reviewed for alignment to the Wisconsin State Common Core Standards, two programs, Compass Learning® and ALEKS Math®, were found to be adequately aligned with the standards in content, context, and cognitive demands. Two programs, Rosetta Stone® and Tell Me More®, were not sufficiently aligned with the Wisconsin Academic Standards for Foreign Languages to provide substantial support in student mastery of those standards.

Finding 2.1: Kenosha Unified School District lacks a documented planning process and a comprehensive management plan that provides coordinated direction of the design, delivery, and evaluation of the curriculum.

A school system with strong curriculum management has a comprehensive management plan with established guidelines and procedures for the design and delivery of the curriculum and a thorough system of quality control. Curriculum management involves continually developing, implementing, evaluating, monitoring, and revising curriculum to ensure the highest quality instruction for all students. Managing these processes is accomplished through quality planning, which keeps all participants in an organization focused on the same goals within a clearly defined framework for approaching the tasks necessary to achieving those goals. It is this framework that clarifies roles and responsibilities, identifies priorities among the many tasks involved, and specifies how discrete departments and functions within the organization can and will work together.

Planning typically results in a product, such as a written plan that describes the tasks, designates responsibility for each, and suggests a timeframe within which those tasks are to be accomplished. However, planning itself is an integral part of managing curriculum successfully; planning is a dynamic, responsive process that focuses on the overarching goals while responding to contextual shifts and adjusting priorities or responsibilities as necessary (see Finding 1.2). It is the expectation of the curriculum management improvement model that planning for curriculum management is occurring within the district, that evidence of such planning is readily available (e.g., a plan or similar document), and that results are evaluated to determine whether goals have been successfully met.

To determine whether the Kenosha Unified School District has curriculum management planning in place, auditors examined board policy and regulations, reviewed curriculum-related documents and plans, visited all schools and most classrooms in the district, and interviewed administrators, board members, principals, and teachers. The auditors found that there has been minimal attention to documentation of district-level curriculum management planning. Any written direction is found in local board policy, but auditors found neither a planning process nor a document in place that directs efforts to manage the written, taught, and tested curriculum. Planning efforts related to curriculum are isolated to independent departments or schools, and efforts to develop curriculum and establish priorities at the district level lack connection and follow-through at the individual school site level. Coordination among curriculum departments is inconsistent.

In the absence of any planning documents specific to managing the development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and revision of curriculum, auditors reviewed board policy and guidelines for any of the characteristics of a quality curriculum management plan. Auditors did find a few elements of these characteristics in board policy but not to the extent that they could be considered formal direction for all aspects of curriculum management. Exhibit 2.1.1 displays the policies auditors reviewed related to curriculum and programs in Kenosha Unified School District. The following board policies and administrative guidelines were identified as addressing curriculum, instruction, assessment, and programs as a part of the curriculum management system.


Exhibit 2.1.1

Board Policies Related to Curriculum and InstructionKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Policy/Rule/Administrative

Regulation NumberPolicy Name

Policy 2400 School—AdministrationPolicy 4351.1 Teaching LoadRule 4351.1 Teaching LoadPolicy 4370 Staff DevelopmentRule 4370 Staff Development Opportunities

Policy 5118.1 PromotionPolicy 5118.3 Retention/AccelerationRule 5118.3 Retention/AccelerationPolicy 6100 Mission, Principles, Goals, ResultsPolicy 6120 Core ValuesPolicy 6300 Curriculum Development and ImprovementPolicy 6310 Elementary School CurriculumRule 6310 Guidelines for Meeting Minimum Instructional Time Requirements

Admin. Reg. 6310 Required KUSD Minimum Instructional Time for Core SubjectsPolicy 6320 Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and ReviewRule 6320 Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation

Policy 6413.1 Family Life Education (Instruction on Human Sexuality)Policy 6418 Character EducationPolicy 6421 Services For Students with DisabilitiesPolicy 6422 Homebound InstructionRule 6422 Homebound Instruction Guidelines

Policy 6423 Talent Development ProgramRule 6423 Talent Development ProgramAR 6423 Grade K-5 Enrichment Elementary Resource Support

Policy 6426 Student Program or Curricular ModificationsRule 6426 Rule for Student Program or Curricular Modifications

Policy 6427 Individual and Remedial ServicesPolicy 6430 Instructional Arrangements (The Learning Situation)Rule 6430 Guidelines for Providing Assistance to Students with Academic Problems

Policy 6432.2 Youth Options ProgramRule 6432.2 Youth Options Program GuidelinesPolicy 6452 Student Progress ReportingRule 6452 Student Progress Reporting Procedures

Policy 6454.1 Fourth and Eighth Grade PromotionRule 6451.1 Criteria for Fourth and Eighth Grade PromotionPolicy 6456 Graduation RequirementsRule 6456 Graduation Requirements

Policy 6460 Testing/AssessmentPolicy 6600 Instructional ResourcesRule 6600 Guidelines for Textbooks, Supplementary Materials and Other Equipment and Supplies

Policy 6610 Selection of Instructional MaterialsRule 6610 Procedures for Selecting and Using Supplementary Instructional Materials

Policy 8850 School Board Committees


From the 43 policies, rules, and administrative guidelines listed in Exhibit 2.1.1, the following is a summary of policy guidance found pertaining to curriculum management:

• Board Policy 2400: School – Administration. This policy directs, “The principal is the chief administrative and instructional officer of the school… is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.”

• Board Policy 6100: Mission, Principles, Goals, Results establishes, “The Kenosha Unified School District Mission is to assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” It goes on to provide for the Transformation Principles indicating the district values:

○ “Blended Personalized Learning (Adaptable to individual needs, flexible in access and delivery and interactive, engaging learning)

○ Multi-Dimensional Life and Career Skills (Creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving and communication and collaboration)

○ Relevant Global Knowledge (Content/information/media literacy and social and cross-cultural competencies).”

Further, this policy identifies the Transformation Goals as 1) Improving student achievement; 2) Expand collaborative partnerships with families, community, and industry; and 3) Securing resources (time, people, finances, operating processes) to support learning. Expected transformation student results include “Every student will… be engaged; demonstrate proficiency; show continuous growth; and graduate.”

• Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Improvement directs that “A PK-12 curriculum shall be established and maintained in accordance with state law, the needs of society, the local community, and the individual student. The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District. Recommendation for additions or deletions to the established curriculum shall be reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning and provided to the Superintendent of Schools for approval.”

• Board Policy 6310: Elementary School Curriculum establishes, “The program of instruction in regular elementary schools will encompass the language arts including reading, writing, speaking, and listening; social studies; mathematics; science; physical education; health; and fine arts. In all content areas, the Standards and Benchmarks relating to Informational Literacy, Lifelong Learning, and Instructional Technology are to be included. The District Content Standards and Benchmarks will serve as the guidelines for the development of instruction.”

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review directs the manner for new program adoption and implementation. New programs are presented to the school board by the superintendent with information about the need for the program to meet student needs, a description of the program, the budget, and the evaluation process.

• Rule 6320: Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation addresses the process for presenting the program to the board and the implementation, including a cycle of review and the elimination of programs that fail to demonstrate effectiveness. A standard format is provided for all program submissions.

• Board Policy 6421: Services for Students with Disabilities describes the district provision of services for students with disabilities including related services, least restrictive environment, procedural safeguards, child find, and Individual Education Plans.

• Board Policy 6426: Student Program or Curriculum Modifications makes provision that “Any student’s parent(s)/guardian, or the student, with parent/guardian permission, may request program or curriculum modifications.”


• Administrative Guideline 6426: Rule for Student Program or Curriculum Modifications establishes the process for program or curriculum modifications to be initiated at the building or department level with review by the superintendent.

• Board Policy 6427: Individual and Remedial Services stipulates that the board shall supply individual and remedial services as required by Wisconsin Statutes and according to local need. Services include health, guidance, counseling, psychological, social work, reading, and related services.

• Board Policy 6430: Instructional Arrangements (The Learning Situation) directs that “Teachers shall make every effort to devote sufficient time and resources to assist every student to achieve success commensurate with student’s ability.”

• Rule 6430: Guidelines for Providing Assistance to Students with Academic Problems provides direction for teachers to confer with students who refuse to complete assignments, participate in class activities, or accept special help by a teacher. The policy addresses a process to avoid school failure.

• Board Policy 6452: Student Progress Reporting directs that “Periodic reports be provided informing the parent/guardian of their student’s progress. Academic progress shall be measured against School Board approved standards and benchmarks as identified by grade level or course/class.”

• Administrative Guideline 6452: Student Progress Reporting Procedures outlines the procedures for each level of progress reporting in the district. The policy states, “Because these are such essential growing years, student progress shall be evaluated using comparisons to the essential skills identified for each grade level. Teachers shall communicate class expectations based on District content and lifelong learning standards and benchmarks with the parent/guardian during the initial weeks of the school year, utilizing the grade level brochures provided by the District. Teachers shall also share with the parent/guardian how their student will be assessed during the year, with descriptions of the relative importance of work completed during class, homework, and participation. In all grade levels, instruction, assessment, and re-teaching shall be firmly linked to meet the learning needs of every student. In grades pre-kindergarten through two, academic achievement shall be reported using indicators reflecting progress toward meeting District standards or standards-based topics. Progress on the District’s lifelong learning standards, including effort and personal responsibility, shall also be indicated for each student…. Grades Six through Twelve: A syllabus shall be developed for each course/class offered in grades six through twelve. The syllabus shall be given to students, made available to parents/guardians, and filed with the building principal. It is recommended that the syllabus be shared within the first week of the beginning of a course/class. The syllabus shall include academic/nonacademic expectations, content/lifelong learning standards and benchmarks, methods of assessment, point distribution, Board prescribed grading scale, and course-specific information.”

• Board Policy 6454.1: Fourth And Eighth Grade Promotion establishes the promotion of students at fourth and eighth grade based on established district criteria. The policy states, “The promotion criteria is designed to afford students several different ways to demonstrate their knowledge of subject matter. The criteria also provides flexibility so students with disabilities may continue to be included with their peers.”

• Board Policy 6456: Graduation Requirements directs that “Academic credits shall be awarded for mastery of standards in grades nine through twelve. A student must earn 23 with a maximum 28 high school credits as described in Rule 6456 to graduate from the Kenosha Unified School District No. 1.” The policy outlines six criteria a student must meet in order to graduate.

• Rule 6456: Graduation Requirements outlines the specific coursework, benchmarks, and standards that must be met in the district to graduate.

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment establishes that “The District shall establish and maintain a program of testing for the purposes of diagnosis, assessment, instruction and accountability.” The policy further outlines the reasons for assessment data, as well as the parameters of an assessment program.


• Board Policy 6600: Instructional Resources stipulates, “Textbooks will be furnished to students at School District expense.”

• Rule 6600: Guidelines for Textbooks, Supplementary Materials and Other Equipment and Supplies describes the allocation process and the requirements for areas where textbooks/materials would be provided by the district.

• Board Policy 6610: Selection of Instructional Materials directs that “The selection of instructional materials, including required textbooks and supplementary books and materials, shall be recommended to the School Board by the Superintendent of Schools, in accordance with District rules and regulations. The Board shall make the final determination regarding selection of materials.”

• Rule 6610: Procedures for Selecting and Using Supplementary Instructional Materials provides details in the selection, ordering, use of supplementary materials, and the process for making selections.

• Board Policy 8850: School Board Committees establishes the need for board committees, the standing board committees, and the purpose of such committees. This policy establishes, “the Board shall have four standing committees: (1) Audit, Budget and Finance, (2) Curriculum and Program, (3) Planning, Facilities and Equipment, and (4) Personnel and Policy.”

• Rule 8850: School Board Committees lists the purposes of each of the board standing committees. The functions of the curriculum committee include the following:

○ “Review all matters related to existing or new curriculum and programs

○ Review survey, test and evaluation results of the District

○ Monitor curriculum adoption and implementation schedule

○ Review all grant proposals in terms of program components

○ Review teaching materials, book selections, etc.

○ Review all proposed Board policies related to education, teaching or support programs

○ Review comprehensive staff development plan and implementation

○ Strategic Plan – Many initiatives of Strategic Plan will have significant curriculum implications. As initiatives are identified and implemented, it is appropriate that the Curriculum and Program Committee be kept apprised of their process.”

Auditors found multiple board policies and administrative guidelines that provide guidance concerning curriculum design and delivery in the district; however, none of the policies were specific in the requirements for a curriculum management system (see Findings 1.2 and 1.3).

In order to fully understand the district’s current curriculum management plan, auditors reviewed key documents presented by the district administration and displayed in Exhibit 2.1.2 .

Exhibit 2.1.2

Key Curriculum Planning Documents and Other Sources Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Document DateBoard Policies and Administrative Regulations Various DatesTalent Development Program Review and Long-Range Plan 5/23/2006Talent Development Long Range Plan Update 1/13/2009Job Descriptions Various DatesTransformation Plan: Maximizing the Brilliance of Children 2011-2014Transformation Design: Goals, Strategies and Action Steps Teaching and Learning Department 2011-12


Exhibit 2.1.2 (continued)Key Curriculum Planning Documents and Other Sources


Document DateSmart Goals from Schools 2012-13Pacing Calendar No DateCommon Core: State Standards Initiative Newsletter KUSD Various DatesDistrict Professional Development February-May 2013Professional Learning for Administrators to Improve Student Achievement: Transformation Plan Goal 2012-13

Contractors 2010-2013Common Core Power Point Training 10/19/2012Kenosha Unified School District Writing Expectations K-5 6/30/2008Kenosha Unified School District Reading Comprehension Strategies K-5 7/15/2008Online Language Learning Program Access for Curriculum No DateCurriculum Evaluation and Renewal Cycle Purchase Years of Materials Currently in Use No DateTeaching and Learning Content Coordinator Meeting 7/24/2012KUSD Curriculum Evaluation and Instructional Materials Adoption Cycle Revised 2008Implementing the Common Core: Building and District Level Considerations No DateKenosha Unified Curriculum Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics October 2012Changes to Kenosha Unified Standards, Curricula, and Assessments November 2012Collaborative Common Core Work Schedule No DateCommon Core Cadre Action Plan No DateHigh School, Middle School, and Elementary Common Core Teams No DateConferencing and Observation Schedule for Each Member of CCSS Team No DateCommon Core Implementation January-April No DateImplementation of the Common Core State Standards: Phase I, II, III 2011-2014What is a Unit of Study No DateReading/Language Arts/English Unit Design February 2013Aligning CCSS with Classroom Instruction: Common Core Shifts in ELA No DateBenchmark Reading Level Expectations by Quarter No DateEvidence Sheets No DateExpeditionary Learning No DateCourse Syllabi Various DatesCommon Core Aligned Lesson Plan Template No DateHigh School Courses Catalog 2012-13Curriculum Directives Various DatesKUSD Elementary School Courses Taught by Building 4/16/2013KUSD Middle School Courses Taught by Building 4/16/2013KUSD High School Courses Taught by Building 4/16/2013Courses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified Elementary Schools No DateCourses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified Middle Schools No DateCourses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified High Schools No Date

Auditors examined the documents in Exhibit 2.1.2 looking for the characteristics of a comprehensive curriculum management plan. Exhibit 2.1.3 summarizes the audit team’s assessment of the quality of Kenosha Unified School District’s approach to curriculum management planning, using the audit expectations for plan components. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met. In order for the district’s curriculum management planning to be considered adequate, the district’s planning approach should demonstrate inclusion of at least 11 of the 15 (70 percent) components.


Exhibit 2.1.3

Curriculum Management Planning Characteristics And Auditors’ Assessment of the District Approach


Characteristics: Auditors’ RatingAdequate Inadequate

1. Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum, including 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

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

3. Defines and directs the stages of curriculum development. X4. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the board, central office staff members,

and school-based staff members in the design and delivery of curriculum. Partially

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

6. Directs how state and national standards will be considered in the curriculum. This 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.

Partially

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

X

8. Directs that curriculum documents not only specify the content of the student objectives/student expectations, but also include multiple contexts and cognitive types.

X

9. Specifies the overall beliefs and procedures governing the assessment of curriculum 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

10. Directs curriculum to be designed so that it supports teachers’ differentiation of instructional approaches and selection of student objectives at the right level of difficulty. 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

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

12. Outlines procedures for conducting formative and summative evaluations of programs and their corresponding curriculum content. X

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

14. Presents procedures for monitoring the delivery of curriculum. X15. Establishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery. X


Partially met characteristics are counted as inadequate.


As can be noted from Exhibit 2.1.3, while auditors found some elements of curriculum planning to be partially met, none of the characteristics were rated as fully adequate or meeting audit criteria. Auditors rated the planning processes in Kenosha Unified school District as not adequate for guiding curriculum development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Curriculum documents lack direction for aligned curriculum guides, do not describe how assessment data will be used to strengthen the curriculum, and do not identify a plan to communicate curriculum design and delivery or celebrate progress and quality. The following provides more specific information regarding each of the plan characteristics and describes the auditors’ rating for each characteristic.

Characteristic 1: Philosophical Framework

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The auditors did not find an educational philosophy in written policy or curriculum planning documents. Board Policy 6300 implies a standards based approach to curriculum is required, stating that “the district’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.”

Characteristic 2: Cycle of Curriculum Review

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Documents provided to the auditors included PowerPoint presentations for rolling out the Common Core standards in the Kenosha Unified School District. These presentations had been given to several groups in the district at several schools and with administrative groups. Board Policy 6320 addresses instructional program adoption and review, but not curriculum review. There were two documents on a textbook and resource review, but nothing related to a review of the curriculum. Thus, the auditors concluded that the district curriculum planning approach fails to provide for a cycle of review of the curriculum.

Characteristic 3: Stages of Curriculum Development

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No clear description was found that defines or directs the stages of curriculum development in the Kenosha Unified School District. Curriculum documents presented to auditors included an approach for implementing the Common Core in the district, a description of the process that is to be used for implementing English language arts and mathematics Common Core standards over a three-year period. Many district administrators and teachers did not recognize the documents provided auditors as the district’s approach to curriculum development. During interviews, many district administrators and teachers referenced documents from 2008 as the current guiding documents for curriculum development, while at the same time indicating they were aware the district was moving toward implementation of the Common Core. Likewise, auditors were informed that some of the documents they had been provided, such as pacing guides and units of instruction, were no longer utilized and had been replaced. Auditors were not provided with any documents describing the district’s curriculum development process or the timelines, thus leaving the curriculum development process undefined.

Characteristic 4: Roles and Responsibilities

This characteristic was rated as partially adequate. While board policies and job descriptions contain general references to curricular roles and responsibilities, they lacked sufficient specificity to delineate the relationships and lines of authority associated with curriculum and instructional responsibilities (see Findings 1.3 and 1.4). Auditors reviewed the following board policies:

• Board Policy 2400 states, “the principal is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.”

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing—Administrative outlines the instructional leadership expectations for building principals, including establishing a clear focus on student learning; being accountable for the academic and social progress for every student; developing, implementing, and evaluating a school improvement plan that establishes goals each year; supervising teachers; and monitoring all programs within their building.


• Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Improvement requires that “recommendation for additions or deletions to the established curriculum shall be reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning and provided to the Superintendent of Schools for approval.”

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review requires that new programs be presented to the school board by the superintendent with information about the need for the program to meet student needs, a description of the program, the budget, and the evaluation process.

• Rule 6426: Rule for Student Program or Curriculum Modifications establishes the process for program or curriculum modifications to be initiated at the building or department level with review by the superintendent.


• Rule 6430: Guidelines for Providing Assistance to Students with Academic Problems provides direction for teachers to confer with students who refuse to complete assignments, participate in class activities, or accept special help by a teacher.

• Board Policy 6610: Selection of Instructional Materials requires the superintendent to recommend the selection of instructional materials, required textbooks, and supplementary materials to the school board.

Board policies and administrative guidelines provide some general direction regarding roles and responsibilities related to curriculum planning and development. Board policies establish an expectation that building principals will serve as instructional leaders; however, board policies are weak in establishing a clear expectation for building principals to monitor the effectiveness of curriculum delivery in their schools. Teachers are responsible for student achievement, but there is no clear expectation that teachers are responsible for delivery of the board adopted curriculum. The superintendent is charged with being responsible for bringing program and resources recommendations to the board for approval. Auditors did not find any clear role expectations for leading curriculum planning and development in the Kenosha Unified School District.

Auditors reviewed district job descriptions and found several positions that have responsibilities for curriculum planning and development. Exhibit 2.1.4 lists the job descriptions reviewed by auditors and summarizes the curricular responsibilities associated with each position.

Exhibit 2.1.4

Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to CurriculumKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Position Date Specific DutiesAsst Supt of Elementary School Leadership

4/20/2012 • Coordinate efforts with building principals regarding regular and special education programs.

• Administer the implementation of all instructional programs.• Administer the implementation of special education programs. • Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of the various

programs within the elementary schools.• Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of needed

surveys and research projects


Exhibit 2.1.4 (continued)Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to Curriculum


Position Date Specific DutiesAsst Supt of Secondary School Leadership

3/ 9/1998 • Coordinate efforts with building principals regarding regular and special education programs.

• Administer the implementation of all instructional programs.• Administer the implementation of special education programs.• Establish realistic and appropriate performance goals for each administrator

for the improvement of instruction and the efficient management of Secondary instruction.

• In cooperation with instructional staff, establish realistic and appropriate goals for the improvement of teaching performance and student achievement.

• Provide information to staff regarding Secondary school practices and procedures.

• Maintain effective vertical and horizontal communication with building and central office administrators.

• Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of the various programs within the Secondary schools.

• Provide for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and for the recommendations of new programs and procedures.

• Participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of needed surveys and research projects.

Asst Supt of Teaching and Learning

3/9/1998 • Assume the leadership role for the District’s Instructional Services. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Administer the instructional development process.• In cooperation with teachers and administrators, establish realistic and

appropriate goals for the improvement of performance in instruction. Support this process by supervising and evaluating appropriate instructional staff.

• Meet with interested community members, including individual parents, to discuss instructional issues.

• Administer the high school and junior high school honors programs.• Administer the writing and revising of the District’s academic benchmarks.• Administer the planning and implementation of special education workshops

and clinics within specific programs.• Administer in-service for all school principals on effective educational

practices and potential District endeavors.




Position Date Specific DutiesHigh School Assistant Principal of Instruction

10/27/2000 • Assumes responsibility and provides instructional leadership for the development, implementation, and evaluation of the school’s comprehensive educational program to create an optimal learning environment.

• Assumes responsibility and provides instructional leadership for overseeing, creating, implementing, and evaluating the smaller learning communities for the ninth grade as well as the other reform efforts in the school.

• Assists with teaching and learning as well as a positive climate and culture throughout the school by establishing a climate of trust and cooperative improvement; making the stakeholders equal partners by sharing the decision making; maintaining a climate for participation using teams to address curricular concerns; involving the stakeholders in instructional improvements at all phases; participating in District and school level curriculum committees; assisting staff to set improvement goals related to curriculum and instruction; expressing support publicly for research based best practice in curriculum and instructional areas; and recognizing and rewarding collegial and individual performance and involvement in improvement efforts.

• Establishes and maintains the District and school’s curriculum and instructional goals and priorities by developing, implementing, and monitoring change processes to improve student learning, adult development, and learning climates; applying instructional strategies that reflect sensitivity to multicultural issues and varied learning styles, analyzing and assigning resources to enhance student learning based on established priorities; planning, establishing, and coordinating clear instructional goals with the stakeholders to accomplish all goals and objectives to increase impact; monitoring progress of goals in an ongoing manner and making adjustments as needed; and working with staff on the use of appropriate instructional strategies and resources.

• Works with staff to improve the quality and pedagogy of instruction by being actively involved with students and teachers to maximize instructional effectiveness; protecting instructional time and improving classroom time-on-task; observing teachers on a regular basis; providing detailed feedback that focuses on instructional skills; assisting teachers with instructional issues and professional development; and anticipating problems and being ingenious and resourceful in crafting solutions.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator Language Acquisition

Sept 2010 • Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district approved curriculum and best practice instruction in urban education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, and intervention).

• Coordinate the alignment of the Language Acquisition Program Long-Range plan with other district initiatives.

• Work cooperatively to align language acquisition programs with other areas including math, literacy, science, social studies, special education, and talent development.

• Organize and coordinate the dissemination of curriculum materials for grades PK-12.

• Research best practices in instruction by staying current with the findings of professional organizations and researchers.

• Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates.

• Guide teacher groups in the development and implementation of curriculum maps, pacing guides, assessments, and supplementary materials to be used in conjunction with the district adopted curriculum.

• Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with language acquisition.

• Monitor student achievement and assist with district data retreats to evaluate the effectiveness of the district curriculum.

• Make necessary adjustments in teaching and learning to ensure success for all students.

• Coordinate the alignment of the language acquisition programs for PK-grade 12.

• Monitor and revise world language, bi-lingual and ELL course offerings in Zangle.

• Coordinate the identification of ELL’s and bi-lingual education students for services provided by the department.

• Coordinate the services provided to language acquisition program students at all level, including classroom differentiation, advanced and honors classes and other special opportunities and programs.

• Coordinate all aspects of the Language Acquisition Program including program research, development and evaluation.

• Coordinate the program monitoring and evaluation of the Language Acquisition Program services provided in the district.

• Work with other coordinators to meet teaching and learning goals.Curriculum Coordinator Instructional Technology and Library Media

August 2011 • Lead the revision and integration of instructional technology and library media literacy standards into the curriculum.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator of Literacy

4/24/2012 • Serve as the chief administrator in developing and implementing literacy programs, curriculum activities, and budgets in a manner that promotes the educational development of each student and the professional development of each staff member.

• Conceptualize the broad goals of literacy plans to ensure that the most promising literacy practices are implemented within the district’s programming.

• Ensure that instructional objectives literacy are developed, and involves the teaching staff and building administrators in that development.

• Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district approved curriculum and best practice instruction in urban education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, intervention).


• Make necessary adjustments in curriculum and instruction to ensure success for all students.

• Develop and manage the district literacy portion of the Curriculum and Instruction Department budget to achieve the goals of the department.

Curriculum Coordinator—Mathematics & Science

July 2010 • Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district approved curriculum and best practice instruction in urban education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, intervention).

• Work cooperatively to align science and mathematics instruction with other areas including special education, bilingual, and talent development.

• Organize and coordinate the dissemination of curriculum materials and manipulatives PK – grade 12.

• Research best practices in instruction by staying current with the findings of professional organizations.

• Coordinate the alignment of the literacy curriculum for PK-grade 12.• Monitor and revise literacy course offerings in Zangle.• Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders

to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates.• Guide teacher groups in the development and implementation of curriculum

maps, pacing guides, assessments, and supplementary materials to be used in conjunction with the district adopted curriculum.

• Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with mathematics and science teaching and learning.


• Coordinate the alignment of the science and mathematics curriculum from PK – grade 12.

• Monitor and revise mathematics and science course offerings in Zangle.• Prepare reports to principals, district leadership and the board of education

regarding district curriculum and instruction as requested.• Work with other coordinators to meet teaching and learning goals.• Coordinate the alignment of the summer school curriculum with the district’s

most essential benchmarks.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator of Organization Training and Development

April 2012 • Coordinate with Teaching and Learning administrators and building principals to ensure the job embedded high quality professional development at all buildings.

• Develop, coordinate, and evaluate the instructional coach program.• Develop, coordinate, evaluate, and maintain appropriate records of district

professional learning courses and workshops through the district catalog published three times a year.


• Coordinate monthly instructional coaches meetings.• Coordinate professional learning opportunities such as workshops, study

groups, and summer academies.• Supervise instructional coaches and teacher consultants in the provision of

professional development to schools.• Meet regularly with other District staff, including Assistant Superintendent

of School Leadership, Teaching and Learning administrators, and building administrators to identify professional learning needs and plan effective professional learning opportunities.

Curriculum Coordinator—Science

July 2010 • Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district approved curriculum and best practice instruction in Urban Education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, intervention).

• Work cooperatively to align science instruction with other areas including Special Education, Bi-lingual-ESL, and Talent Development.




• Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with science teaching and learning.



• Develop and manage the district science portion of the Curriculum and Instructional Services budget to achieve the goals of that department.

• Coordinate the alignment of the science curriculum from PK – grade 12.• Monitor and revise science course offerings in Zangle• Prepare reports to principals, district leadership and the board of education

regarding district curriculum and instruction as requested.• Work with other coordinators to meet teaching and learning goals.




Position Date Specific DutiesCurriculum Coordinator—Social Studies

July 2010 • Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district approved curriculum and best practice instruction in Urban Education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, intervention).

• Work cooperatively to align social studies instruction with other areas including Special Education, Bi-lingual-ESL, and Talent Development.




• Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with social studies teaching and learning.



• Develop and manage the district social studies portion of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction Services budget to achieve the goals of that department.

• Coordinate the alignment of the social studies curriculum from PK – grade 12.

• Monitor and revise social studies course offerings in Zangle.• Prepare reports to principals, district leadership and the board of education

regarding district curriculum and instruction as requested.Coordinator Student Engagement and Equity

June 2011 • Analyze the District needs in the area of achievement of students of color and make recommendations to resolve educational gaps. Create and implement subsequent programs and services.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator of Talent Development

July 2010 • Work with teacher leaders and building administrators to coordinate the implementation of district-approved curriculum and best practice instruction in urban education (e.g. differentiation, culturally relevant instruction, service learning, intervention).

• Lead the planning, revision and implementation of the Talent Development Long-Range Plan to comply with district and state requirements, policies and statutes.

• Coordinate the alignment of the Talent Development Long-Range Plan with other district initiatives.

• Work cooperatively to align the Talent Development program with other areas including those in the Special Education and Bilingual departments.

• Coordinate the alignment of Talent Development programs at all levels, elementary, middle school and high school.

• Develop and manage the Talent Development budget to achieve the goals of the department.

• Oversee the district’s gifted and talented education (GATE) program, including the Magnet Enrichment program at the elementary level.

• Coordinate the identification of gifted and talented students for services provided by the department.

• Coordinate the Advanced Placement (AP) program, including the planning, scheduling and monitoring of exams.

• Coordinate the services provided to gifted and talented students at all levels, including classroom differentiation, advanced and honors classes and other special opportunities and programs.

• Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with gifted and talented education (GATE).

• Coordinate all aspects of the Talent Development (gifted and talented) Program including program research, development and evaluation.

• Work with other coordinators to meet teaching and learning goals.• Coordinate, promote and evaluate the Advanced Placement Program for the

district.• Coordinate efforts to provide strategies and support to increase participation

of under-represented populations of students in the Talent Development Program.

• Work cooperatively with other coordinators and administrators to implement the Talent Development Long-Range Plan.

• Prepare reports to the School Board and the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instructional Services on the various aspects of the Talent Development Program as requested.

• Meet regularly with the Magnet Enrichment Program teachers to discuss and evaluate the program.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator of Title One

4/19/2012 • Respond and recommend programs, materials, and current literature to Title I schools that is appropriate to the needs of students and share this awareness with staff.

• Assist in assessing the Title I Programs through a comprehensive program evaluation.

• Gather information regarding appropriate techniques of educational diagnosis and program analysis.

• Provide information on assessment approaches useful to program development and implementation.

• Support the implementation of technology into the Title I Programs in order to increase student engagement and achievement.

• Plan and implement professional development programs designed to meet the needs of staff, educational assistants, and students throughout the district.

Assistant Superintendent for Educational Accountability

4/19/2012 • Responsible for directing the ongoing program of evaluation, development, and accountability to enable the District to continually upgrade its effectiveness in meeting the educational needs of each individual student.

• Guides the development of statistical and analytical models within the District to support planning and research, decision-making, and continuous management. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in finding solutions to those problems.

• Assume the leadership role for all aspects of the District and State mandated norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and performance-based assessment programs.

• Serves as the primary coordinator and consultant in developing or selecting, administering, interpreting, and reporting student, school, district, and state evaluation programs and procedures.

• Plans and develops research and experimental programs that will provide information concerning the District’s instructional programs.

• Provide support to District personnel on educational research, including evaluation design and the collection and interpretation of data in order to identify educationally effective strategies, techniques and programs.

Superintendent Draft No Date

• Develop and recommend to the Board objectives of the educational system; see to the development of internal objectives which support those of the Board.

• See that sound plans of organization, educational programs and services are developed and maintained for the Board.

• See that appropriate in-service training is conducted. Direct employees of the District to attend such regular and occasional meetings as are necessary to carry out the educational programs of the District.

• Hold regular meetings with Building Principals, Coordinators/Directors and all other administrators to discuss progress and educational problems facing the District.

• Direct the operations and activities of administrators; see that they effectively guide and coordinate the operations and activities of the educational system; secure their assistance in formulating internal objectives, plans and programs; evaluate their job performance; and stand ready at all times to render them advice and support.




Position Date Specific DutiesCoordinator of Special Education and Student Support

April 2012 • Plan and implement professional development programs designed to meet the needs of staff, educational assistants, and students throughout the district.

• Facilitate staff participation at appropriate workshops, conferences and visitations.

Coordinator Curriculum Development

3/9/1998 • Assume the leadership role for curriculum development in the District. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Assume responsibility for developing and improving curriculum in all subject areas in accordance with state and federal regulations as well as School Board policy.

• Assist and support all Instructional Administrators with curriculum issues.• Become familiar with present curriculum in all subject areas.• Revise and update the District curriculum in accordance with the School

Board adopted policies and committees.• Assist with creating an organizational culture which provides for coordination

between content areas and grade levels.• Insure the continuity of District curriculum.• Engage in and report on studies of promising curriculum innovations to all

appropriate personnel.• Encourage and support innovative curriculum ideas.• Assist in the development of benchmark achievement levels for all students.• Cooperate with other instructional administrator to coordinate the District-

wide curriculum study committees.• Participate in the orientation of classroom teachers. • Assist teachers in the improvement of instructional skills.• Organize and conduct meetings to insure knowledge of and compliance with

curriculum practices and procedures.• Provide information to staff regarding instructional curriculum practices and

procedures. • Provide liaison regarding curriculum development activities with outside

agencies such as the Department of Public Instruction. • Provide information regarding all subject areas.• Publicize curriculum programs and services.• Communicate and appropriately deal with concerned community members

about curriculum issues. • Recommend a budget for operation of curriculum development.• Screen and evaluate requisitions for curriculum materials as required.• Participate in the development and implementation of research projects

involving curriculum programs.• Prepare and submit reports regarding all curriculum activities. • Assist in maintaining a running inventory of available approved texts for

redistribution as needed.• Assist in the coordination and control distribution of newly approved texts

stored in the central warehouse.




Position Date Specific DutiesDirector of Instruction

3/9/1998 • Assume the leadership role for all of the instructional activities in the District. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Assume responsibility for developing and improving educational programs in all subject areas.

• Assist and support all Instructional Administrators with instructional issues.• Administer the development of curriculum, testing and assessment, and

program evaluation within the District.• Supervise and evaluate administrators in instruction in order to assist in the

improvement of performance.• Provide leadership to the mathematics and science programs, their evaluation

and improvement.• Provide leadership to the language arts, foreign languages, and social studies

programs, their evaluation and improvement. • Provide leadership in curriculum planning, revision, and organization. • Administer the development of curriculum guides and other written materials

which provide direction in all instructional areas.• Provide for and encourage experimentation and innovative practices based on

research in curriculum, instruction and assessment for all subject areas. • Provide direction and coordination to insure sequential instruction in all

programs. • Recommend the selection of texts, teaching aids, equipment, and supplies. • Organize and manage exhibits and the distribution of instructional materials

for preview and evaluation.• Provide information to staff regarding instructional practices and procedures. • Provide liaison regarding instructional activities with outside agencies such as

the Department of Public Instruction. • Provide information regarding all subject areas.• Publicize instructional programs and services.• Participate in the development and implementation of research projects

involving instructional programs.• In cooperation with District personnel, evaluate and select the testing

program.• In cooperation with District personnel, interpret results of the testing program

and other evaluative instruments that assess individual, group, school, and District instructional process.

• Prepare and submit reports regarding all instructional activities.KUSD Director of Preschool

No Date • Organization and collaboration between and among all KUSD pre-school programs.

• Manage and implement pre-school programs to align with the District’s strategic plan.

• Provide staff development opportunities for all KUSD pre-school programs.• Write and present reports to the Board of Education as requested.• Continue expansion of the 4 Year Old Kindergarten program.




Position Date Specific DutiesDirector School to Career and Student Support

12/12/2000 • Oversee the District’s magnet choice academies and District-wide articulation of School-to-Career.

• Supervise and coordinate the development of the academies, Youth Apprenticeships, Internships, Co-ops, and all other work-based learning programs. Work to identify and define local job opportunities and the role of the schools in meeting these opportunities. Compile and maintain records of student and employer participation in these programs.

• Arrange and direct staff development and in-services on District initiatives in collaboration with the Staff Development Coordinator. Serve as a consultant to administrators and instructors in regard to new instructional strategies.

• Act as a resource for teachers in curriculum development and sequencing. • Assume responsibility for curriculum articulation and coordination in

collaboration with the Director of Instruction.Executive Director 9-12

3/9/1998 • Assume responsibility for 9-12 instruction in the District. • Supervise and evaluate personnel assigned to 9-12 Instruction, including those

assigned to the areas of Student Support, Student Transportation, and the Summer School Recreation program

• Administer policies of the District on matters related to 9-12 instruction and provide leadership in program development and improvement.

• Assume the leadership role for the District’s 9-12 Instruction. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Administer the policies of the District related to general education.• Administer the coordination of foreign language programs.• Administer all Senior High counseling programs.• Administer the selection of texts, teachings aides, equipment, tests, and

supplies.• Administer the Senior High honors program.• Administer the Senior High advanced placement program.• Organize and plan with the Staff Development Coordinator a program for

staff in-service day.• Organize and conduct workshops and clinics for personnel assigned to the

9-12.• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the various

programs within 9-12 instruction.• Provide for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and

for the recommendations of new programs and procedures.• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of needed

surveys and research projects.Fine Arts Coordinator

3/27/2013 • In cooperation with other administrators, assume responsibility for the educational programs in music and art.

• Assume the leadership role for the District’s Fine Arts.• Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to

those problems.• Administer the District’s music, art, and drama programs.• Organize and plan with administrators of Curriculum Services a program for

staff in-service day.




Position Date Specific DutiesK-8 Coordinator 3/9/1998 • Assume responsibility for K-8 instruction in the assigned District cluster.

• Assume the leadership role for the assigned cluster in the District and administer K-8 Instruction. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Provide leadership in the planning, development, direction, and evaluation of assigned regular education and special education programs.

• Provide leadership in the planning, development, and direction of regular education support services.

• Promote and encourage innovative practices within regular education programs.

• Assume responsibility for the quality of services rendered by program support teachers in regular education.

• Provide leadership in the development of strategies, special materials, and curriculum within regular education programs.

• Provide information to staff members regarding K-8 programs, practices, and procedures.

• Provide leadership for the study of administrative and educational problems of K-8, as well as of the District.

• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of needed surveys.

• Participate in and supervise the development, implementation, and evaluation of assigned programs.

• Provide for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and for the recommendations of new programs and procedures.

Minority Affairs Specialist

11/2/2001 • Provides direction in reviewing and organizing district programs for raising the academic achievement of minority students.

• Develops and conducts in-service education programs for District staff and the community in the area of minority achievement and cultural awareness.

• Helps in the assessment of effectiveness of school and community programs involving minority students, including KSOL, the District bilingual program, after-school programs and at-risk services.

Principal Elementary

10/1/1984 • Assume responsibility for the quality of the instructional program of the school. The instructional program includes curricular, extra-curricular, and guidance opportunities.

• Administer the instructional program in accordance with School Board requirements and standards set by state statutes.

• Provide for increased individualization of instruction.• Coordinate activities of staff with staff members of other schools and with

other administrators and consultants.• Provide for cooperative curriculum development and evaluation.• Recommend the selection of texts, teaching aides [sic], equipment, and

supplies.• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the

instructional program.




Position Date Specific DutiesMiddle School Assistant Principal

Revised January

2001

• Assist the principal in the responsibility for the quality of the instructional program.

• Assist in recommending the selection of texts, teaching aids, equipment, and supplies.

• Assist in administering the instructional program in accordance with School Board requirements, standards set by the accrediting agency, and state statutes.

• Assist in providing for cooperative curriculum development and evaluation.• Organize, plan, or assist in developing programs for inservice as a part of

faculty meetings, the professional period, and inservice days as assigned.• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the

instructional program.Middle School Principal

10/1/1984 • Assume responsibility for the quality of the instructional program of the school. The instructional program includes curricular, extracurricular and guidance opportunities.

• Administer the instructional program in accordance with School Board requirements and standards set by state statutes.

• Provide for increased individualization of instruction.• Provide for cooperative curriculum development and evaluation.• Recommend the selection of texts, teaching aids, equipment, and supplies.• Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist

staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques.• Organize and assist in developing programs for inservice days• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the

instructional program.Senior High Principal

10/1/1984 • Provide leadership for a professional staff in the development, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive educational program, and administer the program in accordance with School Board Policies and administrative rules and regulations.

• Assume responsibility for the quality of instruction.• Assume responsibility for the quality of the instructional program of the

school. The instructional program includes curricular, extracurricular, and guidance opportunities.

• Administer the instructional program in accordance with School Board requirements, standards set by the accrediting agency, and state statutes.

• Recommend the selection of texts, teaching aids, equipment, and supplies.• Coordinate departmental activities and planning toward common goals.• Provide for increased individualization of instruction.• Provide for cooperative curriculum development and evaluation.• Provide the leadership for the study of administrative and educational

problems of the school, as well as of the District.• Participate in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the

instructional program.• Provide for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and

for the recommendation of new programs and procedures.




Position Date Specific DutiesProfessional Development Specialist

11/17/2009 • Provide for and make the necessary arrangements for in-service opportunities for all staff.

• Organize and plan with the other administrators programs for staff in-service.• Organize and conduct language arts, foreign languages, and social studies

workshops.• Provide for and encourage opportunities for mathematics and science teachers

to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences.• Organize and conduct instructional media workshops.• Coordinate the development of the District in-service day program for the

instructional staff.• Evaluate and assign in–service credit for courses taken within the school

District.Program Evaluation Coordinator

3/9/1998 • Assume the leadership role for program evaluation in the District. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Assume responsibility for the evaluation of all subject areas and programs in order to facilitate curriculum improvement.

• Study the goals and objectives of all programs to be evaluated and assist instructional administrators in the development of evaluative criteria.

• Assist with creating an organizational culture which provides for coordination between content areas and grade levels.

• Help to insure the continuity of District curriculum.• Make periodic on-site visits and interviews to observe programs in progress

and to determine the extent to which instructional methods and materials are effective.

• Establish and implement a plan to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement.

• Assist in the establishment of priorities for curriculum needs.• Assist with establishing and implementing a plan to integrate appropriate

changes into the present curriculum based on research and analysis.School to Career Coordinator

3/9/1998 • Assume the leadership role for the District’s School-to-Career program. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Administer the School-to-Career instructional services.• Provide leadership in curriculum, instruction, and assessment including

planning, revision, organization and implementation.• Provide for and encourage experimentation and innovative practices based on

research in curriculum, instruction, and assessment for the areas of school-to-work and occupational preparation programs, including vocational education programs.

• Provide direction and coordination to insure sequential curriculum, instruction, and assessment in school-to-work and occupational preparation programs.




Position Date Specific DutiesSenior High School Principal-Technology

10/1/1984 • Assume responsibility for the total program of the school and, in cooperation with other administrators, assume responsibility for various services within the school.

• Assume responsibility for the quality of instruction.• Assume responsibility for the development and implementation of

appropriate instructional techniques and facilities related to technology education.

• Assume responsibility for the quality of the instructional program of the school. The instructional program includes curricular, extracurricular, and guidance opportunities.

• Administer the instructional program in accordance with School Board requirements, standards set by the accrediting agency, and state statutes.

• Recommend the selection of texts, teaching aids, equipment, and supplies.• Coordinate departmental activities and planning toward common goals.• Provide for increased individualization of instruction.• Coordinate activities of staff members with staff members of other schools

and with other administrators and consultants.• Provide for cooperative curriculum development and evaluation.• Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist

staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques.• Organize, plan, or assist in the development of programs for inservice days.

Student Support Coordinator

Revised 3/30/2000

• Assume responsibility for the quality of services rendered by program staff and counselors for students at risk.

• Provide leadership in the development of strategies, special materials, and curriculum within at risk education programs.

• Special materials and curriculum within at risk education programs.Testing and Assessment Coordinator

10/11/1999 • Assume the leadership role for testing and assessments in the District. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems.

• Assume responsibility for testing and assessing all subject areas and programs in order to facilitate curriculum improvement and to remain in compliance with Department of Public Instruction, state, and federal regulations.

• Become familiar with present curriculum in all subject areas.• Study the goals and objectives of all programs to be evaluated and assist

instructional administrators in the development of evaluative criteria.• Assist with creating an organizational culture which provides for coordination

between content areas and grade levels.• Help to insure the continuity of District curriculum.• Assist in the establishment of priorities for curriculum needs.• Assist with establishing and implementing a plan to integrate appropriate

changes into the present curriculum based on research and analysis.




Position Date Specific DutiesBilingual ESL Teacher Consultant

No Date • Provide leadership in curriculum planning, evaluation and organization.• Provide direction and mentoring, in cooperation with District personnel, to

classroom teachers of ELL students who remain at their home school.• Provide for and encourage experimentation and innovative practices.• Provide direction and coordination to ensure sequential instruction of ELL

students.• Recommend the selection of texts, teaching materials and lessons, equipment

and supplies for ELL at home schools.• Orient classroom teachers to the instruction of English Language Learners.• Assist teachers in the improvement of ELL instructional strategies. • Organize and conduct meetings with classroom teachers to insure knowledge

of and compliance with best practices for ELL.• Provide information regarding the Language Assistance Programs.

Department Leader Job Description

No Date • Lead academic improvement initiatives in your leadership/curricular area.• Provided instructional leadership at the site through interaction with district

instructional staff (e.g. teacher consultants, program support teachers…) and participate in district level activities related to curriculum development, instructional materials evaluation and adoption, etc. Participate with district instructional staff (e.g. teacher consultants, program support teachers) to ensure that the course syllabi and common assessments are implemented consistently.

• Jointly gather and present data on student achievement with colleagues based on standard assessments and common assessments, and implement professional development based on this data and the Site Plan.

• Assure curriculum implementation is consistent with district standards and other benchmarks, course syllabi curriculum maps and common assessments.

• Facilitate discussions to determine new improvement areas for comprehensive student learning and strategies to support them.

• Maintain academic standards and expectations for your leadership area based on district/state standards.

• Keep curriculum scope consistent with DPI assessment frameworks, district standards and benchmarks, and the customized needs of our school’s students.

Elementary Resource Teacher

No Date • Models appropriate research-based strategies applicable to all content areas, assists in unit/lesson design based on district standards and benchmarks, and participates in team teaching.

• Coaches and observes staff in applying appropriate instructional and differentiation strategies to their teaching and offers constructive suggestions for improving instruction.

• Assists elementary teachers with implementing assessment strategies related to district standards and benchmarks.

• Provides opportunities for professional growth for new teachers, teachers changing grade levels and experienced teachers.

• Presents content specific staff development for a study group, individual teacher or an entire staff.

• Assists the Coordinator of Staff Development with any other related duties as assigned.




Position Date Specific DutiesInstructional Coach

No Date • Collaborate with teachers providing job-embedded professional development on research based instructional practices and the integration of information and technology digital tools and resources.

• Assist teachers in designing, implementing, and assessing learning experiences that utilize research based, culturally relevant instructional practices, technology and digital information resources.

• Promote, support, and model exploration of real-world issues and solving of authentic problems.

• Assist teachers in developing technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own education goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress.

• Guides analysis and interpretation of data to help increase student achievement.

• Assist teachers in customizing and personalizing learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities.

• Facilitates collaborative reflection about differentiated instructional practices and student achievement.

From Exhibit 2.1.4 above, the following is noted:

• The Director for Curriculum is designated as the lead position for curriculum in the district. However, this role does not establish the direction for a curriculum management system.

• There are 39 positions with responsibilities related to curriculum, programs, and instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District.

• The job descriptions range in dates from 1984 to 2013, while several had no date.

• As new positions related to curriculum were adopted, existing job descriptions were not revised to integrate new curriculum responsibilities.

• Multiple positions (principals, coordinators, assistant superintendents, and directors) have responsibilities for development and implementation of curriculum without clear coordination and articulation of the flow of the process.

• Specific duties related to curriculum development are missing from job descriptions, such as piloting programs, working with curriculum committees for the development of curriculum, and establishing a hierarchy in the curriculum process.

• General statements, such as “review and provide research information for curriculum review and revision,” fail to direct the types of research, evaluation, and linkage to curriculum content and implementation.

• Multiple positions have the exact same responsibilities, such as principals at the elementary, middle, and high school level, as well as the coordinator positions.

During school visits and interviews with building administrators, auditors noted that schools had additional teacher positions to work with curriculum and staff development. Connections and role responsibilities to curriculum planning, development, and delivery are not clearly articulated. Auditors noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding who the decision makers are in the curriculum planning and development process given that multiple positions have overlapping responsibilities. There is no one position or group of positions designated in a management plan providing the development, monitoring, and implementation of curriculum.


Characteristic 5: Format and Components for Curriculum Guides

This characteristic was partially met. Auditors examined numerous district documents, presented by district staff, that were described as curriculum guides. Exhibit 2.1.5 displays some of the documents presented to auditors as guiding documents for curriculum in the Kenosha Unified School District.

Exhibit 2.1.5

Curriculum Guide Documents Presented to AuditorsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Document DateContent Guide and Pacing July 2012Units of Study K-5 2012Reading Readiness Checklists (K-5) 11/1/2011Assessment Guides (K-5) Literacy No DateWriting Assessment Guide K-5 No DateStandards and Benchmarks Mathematics June 2006Math Standards 3-5 8/10/2013KUSD Literacy Framework: Reading Workshop No DateTransformation Plan: Maximizing the Brilliance of Children No DateTimeline for Common Core Cadre 4/23/2013High School Course Directory 2012-13Courses and Textbooks for Elementary Schools No DateCourses and Textbooks for Middle Schools No DateHigh School Texts by Course No DateCCSS Reading Informational Text Standards K-5 No DateEvidence Sheets (Math and Literacy) No DatesKUSD Writing Continuum ELA 6-8 August 2008KUSD Reading Comprehension Strategies K-5 7/15/2008KUSD Writing Expectations K-5 6/30/2008Strategies for Teaching Reading and Comprehension October 2008KUSD Science Kit Distribution Schedule 2012-13Reading Instructional Materials Adoption K-5 9/13/2011Teaching and Learning Historical Information Regarding Instructional Materials Adopting 7/24/2012

Curriculum Evaluation and Instructional Materials Adoption Cycle 2008Implementation of the Common Core State Standards 2011-2014KUSD Curriculum Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics Packet October 2012Reading/Language Arts/English Unit Design Template February 2013

Based upon their review of curriculum guide documents listed in Exhibit 2.1.5, and based on interviews with district administrators, curriculum coordinators, and teachers, auditors noted that multiple documents are utilized in Kenosha Unified School District as curriculum guides. These documents operate independently of each other and are presented to classroom teachers for implementation and utilization. Auditors found no consistent format among the district’s curriculum guide documents nor any district requirement or stated expectation regarding the content of district curriculum guides. There is a multitude of curriculum guide documents in use in the Kenosha Unified School District; however, auditors found there is no process in place for sun-setting documents that are outdated and should no longer be used to guide classroom instruction. Without a consistent


guide format, and no formal process in place for replacing outdated curriculum guide documents, teachers are left to determine for themselves which documents, if any, they use to guide instruction in their classrooms.

Characteristic 6: Inclusion of State and National Standards in the Curriculum

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. The state of Wisconsin has adopted the Common Core Standards as the guiding standards for curriculum in the state. Board Policy 6300 requires the state’s academic standards to be adopted as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the district. While board policy requires that state content standards be included in the district’s curriculum, board policy does not address the inclusion of national content standards. The state adopted Common Core Standards for English language arts and mathematics were frequently referenced by district staff as national standards; however, auditors noted that no national standards were referenced for any of the other content areas taught in the district.

Characteristic 7: Student Objectives/Expectations Reasonable in Number

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors found multiple sets of content standards, learning targets, and academic expectations for the core content areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies and non-core content areas. The district is in the process of transitioning from Wisconsin State Standards to the Common Core State Standards. Elementary school teachers in many cases are responsible for teaching two sets of standards in English language arts and mathematics, as well as the content standards for science, social studies, and non-core areas, resulting in an excessive number of learning objectives that cannot be mastered within the instructional time allocated. The district has provided teachers with “I Can” learning target statements to make the standards more student-friendly; however, auditors found the statements numerous in number and not feasible to master within the time allocated (see Finding 2.3).

Characteristic 8: Curriculum Specifies Multiple Contexts and Cognitive Types

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors found no evidence, through a review of district documents or during interviews with district staff, of a common district expectation requiring instruction be provided at various levels of cognition and in various contexts. Auditors noted several board policies that allude to varying the instructional approach to meet the needs of individual students, but none of these policies contained specific provisions for multiple contexts and cognition types. Following is a partial list of board policies alluding to differentiated instruction:

• Board Policy 6100: Mission, Principles, Goals, Results addressed the mission of the district to “assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” This policy indicated the district valued blended personalized learning adapted to individual needs, flexibility in access and delivery, and interactive, engaging learning.

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review describes the process for new program adoption and implementation. The requests for new program must include a description of the “Evaluation method and benchmark.”

• Board Policy 6421: Services for Students with Disabilities defines services to meet individual educational needs.

• Rule 6423: Talent Development Program outlines the criteria for identifying such students, including test scores, GPA, parent nominations, teacher recommendations as well as creativity, leadership, and performing arts. The rule further requires that a “Differentiated Education Plan (DEP) is created for students whose strengths and needs require more challenge than can be provided through the program opportunities in the classroom…”

The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan also alludes to differentiating the level of cognition and instruction context as it defines personalized learning as “a system to provide opportunities to maximize the potential of all students based on their needs, abilities, and preferences.” The Transformation Plan supports models and instructional practices including:

• Instruction customized to individual learning styles and preferences and built on learner strength;


• Learning that can take place anytime, anywhere utilizing a wide a variety of delivery methods;

• Curriculum that is dynamic, individually paced, and acknowledges learner interests; and

• Students who are authentically engaged in their education experiences.

Characteristic 9: Assessment Procedures for Determining Curriculum Effectiveness

This characteristic was rated as inadequate. Board policies refer to assessment procedures, but details are lacking regarding the measurement of curriculum effectiveness. Board policies that reference assessment include:

• Board Policy 6452: Student Progress Reporting directs that “Teachers shall make periodic reports informing the parent/guardian of their student’s progress. Academic progress shall be measured against School Board approved standards and benchmarks as identified by grade level or course/class.”

• Rule 6454.1: Criteria for Fourth and Eighth Grade Promotion sets the expectation that a student must have a score of “basic” or above on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination in the areas of reading, language arts, English, and mathematics in order to be promoted from fourth and eighth grade.

• Board Policy 6456: Graduation Requirements establishes that in order to graduate from the Kenosha Unified School District, a student must earn 23 high school credits and earn a score of basic or above in three of five subtests on the high school Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam.

• Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment provides, “The District shall establish and maintain a program of testing for the purposes of diagnosis, assessment, instruction and accountability.” This policy also states the testing program will provide:

○ An assessment of the educational program of the district for purposes of reporting the overall status of the district and charting the growth of its students, by grade level and by school, from year to year.

○ Appropriate reports to the school board, parents/guardians, and the public, disaggregating all test data by ethnicity, gender, special education, and socioeconomic status.

○ District and building Report Cards including disaggregated data by student group as required by federal law.

○ Data for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.

Board policies establish an expectation for the use of assessments to monitor student academic progress. Auditors found only one reference in Board Policy 6460, which indicates that the testing program will provide data for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.

Characteristic 10: Differentiation of Instructional Approaches and Selection of Student Objectives

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors found minimal guidance in board policy to direct differentiation and nothing directing the selection of student objectives. Board Policy 6426 allows a student’s parents to request program or curricular modifications, but the policy does not provide much in the way of how this policy should be implemented. The Transformation Plan describes personalized instruction for students, but auditors found no supporting documents providing guidance on how personalized instruction is defined and how it is to be implemented. Board Policy 6423 requires a differentiated curriculum for gifted and talented students, which focuses on higher level thought processes, but there is no similar policy statement requiring a differentiated curriculum for all students.

Characteristic 11: Use of Tests and Assessment Data to Strengthen Curriculum and Instruction

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The policies reviewed for Characteristic 9 were also reviewed for this characteristic. Auditors found board policies are insufficient to provide guidance on the use of tests and assessment data to strengthen curriculum and instruction. Auditors were not provided with any district


document that details procedures for use of tests and assessment data to strengthen curriculum and instruction and improve student achievement (see Finding 4.1).

Characteristic 12: Formative and Summative Evaluations of Programs

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors did not identify any board policies or district documents that specifically required the use of formative or summative evaluations to evaluate the effectiveness of district programs. Board Policy 6320 addresses the adoption of new programs and requires the adoption of new programs to include a review of the program in the district’s program review cycle so that if the program is found to be ineffective, it can be terminated.

Characteristic 13: Design of a Comprehensive Staff Development Program Linked to Curriculum

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. Auditors reviewed board policies that provided some guidance for staff development in the district. Following is a summary of one board policy and the accompanying administrative guideline that specifically address professional development:

• Board Policy 4370: Staff Development states, “The School Board recognizes the importance of providing high quality professional development inservice education opportunities. District staff development inservice courses are designed to:

○ Deepen knowledge of subject content

○ Expand research-based instructional skills

○ Provide ongoing classroom assistance in implementing new skills

○ Provide classroom assessment skills

○ Encourage innovation, teach state of the art practices, share new ideas and practices

○ Provide diversity instruction

○ Provide for job-related growth for improved operations.”

• Rule 4370: Staff Development Opportunities stipulates, “Inservice courses appropriate to the needs of the instructional staff and aligned with District initiatives will be organized and directed annually by the Coordinator of Staff Development, Library Media and Instructional Technology and with the assistance of the Executive Director of Special Projects and administrative personnel. Inservice credit for instructional staff appropriate to their needs and aligned with District initiatives may be earned for courses/workshops/seminars offered by agencies outside the District. These courses/workshops/seminars are subject to approval by the Coordinator of Staff Development, Library Media and Instructional Technology...”

Board Policy and Rule 4370 establish the importance of professional development; however, this policy provides no expectation of a comprehensive professional development plan that supports the delivery of curriculum and is based on measured district needs.

Multiple job descriptions (see Exhibit 2.1.4) included responsibilities for staff development, professional development, and in-service training; however, no process was documented for the alignment of professional and staff development to the curriculum and instructional progress. A comprehensive staff development program is lacking in the district at this time (see Finding 3.3).

Characteristic 14: Procedures for Monitoring Curriculum Delivery

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The auditors found no evidence in the district that a comprehensive, planned process exists for monitoring the delivery of the district’s curriculum. During interviews with building principals, some principals indicated they had been involved in a curriculum training process for implementation of the Common Core curriculum, but there is no indication that the training extended to monitoring delivery of the Common Core curriculum. Some district staff working in schools implementing the Expeditionary


Learning (EL) process indicated they had training on monitoring; however, only one school was implementing EL at the time of the this audit, with four more schools planning to implement EL the following school year.

Several administrator job descriptions listed in Exhibit 2.1.4 mentioned monitoring the implementation of curriculum, but no policy addressed monitoring curriculum delivery as a planned process in the district.

Characteristic 15: Communication Plan for the Process of Curriculum Design and Delivery

This characteristic was rated inadequate. District documents reviewed by the auditors do not address procedures for the establishment and maintenance of a communications plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery. There is a communications director in the district; however, it was revealed during interviews with district leadership that this position was focused on communicating about the district’s Transformative Plan, parent participation, and community linkage. The auditors found no policy requiring a process to communicate about curriculum design and delivery. Auditors reviewed a variety of administrative communications for consistency in providing critical information regarding curriculum design and delivery to site level administrators and faculty. The directives and newsletters were found to be more coincidental as opposed to a clear communication vehicle regarding district curriculum design and delivery. Auditors noted that district brochures, dated 2008, provided general information about the district’s elementary curriculum program and MAP testing. The district’s website contains multiple links providing information about district programs, but each of these web pages provided differing amounts of information.

During the audit, auditors conducted interviews with district and school level administrators, board members, teachers, and other staff to determine district expectations and practices regarding instruction. The following are typical responses gathered from interviews regarding a district curriculum plan or process:

• “Curriculum is an area of challenge. It is not cohesive.” (District Administrator)

• “It is difficult to know what curriculum is in our district as our schools do many different things. We have Expeditionary Learning and many other types of pilots going on.” (District Administrator)

• “We do not have a curriculum management plan. We do have lots of documents.” (District Administrator)

• “2005 was the last curriculum policy adopted by the board. Two years ago, the board approved to remove that curriculum policy and give the district staff more leeway in a curriculum adoption process.” (District Administrator)

• “We do not have a district implementation plan. There are lots of documents, but no real process for adoption.” (District Administrator)

Additional comments were provided regarding the development and implementation of curriculum within the district:

• “We need to align our curriculum. We have one coordinator for each content area except for math and science.” (District Administrator)

• “We have different levels of different assistance. Elementary have instructional coaches, middle schools have teacher leaders, and high schools have department chairs and they all do different things depending upon their school.” (District Administrator)

• “Teachers pull what they like to teach. There is overlap and inconsistency.” (District Administrator)

• “We have a cadre team from an elementary, middle, and high school piloting the implementation of Common Core in ELA and math.” (District Support Staff)

• “Our role is to write curriculum. We gather a team of lead teachers and write curriculum.” (District Administrator)

• “We had a curriculum adoption cycle five years ago. We need to do some work to catch up.” (District Administrator)


Additional comments address the inconsistency in the district:

• “We have so many things we focus on. Everyone has their own priority. We are not going to catch up.” (Site Administrator)

• “We are all at different places in curriculum. Some of us have started work on Common Core in math and reading. Some are using curriculum and some are not.” (Site Administrators)

• “The plan is to make the building administrators the deliverers of curriculum training. The experts are training us. Making us an expert does not happen overnight. There are too many things for us to do to do one thing well.” (Site Administrators)

• “One month with three training sessions and 16 teachers is not going to be enough to develop a good curriculum. Our curriculum development process is weak.” (Site Administrators)

• “If we don’t offer training to implement with consistency, we are not going to do this implementation of Common Core very well.” (Site Administrator)

• “We have been given information on the Common Core—the content, but not much about the process.” (Site Administrator)

Summary

Auditors found that the Kenosha Unified School District lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan that provides direction and designates roles and responsibilities for the design and delivery of the district’s curriculum. Multiple curriculum initiatives, endeavors, and documents exist in the district, resulting in confusion and lack of clarity in the development, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum. Current district curriculum development efforts are not aligned with current delivery efforts in individual schools and classrooms, which may contribute to an inconsistent educational program, inequitable access to that program by students, and lower student achievement across the district. Characteristics considered essential for a comprehensive curriculum management plan were considered inadequate. Various elements of curriculum planning were found but exist in isolation and do not constitute a cohesive approach to the curriculum management process. Curriculum planning efforts were considered inadequate to direct the nature of curriculum design, the schedule and scope of its review, procedures for monitoring its implementation and effectiveness, assignment of essential roles and responsibilities, linkages to professional development, and a means for communicating about the curriculum design, delivery, and monitoring process (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).

Student work on display at Indian Trail High School.


Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate at all instructional levels to provide a cohesive framework of goals and objectives for student learning.

A written curriculum with objectives for student learning establishes the direction for achievement within a district. A complete curriculum includes a set of student objectives for each grade level and each course offered in the district. This is known in the audit as the scope of the written curriculum. Such a scope identifies the essential student learnings and curriculum priorities to be taught. The absence of a written curriculum for any course or subject area decreases the educational consistency for students across grades, courses, and schools.

Clear, comprehensive, and current curriculum documents give direction for teachers concerning objectives, assessment methods, prerequisite skills, instructional materials and resources, and classroom strategies. The lack of a curriculum guide for a subject or course causes teachers to rely on other resources in planning and delivering instruction. These other resources may not be in alignment with the instructional goals of the district and/or the state. In addition, they may not provide consistency and focus across grades, courses, and schools. Focus and connectivity by the administration and board are greatly reduced when decisions involving content and delivery are left to school sites and classrooms functioning in isolation. Fragmentation of the taught curriculum can lead to poor student achievement.

The auditors reviewed documents presented in electronic and written formats by Kenosha Unified School District personnel as curriculum guides. The auditors reviewed the course offerings for K-12 and reviewed the provided curricular documents. Information from the High School and Middle School Course Guides, the district website, and master schedules was used to determine the school subject areas taught and courses offered.

Auditors found the scope of the written curriculum to be inadequate at all levels to provide local control of curriculum.

In review of board policies, auditors found one board policy and one administrative guideline that delineate courses that are to be offered as part of the required curriculum.

• Board Policy 6310: Elementary School Curriculum states, “The program of instruction in regular elementary schools will encompass the language arts including reading, writing, speaking, and listening; social studies; mathematics; science; physical education; health; and fine arts. In all content areas, the Standards and Benchmarks relating to Informational Literacy, Lifelong Learning, and Instructional Technology are to be included.”

• Rule 6456: Graduation Requirements lists the courses students must complete prior to graduation, including the following: English (4 credits); Social Studies (U.S. History, World History, ½ credit U.S. Government & Politics and ½ credit Behavioral Science); Mathematics (3 credits); Science (3 credits); Physical Education (1 ½ credits); Health ( ½ credit); Consumer Education ( ½ credit).

The auditors were provided with 535 curriculum documents for review, along with additional curriculum related resources used for guiding teaching and learning in the Kenosha Unified School District. Auditors were provided the various curriculum guide documents in hard copy and electronic form. Electronic forms of curriculum documents were provided either on a flash drive or in a Dropbox® that was created specifically for the Curriculum Audit™ team. It was reported by district leadership that all the electronic documents were readily available to district teachers on common server folders, but direct access to these folders was not available to the auditors during the time of their site visit. As a result, this information was not verified by the audit team. In many cases, the electronic curriculum files provided auditors comprised the curriculum presented for review.

The scope of the written curriculum is determined by examining each grade and course in every subject area taught in the Kenosha Unified School District. If 100 percent of core subject areas taught and 70 percent of non-core subject areas taught have a written curriculum guide, the scope is considered adequate. No attempt was made in this finding to determine the quality of the written curriculum. Quality of the district curriculum documents is reported in Finding 2.3.


Exhibit 2.2.1 illustrates the scope of the kindergarten through fifth grade written curriculum based on documents provided the auditors. The exhibit displays a listing of content areas taught, the grade level at which the content is taught, the availability of a curriculum guide, the total number of areas needing a written curriculum, and an indication of the number of curriculum guides that exist. An “X” indicates that a curriculum guide is available. The complete list of documents is shown in Appendix C.

Exhibit 2.2.1

Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades K-5Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Course Title K 1 2 3 4 5 Courses Offered

Written Curriculum

GuidesCORE

Language Arts X X X X X X 6 6Language Arts-Spanish 2 0Mathematics X X X X X X 6 6Reading/Literature-Spanish 6 0Science X X X X X X 6 6Social Studies X X X X X X 6 6

NON-COREArt X X X X X X 6 6Choir X 1 1Lifelong Learning-Conduct 6 0Extended Year Math 5 0Extended Year Reading 5 0Enrichment A 5 0Enrichment B 5 0Life Long Learning 6 0Library Media X X X X X X 6 6Music X X X X X X 6 6Physical Development 1 0Physical Education X X X X X X 6 6

TOTALS Core Classes 32 24(75%)

TOTALS Non-Core Classes 58 25(43%)

TOTALS Elementary 90 49(54%)

Data Sources: District Curriculum, Course ListingsNotes: X = Course offered at most or all campuses, curriculum available.

As noted from Exhibit 2.2.1:

• Seventy-five (75) percent of the core elementary courses had written curriculum documents. This does not meet the audit criteria of 100 percent for core documents.

• Forty-three (43) percent of the non-core elementary courses had written curriculum documents. This does not meet the audit criteria of 70 percent.

• Overall, 54 percent of the elementary courses offered by the district had written curriculum documents.


Based on this analysis, the scope of the written elementary is considered inadequate to direct the teaching-learning process.

Exhibit 2.2.2 illustrates the scope of the middle school curriculum for grades 6 through 8 based on documents provided the auditors. The exhibit displays a listing of content areas taught, the grade level at which the content is taught, the availability of a curriculum guide, the total number of areas needing a written curriculum, and an indication of the number of curriculum guides that exist. An “X” indicates that a curriculum guide is available. The complete list of documents reviewed is shown in Appendix B.

Exhibit 2.2.2

Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 6-8Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Course Title 6 7 8 Courses Offered

Written Curriculum

AvailableCORE

Algebra I X 1 1English X X X 3 3Language Arts Dual Immersion 3 0Math X X X 3 3Math Enrichment 2 0Pre-Algebra X 1 1Science X X X 3 3Social Studies X X X 3 3

NON-CORE21st Century Learning X X X 3 3Art X X 3 2Art 2 Dimensional X 1 1Art 3 Dimensional X 1 1Band X X X 3 3Beginning Band X 1 1Beginning Orchestra X 1 1Business and Computers X 1 1Choir X X X 3 3Computer Literacy X X 2 2ELOB Crew 3 0Family and Consumer Science X X X 3 3French X X 3 2General Music X X X 3 3


Exhibit 2.2.2 (continued)Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 6-8


Course Title 6 7 8 Courses Offered

Written Curriculum

AvailableNON-CORE (continued)

Guided Learning X X X 3 3Health 3 0Leadership 2 0Lifelong Learning: Growing Up Ready X X X 3 3Orchestra 3 0PE X X X 3 3PE/Health 3 0Seminar 1 0Spanish 3 0Tech Ed X X X 3 3Theatre Arts X X 3 2World Language 1 0World Language Survey 1 0

Total CORE 19 14(74%)

Total NON-CORE 63 40(63%)

TOTAL Middle School 82 54(66%)

Data Sources: District Curriculum, Course ListingsNotes: X = Course offered at most or all campuses, curriculum available


• Seventy-four (74) percent of the core middle school courses had written curriculum documents. This does not meet the audit criteria of 100 percent for core courses.

• Sixty-three (63) percent of non-core middle school courses had written curriculum documents. This does not meet the audit criteria of 70 percent.

• Sixty-six (66) percent of all middle school courses offered by the district had written curriculum documents.


Exhibit 2.2.3 illustrates the scope of the high school curriculum grades 9 through 12 based on documents provided the auditors. The exhibit displays a listing of core subject areas taught and the availability of a curriculum guide. An “X” indicates that a curriculum guide is available. The complete list of documents reviewed is shown in Appendix B.

Exhibit 2.2.3

Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 9-12 For Core Subject Areas


Courses Offered in Core Content Subjects Grades 9-12Written Curriculum

Guide AvailableYES NO

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTSReading Fundamentals XSurvey Literature/Composition XSurvey Literature/Composition Honors XWorld Literature/Composition XWorld Literature/Composition Honors XAmerican Literature/Comp XAmerican Literature/Comp Honors XAP Literature/Composition XPerspectives in Lit/Comp XPerspectives in Lit/Comp Honors XMythology and Folklore XGothic Literature XEffective Communications XJournalism 2 XJournalism 2 Honors XJournalism 1 XYearbook XYearbook Honors XDigital Publication Design XEnglish 1 AIS XEnglish 2 AIS XEnglish 3 AIS XEnglish 4 AIS X

TOTAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 4(17%)

19(83%)

SOCIAL STUDIES Social Science Seminar XFreshman Seminar XU.S. History XU.S. History Honors XAP U.S. History XU.S. History 2 XMilitary History XWorld History XWorld History Honors X



For Core Subject AreasKenosha Unified School District

May 2013



SOCIAL STUDIES (continued)AP World History XWorld History 2 XU.S. Government and Politics XU.S. Government and Politics Honors XAP U.S. Government and Politics XU.S. Government and Politics B XU.S. Government and Politics Honors B XSociology XSociology Honors XEthnic Studies (American Society) XEthnic Studies Honors XPsychology XPsychology Honors XAP Psychology XEconomics XEconomics Honors XAP Macroeconomics XGlobal Studies (World Geography) XGlobal Studies Honors XLeadership 1 XLeadership 2 XLeadership 3 XLeadership 4 X

TOTAL SOCIAL STUDIES 22(69%)

10(31%)

MATHEMATICSAlgebra 1A XAlgebra 1B XAlgebra 1 XGeometry XGeometry Honors XMath Applications XAIS Math Applications XAlgebra 2 XAlgebra 2/Trig- Honors XProbability and Statistics XTrigonometry XDiscrete Mathematics XAP Statistics—AP Booklet X




May 2013



MATHEMATICS (continued)Math Analysis XPre-Calculus Honors XAP Calculus AB XAP Calculus BC XLiberal Arts Math XMath Tutorial Elective XAIS Math 1 XAIS Math 2 X

TOTALS MATH 16(76%)

5(24%)

SCIENCEPhysical Science XLab Techniques and Equipment XBiotechnology XBiotechnology Honors XBiology XBiology Honors XAP Biology XBiology 2 XHuman Biology and Ecology XVeterinary Science XHuman Biology and Ecology XAnimal Behavior XForensic Science XForensic Science 1 XForensic Science 2 XITA Forensic Science XGenetics XHuman Anatomy & Physiology XGenes and Disease XChemistry XChemistry Honors XAccelerated Chemistry XMatter and Energy XAP Chemistry XConceptual Physics XPhysics Honors XPhysics 1 XPhysics- 1 Honors X




May 2013



SCIENCE (continued)Accelerated Physics XAP Physics B XGeology XGeology Honors XEarth/Space Science XEarth/Space Science Honors XGeo Science and Astronomy XAstronomy XEcology XMarine Science XMarine Science Honors XAP Environmental Science XPrin Biomed Science Honors XHuman Body Systems-Honors XPrinciples Engineering XPrinciples Engineering Honors XMedical Interventions Honors XMedical Terminology XHealthcare Customer Service XGreat Minds of Science X

TOTALS SCIENCE 27(56%)

21(44%)

Totals core subjects taught grades 9-12: 69 55Percentage of core courses taught

with a written curriculum guide available: 56% 44%


• There are over 123 courses taught in core subject areas.

• Of the core courses offered, 69 (56 percent) had a written curriculum guides available. Fifty-five (55), or 44 percent, of core courses offered had no written curriculum guides available.

• The core subject area with the largest number of courses taught covered by a written curriculum guide was mathematics with 76 percent.

• The core subject area with the fewest number of courses taught covered by a written curriculum guide was English language arts with 17 percent.


Exhibit 2.2.4 illustrates the scope of the high school curriculum grades 9 through 12 based on documents provided the auditors. The exhibit displays a listing of core subject areas taught and the availability of a curriculum guide. An “X” indicates that a curriculum guide is available. The complete list of documents reviewed is shown in Appendix B.

Exhibit 2.2.4

Scope of the Written Curriculum Grades 9-12 For Non-Core Subject Areas


Courses Offered in Non-Core Content Subjects Grades 9-12Written Curriculum

Guide AvailableYes No

SPECIAL NEEDS AND OTHER ELECTIVE COURSESTransition XSkill Building XGuided Learning XStudent Partnership XStudy Skills XLife Skills XPersonal Development XEarly Start Intro to Algebra 1A XEarly Start Intro to Composition XVolunteer XCareer Exploration XACT Prep XEL-ELOB/Crew XELOB Crew XCrew - Instrumental Music XTeach Aide XEL-Teacher Aide XELOB Intensive XAP Lit & Comp Study Int XSports Writing & Statistics XMiddle School Yearbook XCelebrate Differences XUrban Legends XGimme Shelter XAP Calculus AB Study Int XAP Environ Sci Study Int XWinter Wildlife XInvest. Police/Fire/Rescue XCrafting XOutward Bound 10 XTaekwondo XHealthy College Students XCollege Tour X

TOTAL SPECIAL NEEDS AND OTHER ELECTIVE COURSES 0 33(100%)



For Non-Core Subject AreasKenosha Unified School District

May 2013



ARTS AND HUMANITIES Intro to High School Art X Intro to High School Art Honors X Fundamentals of Art/Design X Fundamentals of Art/Design Honors X Drawing/Painting X Foundations of Design/Drawing XArt Appreciation: Introduction XDraw/Paint/Printmaking 1 XDraw/Paint/Printmaking 1 Honors X Draw/Paint/Printmaking 2 X Draw/Paint/Printmaking 2 Honors XDraw/Paint/Printmaking 3 X Draw/Paint/Printmaking 3 Honors XAP Studio Art: Drawing X AP Studio Art: 2D Design X Graphic Design & Illustration 1 X Correlations of Design & Graphics XIllustration Media Concepts XCeramics X Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 1 X Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 1 Honors XCeramics/Sculpture/Metals 2 X Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 2 Honors XCeramics/Sculpture/Metals 3 X Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 3 Honors XAP Studio Art: 3D Design X Photography 1 X Photography 1 Honors X Photography 2 X Photography 2 Honors XPhotography 3 X Photography 3 Honors XDigital Photography XDigital Photography II XConcert Band X Concert Band Honors XSymphonic Band X Symphonic Band Honors XWind Ensemble X Wind Ensemble Honors XJazz Ensemble X Treble Choir X




May 2013



ARTS AND HUMANITIES (continued) Treble Choir Honors XConcert Choir XConcert Choir Honors XWomen’s Choir XWomen’s Choir Honors XA Cappella Choir XA Cappella Choir Honors XChorale XChorale Honors XVocal Jazz XMadrigal Singers XConcert Orchestra XConcert Orchestra Honors XSymphony Orchestra XSymphony Orchestra Honors XAlternative Strings X Music: A Listener’s Survey X AP Music Theory--AP Booklet X Drama 1 XDrama 2 XDrama 3 XActing 1 X Acting 1 Honors XActing 2 X Acting 2 Honors XTheater Practicum X Theatre Practicum Honors XMusical Theatre Vocal Tech X Musical Theatre Vocal Tech Honors XStagecraft 1 XStagecraft 2 XStagecraft 2 Honors XState Management Practicum XIntro to Dance XDance 2 XDance 3 XGuitar X

TOTAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES 61(77%)

18(23%)




May 2013



HEALTH PHYSICAL EDUCATION Physical Education 1 X Physical Education 2 X Physical Education 3 X Physical Education Foundations XLifetime Fitness XActive Lifestyles XPersonal Fitness XHealth XLifetime Fitness XActive Lifestyles XPersonal Fitness XPhysical Ed 4 Specially Designed XAIS Physical Education XLife Management Skills XPersonal Fitness 1 XPersonal Fitness 2 XFitness Lifestyle Design X

TOTAL HEALTH PHYSICAL EDUCATION 3(18%)

14(82%)

WORLD LANGUAGES Introductory Chinese 1--Tell Me More X Introductory Chinese 2--Tell Me More X Introductory Chinese 3--Tell Me More X Introductory French 1 X Intermediate French 2 XAdvanced French 3 Honors XFrench 4/AP French Honors--AP Booklet X Introductory German 1--Tell Me More XIntermediate German 2 Honors XAdvanced German 3 AP Booklet X Introductory Italian 1--Tell Me More X Intermediate Italian 2 Honors XAdvanced Italian 3 AP Booklet X Advanced Italian 302 Honors XIntroductory Spanish 102 XIntroductory Spanish 1 --Tell Me More X Intermediate Spanish 2--Tell Me More X Intermediate Spanish 2 Honors XAdvanced Spanish 3 X Advanced Spanish 3 Honors X Spanish 4/AP Spanish- Honors-Advanced Place Bk X Intermediate Spanish 202 honors X




May 2013



WORLD LANGUAGES (continued) Advanced Spanish 302 Honors XSpanish Cult/Civilization Honors XSpanish for Spanish Speakers 1 X

TOTAL WORLD LANGUAGES 13(52%)

12(48%)

CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION Computer Literacy XCareer Exploration X Desktop Publishing X Web Page Design X Personal Finance X Personal Finance - Honors X Economies X Investing For Your Future X Business & The Economy X International Business X Starting a Business X Accounting X Advanced Accounting - Honors X Learning A Living X Small Business Ownership X Leadership X Business and Personal law X Business and Personal Law Honors X Business and Leadership Ethics X Thinking & Learning Strategies XFinancial Literacy X Entrepreneurship X Career Planning XComputer Apps for Business XIntroduction to Business X Financial Services YAP XInternship X Employability Skills XComputer Apps-Info Tech X Computer Applications X Computer Fundamentals XNetwork Concepts-CCNA 1 XRouting- CCNA 2 XNetwork Security XIntroduction to Java XSwitch WANS-CCNA 3 & 4 X




May 2013



CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION (continued) Intro Program & Database Concepts XIT Essentials XNetwork Admin-Microsoft XIT in Business XIntro to Networking/Web Concepts X Marketing X Marketing Honors XAdvanced Marketing X Advanced Marketing Honors X Retail Merchandising/Management X Retail Merchandising/Management Honors X Trail Mix Internship X Retail Merchandizing/Manage-Internship XFamily Clothing/Clothing 1 X Fashion Careers/Clothing 2 X Food and Nutrition/Foods 1 X Culinary Skills/Food 2 X Career Foods/Foods 3 X Bistro X Building Relationship X Textile Arts X Interior Design 1 X Interior Design 2 X Parenting X Child Development 1 X Child Development 2 X Early Childhood X Infant Lab X Life Skills XECE: Health Safety & Nutrition X Exploring Health Occupations X Introduction to Medical Terminology X Medical Terminology XCertified Nursing Assistant XAP Robotics X Computing Healthcare X Computer Aided Design 1 X Computer Aided Design 2 X Construction Planning X Construction Systems 1 X Construction Systems 2 X Building Trades 1 X




May 2013



CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION (continued) Building Trades 2 X Civil Engineering /Arch X Civil Engineering /Arch Honors X Computer Aided Design-Beginning XConsumer Auto and Car Care X Automotive Technology 1 X Automotive Technology 2 X Automotive Collision X Small Engine Repair & Maintenance X Auto IT for Transportation XAuto Service Fundamentals XBrake Systems XDrafting-Electronics-Machining X Intro Design-Engineering-Tech X Principles- Engineering X Principles Engineering Honors X Intro to Engineering Design X Intro to Engineering Design Honors XDigital Electronics X Digital Electronics Honors XManufacturing Process 1 X Manufacturing Process 2 X Introduction to Computer Program Robotics X Fundamental Engineering/Manufacturing X Mechanical Skills Technicians XIntro Pneumatics/Hydraulics XQuality for Automated Manuf. XCAD Solids - Honors XComputer Assist. Program/Robotics XDA/AC Principles- Honors XCNC/CAM Programming XComputer Integrated Manuf. X Engineering Design & Develop-Honors X Communications X Graphic Communications X Multimedia Production 1 X Multimedia Production 2 X Digital Imagining X The Pulse Online News intern X MM Video Announcements- Intern X Principles- Emergency Services XIntro to Criminal Justice X




May 2013



CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION (continued) Youth Apprenticeship X

TOTAL CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION 84(69%)

37(31%)

SPECIAL EDUCATION Resource XCommunication Skills 1 XEnglish Fundamentals 1 X English Fundamentals 2 X Literacy 1 Perspective in Literature & Composition X Literacy 2 English 10 X Literacy 3 American Literature X Literacy 4 X Reading Fundamentals 1 X Reading Fundamentals 2 X English as a Second Language XSocial Studies Fundamentals 1 X World History Fundamentals X U.S. History Fundamentals X Global Studies SP Ed X Daily Living Skills Math 1 XFunctional Math 1 X Functional Math 2 X Functional Math 3 X Functional Math 4 X Functional Geometry X Math Applications 2 XMath Fundamentals 1 XMath Fundamentals 2 XLife Skills Science 1 Matter & Energy XLife Skills Science 2 X Science Applications 1 XScience Applications 2 XScience Fundamentals 1 X Science Fundamentals 2 X Daily Living Skills 1 X Daily Living Skills 2 XDaily Living Skills 3 XDaily Living Skills 4 XPersonal Care 1 XPersonal Care 2 XPersonal Care 3 XPersonal Care 4 X




May 2013



SPECIAL EDUCATION (continued) Career Exploration 1 X Career Exploration 2 X Community Living 1 X Community Living 2 X Community Living 3 X Community Living 4 XEmployability Skills 1 X Employability Skills 2 X Self Advocacy XLearning Strategies X Work Experience X AIS Accelerated Independent Study SpEd X Adapted Sociology X System 44 Computer X Adapted Health X

TOTAL SPECIAL EDUCATION 34(64%)

19(36%)

Total non-core subjects taught grades 9-12 with and without written curriculum guides: 195 133

Percentage of non-core courses taught with a written curriculum guide available: 59% 41%


• There are 328 non-core courses taught in grades 9-12.

• Of the 328 non-core courses, 195, or 59 percent, had written curriculum guide documents, and 41 percent had no written curriculum documents available to guide instruction.

• For both core and non-core courses, 58 percent had written documents, while 42 percent had no written curriculum documents to guide instruction.

• The non-core subject area with the largest number of courses taught covered by a written curriculum guide was Arts and Humanities with 77 percent, which meets the audit’s 70 percent requirement.

• The written curriculum for available high school courses does not meet the audit’s 70 percent requirement for all non-core courses and 100 percent requirement for core courses, and is considered inadequate in scope.


Exhibit 2.2.5 summarizes the data presented in Exhibits 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4:

Exhibit 2.2.5

Scope of the Written Curriculum by Instructional LevelKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Instructional Level

Grades/Subject/Courses Taught

Grades/Subject/Courses Taught

with a Curriculum Guide Available

Core Subject Area SummaryElementary (grades K-5) 32 24Middle School (grades 6-8) 19 14High School (grades 9-12) 124 69Total (Core Courses) 175 107Total Scope of Core Courses with Curriculum 61%

Non-Core Subject Area SummaryElementary (K-grade 5) 58 25Middle School (grades 6-8) 63 40High School (grades 9-12) 328 195Total (Non-core Courses) 449 260Total Scope of Non-core Courses with Curriculum 58%

Core and Non-Core Subject Area SummaryElementary Courses (K-Grade 5) 90 49Middle Courses (Grades 6-8) 82 54High School Courses (Grades 9-12) 452 264Total ALL District Courses (K-12) 624 367Total Scope of All Curriculum 59%


• Of the 175 core academic courses offered and taught in the Kenosha Unified School District, 61 percent have written curriculum documents to guide instruction. This does not meet the audit criterion of 100 percent coverage.

• Of the 449 non-core academic courses offered and taught, 58 percent have written curriculum documents to guide instruction. This does not meet the audit criterion of 70 percent coverage.

• Of the 624 academic courses offered and taught, 59 percent have written curriculum documents to guide instruction.

Summary

In summary, written curriculum is present at all grade levels, but the scope does not provide sufficient direction for vertically articulated teaching and learning for the entire school system. The total district written curriculum is 59 percent of all courses offered. The middle school had the most written curriculum with 66 percent. The elementary had the lowest percentage of courses and content areas that had corresponding curriculum, with a scope of 54 percent. The written curriculum is inadequate in scope at all levels for both core and non-core courses. The quality of these curriculum documents will be addressed in Finding 2.3 (see Recommendation 5).


Students engaged in an elementary math activity at Frank Elementary School.

Finding 2.3: The quality of all Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides is inadequate to direct delivery of the written, taught, and tested curricula.

Effective instruction in a district is directed by well-designed curriculum guides or courses of study that align the written, taught, and tested curriculum. Quality curriculum guides identify the objectives to be taught, align the objectives with the tested curriculum, identify the means for evaluation of achievement, specify necessary prerequisite skills, list instructional resources, and suggest instructional strategies for teaching. They support instruction so the efforts of teachers are guided in achieving the educational priorities of the system. Quality curriculum documents make the curriculum operational by providing work plans for teachers. They provide connectivity vertically and horizontally within the school system. They serve as a district’s blueprint for instruction, establishing priorities, purpose, and direction in teaching and learning. When guides are incomplete or nonexistent, instruction is likely to be inconsistent and fragmented across guides, courses, classrooms, and schools as teachers make individual decisions about what to teach without guidance or consensus on priorities, strategies, materials, or evaluation. In some instances, students do not have equal access to a common curriculum.

To determine the quality of curriculum guides in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors reviewed board policies, all curriculum guides and other curriculum documents. In addition, auditors interviewed board members, administrators, and teachers about curriculum use and adequacy. Auditors also visited all schools in the district and most classrooms.

Auditors found the quality of written curriculum documents used to guide instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District to be inadequate in design to provide teachers with sufficient information to direct and plan their instruction. Most curriculum guides did not specify prerequisite skills or include a scope and sequence chart to indicate topics or learning students would need to have previously mastered in order to be successful in the course. While several guides made a general reference regarding an approach to assessment, none keyed each objective to a district or state assessment. Most curriculum guides failed to include specific instructional strategies to guide the teaching of each objective. The majority of curriculum guides did reference board adopted textbooks and/or instructional materials.

Board policies and administrative regulations were reviewed with regards to the design and content of adopted curriculum guides. Auditors found that board policies were silent in providing general direction on the development and use of curriculum guides. Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Improvement simply states, “A PK-12 curriculum shall be established and maintained in accordance with state law, the needs of society, the local community, and the individual student.” No policies were found that established the expectation that all curriculum guides will include clearly-stated learning objectives, a statement of prerequisite skills or knowledge, suggested instructional strategies, or strategies to assess learning.


To determine the quality of district curriculum guides, auditors examined all documents presented as curriculum guides by district personnel including curriculum maps, unit and lesson plans, pacing guides, syllabi of courses, rubrics, and other documents presented to the audit team. Most of the district curriculum is hosted on a Kenosha Unified School District website and accessed through the district faculty secure site.

The auditors examined 335 curriculum guiding documents and rated them for the minimal basic component criteria established for PDK-CMSi audit purposes as listed in Exhibit 2.3.1:

Exhibit 2.3.1

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis: Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specificity

Point Value Criteria

Criterion One: Clarity and Specificity 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

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 specified grade level

3 States specific 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 specific examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom

Each curriculum guide was rated from 0 to 3 on each of the five criteria, with 3 representing the highest rating. A maximum composite score a curriculum guide could receive is 15 points. A curriculum guide is considered strong if it received a rating of 12 points or higher. The mean ratings for each criterion and the mean rating for all curriculum guides were then calculated. Exhibit 2.3.2 through Exhibit 2.3.7 presents the auditors’ ratings of each curriculum guide with the specific rating for each of the five criteria.


Exhibit 2.3.2 presents the auditors’ ratings of each elementary curriculum guide for the core content subjects of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Exhibit 2.3.2

Auditors’ Rating of Elementary Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guide Grade Level Date 1Obj

2Asmt

3Prereq

4Res

5Strat

Total Rating

Language Arts K 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Language Arts 1 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Language Arts 2 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Language Arts 3 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Language Arts 4 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Language Arts 5 2012 2 1 1 1 1 6Mean Rating for Each Criterion K-5 Language Arts 2 1 1 1 1 6Math K 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Math 1 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Math 2 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Math 3 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Math 4 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Math 5 2012 2 2 1 1 1 7Mean Rating for Each Criterion K-5 Mathematics 2 2 1 1 1 7Science K ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Science 1 ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Science 2 ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Science 3 ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Science 4 ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Science 5 ND 2 0 1 2 1 6Mean Rating for Each Criterion K-5 Science 2 0 1 2 1 6Social Studies K 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Social Studies 1 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Social Studies 2 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Social Studies 3 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Social Studies 4 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Social Studies 5 2012 2 1 1 1 0 5Mean Rating for Each Criterion K-5 Social Studies 2 1 1 1 0 5Mean Rating for Each Criterion for Elementary Core Courses 2 1 1 1.3 0.7 6


• Twenty-four (24) elementary (K-5) curriculum guides were examined.

• Curriculum guides for English language arts, mathematics, and social studies were created within the past year.

• The quality rating of the curriculum guides ranged from a low of 5 to a high of 7. In order for a curriculum guide to be considered strong, it must receive a score of 12.


• The average rating for the elementary curriculum guides in the subject areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies was 6.

• Elementary mathematics curriculum guides received the highest rating with an average score of 7 out of a possible 15 points.

• The elementary social studies curriculum guides received the lowest rating with an average score of 5 out of a possible 15 points.

• The strongest criterion across the curriculum guides was the clarity and specificity of objectives, which received an average rating of 2.

• The weakest criterion was instructional strategies, with an average rating of 0.7 points.

Overall, elementary curriculum guides for the subjects areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

Exhibit 2.3.3 presents the auditors’ ratings of each middle school curriculum guide for the core content subjects of English, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Exhibit 2.3.3

Auditors’ Rating of Middle School Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guides

Grade Level Date 1

Obj2

Asmt3

Prereq4

Res5

StratTotal

RatingEnglish 6 2012 2 1 0 1 0 4English 7 2012 2 1 0 1 0 4English 8 2012 2 1 0 1 0 4Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Middle School English 2 1 0 1 0 4

Math 6 2011 2 1 1 2 0 6Math 7 2011 2 1 1 2 0 6Math 8 2011 2 1 1 2 0 6Pre-Algebra 7/8 2007 2 1 1 2 1 7Algebra I 8 2012 2 1 1 2 0 6Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Middle School Math 2 1 1 2 0.2 6.2

Science 6 2013 2 1 0 1 0 4Science 7 2013 2 1 0 1 0 4Science 8 2013 2 1 0 1 0 4Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Middle School Science 2 1 0 1 0 4

Social Studies 6 2008 2 1 0 2 2 7Social Studies 7 2008 2 1 0 2 2 7Social Studies 8 2008 2 1 0 2 2 7Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Middle School Social Studies 2 1 0 2 2 7

Mean Rating for Each Criterion for Middle School Core Courses 2 1 .3 1.5 0.5 5.4



• Fourteen (14) middle school, grades 6-8, curriculum guides were examined.


• The average rating for the middle school curriculum guides in the subject areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies was 5.4.

• Middle school social studies curriculum guides received the highest ratings with an average score of 7 out of a possible 15 points.

• The middle school English and science curriculum guides each received the lowest ratings with an average score of 4 out of a possible 15 points.

• The strongest criterion across the curriculum guides was the clarity and specificity of objectives, which received an average rating of 2.

• The weakest criterion was prerequisites with an average rating of 0.3 points.

Overall, middle school curriculum guides for the subjects areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

Exhibit 2.3.4 presents the auditors’ ratings of each high school curriculum guide for the core content subjects of English, mathematics, science, and social studies.

Exhibit 2.3.4

Auditors’ Rating of High School Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guide Grade Level Date 1

Obj2

Asmt3

Prereq4

Res5

StratTotal

RatingLiteracy 9 ND 2 1 1 2 1 7American Literature & Composition 10 ND 2 1 1 2 1 7World Literature & Composition 11 ND 2 1 1 2 1 7Diverse Perspectives in Literature & Composition 12 ND 2 1 1 2 1 7

Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Secondary Language Arts 2 1 1 2 1 7

Algebra 1A 9 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Algebra 1B 9 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Algebra 1 9 2007 2 2 1 2 0 7Geometry 10 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Geometry Honors 10 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Math Applications 11 2008 2 2 1 2 1 8Algebra 2 11 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Algebra 2/Trig- Honors 11 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Probability and Statistics 11-12 2009 2 2 1 1 1 7Trigonometry 11-12 2013 2 2 1 1 1 7Discrete Mathematics 11-12 2007 2 2 1 2 2 9AP Statistics 11-12 2008 2 2 1 2 1 8Math Analysis 12 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8


Exhibit 2.3.4 (continued)Auditors’ Rating of High School Core Curriculum Guides

On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity CriteriaKenosha Unified School District

May 2013


Obj2

Asmt3

Prereq4

Res5

StratTotal

RatingPre-Calculus Honors 11 2011 2 2 1 2 1 8AP Calculus AB 11-12 2011 2 2 1 2 1 8AP Calculus BC 11-12 2011 2 2 1 2 1 8Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Secondary Mathematics 2 2 1 1.9 1 7.9

Lab Techniques and Equipment 9 2009 0 1 0 2 1 4Biotechnology 9 2007 1 1 0 2 0 4Biotechnology Honors 9 2007 1 1 0 2 0 4Biology 9 2008 2 0 0 1 0 3Biology Honors 9 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5AP Biology 11-12 2008 0 1 1 1 0 3Human Biology and Ecology 11-12 2009 2 0 0 2 0 4Human Biology and Ecology 11-12 2008 2 0 0 2 0 4Animal Behavior 11-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4Forensic Science 11-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4ITA Forensic Science 11-12 2007 0 1 1 1 0 3Genetics 11-12 2009 1 1 1 1 0 4Human Anatomy & Physiology 11-12 2009 2 1 0 2 1 6Chemistry 10 2007 2 1 1 1 1 6Chemistry Honors 10 2009 2 1 1 1 0 5Accelerated Chemistry 10 ND 2 1 1 1 1 6Matter and Energy 10 2009 1 0 0 2 2 5AP Chemistry 11-2 2011 2 1 1 1 1 6Conceptual Physics 11-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4Physics- 1 Honors 11-12 2009 2 0 0 0 1 3AP Physics B 11-12 2012 1 1 0 1 0 3Geology 11-12 2009 2 1 0 1 1 5Geology Honors 11-12 2009 2 0 0 0 0 2Astronomy 11-12 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Ecology 11-12 2010 1 1 1 1 0 4AP Environmental Science 11-12 2010 2 0 0 1 0 3Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Secondary Science 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 4.2U.S. History 9-12 2010 2 1 0 2 1 6AP U.S. History—AP Booklet 11-12 2012 1 1 0 1 0 3World History 10-12 ND 2 1 0 2 1 6AP World History—AP Booklet 11-12 2011 1 1 0 1 0 3U.S. Government and Politics 11-12 2008 2 1 0 2 2 7AP U.S. Government and Politics—AP Booklet 11-12 2012 1 1 0 1 0 3

Sociology 11-12 2008 2 1 1 2 1 7Sociology Honors 11-12 ND * * * * * *


Exhibit 2.3.4 (continued)Auditors’ Rating of High School Core Curriculum Guides


May 2013


Obj2

Asmt3

Prereq4

Res5

StratTotal

RatingEthnic Studies (American Society) 11-12 ND 2 0 0 2 0 4Ethnic Studies Honors 11-12 ND * * * * * *Psychology 11-12 2008 2 1 0 2 1 6Psychology Honors 11-12 ND * * * * * *AP Psychology—AP Booklet 11-12 2012 1 1 0 1 0 3Economics 11-12 2007 2 1 0 1 1 5Economics Honors 11-12 ND * * * * * *AP Macroeconomics 11-12 ND 1 1 0 1 0 3Global Studies (World Geography) 10-12 ND 2 0 0 2 0 4Global Studies Honors 10-12 ND 2 0 0 2 0 4Mean Rating for Each Criterion in Secondary Social Studies 1.6 0.8 0 1.6 0.5 4.6

Total Mean Rating for Each Criterion for all High School Core Courses 1.8 1.1 0.6 1.6 0.7 5.9

* AP course guidelines published by The College Board and not rated by the auditors.


• Sixty-four (64) high school, grades 9-12, curriculum guides were examined.


• The average rating for the high school curriculum guides in the subject areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies was 5.9.

• High school mathematics curriculum guides received the highest rating with an average score of 7.9 out of a possible 15 points.

• The high school science curriculum guides each received the lowest rating with an average score of 4.2 out of a possible 15 points.

• The strongest criterion across the curriculum guides was the clarity and specificity of objectives, which received an average rating of 1.8.


Overall, high school core curriculum guides do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

Auditors also reviewed curriculum guides for the non-core subject areas including art, music, and physical education. Exhibit 2.3.5 presents the auditors’ ratings of each elementary school curriculum guide for the non-core content subject areas.


Exhibit 2.3.5

Auditors’ Rating of Elementary School Non-Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guide Grade Date Obj Assess Prereq Res Strat TotalArt K-5 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Music K-5 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Library Media K-5 2009 2 0 0 0 0 2Choir K-5 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Mean Rating for Each Criterion for Elementary Non-Core Courses 2 0 0 0 0 2


• Twenty-four (24) elementary curriculum guides for non-core courses were examined.

• All curriculum guides examined for non-core elementary courses contained learning objectives but were missing references to assessment processes, delineation of prerequisite skills, listing of major resources, and instructional strategies.

• Each of the curriculum guides received a rating of 2 for stating the skill or concept to be learned but was lacking any references to sequence of learning, performance context, and amount of time to be spent on the learning.

Overall, elementary curriculum guides for non-core courses do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

Exhibit 2.3.6 presents auditors’ ratings of each middle school curriculum guide for the non-core content subject areas.

Exhibit 2.3.6

Auditors’ Rating of Middle School Non-Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guide Grade Date Obj Assess Prereq Res Strat TotalGuided Learning 6 ND 1 0 0 1 1 3Guided Learning 7 ND 1 0 0 1 1 3Guided Learning 8 ND 1 0 0 1 1 3Art 6 ND 1 1 0 0 0 2Art 2 Dimensional 8 ND 1 1 0 0 0 2Art 3 Dimensional 9 ND 1 1 0 0 0 2Beginning Band 6 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Band 7 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Band 8 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Choir 6 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Choir 7 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Choir 8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Beginning Orchestra 6 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Orchestra 7 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2


Exhibit 2.3.6 (continued)Auditors’ Rating of Middle School Non-Core Curriculum Guides


May 2013Curriculum Guide Grade Date Obj Assess Prereq Res Strat Total

Orchestra 8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2General Music 6 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2General Music 7 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2General Music 8 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Theatre Arts 7 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Theatre Arts 8 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4PE 6 ND 2 2 2 2 2 10PE 7 ND 2 2 2 2 2 10PE 8 ND 2 2 2 2 2 10Introductory Chinese 1—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Introductory Chinese 2—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Introductory Chinese 3—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Introductory German 1—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Introductory Italian 1—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Introductory Spanish 1—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Intermediate Spanish 2—Tell Me More 6-8 2010 2 0 0 0 0 2Computer Literacy 7 2007 2 1 0 2 2 7Business and Computers 7 2005 2 0 0 0 0 2Business and Computers 8 2007 2 1 1 2 0 621st Century learning 6 ND 2 0 0 2 2 621st Century learning 7 ND 2 0 0 2 2 621st Century Learning 8 ND 2 0 0 2 2 6Family and Consumer Science 6 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Family and Consumer Science 7 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Family and Consumer Science 8 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Tech Ed 6 2007 2 0 0 1 0 2Tech Ed 7 2007 2 0 0 1 0 3Tech Ed 8 2007 2 0 0 1 0 3Project Lead the Way 6-8 2013 2 1 1 2 2 8Mean Rating for Each Criterion for Middle School Non-Core Courses 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.5


• Forty-three (43) middle school curriculum guides for non-core courses were examined.


• The average rating for the middle school non-core curriculum guides was 3.5.

• Curriculum guides for physical education received the highest rating with a score of 10 out of a possible 15 points.


• Curriculum guides for beginning band and band each received the lowest rating with a score of 1 out of a possible 15 points.



Overall, middle school curriculum guides for non-core courses do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

Exhibit 2.3.7 presents the auditors’ ratings of each high school curriculum guide for the non-core content subject areas.

Exhibit 2.3.7

Auditors’ Rating of High School Non-Core Curriculum Guides On the PDK-CMSi Minimum Guide Components and Specificity Criteria


Curriculum Guide Grades Date Obj Assess Prereq Res Strat TotalARTS AND HUMANITIESIntro to High School Art 9 ND 1 1 0 2 0 4Intro to High School Art Honors 9 ND 2 1 1 2 0 6Fundamentals of Art/Design 10-12 ND 2 1 1 2 0 6Drawing/Painting 10-12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Draw/Paint/Printmaking 1 10-12 ND 1 1 1 2 0 5Draw/Paint/Printmaking 1 Honors 10-12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Draw/Paint/Printmaking 2 9-12 2002 0 0 0 0 0 2Draw/Paint/Printmaking 3 9-12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2AP Studio Art: Drawing 10-12 ND 1 1 0 1 1 4AP Studio Art: 2D Design 11-12 2010 1 1 1 2 2 7Graphic Design & Illustration 1 9-12 ND 2 0 0 0 0 2Ceramics 9-12 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 1 10-12 2002 1 1 1 2 0 5Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 2 10-12 2002 2 1 1 2 0 6Ceramics/Sculpture/Metals 3 11-12 ND 2 1 1 2 0 6AP Studio Art: 3D Design 11-12 2011 1 1 0 1 0 3Photography 1 10-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Photography 1 Honors 10-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Photography 2 11-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Photography 3 11-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Concert Band 9 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Symphonic Band 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Wind Ensemble 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Jazz Ensemble 9-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Treble Choir 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Concert Choir 9 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Women’s Choir 9-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1A Cappella Choir 11-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Chorale 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Vocal Jazz 11-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1


Exhibit 2.3.7 (continued)Auditors’ Rating of High School Non-Core Curriculum Guides


May 2013Curriculum Guide Grades Date Obj Assess Prereq Res Strat Total

ARTS AND HUMANITIES (continued)Madrigal Singers 11-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Concert Orchestra 9-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Symphony Orchestra 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1Alternative Strings 10-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 2Music: A Listener’s Survey 9-12 2002 1 0 0 0 0 1AP Music Theory—AP Booklet 11-12 2012 1 1 0 1 0 3Acting 1 9-12 ND 2 1 0 1 0 4Acting 2 10-12 ND 2 1 1 1 0 5Theater Practicum 11-12 ND 2 1 1 1 0 5Musical Theatre Vocal Tech 11-12 ND 2 1 0 1 0 4HEALTH PHYSICAL EDUCATIONPhysical Education 1 9-12 ND 2 1 1 3 3 10Physical Education 2 9-12 ND 2 1 1 3 3 10Physical Education 3 9-12 ND 2 1 1 3 3 10WORLD LANGUAGESIntroductory French 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 2 1 6French 4/AP French Honors—AP Booklet 11-12 2001 2 0 0 0 0 2Advanced German 3 AP Booklet 11-12 2011 2 0 0 0 0 2Advanced Italian 3 AP Booklet 11-12 2011 2 0 0 0 0 2Advanced Spanish 3 Honors 9-12 ND 1 1 1 2 1 6CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATIONCareer Exploration 9-12 ND 1 2 1 1 2 7Desktop Publishing 9-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4Web Page Design 9-12 2007 2 1 1 1 0 5Personal Finance 10-12 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Personal Finance - Honors 10-12 2007 2 2 1 2 1 8Economies 11-12 2008 2 1 1 1 2 7Investing For Your Future 11-12 2007 2 1 1 2 1 7Business & The Economy 9-12 2007 2 1 0 2 1 6International Business 9-12 2010 2 2 0 2 1 7Starting a Business 9-12 2010 2 2 1 2 1 8Accounting 10-12 2008 2 1 1 2 1 7Advanced Accounting - Honors 11-12 2008 2 1 1 2 0 6Small Business Ownership 10-12 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Leadership 11-12 2010 2 2 0 2 2 8Business and Personal law 9-12 2007 1 1 0 2 0 4Business and Personal Law Honors 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 1 6Business and Leadership Ethics 9-12 2007 1 1 0 2 0 4Financial Literacy 9-12 2007 2 2 0 2 1 7Entrepreneurship 9-12 2007 1 1 0 1 0 3Introduction to Business 9-12 2007 2 1 0 1 1 5





CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION (continued)Internship 11-12 2009 1 1 0 2 0 4Computer Apps-Info Tech 9 2007 2 1 0 1 0 4Computer Applications 9-10 2012 2 2 0 2 2 8Intro to Networking/Web Concepts 11-12 2007 1 1 1 2 0 5Marketing 10-12 2010 1 1 2 2 0 6Advanced Marketing 12 2007 1 1 1 2 0 5Advanced Marketing Honors 12 2007 2 1 1 2 0 6Retail Merchandising/Management 11-12 2007 1 1 1 2 0 5Retail Merchandising/Management Honors 11-12 2007 1 1 1 2 0 5Trail Mix Internship 11-12 2007 2 1 1 1 0 5Family Clothing/Clothing 1 9-12 2007 1 2 0 1 0 4Fashion Careers/Clothing 2 10-12 2007 2 1 0 2 0 5Food and Nutrition/Foods 1 9-12 2007 2 2 0 1 0 5Culinary Skills/Food 2 10-12 2007 2 2 1 2 0 7Career Foods/Foods 3 10-12 2007 1 1 1 2 2 7Bistro 11-12 2010 1 2 1 2 0 6Building Relationship 10-12 2007 2 2 0 2 0 6Textile Arts 9-12 2007 1 1 0 1 0 3Interior Design 1 9-12 2007 2 2 0 2 0 6Interior Design 2 10-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4Parenting 10-12 2007 2 1 1 2 0 6Child Development 1 9-12 2007 2 2 0 2 0 6Child Development 2 10-12 2007 2 2 1 2 0 7Early Childhood 10-12 2007 2 1 1 1 0 5Infant Lab 9-12 2007 1 1 0 1 0 3ECE: Health Safety & Nutrition 11-12 ND 2 1 0 1 0 4Exploring Health Occupations 9-12 2007 2 2 0 2 0 6Introduction to Medical Terminology 10-12 2007 1 2 0 2 0 5AP Robotics 11-12 ND 1 0 0 1 0 2Computing Healthcare 11-12 2007 0 1 1 2 0 4Computer Aided Design 1 9-12 2007 1 1 0 0 0 2Computer Aided Design 2 10-12 2007 1 1 1 0 0 3Construction Planning 9-12 2007 1 1 0 1 0 3Construction Systems 1 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Construction Systems 2 10-12 2009 2 1 1 2 0 6Building Trades 1 10-12 2007 0 1 1 1 0 3Building Trades 2 10-12 2007 0 1 1 1 0 3Civil Engineering /Arch 10-12 2007 1 1 1 0 0 3Civil Engineering /Arch Honors 10-12 2007 1 1 1 0 0 3Consumer Auto and Car Care 10-12 2007 2 1 0 2 0 5Automotive Technology 1 10-12 2007 2 1 0 2 0 5





CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION (continued)Automotive Technology 2 11-12 2009 2 1 1 2 0 6Automotive Collision 11-12 2007 2 1 1 1 0 5Small Engine Repair & Maintenance 9-12 2010 2 1 0 2 0 5Drafting-Electronics-Machining 9-12 ND 2 1 0 2 0 5Intro Design-Engineering-Tech 9 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Principles- Engineering 10-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Principles Engineering Honors 10-12 2009 2 1 1 2 2 8Intro to Engineering Design 10-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Digital Electronics 10-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Manufacturing Process 1 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Manufacturing Process 2 9 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Introduction to Computer Program Robotics 10 2007 2 1 1 1 0 5

Fundamental Engineering/Manufacturing 10 2011 2 1 0 1 0 4Computer Integrated Manuf. 11-12 2013 2 0 0 0 0 2Engineering Design & Develop-Honors 9-12 2009 2 1 1 2 2 8Communications 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Graphic Communications 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Multimedia Production 1 10 2007 1 1 1 0 0 3Multimedia Production 2 11-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5Digital Imagining 9-12 2009 2 2 1 2 0 7The Pulse Online News intern 9-12 2009 2 1 0 2 0 5MM Video Announcements- Intern 11-12 2007 1 1 1 1 0 4Youth Apprenticeship 11-12 2 1 1 1 0 5SPECIAL EDUCATIONEnglish Fundamentals 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4English Fundamentals 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Literacy 1 Perspective in Literature & Composition 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4

Literacy 2 English 10 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Literacy 3 American Literature 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Literacy 4 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Reading Fundamentals 1 9-12 2009 1 1 1 0 0 3Reading Fundamentals 2 9-12 2009 1 1 1 0 0 3Social Studies Fundamentals 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4World History Fundamentals 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4U.S. History Fundamentals 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Global Studies SP Ed 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Functional Math 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Functional Math 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Functional Math 3 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4





SPECIAL EDUCATION (continued)Functional Math 4 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 1 4Functional Geometry 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Life Skills Science 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Science Fundamentals 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Science Fundamentals 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 2 0 5Daily Living Skills 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Career Exploration 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Career Exploration 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Community Living 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Community Living 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Community Living 3 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Employability Skills 1 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Employability Skills 2 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Learning Strategies 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 1 5Work Experience 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4AIS Accelerated Independent Study SpEd 9-12 ND 1 1 1 1 0 4Adapted Sociology 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3System 44 Computer 9-12 ND 1 1 0 1 1 4Adapted Health 9-12 ND 1 1 1 0 0 3Mean Rating for Each Criterion for High School Non-Core Courses 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.2 4.4


• One hundred sixty-six (166) high school curriculum guides for non-core courses were examined.


• The average rating for the high school non-core curriculum guides was 4.4.

• Curriculum guides for physical education received the highest rating with a score of 10 out of a possible 15 points.

• Curriculum guides for many of the music courses received the lowest rating with a score of 1 out of a possible 15 points.


• The weakest criterion was instructional strategies with an average rating of 0.2 points.

Overall, high school curriculum guides for non-core courses do not contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching.

All curriculum guides listed in Exhibits 2.3.2 through 2.3.7 were reported by district personnel as in use in at least one school at the time of the audit. During their examination of the curriculum documents, auditors found that the documents for many curricular areas and grade levels ranged in dates from 2003 to 2013, and several were incomplete. Thus, the documents do not provide a complete focus for teaching. Outdated and incomplete


curriculum guiding documents require teachers to determine what they have and how to fill in gaps. Curriculum articulation, coordination, and alignment are left to chance and the individual efforts of teachers trying to plan among and between grade levels and courses.

Presented in Exhibit 2.3.8 is a summary of the mean curriculum guide ratings found in Exhibits 2.3.2 through 2.3.7. Auditors’ analysis of the rating given each criterion follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 2.3.8

Mean Rating of Curriculum by Audit Guide CriteriaKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Curriculum Guides 1Obj

2 Assess

3 Prereq

4 Res

5 Strat

Total Rating

Elementary Level Core Curriculum Guides 2 1 1 1.3 0.7 6Elementary Level Non-Core Curriculum Guides 2 0 0 0 0 2Middle Level Core Curriculum Guides 2 1 .3 1.5 0.5 5.4Middle School Non-Core Curriculum Guides 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 3.5High School Level Core Curriculum Guides 1.8 1.1 0.6 1.6 0.7 5.9High School Non-Core Curriculum Guides 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.2 4.4Mean Curriculum Guide Ratings 1.8 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.4 4.5

Auditors noted the following with respect to each criterion:

Criterion One: Clarity and Specificity of Objectives

Mean Rating: 1.8

To obtain a 3 under “clarity and specificity of objectives” curriculum guides must clearly state what it is students should be able to do; indicate when the objectives should be taught (sequence within the course or grade and often presented as a pacing calendar); specify the amount of time necessary to teach the objectives, skills, and/or concepts to mastery (hours/minutes range); and provide sufficient information to the teacher about the quality of performance that would be acceptable (e.g., rubric level). None of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides fully met this criterion. District curriculum guides were found to lack a learner-specific expectation that describes in measurable terms what mastery looks like, along with the estimated time needed for learning. Also, the specific content, context, and cognition type required of an articulated curriculum for each grade level is not present in the curriculum guides, thereby complicating the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

Criterion Two: Congruence of the Curriculum to the Assessment Process

Mean score: 0.8

To receive a rating of 3, learning objectives must be tied to the assessment process. To meet all the requirements of Criterion Two, the written curriculum needs to specify which objectives will be tested on what test and what those test items would look like so that what is taught (the content) is consistent with what is assessed and how it is assessed (context and cognitive type). None of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides fully met this criterion. Most of the curriculum guides examined contained little or no information for classroom teachers on how standards or objectives would be assessed. When a reference to assessment was noted, it was a generic statement in the course syllabus stating the following: KUSD Common Assessments; unit assessments; quizzes; projects.

All curriculum and assessment design decisions should take place or require approval at the district level. Alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is the essence of curriculum quality control. Curriculum alignment is not possible when classroom teachers are making individual decisions at the classroom or campus level on curriculum implementation and assessment practices.


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

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

Mean score: 0.5

A 3 rating for “delineation of prerequisite essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes” requires description of the specific skills/concepts that need to be introduced or mastered prior to the new learning. None of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides fully met this criterion, and many curriculum guides contained no reference to essential prior learnings. A Pre-K-12 scope and sequence for every subject area is an effective and efficient method to accomplish the delineation necessary and is essential to the vertical articulation of written curriculum across grade levels and the horizontal coordination of written curriculum across schools within the district.

Criterion Four: Delineation of Major Instructional Resources/Tools

Mean score: 1.1

To earn a 3 rating for “delineation of major instructional resources and tools,” curriculum guides must match instructional resources including the textbook and/or other materials by page or section to each learning objectives. Only three of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides fully met this criterion. While many of the curriculum guides examined listed the district adopted material, textbook or additional instructional materials, the audit expectations require specificity regarding the name of the resource/tool, page number, and directions for locating the resource, with a direct linkage to each objective. This criterion also requires curriculum writers to address issues of quality and alignment, such as the rigor of the resources and their alignment to the written and tested curricula, when selecting and recommending resources.

Criterion Five: Clear Approaches for Classroom Use

Mean Score 0.4

A 3 rating in this category indicates that curriculum guides provide specific examples for teachers on how to approach the teaching of key concepts and skills. Only three of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum guides fully met this criterion. A majority of curriculum guides examined contained no references to instructional approaches.

During interviews with district personnel, auditors received many comments regarding the quality of the district curriculum documents. Following is a representative sample of interview comments received by auditors:

• “We are not aligned as we should be. The sites have been left to their own devices to do what they do with curriculum. There is not a district vision of curriculum, assessment, and instruction.” (Site Administrator)

• “Our curriculum is the state standards.” (Site Administrator)

• “It is frustrating and overwhelming to work with my curriculum without guidelines.” (District Teacher)

• “We have district scope and sequences and teachers battle over them. Sometimes there are campuses that don’t agree with the chosen path and make their own decisions.” (Site Administrator)

• “Math and science are high quality and recently revamped. Reading and writing is an area of need.” (Site Administrator)

• “Teachers have to hunt for things themselves.” (Site Administrator)

• “We’ve been allowed to develop the curriculum. There is excellent quality at the elementary and junior high [middle school], but there is a drop off in quality at the high school.” (Administrative Support Staff)


• “There are gaps. Too much is left for teachers to be lone rangers. That’s why we’re doing what we’re doing in writing.” (Site Administrator)

• “When I came, I was told about the scope and sequence online, but that was it.” (District Teacher)

• “I think the curriculum should be standardized by the district. It should be mandatory. What we teach should be assessed and we should be held accountable.” (District Teacher)

Summary

Curriculum guides in the Kenosha Unified School District are inadequate to provide teachers with clear direction for instruction. Curriculum guides in their current form do not contain enough information to provide teachers with a complete and comprehensive work plan to guide their teaching. None of the curriculum guides examined were considered strong, with curriculum guides judged the weakest in establishing linkages between learning objectives and assessments, identifying essential prerequisite learnings, and specifying instructional strategies or approaches. The use of curriculum guides to direct teaching is inconsistent as there are multiple documents in circulation that teachers may choose to use, with some individual schools pursing their own curriculum development in absence of clear direction from the district (see Recommendation 5).

Finding 2.4: Curriculum guides are inadequate to support effective instruction and student success on state assessments; they lack feasibility and alignment with Common Core Standards in the match of content, context, and cognition.

A comprehensive curriculum designed to meet national and state standards should provide internal consistency from the learning objectives through the selected instructional materials and strategies for the formative and summative assessments used to diagnose progress and measure student mastery of learning objectives. Effective curriculum also employs a range of thinking skills, drawing upon many cognitive types and employing increasingly higher cognitive demand to provide a rigorous curriculum for all students. Such curriculum design offers confidence that the work to be accomplished by teachers and students will address the intended learning standards and objectives and will provide a spectrum of activities to build upon each level of learning undertaken by students.

In order to determine the depth of alignment of curriculum in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors reviewed board policies to identify expectations. They reviewed all curriculum documents presented to them as curriculum guides and interviewed board members, administrative staff, and teachers regarding curriculum quality and alignment.

Overall, auditors found the number of learning targets in literacy and mathematics to be infeasible to ensure mastery of essential learnings within allocated instructional time. Learning targets, assessment items, and instructional resources for literacy and mathematics were not deeply aligned to the Common Core standards.

No reference to curriculum alignment was found in board policies; however, the following policies set forth some expectation in this area for the district:

• Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Improvement directs, “A PK-12 curriculum shall be established and maintained in accordance with state law, the needs of society, the local community, and the individual student. The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.”


• Board Policy 6610: Selection Of Instructional Materials stipulates, “The selection of instructional materials, including required textbooks and supplementary books and materials shall be recommended to the School Board by the Superintendent of Schools, in accordance with District rules and regulations. The Board shall make the final determination regarding selection of materials.”


In addition to identifying the scope of the available written curriculum (see Finding 2.2) and determining the basic quality of written curriculum documents (see Finding 2.3), auditors also reviewed textbooks, district proficiency assessments, and other resources for deeper curriculum alignment by analyzing feasibility and internal consistency. For this analysis auditors selected literacy and mathematics curriculum documents as provided by district staff. Auditors limited their analysis to literacy and mathematics due to the differences in the degree of development noted among curriculum documents and resources used to guide instruction in other subject areas.

In analyzing for feasibility auditors focused on a review of the number of core standards and learning targets in each subject area as noted in the curriculum maps for feasibility of teaching and learning within the specified time of each grade level/course offering. In analyzing for internal consistency, auditors focused on the congruence of learning targets to standards in regard to their content (topological alignment), their context (deep alignment), and cognition levels (Bloom’s); the congruence between learning standards and instructional resources/textbooks in use; the congruence of assessment items to content standards; and the congruence of district curriculum design elements .

To accomplish these analyses, the auditors reviewed selected samplings of Core Academic Standards, learning targets from district curriculum maps, instructional materials and resources, and assessment items from various grades and subjects. For the targeted sample of resources, auditors chose the materials presented in curriculum maps as a primary instructional resource.

I. Feasibility of standards and learning targets

For any grade level or course, the number of standards and/or objectives (called learning targets or “I can” statements in Kenosha Unified School District curriculum maps and units of study) must be feasible for the time allotted for instruction if teachers are expected to teach to mastery rather than for coverage. When teaching to mastery, students need to be provided numerous practice opportunities over a period of time in order to retain the learning. The amount of time needed to master an objective will vary depending on the complexity of the learning. Those developing curriculum need to consider not only the amount of time a typical student may need to acquire the learning but also the time needed to retain the learning. Designing a curriculum around the typical learner ensures that there are not too many objectives to be taught. Auditors reviewed the number of standards and targets per grade level and course offering for literacy and mathematics.

The auditors found that the number of standards and learning targets differ greatly from subject to subject and from grade to grade within the Kenosha Unified School District. The specific findings for literacy and mathematics are described below.

Literacy

Literacy is made up of three components (Reading Foundation Skills, Reading Literature, and Reading Informational) with standards and learning targets for each. Because the amount of time needed to teach an objective to mastery varies, as does the amount of instructional time available at a particular grade level and/or school, auditors used a consistent assumption regarding the amount of instructional time available for literacy instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District. At the elementary level, grades K-5, auditors assumed that there is 120 minutes of literacy instruction available per day and 160 days of uninterrupted instruction available per school year for a total of 320 hours of time available for literacy instruction. Assuming it takes an average of eight hours to teach an objective to mastery, elementary teachers might reasonably be expected to teach 40 objectives per year to mastery. At the secondary level, grades 6-12, auditors assumed 160 class periods of uninterrupted instruction per school year. Assuming it takes an average of three class periods to teach an objective to mastery, secondary teachers might reasonably be expected to teach 53 objectives per year to mastery.


Exhibit 2.4.1 displays the number of standards and learning targets included at each grade and course for literacy.

Exhibit 2.4.1

Analysis of Feasibility of Learning Targets for LiteracyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Unit I Unit II Unit III Unit IV Unit V Unit VI TotalFirst GradeCore Content 10 10 10 8 8 9 55I Can statements 14 19 17 18 17 17 102Second GradeCore Content 9 8 11 10 12 10 60I Can statements 12 22 15 11 12 8 80Third GradeCore Content 9 7 * * * * 16I Can statements 20 17 * * * * 37Fourth GradeCore Content 7 6 7 4 9 4 37I Can statements 18 21 16 18 14 14 101Fifth GradeCore Content 8 7 7 8 6 7 43I Can statements 18 9 7 6 5 7 52Sixth GradeCore Content 12 23 13 10 * * 58I Can statements 34 69 44 17 * * 164Seventh GradeCore Content 12 10 14 * * * 36I Can statements 32 16 27 * * * 75Eighth GradeCore Content 17 * * * * * 17I Can statements 30 * * * * * 30*no data availableSource: Data provided by district

From Exhibit 2.4.1 the following is noted:

• Grades 1-8 have units of study with core content, “I Can” statements, Big Ideas, and Guiding Questions provided.

• Grades 3, 6, 7, and 8 had incomplete documents as not all six units of study were provided.

• Grade 6 had the highest number of learning target statements with 164. Given the assumptions outlined above, this number of objectives is infeasible in the instructional time available.

• Grade 1 had the second highest number of learning target statements with 102. Given the assumptions outlined above, this number of objectives is infeasible in the instructional time available.

• Grade 4 had the third highest number of learning targets with 101. Given the assumptions outlined above, this number of objectives is infeasible in the instructional time available.


• Grade 5 had the fewest learning targets (52) of the grades with complete documents. Given the assumptions outlined above, this number of objectives is infeasible in the instructional time available.

Auditors determined that mastery of the learning targets in literacy was not feasible given the number of learning targets and the instructional time available.

Mathematics

Curriculum documents for elementary mathematics, grades K-5, provide “I Can” statements in each unit of study. Because the amount of time needed to teach an objective to mastery varies, as does the amount of instructional time available at a particular grade level and/or school, auditors used a consistent assumption regarding the amount of instructional time available for mathematics instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District. At the elementary level, grades K-5, auditors assumed there is 50 minutes of mathematics instruction available per day and 160 days of uninterrupted instruction available per school year for a total of 133 hours of mathematics instruction. Assuming it takes an average of eight hours to teach an objective to mastery, elementary teachers might reasonably be expected to teach 16 objectives per year to mastery.

Exhibit 2.4.2 displays the number of standards and learning targets included at each grade and course for mathematics.

Exhibit 2.4.2

Analysis of Feasibility of Learning Targets for MathematicsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Math Content Area K 1 2 3 4 5Math Processes 4 4 4 4 4 4Number Operations 11 16 21 21 26 35Geometry 1 1 3 6 12 10Measurement 4 4 8 12 12 11Statistics 2 2 4 5 7 6Algebra 4 6 7 5 8 8

TOTALS 26 33 47 53 69 74Source: Documents provided by District

From Exhibit 2.4.2, it is noted:

• The number of “I Can” statements increased each year from kindergarten through fifth grade.

• The number of “I Can” statements for math processes stays the same from kindergarten to fifth grade.

• Number Operations has the most “I Can” statements.

• The number of “I Can” statements for Measurement triples from kindergarten to fifth grade.

• The number of Algebra “I Can” statements doubles from kindergarten to fifth grade.

• Given the assumptions outlined above, the number of mathematics objectives at each grade level is considered infeasible in the instructional time available.

Auditors determined that mastery of the learning targets in mathematics was not feasible given the number of learning targets and the instructional time available.

Overall, auditors determined that the number of learning targets contained in a sample of literacy and mathematics curriculum maps and units of study are too numerous to ensure the ability of teachers to teach to mastery in the instructional time allotted.


II. Congruence of learning targets to content standards

Contained within the curriculum maps and units of study developed to guide instruction in the Kenosha Unified School District are content standards broken down into learning targets. To provide clarity for teachers and students alike, the learning targets are written in a statement that begins with “I can…” and are intended to be student friendly.

Auditors analyzed the content standards in literacy along with the learning targets (“I Can” statements) to determine if the learning targets are congruent in content, context, and cognition to the core standards. Exhibit 2.4.3 shows a sample of literacy standards and learning targets for kindergarten through grade 5.

Exhibit 2.4.3

Internal Consistency of Sample Learning Target to The Common Core Standards for Literacy, Grades K-5


CongruenceGrade Level, Selected Standards Standard Specification Learning Target Content Context CognitionGrade K ELA: RL.K.7 With prompting and support, describe the relationship between illustrations and the story in which they appear.

With prompting and support, describe the relationship between illustrations and the story in which they appear (e.g., what moment in a story an illustration depicts.)

I can ask and answer questions before, during and after reading or listening to a story.

P N N

Grade K ELA: RF.K.1 Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print.

Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of print.

I can recognize that books are read from left to right and top to bottom

P P N

Grade 1 ELA: RF.1.4 Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Read on-level text with purpose and understanding.

I can use sound patterns to read words.

N — —

Grade 1 ELA: RL.1.3 Describe how characters in a story respond to major events and challenges.

Describe characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details.

I can identify the character, setting, and major events in a story.

P Y N

Grade 1 ELA: RL.1.2 Recount stories, including fables and folktales from diverse cultures, and determine their central message, lesson or moral.

Identify the main topic and retell key details of a text.

I can retell stories using key details. I can define the central message or lesson found in a story using key details.

Y Y Y

Grade 2 ELA: RF.2.3f Know and apply grade level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.

I can read words that sound the way they are spelled, even when they don’t follow a normal pattern.

Y P N


Exhibit 2.4.3 (continued)Internal Consistency of Sample Learning Target to

The Common Core Standards for Literacy, Grades K-5Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013 Congruence

Grade Level, Selected Standards Standard Specification Learning Target Content Context CognitionGrade 2 ELA: RL2.5 Know and use various text features (e.g. captions, bold print, subheadings, glossaries, indexes, electronic means) to locate key facts or information in a text efficiently.

Use text features to locate key facts or information efficiently

I use the structure of the text to build meaning. I can use the text to figure out the meaning of new words.

P P Y

Grade 2 ELA: RI.2.1 Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.

Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.

I can ask questions before, during and after reading that help me understand the meaning of a text (e.g. who, what, where, when, why, how).

P N N

Grade 3 ELA: RF.3.4b Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Read on-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings.

I can read grade level text fluently.

N — —

Grade 3 ELA: RL3.7 Explain how specific aspects of a text’s illustrations contribute to what is conveyed by the words in a story (e.g. create mood, emphasize aspects of a character or setting).

Explain how specific aspects of a text’s illustrations contribute to what is conveyed by the words in a story (e.g., create mood, emphasize aspects of a character or setting.)

I can locate words and details to answer questions in a text.

N — —

Grade 3 ELA: RI.3.2 Recount stories, including fables, folktales, and myths from diverse cultures; determine the central message, lesson, or moral and explain how it is conveyed through key details in the text.

Determine the main idea of a text, recount the key details, and explain how they support the main idea.

I can recount/retell stories. I can define the central message, lesson or moral. I can identify key ideas in a text and explain how they support the main idea.

Y Y Y

Grade 4 ELA: RF.4.3a Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

Use combined knowledge of all letter-sounds correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.

I can use affixes to read unfamiliar words in context. I can use affixes to read unfamiliar words out of context. I can use syllabication patterns to read unfamiliar words. I can use roots to read unfamiliar words in context. I can use roots to read unfamiliar words out of context.

Y Y P


Exhibit 2.4.3 (continued)Internal Consistency of Sample Learning Target to

The Common Core Standards for Literacy, Grades K-5Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013 Congruence

Grade Level, Selected Standards Standard Specification Learning Target Content Context CognitionGrade 4 ELA: RL.4.2 Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the text, summarize the text.

Determine the theme of story, drama, poem from details in text and summarize the text.

I can explain the difference between biography, autobiography, memoir, and personal narrative. I can write about people or myself using details, examples and events that support the theme.

N — —

Grade 4 ELA: RI.4.1 Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text.

I can ask deep, text appropriate questions. I can demonstrate comprehension at my instructional level.

N — —

Grade 5 ELA: RF.5.4c Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.

I can read fluently with accuracy, expression, and correct rate.

P N N

Grade 5 ELA: RL.5.7 Analyze how visual and multimedia elements contribute to the meaning, tone, or beauty of a text (e.g. graphic novel, multimedia presentation of fiction, folktale, myth, poem)

Analyze how visual and multimedia elements contribute to meaning, tone, or beauty of text

I can verbalize and record what I am thinking while reading. I can become familiar with different genres of text.

N — —

Grade 5 ELA: RI.5.1 Quote accurately from a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text.

Quote accurately from a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text.

I can make strong written responses to readings. I can demonstrate comprehension at my instructional level.

N — —

Key: Y = Yes content matches; N = No match; P = Partial match, less than half of elements matching; — = Content did not match, unable to analyze for context and cognition Sources: KUSD Supporting Unit Documents Grades K-5

From Exhibit 2.4.3: the following is noted:

• Seventeen (17) sample literacy learning targets were analyzed for kindergarten through grade 5.

• Of the 17 samples of standards and learning targets, only two were found to be fully congruent in content, context, and cognition.

• Four samples were found to be congruent in content, and six samples were partially congruent in content.

• Seven samples were not congruent in content and, therefore, could not be analyzed for context and cognition.


Overall, auditors determined that district learning targets contained in a sample of literacy curriculum maps and units are not fully congruent in content (topological), nor in context (deep alignment) or cognition.

III. Congruence of learning standards and instructional resources/textbooks

Connectivity between the written, taught and tested curricula is an audit standard which is built into the curriculum guide rating criteria (see Exhibit 2.3.1) and includes an expectation that district curriculum documents will clearly delineate the major instructional resources teachers can access for each stated learning objective. Auditors examined Kenosha Unified School District curriculum maps, units of study, and other documents to determine the extent to which instructional resources such as textbooks and supplemental materials are included. Based upon their examination, auditors found there is a variety of textbooks, supplemental resources, and other instructional tools being utilized in the Kenosha Unified School District to deliver the curriculum. Curriculum maps and units of study from the various subject areas have different formats; thus, all resources are not consistently listed. Auditors also noted that some content areas had 10 to 15 different curriculum documents per grade level with varying dates, making it difficult for teachers to distinguish which curriculum document is the most current document in use to guide instruction.

During interviews with district personnel, auditors received many comments regarding the lack of consistency in use of teaching resources across the school district. Interview comments indicated that instructional resources have been used as curriculum in the district and that different resources were being utilized on different campuses. Following is a representative sample of interview comments received by auditors:

• “Steps have been taken to get schools to use the same curriculum. Every school uses their own set of materials and another school uses a different set of materials. We need to get them to all use the same set of materials.” (Site Administrator)

• “There is no consistency in English as the students will read the same books in ninth grade as they did in eighth.” (District Administrator)

• “For the Language Arts curriculum, they pull whatever they like to teach. There is overlap and inconsistency.” (District Administrator)

• “I am not sure what the textbook process is. It has not been used since 2005. Once the administrator who oversaw this retired, none of the processes have been used.” (District Administrator)

• “The document used for a curriculum map varies by school...you will see lots of different maps and pacing guides.” (District Administrator)

• “We are not required to take resources purchased for curriculum before the board for approval.” (District Administrator)

• “We are all at different places in the curriculum. Some of us have started work on the Common Core and others have not.” (Site Administrator)

• “If we were focused on the Common Core, it would not matter what the materials are.” (Site Administrator)

Auditors determined the extent to which district adopted textbooks were congruent with (support the teaching of) literacy and mathematics core content standards in terms of content, context, and cognition. For this analysis, auditors chose to examine the primary resources listed in the curriculum maps for literacy and mathematics. Exhibit 2.4.4 displays the auditors’ analysis of the alignment of a prime literacy resource with the stated standard or learning target.


Exhibit 2.4.4

Internal Consistency of Representative Literacy Instructional Resources and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets


CongruenceCore Academic

Standard/Learning Target

Textbooks/Suggested Activities Content Context Cognition Areas of Incongruence

Fourth GradeI can identify basic points of view as first person, second person, or third person.

Show a power point to introduce the concept of point of view. Show examples of poetry written in three points of view. Read 2 poems from Journeys textbook page 111 (Karate Kid-1st person) and page 112 (Deanie McLeanie-3rd person). For the second person example share the writing on the Statute of Liberty (Give me your tired, your poor, your huddles masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore). Spend time discussing what point of view the students are currently reading in their books. Have students write a sentence from their book to show an example of the point of view it is written in. Assess by giving them the worksheet Identifying Narrative Perspective in the Works of Roald Dahl.

Yes Yes Yes Teacher is providing direct instruction and student is doing guided practice and then comprehension. The cognition level is knowledge rather than application.

I can identify basic points of view as first person, second person, or third person.

Explain to students that a story told from the first-person point of view is told by a character in the story who uses pronouns such as I or me. Remind students that in a story told from the third-person point of view, the narrator is not a character. Instead the narrator observes the events and characters from outside the story, using pronouns like he, she and they. Tell students that to figure out whether a story is told from the first or third-person point of view,they should ask themselves if the speaker is inside or outside the story. Read page 314 story and ask, “Which point of view is the author writing here?”

Partial Partial No The teacher is providing very direct instruction. The content is a specific story rather than from any type of story. The cognition level is knowledge rather than application.

6th GradeI can identify basic points of view as first person, second person, or third person.

Read elements of Literature: Literary Criticism by Mara Rockliff. Discuss Does Fiction reflect the writer’s life? Discuss how writers typically write from experience. Read “Out Out” page 709 by Robert Frost. Read lines 10-14. What have you learned about this poem’s speaker? Use Biographical criticism to complete the chart “It Says, I Say, And So”.

Partial No No The students first identify who the speaker is (rather than 1st, 2nd or 3rd person) and use a strategy called biographical criticism to address the poem.


Exhibit 2.4.4 (continued)Internal Consistency of Representative Literacy Instructional Resources

and Core Content Objectives/Learning TargetsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013Congruence

Core Academic Standard/

Learning TargetTextbooks/Suggested Activities Content Context Cognition Areas of

Incongruence

9th GradeI can identify basic points of view and support from narrative in the text.

Read “Armistice” pp 1076-1082. Malamud frequently uses the third person omniscient point of view in which the narrator reveals the thoughts of different characters. What do you think would have been lost if Armistice had been narrated only from Morris’ viewpoint?

Partial No No The student is told the point of view and asked to identify what would have been lost if it had been told in first person. Cognitively this is deeper than the learning target. It does not require the students to use the text for supporting type of point of view.

I can identify basic points of view and support from narrative in the text.

Read the following passage and determine the narrative perspective, then explain how you were able to identify the point of view. If the passage is 3rd person, explain which characters’ thoughts are revealed. “Leslie sat in front of Paul. She had two long, brown pigtails that reached all the way down to her waist. Paul saw those pigtails, and a terrible urge came over him. He wanted to pull a pigtail. He wanted to wrap his fist around it, feel the hair between his fingers, and just yank. He thought it would be fun to tie the pigtails together, or better yet, tie them to her chair. But most of all he just wanted to pull one.”

Yes Yes No The cognition is comprehension and is not at the application level.

4th GradeRL.4.1 Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text. LT: I Can demonstrate comprehension at my instructional level.

Read The Screech Owl Who Liked Television. Notice the facts and opinions the author provides. Use a graphic organizer to separate the selections’ facts from the opinions. The last paragraph on page 282 contains both facts and opinions. Use your graphic organizer to distinguish facts from opinions.

Partial No No Fact and Opinion are precursors to inference; however, this story shows the students each place to analyze text. It only asks them to put information on the chart without asking for an explanation.


Exhibit 2.4.4 (continued)Internal Consistency of Representative Literacy Instructional Resources


May 2013Congruence



Incongruence

Middle SchoolRL.8.1 Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as the inferences drawn from the text.

Read Conductor on the Underground Railroad by Ann Petry (PP 143-152.) As you read this biography, look for the open book signs. These signs indicate places where you must make inferences. 1) What does it mean that the new law was Thomas Sims or Jerry and Shadrach? 2) Why would shoes be so important to the fugitives? 3) What inferences can you make about Tubman from this Paragraph? 4) Why does Harriet Tubman make this threat?

Partial Partial Partial The text is provided as opposed to the student having any text (not just a reading book). The passages are marked in the text for the student to cite the evidence and make an inference as opposed to the student finding the explicit information and making an inference. The cognition level is comprehension rather than higher level.

10th GradeRL.9.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

Read Mother Tongue. Answer the following questions: what do you think were Tan’s main purpose for writing this story? What issues and concerns does she raise? What is her attitude toward her subject? How would you describe this style of essay?

Partial No No The use of a story and text is provided. The questions do not appear to require inference. The activity does relate to using parts of the text, but in a recall comprehension level of cognition. The activity would need to require the student to draw inference from text statements.

From Exhibit 2.4.4 the following can be noted:

• In one of the eight examples, the suggested textbook activity was fully congruent in content, context, and cognition with the listed standard and learning target.


• In one of the eight examples, the suggested textbook activity was partially congruent in content, context, and cognition with the listed standard and learning target.

• In six of the eight examples, the suggested textbook activity was found to be partially congruent with the content of the listed learning target.

• Based on this sample, 16 percent of the textbooks’ activities were considered congruent with the listed standard and learning target.

Exhibit 2.4.5 displays the auditors’ analysis of the alignment of a prime mathematics resource with the stated standard or learning target.

Exhibit 2.4.5

Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Instructional Resources and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets


Congruence Core Academic


Textbooks/Suggested Activities Content Context Cognition Areas of Incongruence

Geometry Standard G.GMD.1.3: Explain volume formulas and use them to solve problems

Use rubix cubes, build a figure. Show students how to count the block to illustrate the volume. Define volume. Provide the Theorems: Volume of a Prism and volume of a Cylinder. Provide example of each. Find the volume of a solid figure page in text. Provide problems for students to calculate volume. Provide guided practice and independent practice. Show multiple puzzle pieces, have students work in pairs for answers.

Partial Partial Partial The activity has the students using counters to compute volume. They are to also solve problems with volume formulas. These activities require minimal explanation.

Standard G.GMD.1.3: Explain volume formulas and use them to solve problems

Provide practice from Chapter 12 Practice workbook. Find length, using the given volume. Sketch solid and find its volume. (A rectangular prism with a height of 3 feet, width of 6 feet and length of 9 feet). Additional problems on the volume of solids, prism, and cylinders. Use Cavelieri’s Principle to find the volume.

Yes Partial Partial The problems provide students an avenue to practice and extend learning through use of a specific principle to find volume. No explanation is required in any of the work.


Exhibit 2.4.5 (continued)Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Instructional Resources


May 2013Congruence



Incongruence

Geometry (continued)Standard G.GMD.1.3: Explain volume formulas and use them to solve problems

Students are provided instruction from Teacher using Promethean Board and students take notes, with study guide. Students are provided a problem to work in pairs, and share with each other how they worked their problem. The explanation is then given to the entire class. This is repeated multiple times to provide opportunity for all students to share. Problems include: find the volume of the solid by determining how many unit cubes are contained in the solid. (3 figures with sides marked in cubes). Find the volume of the right prism or right cylinder. Round answers to two decimal places. (Pictures provided with measurements)

Yes Yes Yes

Algebra 1 Standard A.APR.1 Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials: linear and quadratic

Give students a worksheet with three columns. In all three columns, they tell whether the expression is a polynomial and explain. Problems include 3b2- 2 and 3cubed. Other problems are find the sum or difference of two equations. Provide another worksheet with multiplying polynomials with all columns having equations for multiplication such as x(3x2-2x+1). Another problem is (9d2+3d+2) + (2d+4d+8).

Yes Partial Partial The practice worksheets do provide opportunity to perform addition, subtraction, and multiplication on the polynomials. They were all linear equations. Teachers listed chapters on quadratics not yet covered.

Standard A.APR.1 Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials: linear and quadratic

Chapter 9 of text. Provide guided notes on monomial, binomial, and trinomial. Provide a series of equations and have students tell which type they are. Then have the students practice finding sums and differences and identifying the type of polynomial the answer is.

Partial Partial No Students were working on different nomenclature with binomials, trinomials, and monomials than linear and quadratic equations. The first activity is only knowledge level and the standard requires application.


Exhibit 2.4.5 (continued)Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Instructional Resources


May 2013Congruence



Incongruence

Algebra 1 (continued)Standard A: RE1.10,11, 12 Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically; linear and exponential.

Use Practice A Lesson 6.3 from Textbook. Write a verbal phrase that describes the inequity. Write an inequity that Is represented by the graph. Match the verbal sentence with the inequality. Sketch a graph of an inequity. Solve the inequality. Graph your solution.

Yes Yes Yes

4th GradeStandard 4.MD.4 Represent and interpret data. I can interpret and represent data through a line graph

Complete worksheet on line pts from edhelper.com. Student is asked to read the information on the line plot and provide an answer. (EX: line with numbers 1-9 with specific number of x’s on each. Student is to answer what is the average number of games own? Then calculate the mean, median, model and range.) Locate the following information on www.wunderground.com—find July 4, 2000 and record the mean temperature for that year and every year up to 2012. Create a line plot using the data from the website to create the line plot.

Partial No No The line graph is one way to interpret data and is a starting point. Likewise the problem provides data to the students. The students are not asked to interpret data but to only represent it on a line plot. This is certainly a teaching step.

Standard 4.OA.5: Generate a number or shape pattern that follows a given rule.

1) Draw the next pattern 2) fill in the missing number pattern Free Math worksheets Http://www.mathworksheet4kids.com . In and Out Boxes worksheet from Math-Aids.com

Partial No No The student is given patterns and asked to complete. The student is not asked to generate their own pattern given a specific rule.

Standard 4.G.2: Classify two dimensional figures based on the presence or absence of parallel or perpendicular lines, or the presence or absence of angles of a specified size.

Worksheet: Circle the pairs of line segments that are parallel. Draw a quad that has 2 pairs of parallel sides. Circle the correct definitions of parallelogram and rhombus. Write the name of each quadrilateral on the sheet. How can you tell the difference between a parallelogram and a trapezoid? Fill in the blanks for each polygon including name, number of sides, pairs of parallel sides, and number of right angles.

Partial Partial Partial The activities provided on the worksheets do have student classifying figures with parallel lines and right angles. However, the exercises do not address perpendicular lines or absence of angles of different sizes.



• In two of the nine examples, the suggested textbook activity was fully congruent in content, context, and cognition with the listed standard and learning target.

• In two of the nine examples, the suggested textbook activity was partially congruent in content, context, and cognition with the listed standard and learning target.

• One of the nine examples was fully congruent in content and partially congruent in context and cognition with the listed standard and learning target.

• Two of the nine examples were partially congruent in content only with the listed standards and learning target.

• Based on this sample, 33 percent of the textbooks activities were considered congruent with the listed standard and learning target.

Overall, based on a sample alignment analysis, auditors found that there is little alignment between textbooks and adopted content standards and learning targets in the areas of literacy and mathematics. The lack of alignment requires teachers to analyze suggested textbook activities carefully to determine if there is alignment and, if so, to what extent. When multiple instructional resources are being utilized across the school district, each with varying degrees of alignment to the content standards and learning targets, inequity in learning opportunities for students results.

IV. Congruence of assessment items to content standards

Auditors were also provided with sample classroom assessments for the mathematics instructional resources. The auditors utilized a process of internal consistency comparison between the assessment item and the math core standards. Exhibit 2.4.6 displays this information.

Exhibit 2.4.6

Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Assessment Items and Core Content Objectives/Learning Targets


Congruence Core Academic


Assessment Item Content Context Cognition Areas of Incongruence


Find the surface area of the solid. The pyramids are regular and the prisms, cones, and cylinders are right. Round your answer to the nearest tenth. Show your work.

Yes Partial No The assessment does require use of volume formulas. The context does not ask for any explanation, other than showing work. The cognition is comprehension and not problem solving.


Tell whether the solid is a polyhedron. It is, then find the number of faces, vertices, and edges. Find the surface area of the solid. Round all answers to two decimal places, if necessary. (Pictures of cube, sphere, cone, pyramid, basketball and wedge).

Yes Partial No The assessment does require use of volume formulas. The context does not ask for any explanation, other than showing work. The cognition is comprehension and not problem solving.


Exhibit 2.4.6 (continued)Internal Consistency of Representative Mathematics Assessment Items


May 2013 Congruence


Learning TargetAssessment Item Content Context Cognition Areas of Incongruence

Standard A.APR.1 Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials: linear and quadratic

1) what are the solutions of 3x2+5x=8? A) -1 and -8/3 (b) -1 and 8/3 c) 1 and -8/3 (d) 1 and 8/3. #2) Factor the polynomial x2-400; 3) 18-32X2 4) Solve the equation x2 + 10x +25 = 0

Yes Partial Partial The problems clearly provide for both linear and quadratic problems. The issue is coverage of all mathematical operations. It is anticipated that over the course of a year, all are covered.

Standard A: RE1.10,11, 12 Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically; linear and exponential.

Which equation describes a line that has a y-intercept of -4 and a slope of 2? (a) s y=-4x+2; (b) y=2(x-4); (c) y= 2s.4; and (d) y= -4(x+2) Graph a intercept form y= a(x-p) (x-4). Find the number of x intercepts the graph has. (a)f(x0= 3x2-3x+4.

Yes Yes Partial The standard is very deep and although the problems involve higher level work, they are not at the deepest level of this standard in cognition.

Standard 4.MD.4 Represent and interpret data. I can interpret and represent data through a line graph

The students in Sylvia’s class estimated how much time they spend watching television each week. The tally chart below shows the data they collected. Construct a line plot for the data. Find the following landmarks for the data: 1) the maximum number of hours spent watching TV each week; 2) The minimum number of hours,3) the mode, 4)the range, and 5)the median.

Partial Partial No The overall standard and the I Can statement do not match. The I Can only requires a line graph, while the Standard indicates a broader requirement. The assessment follows the I can statement. It does address items a student needs to know to interpret data. The I Can is one step to the total objective.

Standard 4.G.2: Classify two dimensional figures based on the presence or absence of parallel or perpendicular lines, or the presence or absence of angles of a specified size.

Label the following polygons in two ways (types of angles, parallel sides, length of sides). (Picture of Octagon and trapezoid)

Yes Partial Partial Perpendicular not assessed, nor absence of angles. Cognition level is comprehension on assessment.

Standard 4.OA.5: Generate a number or shape pattern that follows a given rule.

Find and name the rule for the number patterns in the boxes below. (In & Out box without given or in given. Student completes the box and names the rule.)

No No No In the assessment the student is asked to name the rule. They are not asked to generate a number or shape pattern that follows the rule.



• Of the seven examples, none of the assessment items was completely aligned with the standard and learning target in content, context, and cognition.

• Five of the seven assessment examples were aligned with the content of the standard and learning target.

• One of the assessment examples was fully aligned and five were partially aligned with the context of the standard and learning target.

• None of the seven assessment examples was fully aligned in cognitive type; however, three were partially aligned with the cognitive level of the standard and learning target.

• Based on this sample, 29 percent of the assessment items were considered congruent with the listed standard and learning target.

Overall, based on a sample alignment analysis, auditors found that there is little alignment between assessment activities and the adopted content standards in the area of mathematics. The lack of alignment requires teachers to analyze suggested assessment activities to determine if there is alignment and, if so, to what extent.

V. Congruence of curriculum design elements to content standards

To examine efforts to align district curricula design elements with Common Core Academic Standards, auditors analyzed the curriculum design elements from one literacy unit of study and one mathematics unit of study. Exhibit 2.4.7 displays auditors’ analysis of a sample literacy unit of study. As part of their analysis, auditors provided an example of the design elements that are consistent with audit standards.

Exhibit 2.4.7

Literacy Unit of Study Design Elements Alignment to Common Core StandardsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Standard Enduring Understanding Essential Questions Learning TargetsRL.7.2 Determine a theme or central idea of the text and analyze the development over the course of the text, provide an objective summary of the text.

Effective readers use a variety of strategies to make sense of key ideas and details presented in text.

What do good readers do? Am I clear about what I just read? How do I know?

I can define theme. I can analyze plot. I can determine key events over the course of the text that contributes to the theme. I can define summary. I can compose an objective summary stating the key points of the text without adding my own opinions or feelings.

AUDITORS’ ANALYSIS OF DESIGN ELEMENTSEnduring Understanding Essential Questions Learning Targets

The statement does not represent the concept of Enduring Understanding as used by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe

The statement does not represent the concept of an essential question as used by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe

Define a theme is not the same as determine a theme. Define can be done in isolation; determine a theme of a text is done in context.

AUDITORS’ EXAMPLE OF DESIGN ELEMENTSEnduring Understanding Essential Questions Learning Targets

The central idea of a text communicates the essential meaning intended by the author.

Could a narrative have meaning without a theme or central idea?

I can generalize from events and ideas to find the central idea in a text. I can put important ideas together to summarize the main idea and the most important details.



• The district is in the process of designing units of study and curriculum maps with the design elements of enduring understandings, essential questions, and learning targets.

• The auditors found that the use of enduring understandings and essential questions is inconsistent with how the developers Wiggins and McTighe intended.

• The learning target failed to address the level of cognition required in the standard.

Exhibit 2.4.8 displays the auditors’ analysis of a mathematics unit of study.

Exhibit 2.4.8

Mathematics Unit of Study Alignment to Common Core StandardsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Common Core StandardAuditors’ Analysis of Skills Needed for

Mastery

Instructional Strategies in Teaching Resources Presented by KUSD

Assessment Presented by KUSD

4.0A Interpret a multiplication equation as a comparison, e.g., interpret 35 = 5 × 7 as a statement that 35 is 5 times as many as 7 and 7 times as many as 5. Represent verbal statements of multiplicative comparisons as multiplication equations.

Know concept of comparison in mathematical context

Complete multiplication and division table and find factors and products

Two styles of word problems: My cat weighs 8 pounds, and my dog weighs three times as much as my cat. How much does my dog weigh? I bought a paperback book for $7. I bought a hardcover book, and it was twice as expensive. How much did the hardcover book cost?

Know concept of fact family and factors and interpret the relationship between factors and the base number

Find patterns in multiplication facts; name multiples of a number

Develop oral comparison statements involving multiplication

Find a missing number in an equation [Example: I am thinking of a mystery number. If I multiply it by 4, the answer is 24. What is the number?]

Write (represent) verbal statement as multiplication equation

AUDITORS’ ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS of KUSD RESOURCESNo activities presented as instructional strategies in the teaching resources presented by KUSD engaged students in: • Developing the concept of comparison in a

mathematical Context• Constructing their own comparison statements and

translating these to written multiplication equations • Writing (representing) verbal statements as

multiplication equations

Both items fail to require the student to represent statements of multiplicative comparison as an equation. Answer does not require the expression of an equation. The word problem does not involve representing a comparison as an equation.

AUDITORS’ ANALYSIS of COGNITION4.0A The cognitive demand of this standard is UNDERSTANDING. Student is required to interpret the translation of a number into its factors and use the relationship between the factors to determine a relationship to the base number.

All KUSD resources provided activities that demanded REMEMBERING.

All items on KUSD assessment demanded REMEMBERING.


From Exhibit 2.4.8, the following is noted:

• No activities presented as instructional strategies in the teaching resources engaged students in:

○ Developing the concept of comparison in a mathematical context

○ Constructing their own comparison statements and translating these to written multiplication equations

○ Writing (representing) verbal statements as multiplication equations

• The cognitive demand required by district resources and assessments is not congruent with the cognitive demand of the standard.

Overall, auditors found the design elements, contained in a sample of literacy and mathematics units of study, to be inadequate to inform deep alignment of instruction. The lack of designed deep alignment requires individual teachers to analyze each standard and make adjustments in the selection of resources and assessments to ensure that students are engaged in learning that is contextually and cognitively aligned with the Common Core standards and state assessments.

During interviews with district personnel, auditors received many comments regarding the alignment of the district’s curriculum documents. Following is a representative sample of interview comments received by auditors:

• “We pretty well do our own thing, making sure that we are aligned to the standards, but we don’t do any articulation from course to course, or school to school.” (District Teacher)

• “A challenge for the district is curriculum. I don’t think we have a focus. We focus a lot on WKCEs, but we lost our focus on AP and National Merit.” (Site Administrator)

• “There are a lot of concerns about the alignment of the curriculum K-12.” (Site Administrator)

• “The reading levels are terrible. Why? I guess poverty plays a huge part of it, but the campuses are not given the focus. Everybody is doing their own thing.” (Site Administrator)

• “I’d require an aligned curriculum that is expected for every campus, with aligned instructional strategies and professional development aligned to improve instruction in the classroom.” (Site Administrator)

• “IF a student comes from another school, they may have already had everything I’m teaching since they did one semester of science and one of social studies. Nothing is consistent.” (District Teacher)

• “After the district got rid of reading recovery, we were forced to use Houghton Mifflin. After we found out it doesn’t work well, we were told we could pick and choose what we use.” (District Teacher)

• “There has to be more cohesiveness between schools. Some schools are writing their own curriculum. I’m taking what I know and piecing it in.” (District Teacher)

• “It’s not the kids; the kids are bright. Rigor is not there in the curriculum. I want to up the bar.” (Board Member)

Summary

The audit team conducted an in-depth analysis of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum to determine the depth of alignment that exists. The auditors found areas of deficiency that represent weaknesses in feasibility and in deep alignment for internal consistency. An analysis of district literacy and math curriculum documents revealed that the number of learning targets are not feasible for the instructional time available and do not contribute to mastery learning. Auditors compared a sample of literacy learning targets to Common Core standards and determined that they are not deeply aligned in content, context, and cognition. A sample of classroom math assessment items was found not to be always congruent in content, context, or cognition with the core standards/learning targets for mathematics. An analysis of instructional resources in literacy and mathematics and assessment in mathematics determined that the deep alignment of the standards to the instruction and assessment was not strong (see Recommendation 5).


Learning targets called “I Can” statements were observed in classrooms throughout the Kenosha Unified School District.

Finding 2.5: Two supplemental programs used in the Kenosha Unified School District schools align sufficiently with Wisconsin Common Core State Standards to support students’ mastery of the intended learning; two other programs reviewed did not reveal adequate alignment in the audit sampling.

When school leaders working in effective school districts attempt to select instructional materials and supplemental programs to meet targeted or general student needs, they establish criteria to establish the purpose and focus of the decision. Such districts also identify the evidence of alignment of the materials or program with the district curriculum, state expectations, or other sources of accountability for students and teachers. While variations in approaches to the intended curriculum are typically a reason for choosing supplemental programs, the focus varies from emphasis on intervening with change in design or delivery, to simply supplementing existing instructional materials and methods or finding materials and methods that address specific student needs identified through valid data use.

The Kenosha Unified School District requested the auditors to specifically review seven programs identified as interventions, enrichment, or supplemental resources to analyze their alignment with the relevant Wisconsin state standards. According to district administrators, none of the programs has been formally adopted by the district, but instead, they were selected by faculty and site administrators for their schools’ use as supplemental resources for addressing specific student needs. Nevertheless, curriculum leaders indicated to the audit team that Compass Learning® is the one program that could be used as a primary resource for specific curricula. The programs selected by the district for auditors’ review were:

• ALEKS®, Math Courses (Used at Lance, Lincoln, Mahone, and Washington Middle Schools for supplemental instruction primarily in Algebra 1);


• Compass Learning®, Odyssey and Renzulli Learning (used at middle and high school levels for a variety of curricula and courses primarily for supplemental credit recovery and as intervention resources);

• Rosetta Stone® (a web-based program used at all elementary schools as a foundation resource for the teaching of foreign languages in grades K-5);

• Tell Me More® (an online language program used as a supplemental enrichment or enhancement resource at middle schools);

• Scholastic Read 180® (used at Hillcrest, Lance, Lincoln, and Washington Middle Schools and Bradford, Harborside, and Tremper High Schools for intervention and credit recovery support);

• Scholastic FASTT Math®, Fact Fluency (Used at all elementary schools; Lance, Lincoln, Mahone, and Washington Middle Schools for supplementing instruction and extending fluency skills in basic math); and

• Scholastic System 44®, Reading (used at Hillcrest, Lincoln, Mahone, and Washington Middle Schools and Bradford, Harborside, and Tremper High Schools for supplementing curriculum to enhance students’ speed and fluency in math).

Due to the structure of the Scholastic programs and difficulties in accessing entire content for audit purposes, the Scholastic programs (Read 180, Systems 44, and FASTT Math) had to be deleted from the alignment analysis part of the audit. The auditors found that Compass Learning Odyssey was aligned by content, context, and cognitive demand with most of the Wisconsin Common Core State Standards in the audit sampling. Four ALEKS Math offerings (Mathematics 6-8, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, and High School Geometry) were reviewed for alignment with 12 randomly selected standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards. Those offerings were found to be adequately aligned with nine of the 12 sample standards in content, context, and types of cognition. However, the reviews of Rosetta Stone and Tell Me More for alignment with the state academic standards for foreign languages resulted in minimal alignment with the sample standards, though content to support basic language learning skills was present.

A number of online supplemental programs are used in Kenosha Unified Schools like SpellingCity®, a vocabulary development program used at Stoker Elementary School.

To fulfill the district’s request, the auditors selected samples from the relevant Wisconsin Common Core State Standards and earlier related Wisconsin state standards against which to conduct the alignment analysis of the programs. They used the Curriculum Audit™ criteria for establishing alignment based on parallelism in content, context, and cognition. Content refers to the basic topic/subject of the learning, context refers to the way in which the information is delivered and/or the way in which student learning is to be developed and demonstrated, and cognition refers to the specific types of thinking involved in the designated learning. For cognition interpretation and explanation, auditors used the Evans Newton, Inc.™ revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy, one of the sources currently being studied and used by the district (see Exhibit 2.5.1). Each program


is discussed in consideration of these criteria and in relationship to the state sources requested. The content areas for which the state has adopted the Common Core Standards are English language arts and mathematics. Common Core State Standards for literacy in all subjects have also been adopted but are not used here by the auditors. Other standards used in this finding are the earlier Wisconsin academic standards for the foreign language program analysis.

Exhibit 2.5.1

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Thinking (Revised, Evans Newton, Inc.) Resource Used for Assessing Cognitive Alignment of Standards and Programs


Compass Learning, Odyssey Learning

The Compass Learning Odyssey program is used as a learning resource in high schools and middle schools. Though auditors were told that the Compass Renzulli program is also used in the district, no analysis was conducted for that program. According to a purchase summary provided to the auditors, Compass Odyssey is used for 20 courses at three high schools—Reuther, Indian Trail, and Bradford—and for Language Arts Spiral, Math Spiral, and Middle School Science at Indian Trail High School. However, a summary report provided in the Dropbox for auditors’ use reflected the following:

• Reuther selected the program for use in credit recovery. The other high schools opted to use the program in “varying ways to answer more limited needs for credit recovery at each of their schools.”

• Washington Middle School has been using Compass Learning for several years, Bullen Middle School is now using it for intervention purposes, and Mahone and Lance Middle Schools “are in the process of purchasing the program for math this spring.”

• “The only Teaching and Learning portion of Compass Learning is the credit recovery parameters with the core content coordinators.”


• The schools are reported to make their own selections, conduct their own evaluations, and develop their own implementation documentation.

The Compass Learning products are declared to be “Built on more than 40 years of research on how young people learn, think, and achieve” and “Aligned with Common Core and State Standards.”

Although the products are described by the company to include a “comprehensive K-12 curriculum,” the district information indicates current uses of Compass Learning only at the middle school and high school levels. The Compass Odyssey program assesses “a student’s strengths and needs, and prescribes a personalized learning path.” The program also “offers educators customized reports to track and measure student, school, and district progress, as well as inform instructional decisions.” Renzulli Learning focuses on “differentiated assignments that enhance critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. “

Exhibit 2.5.2 summarizes the auditors’ analysis of the alignment of components of the Odyssey program in comparison to a randomly selected collection of English language arts standards in reading and writing for grades 6-12.

Exhibit 2.5.2

Alignment of Compass Learning Program Elements with Ten Randomly Selected Wisconsin Common Core Standards for English Language Arts:

Reading Standards for Reading, Literature, Non-Fiction StandardsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Standards, Grade Level, Focal Points of Selected Standards (Numbered as in Standards

Documents)

Related Compass Learning Program Elements

Congruence of Program

Elements with

Standards Content


Elements with Standards

Context

Congruence of Program Elements

with Standards Cognition

A.2. Determine a theme or central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments. (Grade 6)

(R6049) Theme & Main Idea (description of content and then identification/determination of the main idea.

Summarizing (a story given and then identification of the summarizing statement)

Yes No (multiple choice limits

students’ determining

to identifying from choices)

No (Student doesn’t provide/

create the summary)

B.5. Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot. (Grade 6)

(R6045) Supporting Details (quiz) Student is given sample and selects from options why a specific paragraph is important to the article.

Yes No No

C.3. Analyze how particular elements of a story or drama interact (e.g., how setting shapes the characters or plot). (Grade 7)

(R7098) Plot, Characters, Setting

Story is provided with change of setting that impacts story and characters.

Yes Yes Yes

D.6. Analyze how an author develops and contrasts the points of view of different characters or narrators in a text. (Grade 7)

(R7080) Compare and Contrast Story given with different points of view of two different characters as exchanged in email messages.

Yes Yes Yes (Student must analyze the diffs to make the choice but

analysis not shared)


Exhibit 2.5.2 (continued)Alignment of Compass Learning Program Elements with

Ten Randomly Selected Wisconsin Common Core Standards for English Language Arts: Reading Standards for Reading, Literature, Non-Fiction Standards


Standards, Grade Level, Focal Points of Selected Standards (Numbered as in Standards

Documents)

Related Compass Learning Program Elements


Elements with

Standards Content



Context



E.1. Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.(Grade 8)

(R8037) Inferencing

Select the best answer that supports determination of the message both explicitly and implicitly

Yes Partial (Student must

recognize support, given

the text)

No

F.5. Compare and contrast the structure of two or more texts and analyze how the differing structure of each text contributes to its meaning and style. (Grade 8)

(R8080) Compare and Contrast

Two individuals’ response to the same experience; compare and contrast.

Yes Yes Yes

G.1. Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. (Grades 9-10, Key Ideas & Details)

(E2111) Part I

House on Mango Street samples and chapter tests with required inferencing for conclusions.

Yes Yes No

H.6. Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose. (Grades 9-10, Craft & Structure)

(E1451) Communication: Persuasive Speech – lesson; Congresswoman Barbara Jordan’s keynote speech for 1976 Democratic convention

Yes Yes Yes

I.1. Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn. (Grades 11-12, Key Ideas and Details)

(E4519 and 4020) Writing prompts for both analyzing characters and analyzing theme

Yes Yes Yes

J.6. Analyze a case in which grasping point of view requires distinguishing what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant (e.g., satire, sarcasm, irony, or understatement). (Grades 11-12, Craft & Structure)

(RL 11-12)

Writing prompt , Odyssey Writer 47: Analyze use or irony and dialogue, D.H. Lawrence’s short story, “The Rocking Horse Winner”

Yes Yes Yes

Note: If the auditors find no alignment or incomplete alignment in content, they do not assess by context or cognitive type. NA=Not ApplicableSources: Wisconsin Common Core Standards, Compass Odyssey Learning Program

Based on their analysis summarized in Exhibit 2.5.2 auditors concluded that:

• All the standards in the random sample had some representation within the program’s lessons that were aligned in content.


• Two samples had no identified alignment by context in the program lessons; one was found to be partially aligned by context.

• Cognitive levels or types in the standards were aligned adequately in six examples but were not found to be aligned in the program lessons for four of the 10 samples.

• In some instances, the student is not required to cite evidence or analyze as indicated in the standards; in others, the analysis is required to select an appropriate response.

A critical acknowledgment is important to this finding, and that is recognition that the standards are stated in broad terms, focusing on cumulative long-range outcomes. The Compass Learning program elements for reading and writing, on the other hand, emphasize the evolving skills that enable students to master the standards’ intended results. Thus, using the key skills underlying the standards and their evolving complexity through the articulated grade levels would be even more helpful to teachers and curriculum staff monitoring for alignment between the standards, their components, and elements of both the programs and the classroom lessons. Because the opportunity to demonstrate analysis is absent from some lessons in the Compass (and other) programs, deep alignment with cognitive demands and comparable contextual frameworks is frequently dependent on teachers’ classroom activities and student assignments used in relationship to the students’ skill levels and program lessons.

Rosetta Stone

A curriculum informational document prepared by the district and dated April 3, 2012 explains the district’s updated approach to world languages in grades K-12, with the underlying intent to provide students with the world language component of a 21st century educational experience. To achieve that intent, the district planned an enhancement of middle school world language offerings and extension of world language learning to the elementary schools. Although a staff source indicated that the district had not “adopted” a specific program and that schools were selecting the programs, the informational document cited above reported that in 2011-12 a team of building and central office administrators chose the Rosetta Stone program as the resource through which to provide elementary students an interactive approach to learning foreign languages. Each student in grades K-5 is expected to have the chance “to select one of the five languages to study throughout their elementary years.” The five languages are Chinese, French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Middle school students will have a similar “blended, personalized world language exploratory opportunity” to select one of five languages to study during grades 6-8, using the Tell Me More program (see discussion following Exhibit 2.5.4).

The introductory information regarding the Wisconsin standards for foreign languages identifies five key words and a summary statement that lay the foundation for the state expectations:

“COMMUNICATION: communicate in languages other than English

CULTURES: gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures

CONNECTIONS: connect with other disciplines and acquire information

COMPARISONS: develop insight into the nature of language and culture

COMMUNITIES: participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world

With communication and culture as the cornerstone for language learning, the goal is for all students to learn how, when, and why to say what to whom.”

Rosetta Stone is described in website resources as an enhancement to ELL/ESOL instruction, as well as a resource for teaching world languages. No mention is made of any state or other standards. The program provides interactive and personalized learning experiences with feedback on progress as the student moves forward within the program. The Wisconsin standards for world languages are written from a broad “end results” perspective and do not have grade-level clarity, or in some cases even skill level clarity. Since the particular standards are not organized by grade levels, the auditors undertook the alignment review using the


performance standard guidelines presented by levels of skill acquisition: Beginning (receptive-imitative), Developing (imitative-reflective), Transitioning (reflective-interactive), and Refining (interactive-initiative).

Exhibit 2.5.3 summarizes the auditors’ analysis of a randomly selected collection of 10 standards in the beginning and developing levels since these are the levels most likely to be represented in student learning during the elementary years for foreign languages. Spanish was chosen as the sample language from Rosetta Stone for this analysis.

Exhibit 2.5.3

Alignment of Rosetta Stone (Levels 1-3) Program Components with Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Guidelines

from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Using the Beginning and Developing Levels for Spanish, Grades K-5


Performance Standard Guidelines, Skill Level, Focal Points of Selected Standards

Related Program

Components (Spanish, Levels 1

through 3)


Elements with

Standards in Content


with Standards in

Context



in Cognition Types

ACCURACYA. Ease: Expresses memorized phrases with ease and with few errors; may show evidence of false starts and pauses as topics expand beyond memorized dialogues (Beginning level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lesson 3;

Level 2, Unit 1, Lessons 1 - 4

No NA NA

B. Time/Tense: Begins to distinguish present, past, and simple future tenses with cues and modeling; can express own ideas in the present tense with some errors (Developing level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lesson 3

No NA NA

C. Pronunciation: Imitates sounds and intonation as part of a memorized process; understandable to someone accustomed to working with a language learner (Beginning level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lessons 2: Vocabulary

No NA NA

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIESD. Comprehension: Understands general concepts and some supporting ideas of short conversations and narration on familiar topics; relies on visuals, gestures, facial expressions; may need repetition, restatement, and contextual clues in order to understand; uses background experience to help anticipate meaning (Developing level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lesson 2, Listening and Reading; Level 2, Unit 1, Lesson 2

Yes Yes Yes

E. Comprehensibility: Understood primarily by those accustomed to interacting with language learners (Beginning level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lesson 2 and 3, most sections;

Level 2, Unit 1, Lesson 1

Yes Yes Yes

F. Monitoring: Self-corrects on well-learned items (Developing level)

Levels 2- 3, most units and lessons

Yes Yes No


Exhibit 2.5.3 (continued)Alignment of Rosetta Stone (Levels 1-3) Program Components with Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Guidelines

from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Using the Beginning and Developing Levels for Spanish, Grades K-5


Performance Standard Guidelines, Skill Level, Focal Points of Selected Standards

Related Program

Components (Spanish, Levels 1

through 3)


Elements with

Standards in Content


with Standards in

Context



in Cognition Types

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES (continued)G. Impact: Asks follow-up questions; provides continuity to a presentation; begins to make choices of a phrase, image, or content to maintain the attention of the audience (Developing level)

None in Levels 1 - 3

No NA NA

CROSS-CULTURAL APPLICATIONSH. Verbal: Imitates appropriate linguistic patterns (i.e., register, formal vs. informal address, intonation) when modeled by the teacher (Beginning level)

Levels 1-3; all lessons in all units

Yes Yes Yes

I. Non-verbal: Begins to use culturally correct behaviors outside the memorized context (Developing level)

Levels 1-3; most lessons

No NA NA

J. Awareness: Understands a story line or event when it reflects a cultural background similar to their own, begins to associate symbols, famous people, places, songs, etc. with a certain culture (Beginning level)

Level 1, Unit 1, Lessons 2-4

No NA NA

Note: If the auditors find no alignment or incomplete alignment in content, they do not assess by context or cognitive type. NA = Not Applicable. Also, the auditors referred to units and lessons instead of specific lessons because, for the most part, a student would need to experience several lessons or a full unit to be exposed to content related to the standards.Source: Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages, Performance Guidelines; Rosetta Stone online lessons

Exhibit 2.5.3 directs attention to specific lessons, which are implemented with pictures and voice, with students using a cursor to select answers in multiple choice exercises and a microphone for their speaking. Some of the points noted by auditors in attempting to assess alignment of Rosetta Stone with the 10 sample standards’ guidelines were:

• There was evidence of alignment by content, context, and cognitive demand in the program for three of the standards in the sample; one standard was represented by alignment in content and context, but not in cognition.

• Auditors found no alignment by content for six standards in the sample and, therefore, could not complete the deeper alignment for those standards.

• Unless the lessons are implemented with full class participation, several expectations in the state standards cannot be met.

• Few chances for students to create responses or commentaries of their own are present in the first three levels reviewed by the auditors.

• Memorization is not explicitly part of lessons, though memory of prior information is implied in later lessons. Earlier words and phrases are continually used in later lessons. However, no indication of mastery expectations for “well-learned” is evident.


• Visuals provide cues, facial expressions, or other information, and exercises give opportunities for students to relate to experiences, photos, and previous learning to anticipate meaning.

• Words, phrases, and sentences are modeled by the speaker with chances for student to speak into their microphone and be modified or corrected.

• Students are given chances to correct their responses to questions or prompts if they experience a false start.

• No content regarding Spanish cultural behaviors is evident in the first three levels of the program. Lesson examples do not include famous people, places, songs, or other background from Spanish culture; most lesson elements are familiar to American students.

The auditors concluded that if these lessons are typical of the alignment with Wisconsin performance standards for foreign languages, the Rosetta Stone program alone does not adequately fulfill the expectations of those standards to prepare students to meet current or future expectations.

Tell Me More

In the same document referenced as the explanation of the elementary world language program plans, auditors learned that a district team had chosen the Tell Me More program “to enhance the current world language program at the middle school level.” The document describes the program as an interactive resource with adaptive language learning software “that provides personalized learning for students.” It is described further as addressing all the skill areas to master a language: “reading, writing, listening, speaking, vocabulary, grammar and culture.” The document states the intent that “opportunities for authentic communication and cultural components will be embedded in classroom instruction.” The program includes assessments for pre-learning, progress, and final mastery. No mention is made of state or other resource standards in the company’s information. Approved when the Rosetta Stone program was accepted for the elementary schools, the Tell Me More program was reportedly intended to enhance or supplement existing curriculum in grades 6-12.

In reviewing Tell Me More for alignment with Wisconsin standards, the auditors selected 10 of the specific performance standards instead of using the guidelines as they had done with analysis of Rosetta Stone. The auditors chose to use more samples from the categories of “Beginning,” “Developing,” and “Transitioning” since they believed those to be the most likely skill levels for the majority of students; however, two samples were chosen from the “Refining” level since students in grade 12, including Advanced Placement, may be using Tell Me More. Exhibit 2.5.4 summarizes the auditors’ analysis of the Tell Me More program components in relationship to a randomly selected collection of 10 standards in the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages.

Exhibit 2.5.4

Alignment of Tell Me More Program Elements for Spanish with Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Standards from

Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign LanguagesKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Performance Standards, Skill Levels, and Focal Points of Selected

StandardsRelated Program Elements


Elements with

Standards Content


with Standards

Context



1. Interpersonal: Conversation

Beginning

A.3: Students will state personal preferences and feelings.

Spanish 1A, Part 2 (Provides some examples and vocabulary)

No NA NA


Exhibit 2.5.4 (continued)Alignment of Tell Me More Program Elements for Spanish with

Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages





Elements with

Standards Content


with Standards

Context




Transitioning

A.5: Students will ask for clarification and suggest alternative words to ensure understanding.

Most activities in all lessons have a chance to recheck students’ responses for clarification, but no opportunity is available for suggesting alternative words.

Yes No No


Refining

A.4: Students will discuss options and negotiate to solve a problem

Some lessons include choices but no opportunity to discuss or negotiate

No NA NA

4. Interpretive: Listening and Reading

Developing

B.5: Students will use previous classroom experience with the language to understand its spoken and written forms.

Spanish 1A, Part 2B (Most previous learning appears in subsequent lessons with some writing and some oral activities).

Yes Yes Yes

5. Interpretive: Listening and Reading

Refining

B.1: Students will understand spoken language on a wide variety of topics.

Spanish 2B, Part 2 All lessons have some activities with spoken information requiring student understanding to answer questions.

Yes Yes Yes

6. Presentational: Speaking and Writing

Transitioning

C.3: Students will give a series of directions to someone, coaching the person in order to complete the task.

None NA NA NA

7. Presentational: Speaking and Writing

Refining

C.4: Students will recount a long story with a wide variety of details and descriptions

None NA NA NA


Exhibit 2.5.4 (continued)Alignment of Tell Me More Program Elements for Spanish with

Ten Randomly Selected Foreign Language Performance Standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages





Elements with

Standards Content


with Standards

Context



8. Culture

Beginning

D.1: Students will interact with respect using culturally appropriate patterns of behavior in everyday informal and social situations.

None NA NA NA

9. Products

Developing

E.1: Students will compare objects and symbols, such as flags or currency, from other cultures to those found in their own culture.

Spanish 3A, has several lessons with activities that include objects and symbols students can recognize and compare, but they are not asked to do so.

Yes No No

10. Products

Developing

E.4: Students will explain the impact of the target country’s geography on daily life.

Spanish 4A, Lesson 9 has several activities (e.g., #1-7) on culture and society and some regarding the country in relationship to Europe.

Yes No No

Note: If the auditors find no alignment or incomplete alignment in content, they do not assess by context or cognitive type.NA= Not ApplicableSource: Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards for Foreign Languages, Tell Me More online lessons

Auditors noted the following key points in reviewing the data from Exhibit 2.5.4:

• Two lessons were found to align in content, context, and cognition with the standards;

• Three lessons were found to align only by content; and

• Auditors found no alignment of lessons by content for five standards.

• While there are opportunities in the lessons for some limited writing in response to activities, the degree of writing expected for students with the state standards does not appear in the program’s lessons.

• Opportunities for dialogue, verbal presentations, and similar performance activities expected by the standards are absent within the program as presented; auditors note that it is possible that classroom implementation of the program might provide the missing components.

If the alignment review results showing minimal presence of key elements of the foreign language performance standards are representative of the full program alignment, the auditors must conclude that Tell Me More alone does not adequately prepare students to meet the Wisconsin Academic Standards for Foreign Languages.

ALEKS, Math Courses

Used last year during summer school classes, ALEKS Math is currently being piloted at four middle schools: Lance, Lincoln, Mahone, and Washington. The program provides brief lessons, practice opportunities, and


feedback for students and monitors and reports the student progress for both students and teachers. The program source reports that the courses will support student mastery of the Common Core Standards and other state standards through its collection of math courses of study for K-12 students.

As the auditors reviewed the ALEKS Math program for alignment with a sampling of Wisconsin Common Core State Standards for mathematics, they scanned the various lessons that appeared to most support student learning and mastery of the standards in the sample. In most instances, several lessons blend to provide that support, so the auditors noted references to a sampling of specific lessons and activities that achieve that purpose. Exhibit 2.5.5 summarizes the auditors’ analysis of a randomly selected collection of 12 standards for middle school and their alignment in the areas of mathematics 6-8, pre-algebra, algebra I, and high school geometry (which district staff indicated is also used with some middle school students).

Exhibit 2.5.5

Alignment of ALEKS Math Program Elements with Twelve Randomly Selected Standards from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards

Mathematics 6-8, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, and High School GeometryKenosha Unified School District

April 2013

Wisconsin Common Core State Math Standards Secondary Grade Levels

Related Program Elements from ALEKS

Math Program


Elements with Standards Content


with Standards

Context


Elements with Standards Cognition

A.6.NS Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to divide fractions by fractions.

1. Interpret and compute quotients of fractions, and solve word problems involving division of fractions by fractions, e.g., by using visual fraction models and equations to represent the problem

(6 – The Number System)

MS-LV 6

Lessons: arith119, 053, 095, 694, 022

Yes Yes Yes

B. 6.G Solve real-world and mathematical problems involving area, surface area, and volume.

1. Find the area of right triangles, other triangles, special quadrilaterals, and polygons by composing into rectangles or decomposing into triangles and other shapes; apply these techniques in the context of solving real-world and mathematical problems.

(6 – Geometry)

MS-LV 6

Lessons: geom039, 304, 801, 867, 019, 351, 340, 022, 023, 031, 354, 090, 035, 031

Yes Yes No


Exhibit 2.5.5 (continued)Alignment of ALEKS Math Program Elements with Twelve Randomly Selected Standards

from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Mathematics 6-8, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, and High School Geometry

Kenosha Unified School DistrictApril 2013



Math Program




with Standards

Context



C. 7.RP Analyze proportional relationships and use them to solve real-world and mathematical problems.

1. Compute unit rates associated with ratios of fractions, including ratios of lengths, areas and other quantities measured in like or different units. (7 – Ratio and Proportional Relationships)

MS – Math Courses 1 , 2

Lessons: arith228, 218, 610

MS – Math Course 3

Lessons: alge218, 272; unit034, 035, 036

Yes Yes Yes

D.7.G Draw, construct, and describe geometrical figures and describe the relationships between them.

1. Solve problems involving scale drawings of geometric figures, including computing actual lengths and areas from a scale drawing and reproducing a scale drawing at a different scale. (7 – Geometry)

MS Math Courses 1, 2, and 3

Lessons: geom 152, 158, 159,

Course 2

Lessons: geom022, 023, 302, 334

Course 3

Lessons: geom152, 158, 159, 154

Yes No No

E.8.F Define, evaluate, and compare functions.

1. Understand that a function is a rule that assigns to each input exactly one output. The graph of a function is the set of ordered pairs consisting of an input and the corresponding output. (8 – Functions)

Math MS

Courses 1 and 2

Lessons: Stat803; Fun005, 006, Alge263,

Course 3

Lessons: mstat007, 024; fun001, 005, 006; alge 282

Yes Yes Yes

F.8.G Understand and apply the Pythagorean Theorem.

7. Apply the Pythagorean Theorem to determine unknown side lengths in right triangles in real-world and mathematical problems in two and three dimensions. (8 – Geometry)

MS Math Course 3

Lessons: geom044

Yes Yes Yes


Exhibit 2.5.5 (continued)Alignment of ALEKS Math Program Elements with Twelve Randomly Selected Standards

from Wisconsin’s Model Academic Performance Standards Mathematics 6-8, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, and High School Geometry

Kenosha Unified School DistrictApril 2013



Math Program




with Standards

Context



G.A-SSE Interpret the structure of expressions.

1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.

a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.

Pre-algebra

Lessons: alge004, 005, 602, 731, 657, 604, 606, 607, 663

Yes Yes Yes

H.A-APR Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials.

1. Understand that polynomials form a system analogous to the integers, namely they are closed under the operations of addition, subtraction, and multiplication; add, subtract, and multiply polynomials.

Pre-Algebra

Lessons: alge029, 033, 032

Yes Yes Yes

I.A.CED Create equations that describe numbers or relationships.

1. Create equations and inequalities in one variable and use them to solve problems.

Algebra 1 A

Lessons: alge701, 168, 216, 073, 090

Yes Yes No

J. A-REI Solve equations and inequalities in one variable. Solve linear equations and inequalities in one variable, including equations with coefficients represented by letters.

Algebra I A

Lessons: alge089, 091

Yes Yes Yes

K. Circles G-C

Understand and apply theorems about circles.

3. Construct the inscribed and circumscribed circles of a triangle, and prove properties of angles for a quadrilateral inscribed in a circle.

High School Geometry

Lessons: geom343, 514, 512, 848, 849

Yes Yes Yes

L. Geometric Measurement and Dimension: G-GMD

Explain Volume formulas and use them to solve problems.

3. Use volume formulas for cylinders, pyramids, cones, and spheres to solve problems.

High School Geometry

Lessons: geom854, 311, 505, 090, 033, 035, 086, 841

Yes Yes Yes

Note: If the auditors find no alignment or incomplete alignment in content, they do not assess by context or cognitive type.Sources: Wisconsin Common Core State Standards for Mathematics;


Based on their analysis summarized in Exhibit 2.5.5, auditors concluded that:

• Nine of the 12 standards in the sample were adequately represented by content, context, and cognitive types in the lessons from ALEKS Math;

• For two standards, the auditors found matches by content and context, but the cognition demand was not adequately aligned with the standard requirement; and,

• For one standard, the auditors observed inadequate matches by context and cognition.

• In the instances where inadequacy was noted, the primary weakness was the absence of one or more components of the context or cognitive action required.

Teachers who provided information regarding the use of the program during the pilot year indicated that it offers supplemental help to some students and enrichment or review help for others. In other words, the program was felt to be advantageous for individual students and for teachers because of both its structure and its variety of course/skill lessons. The immediate feedback was also mentioned as a helpful aspect of the design.

The auditors concluded that if the alignment analysis with this sampling of standards and lessons is representative of what is present in the full program, ALEKS Math provides sufficient alignment with the standards to support students’ learning and mastery of the Common Core Standards for middle school math courses offered in the district. Only additional classroom activities would be needed to enhance the lack of deep alignment for missing components of context and cognitive demands.

Summary

The auditors found that three of the seven programs for which the district requested alignment analysis could not be appropriately accessed to perform the deep alignment analysis intended in audit practices. Of the four programs auditors were able to review, Compass Learning and ALEKS Math were found to be adequately aligned with the standards in content, context, and cognitive demands to support student mastery of the Wisconsin State Common Core Standards for English language arts and Mathematics. Two programs, Rosetta Stone and Tell Me More, were not sufficiently aligned with the Wisconsin Academic Standards for Foreign Languages to provide substantial support in student mastery of those standards. Nevertheless, the latter two programs could still be useful for limited application as review and practice activities for students needing ongoing practice in basic language skills (see Recommendations 2, 3, 5, and 6).



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 identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of pupil learning.

In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that, as a whole, it is more effective than the sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combinations of programs or schools do not equate to the larger school system entity.

The purpose of having a school system is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning, which is complex and multi-year in its dimensions, and to employ economies of scale where applicable.


The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find a highly-developed, articulated, and coordinated curriculum in the school system that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs at the central and site levels. Common indicators are:

• Documents/sources that reveal internal connections at different levels in the system;

• Predictable consistency through a coherent rationale for content delineation within the curriculum;

• Equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity;

• Allocation of resource flow to areas of greatest need;

• A curriculum that is clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building-level administrators and other supervisory personnel;

• Specific professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery;

• A curriculum that is monitored by central office and site supervisory personnel; and

• Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time.


This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Three. Details follow within separate findings.

Due to a lack of clarity and focus within the board’s policies, decision making regarding curriculum design and delivery has shifted to individual school sites. Individual schools are operating as independent entities, resulting in randomly implemented improvement efforts that lack sufficient alignment with the Transformation Plan and limit the district’s ability to achieve desired goals. The lack of an internal communications plan contributes to the lack of coordination of district efforts to improve student achievement.

Board policies and current decision-making practices in the Kenosha Unified School District have had the effect of continuing inequities in student access to the programs and educational opportunities offered. Board policies and district planning documents do not explicitly address equity and equality issues within the district. Student suspension and retention data and program enrollment data indicate that African American, Hispanic, disabled, economically disadvantaged students, and English Language Learners are disproportionately suspended and retained and are underrepresented in some district programs.

The professional development programs, as currently implemented, lacks sufficient focus and coordination making it difficult to determine the extant professional development is attaining student achievement that is desired and measured. The primary responsibility for delivery of professional development in the district has been delegated to individual school sites, resulting in a wide variety of professional development initiatives


that are not clearly aligned to district goals or priorities. There is no indication that the impact of the district’s professional development programs has been evaluated in terms of improved student achievement.

A variety of computers and other instructional technologies are available in Kenosha schools, although auditors did not see much evidence that the available technology has been integrated into daily classroom instruction or used to personalize learning. Disparities in the access to instructional technology were noted across the district and were driven primarily by a school’s eligibility to receive Title I funds. Although the district’s technology plan was considered adequate, there are no policies or job descriptions that support consistent implementation, monitoring, or plan evaluation.

Instructional and learning strategies observed in district classrooms were not consistent with district expectations. The district’s Transformation Plan and Instructional Framework establish an expectation for learning to be customized based on student needs and to support students’ acquiring of complex and challenging content. Brief classroom visits by the auditors indicated that a limited range of instructional strategies and student learning activities are utilized, with whole class instruction the dominate teaching strategy observed. There is no consistent expectation that building principals monitor curriculum delivery in their individual schools.

Finding 3.1: The lack of consistency among district programs and initiatives inhibits the district’s ability to establish clear direction and focus on improving student achievement.

An effective school system has an established, clear locus of decision making in the various areas of district and school site responsibility. Beginning with board policy outlining fundamental parameters of decision making, direction is provided so that all stakeholders and employees understand what functions, responsibilities, and decisions rest with the board and district administration and those that are assigned to school leaders and staff.

The board of education has certain legal obligations, among which is the responsibility for the educational program of all students served in the district.

Centralized administration of key functions is the means by which the board of education maintains quality control of the educational program and ensures programmatic linkage among individual schools within the system. When a district functions as a system, within a state imposed centralized testing program, the locus of control for curriculum design is centralized, with latitude for delivery methodologies distributed among teachers. A key component of quality control of the educational program is the communication of what is taught in schools across the system and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in curriculum design and delivery. System-wide processes can maximize opportunities for all students within the system and maintain internal connectivity and rational equity in the district’s program development and implementation. Consistency in the delivery of the written curriculum is the cornerstone of providing a well-articulated educational program for students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Articulation refers to the vertical progression of curriculum objectives for student learning from one grade level/course to the next in the design of curriculum. In delivery, coordination is reinforced by coordinated planning among teachers within schools and between different levels such as elementary, middle, and high schools. Such horizontal coordination provides consistency of articulation across the system and protects students from information gaps, inconsistencies, and repetition of skills and content.

Shared decision-making roles and responsibilities need to be stated in board policy so that decisions at all levels are consistent with the intent of the board of education and its responsibility for providing a quality educational program for all students. When roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined in policy and monitored for compliance, there is increased likelihood that district focus, connectivity, effectiveness, and efficiency will be hindered and reflected in the lack of effectiveness of district programming.

The auditors studied board policies, job descriptions, and planning documents to identify district and site responsibilities and roles related to curriculum coordination and delivery. They interviewed board members, administrators, teachers, and parents. They also visited all schools to observe classroom instruction and services supporting the educational program.

The auditors found varying degrees of specificity among board policies regarding the locus of decision making for curriculum design and delivery. They also observed general incongruity between the policies, job descriptions,


and practices in place. The most noteworthy issue related to the degree of decentralized decision making has evolved over several years and manifests itself in autonomy at school sites for basic district functions such as curriculum and assessment implementation, grading practices, and professional development. The emphasis has been on building level versus system ownership of a quality education provided to all students that results from articulation and the coordination of a system-wide curriculum. These conditions contribute to the lack of articulation and coordination in the district.

Board Policies

The board policies related to the adoption of programs and program implementation reviewed by the auditors are summarized below:

• Board Policy 8510: School Board Policy Development and Revision states, “The School Board shall provide policy statements or guides for the operation of the school system. Board policies shall be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.”

• Board Policy 8511: Administrative Leeway in Absence of District Policy directs, “In any situation which arises within the District where the School Board has not adopted policies or other guidelines for administrative action, the Superintendent of Schools or designee shall have the authority to use professional judgment and shall advise the School Board of such lack of policy.”

• Board Policy 8512: Development of Administrative Rules and Regulations states, “The School Board shall delegate to the Superintendent of Schools the formulation of administrative rules and regulations governing the operations of the School District. Such rules and regulations shall be consistent with policies adopted by the School Board and state and federal law requirements.”

• Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Development states, “The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.”

• Board Policy 6310: Elementary School Curriculum mandates, “The District Content Standards and Benchmarks will serve as the guidelines for the development of instruction.”

No policy references were found that would require alignment of the district’s curriculum with national standards or high-stakes assessments. Auditors found no policies that addressed articulation and coordination of the curriculum. There is no policy expectation requiring that the district’s curriculum be more rigorous than state and national standards or that district assessments be aligned with the district’s adopted curriculum.

In the absence of district-wide policy directing program alignment, instructional programming then is relegated to building level personnel, as demonstrated in the following policies:

• Board Policy 2400: School - Administration states, “The principal is the chief administrative and instructional officer of the school...” And, “The principal is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.”

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing - Administrative states, “The principal is accountable for the academic and social progress for every student within the building.”

Auditors found no policies that directly required job descriptions to include accountability for the design and delivery of curriculum (see Finding 1.4). Rather, Board Policy 2211 states, “Qualifications for specific administrative, supervisory and technical positions are determined by the Superintendent of Schools and submitted to the Board for approval. Such qualifications shall include the essential functions of the job and the general qualifications for such positions outlined in the current employment practices policy for administrative, supervisory and technical personnel.” Board Policy 4224 directs, “Employees shall give their support to the education of Kenosha youth and shall faithfully discharge their professional duties to the District in accordance with the official job descriptions pertaining to their individual assignments.”

Due to the lack of direction from the board through policies and job descriptions, curriculum programming has become a site-based initiative and often varies from building to building. As a result, individual schools are


operating as independent entities, making decisions regarding curriculum and programs that should be made at the district level.

In visiting school buildings, auditors heard the following comments from district staff concerning this lack of connectivity between buildings and the lack of direction from the central office related to curriculum and instruction:

• “We need to coordinate all the buildings, select just a few focus areas, but do it district-wide.” (Site Administrator)

• “If a teacher sees a resource she likes, she is going to pick it up and use it. Eventually the District Administrator will see it and vet it to see if it does what it is supposed to do.” (District Administrator)

• “There is no degree of consistency in curriculum. There is no standardized process for writing it or implementing it.” (District Administrator)

• “English has no consistency; books are repeated at middle school and high school.” (District Administrator)

• “Schools are all using different curriculum tools and documents.” (District Administrator)

• “There are no common assessments that are district-wide. Some sites elect to use the common assessments we had before.” (District Administrator)

• “No one knows what direction we’re going in, and it’s different from campus to campus.” (District Teacher)

Planning Documents

Auditors examined the primary documents identified by the district administration as those used to direct curricular and instructional decisions—the district Transformation Plan and building level improvement plans—to determine the level of connectivity between district decisions and building level implementation.

The Transformation Plan lists the district goal of “Maximize the Brilliance of Children.” As part of the belief in success at the next level, the district has identified three transformation principles: Blended Learning, Multi-Dimensional Life and Career Skills, and Relevant Global Knowledge. From there it contains a list of three goals, and each of the three goals contains four strategies. Each strategy, then, contains between two and 15 action steps. The action steps are to be implemented over a three-year period; some action steps last one year, some over two years, and others over all three years. Action steps are implemented according to their relevance to each department or school building.

Generally, building level planning documents reviewed by the auditors were not linked to the district goal priorities (see Finding 1.1). One of the issues noted is a lack of common vocabulary between the Transformation Plan and the school improvement plans, which makes connectivity difficult. For instance, the building plans may list a goal as simply “vocabulary,” while another may contain a goal such as “students will all feel as if they belong,” and yet others state, “Increase reading scores at 5% per year.” While each of these goals may be important, the lack of connectivity to one of the three Transformation Plan goals creates a situation whereby implementation and action steps become muddled and makes it nearly impossible to monitor the relationship between the building goals and the district’s intention.

A second factor limiting congruence and connectivity is a general lack of understanding of what constitutes a plan. Plans submitted to auditors included Title 1 plans, SMART goals, action plans of committees, narrative statements of the history of improvement planning in the building, lists of committee membership, and PowerPoint presentation slides. While the format used is not as important, it is critical to decide on a standardized planning format whereby district leaders can then monitor implementation and success of the plans.

Auditors examined both district and building plans to determine potential improvement strategies that could be linked to both district and building plans. The change strategies identified and most talked about in interviews with administrators and teachers were personalized learning, multi-aged classrooms, and incorporation of


technology into classrooms. The degree of implementation and effective functioning of these strategies varies between buildings, and there is no district-wide strategy to monitor the implementation or use.

Due, in part, to the lack of centralized control over improvement strategies, such strategies have been inconsistently and randomly implemented, and often are included as a strategy based on a building’s ability to afford the training or program. Non-Title 1 schools, which have fewer discretionary dollars for staff development, also tend to have fewer improvement strategies. This randomness of improvement strategies and building level discretionary decision making was corroborated though comments made by building and district personnel:

• “Sites adopt their own programs; there are many more of them at Title 1 Schools.” (District Administrator)

• “Yes, I have been trained in eCove, but I do not use it. Doesn’t fit into my building plan.” (Site Administrator)

• “We have not all been trained in the same program and some of us have not even been trained in coaching, and we are the coaches.” (District Teacher)

• “The district is no longer top down. Principals can design what they want their school to be.” (Site Administrator)

• “We took a stab at curriculum mapping, but there was no plan for implementation.” (District Administrator)

• “Professional development is optional.” (District Administrator)

• “Teachers don’t call central office if they need help with curriculum. They call another teacher at their school or another school.” (District Teacher)

• “There needs to be more cohesiveness between the schools. Some schools are writing their own curriculum. I’m taking what I know and piecing it in there. There are whole buildings out there that aren’t choosing to use the Common Core.” (District Teacher)

• “We haven’t been trained in differentiated learning and personalized learning.” (District Administrator)

Communication

Auditors next examined district communications to determine the degree to which internal communications facilitate and support the connectivity of district programming implementation and effectiveness. While there is no explicit communication plan in place (see Finding 1.1), several documents are used to provide some generalized guidance within the district.

• Board of Education Group Norms and Communication Protocols includes both behavior expectations for board of education members (open, honest, direct, and professional) as well as procedural norms (confidentiality, civility, supportive of the mission of the district).

• Superintendent’s Communication Protocols describe five categories of expectations, including Active Listening, Using Non-Judgmental Language, Disagreeing Tactfully, E-Mail Etiquette, and Drawing Out the Best in Others.

• Communication Department Smart Goals 2012-13 has established three targets for the school year, including:

○ “…we will have increased the amount of followers and ‘likes’ by 10%.

○ Increase the amount of information received from schools by 15% in the area of photos, and 10% for videos to help portray the district in a positive light.

○ Increase the traffic to the main landing page of the district by 20%...”

The primary strategy identified to achieve these goals is to develop plans with both district departments and the communications team. In reality, then, the primary SMART Goal is to develop a plan. Therefore, there is no plan in place, but the intent is to develop a plan.


Comments heard during interviews with board members, administrators, teachers, and parents illustrate how the lack of a communications plan within the district has contributed to the frustration expressed by school personnel and parents about the quality of communication within the district:

• “District communication to parents needs to use lingo parents can understand.” (Board Member)

• “We don’t have a formal communication plan.” (District Administrator)

• “For internal communication we need to do something. There are breakdowns along the way as each one tells the next one. We do a lot of all department emails. But some people may not get it for a week.” (District Administrator)

• “Communication with parents is lacking. Example—changes in the number of class periods that will be offered next year. Still not clear if there is a change or not. My daughter is worried she will not get all the classes she needs. We were advised to take an eSchool class but the class she wants isn’t offered through eSchool.” (District Parent)

• “There is a lack of communication. Parents were given access to the online grading system prior to staff being informed that parents would have access. Teachers were unprepared to respond to parents calling with questions about their child’s grades.” (District Teacher)

• “Communication could be more timely and presented via school websites because that is where parents go.” (Board Member)

Summary

The auditors found little, if any, direction among board policies regarding the locus of decision making for curriculum design and delivery. They also observed general incongruity between the policies, job descriptions, and practices in place. The most noteworthy issue related to the degree of decentralized decision making has evolved over several years and manifests itself in autonomy at school sites for basic district functions. The emphasis has been on building level programming and developing teachers’ ownership for what they teach versus system ownership of a quality education provided to all students that results from articulation and the coordination of a system-wide curriculum. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of an internal communications plan that informs staff, the board, and the community about initiatives and programming within the district. These conditions contribute to the lack of articulation and coordination in the district (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).

Students fabricating a part they designed at Lakeview Technology Academy.


Finding 3.2: The district provides an array of professional development opportunities, but the absence of a professional development plan limits the district’s ability to guide system-wide improvement of instructional practices over time. Professional development efforts are not consistently evaluated and in terms of desired student achievement.

A professional development plan is a critical factor in achieving a district’s goals and provides continuity between curriculum design and classroom delivery. An effective professional development program is guided by a comprehensive plan that is aligned to the district’s strategic goals and identified needs. A comprehensive professional development plan provides for a variety of delivery models, incorporates follow-up and support to ensure effective classroom implementation, includes all staff, is results based, is aligned with written curriculum, and utilizes the current status of student achievement in planning. Effective professional development programs contribute to the improvement of the knowledge and skills of teachers, principals, and other school system employees and have the objective of improving employees’ performance and increasing student achievement. A district dedicated to attaining high levels of student achievement invests resources to create a staff development program with clearly defined and easily understood goals that are linked to improved student achievement. Staff development activities delivered at the building level must be coordinated and congruent with the district’s professional development plan and must be carefully monitored to determine their effects on curriculum delivery and student learning.

To determine the adequacy of the professional development program, auditors reviewed district policies, professional development calendars, job descriptions, the Transformation Plan, Teaching and Learning Instructional Frameworks, the Information and Technology Plan, and other planning documents that were presented to them. They also interviewed board members, district administrators, site administrators, content specialists, and teachers regarding the district’s professional development efforts.

Auditors found the professional development program in the Kenosha Unified School District inadequate in design to determine if desired improvements in measured student achievement are being obtained. Although professional development is mentioned in board policy and there is evidence of professional development activities at the district and individual building level, they are not explicitly linked to planned and desired student achievement. The locus of responsibility for delivery of professional development is the individual school sites, which has resulted in a wide variety of professional development initiatives that are not clearly aligned to district goals or priorities. There is no indication that teacher evaluation results or student achievement data have systematically been used in prioritizing professional development needs or evaluating the effectiveness of professional development activities.

Auditors reviewed board policies to identify direction and expectations regarding professional development. The following board policy addresses professional development:

Board Policy 4370: Staff Development Opportunities states, “The School Board recognizes the importance of providing high quality professional development and inservice education opportunities.” The policy also establishes an expectation that professional development opportunities be designed to: “Deepen knowledge of subject content; expand research-based instructional skills; provide ongoing classroom assistance in implementing new skills, provide classroom assessment skills, encourage innovation, teach state of the art practices, share new ideas and practices; provide diversity instruction; and, provide for job-related growth for improved operations.” This policy also indicates that professional development opportunities are to be “consistent with the District, school and department staff development plan.”

Rule 4370 assigns responsibility for organizing and directing professional development to the Coordinator of Staff Development, Library Media and Instructional Technology with the assistance of the Executive Director of Special Projects.

Auditors found one policy that establishes expectations regarding professional development. Board Policy 4370 establishes an expectation that professional development opportunities will be provided that are focused on classroom instruction and aligned with district goals. While there is no specific policy statement requiring the development of a comprehensive, coordinated professional development system, there is an expectation


stated that professional development opportunities would be consistent with district, school, and department staff development plans. No policy expectations were found that would require:

• Professional development plans to be linked to district long-range plans and annual district goal priorities.

• Professional development needs to be identified, prioritized, and coordinated at the district, school site, and individual level.

• Professional development needs to be based on an analysis of student achievement results and aggregated professional summative evaluation ratings.

• Professional development opportunities designed to train staff in the effective delivery of the adopted curriculum.

• Results of professional development initiatives to be evaluated based on increased student achievement.

• An ongoing program of professional development designed to identify and solve problems of bias in all aspects of school programing.

Auditors also reviewed job descriptions of district personnel to determine what district expectations are relative to professional development planning and implementation. Several job descriptions were found containing references to professional development. Exhibit 3.2.1 lists district job descriptions that reference professional development responsibilities and provides a brief summary of those responsibilities. In their review of district job descriptions, auditors noted several job descriptions for positions that are not depicted on any of the district’s organizational charts (see Finding 1.4).

Exhibit 3.2.1

Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to Professional DevelopmentKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Position Title Professional Development ResponsibilitiesAssistant Superintendent Elementary School Leadership

Provide opportunities and encourage staff to participate in clinics, workshops and state and regional conferences. Organize and plan staff professional development with the Staff Development Coordinator for in-service days related to District and school initiatives.

Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning

Administer the planning and implementation of special education workshops and clinics within specific programs. Administer in-service and support for new school principals regarding District operations and goals. Administer in-service for all school principals on effective educational practices and potential District endeavors. Administer the development and offering of personal growth opportunities for school principals.

Assistant Superintendent Secondary School Leadership

Provide opportunities and encourage staff to participate in clinics, workshops and state and regional conferences. Organize and plan staff professional development with the Organizational Training and Development Coordinator for in-service days related to District and school initiatives.

Coordinator – Language Acquisition Programs

Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates. Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with language acquisition.

Coordinator – Talent Development

Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with gifted and talented education (GATE). Coordinate and develop district-wide professional development promoting research-based best practices in differentiation pedagogy.


Exhibit 3.2.1 (continued)Job Descriptions Examined by Auditors Related to Professional Development


Position Title Professional Development ResponsibilitiesCoordinator of Organizational Training and Development (Also referenced as Coordinator of Instructional Technology and Library Media)

Lead, coordinate and supervise the planning and implementation of professional learning in the District. Lead the planning, revision and implementation of the District’s Professional Development Plan. Coordinate alignment of the District’s Professional Development Plan with the District’s Transformation Design Plan. Develop and manage department budgets to achieve Professional Development Plan goals. Coordinate with Teaching and Learning administrators and building principals to ensure the job embedded high quality professional development at all buildings. Develop, coordinate, and evaluate the instructional coach program. Develop, coordinate, evaluate, and maintain appropriate records of district professional learning courses and workshops through the district catalog published three times a year.

Coordinator of Special Education and Student Support

Provide appropriate professional development to district staff to support the implementation of FAPE for students with disabilities.

Coordinator of Title One Conduct in-service education workshops related to Title One activities. Plan and implement professional development programs designed to meet the needs of staff, educational assistants, and students throughout the district. Facilitate staff participation at appropriate workshops, conferences and visitations.

Curriculum Coordination – Mathematics and Science

Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates. Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with mathematics and science teaching and learning.

Curriculum Coordinator – Instructional Technology and Library Media

Coordinate professional development and training in the use of instructional technologies and library media resources.

Curriculum Coordinator – Science*

Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates. Guide teacher groups in the development and implementation of curriculum maps, pacing guides, assessments, and supplementary materials to be used in conjunction with the district adopted curriculum. Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with science teaching and learning.

Curriculum Coordinator – Social Studies

Provide appropriate professional development to district instructional leaders to support classroom instruction and share curriculum updates. Guide teacher groups in the development and implementation of curriculum maps, pacing guides, assessments, and supplementary materials to be used in conjunction with the district adopted curriculum. Coordinate professional development opportunities and training in areas associated with social studies teaching and learning.

Curriculum Development Coordinator*

Provide for and encourage opportunities for teachers in all subject areas to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences relating to curriculum. Organize curriculum development workshops to District instructional staff.

Director of Instruction* Provide for and encourage opportunities for teachers in all subject areas to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences.

Director of School-to-Career and Student Support*

Arrange and direct staff development and in-services on District initiatives in collaboration with the Staff Development Coordinator. Serve as a consultant to administrators and instructors in regard to new instructional strategies.

Director of Special Education and Student Support

Provide appropriate professional development to district staff to support the implementation of FAPE for students with disabilities.




Position Title Professional Development ResponsibilitiesElementary School Principal Provide for opportunities and encourage staff members to participate in clinics,

workshops, and state and regional conferences. Provide for the continuing development of instructional techniques and assist staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques. Organize and manage workshops to improve staff skills in the use of aids to learning, libraries, resource centers, and other audio visual media. Provide leadership and encouragement toward staff participation in Districtwide inservice education, and other committees. Organize, plan, or assist in the development of programs for inservice days.

Executive Director of 9-12 Instruction*

Provide opportunities and encourage staff to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences. Organize and plan with the Staff Development Coordinator a program for staff in-service day. Organize and conduct workshops and clinics for personnel assigned to the 9-12.

Executive Director of Special Projects*

Plan and implement workshops and clinics regarding special projects.

Fine Arts Coordinator Provide for and encourage opportunities for music and art specialists to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences. Organize and conduct music and art workshops. Organize and plan with administrators of Curriculum Services a program for staff in-service day.

Instructional Coach Collaborate with teachers providing job-embedded professional development on researched based instructional practices and the integration of information and technology digital tools and resources. Assist teachers in designing, implementing, and assessing learning experiences that utilize research based, culturally relevant instructional practices, technology and digital information resources. Assist teachers in developing technology-enriched learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become active participants in setting their own education goals, managing their own learning, and assessing their own progress. Guides analysis and interpretation of data to help increase student achievement. Assist teachers in customizing and personalizing learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles, working strategies, and abilities.

Instructional Technician* Serve as the technical and training lead for the district’s online collaborative learning environment (My Big Campus). Provide support training to users requesting advice and assistance associated with various interactive digital communications including video conferencing and online collaborative learning environments.

K-8 Coordinator* Provide opportunities and encourage staff to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences. Organize and conduct regular staff meetings to improve staff skills, understandings, and attitudes. Provide for opportunities and encourage staff members to participate in District meetings and visitations to other schools. Organize, plan, and/or assist in the development of programs for in-service day. Plan and implement special education and regular education workshops and clinics within specific programs.

Middle School Assistant Principal

Encourage staff members to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional meetings. Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques. Organize, plan, or assist in developing programs for inservice as a part of faculty meetings, the professional period, and inservice days as assigned. Provide inservice instruction on the administrative uses of data processing to the school’s clerical and administrative personnel.




Position Title Professional Development ResponsibilitiesMiddle School Principal Assign, supervise, and evaluate the use of professional period by staff members.

Provide for opportunities and encourage staff members to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional meetings. Organize and manage workshops to improve skills of staff members in the use of aides [sic] to learning, libraries, and audiovisual media. Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques. Organize and assist in developing programs for inservice days.

Minority Academic Affairs Specialist*

Develops and conducts in-service education programs for District staff and the community in the area of minority achievement and cultural awareness.

Professional Development Specialist*

Provide for and make the necessary arrangements for in-service opportunities for all staff. Organize and plan with the other administrators programs for staff in-service. Organize and conduct language arts, foreign languages, and social studies workshops. Organize and conduct instructional media workshops. Coordinate the development of the District in-service day program for the instructional staff. Supervise the development of in-service classes relating to instructional computing. Plan and implement special education workshops and clinics within specific programs.

Senior High School Principal Provide for opportunities and encourage staff members to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional conferences. Organize and manage workshops to improve staff skills in the use of aids to learning, libraries, resource centers, closed circuit television and other audiovisual media. Organize and conduct regular meetings with departmental staffs, teachers new to the building, and other special faculty groups and committees. Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques. Organize, plan, or assist in the development of programs for inservice days.

* Positions are not depicted on any of the district’s organizational charts.


• The Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development has the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating professional development in the district that supports the Transformation Plan and is coordinated with other district instructional leaders. There is no stated expectation regarding basing professional development plans or initiatives on an analysis of student achievement results and professional learning needs identified through an aggregated analysis of professional summative evaluation ratings or expectation that professional development programs and initiatives be evaluated based on the impact on increased student achievement.

• The Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning has not been assigned with overall oversight responsibility for directing and monitoring professional development planning, coordination, implementation, and evaluation in the district. Professional development oversight responsibilities are limited to special education workshops and professional development for building administrators.

• The position of Instructional Coach has been assigned the responsibility for providing teachers with direct job-embedded professional development support in the areas of research based instructional practices, the integration of information and technology digital tools and resources, assessing learning, and personalizing learning activities for students. There is no stated expectation that the work of the Instructional Coach is to be coordinated with district professional development plans or goals.

• Several positions are assigned responsibilities for coordinating professional development activities. In most cases, there is no stated expectation that professional development activities are to be aligned with district professional development plans or district strategic goals. Also, there is no reference regarding with whom professional development activities should be coordinated.


Overall, within various district job descriptions, there are clear expectations that professional development activities will be planned, coordinated, and implemented within the Kenosha Unified School District. Based on the job descriptions reviewed, however, there is no clear expectation that professional development activities will necessarily be aligned with district goals and priorities or coordinated across the district.

In order to fully understand the approach to professional development in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors reviewed key documents presented by the district administration. Following is a listing of the documents received and reviewed by auditors:

• Elementary school SMART goals for 2012-13

• Title I Schoolwide Plans for 2012-13

• Information and Technology Plan 2011-2014

• Fall 2012 Professional Learning District Catalog

• Professional Learning Opportunities- Fall 2012

• May 2013 District Courses & Workshops

• Title IIA Budget –Final (June 2013)

• Revised Budget Worksheet Local Funds 2012-13 (October 2012)

• Professional Learning Three-year Plan 2013-2016

• Professional Development Program Review and Long-range Plan (June 2006)

Within the documents listed above, auditors noted that a wide variety of professional development activities had been planned for the 2012-13 school year. For analysis purposes, auditors compiled a list of the professional development topics that were to be provided during the 2012-13 school year at both the district level and at individual school sites. Exhibit 3.2.2 displays the professional development topics contained in district documents and noted by auditors. In compiling this list, auditors grouped topics together that appeared to be similar in content. If the professional development topic was offered as a district-wide professional development program, an “X” was placed in the column “District-wide.” If the professional development topic was listed in a school’s improvement plan and was to be delivered at the school site, an “X” was placed in the column “Site-level.” A numeral placed before an “X” indicates how many different schools planned to address that particular professional development topic during the 2012-13 school year. In addition, for analysis purposes, auditors grouped the various professional development topics into broad categories of focus. Since most listings of professional development activities did not provide a description or syllabus, auditors based their categorization on the title of the professional development activity and any contextual clues that may have been found in accompanying documents.


Exhibit 3.2.2

Summary of Professional Development Topics Covered During the 2012-13 School YearKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

General Category Professional Development Topic District-

wideSite-level

Assessment/Data

New School Report Card XRunning Records XSmart Goals XFountas & Pinnel Benchmarking Assessment Kit X XTraining in MAP Testing and Use of MAP Data 10XData Retreats, Needs Identification, Goal Setting Data Disaggregation/ Using Data to Guide Instruction 17X

Professional Collaboration

Professional Learning Communities/Professional Collaboration 8XPeer Observation/Coaching/Mentoring X XSir/Indistar XTeacher Leadership 2X

Culture/Climate Capturing Kids Hearts 2XBehavior Skills and Strategies XNonviolent Crisis Intervention Training X 2XEfficacy XPositive Behavioral Intervention Supports 10XConstructing Behavior Plans XChanging Mindsets 3XTeaching with Poverty in Mind XCulturally Responsive Teaching XSocial Justice XLife Space Crisis Intervention XCircle of Courage XAODA and Gang Awareness XCharacter Development XEngaging Families and Community 2X

Curriculum Common Core Standards X 5XENI XEveryday Math XBaccalaureate Training XEngineering is Elementary XLearning Targets 2XCurriculum Guide Review XTheme Based Integrated Units X


Exhibit 3.2.2 (continued)Summary of Professional Development Topics Covered During the 2012-13 School Year


General Category Professional Development Topic District-

wideSite-level

Instruction Mathematical Practice XService-Learning X XLiterature Circles XLiteracy for the Digital Age XProblem Based Learning/Student Directed Learning X 2XAutism Training X XGiving an Old Song a New Twist XInclusion Strategies XWriting for Deeper Learning XExpeditionary Learning 5XGuided Reading 3XELL Strategies 4XDifferentiation of Instruction 4XMastery Learning XMulti-age Classrooms XDaily Five XGuided Math 2XFlexible Grouping XReaders Workshop XWriters Workshop XRosetta Stone 3X

Interventions On-line Support Programs (IXL, Raz Kidz, Compass Learning, FASTT Math) 4X

Response to Interventions 3XPersonal Learning

Spanish for Educators XManaging Professional Development Plans XDiabetes Training XCPR First Aid XTrauma and Self Care X

Technology iPads in the Classrooms X 5XPromethean Foundation Skills X 3XMy Big Campus XAccessible Instructional Materials XAugmentative & Alternative Communication XDigital Tools for Collaboration XTechnology and Assessments 2XTechnology Integration 2XIntegrating 21st Century with Technology XUsing Technology to Engage Students X X


• Seventy-one (71) different professional development topics were offered or implemented during the 2012-13 school year in the Kenosha Unified School District.


• Forty-six (46) (64.8 percent) of the professional development topics were delivered at the school site (building) level.

• Professional development topics noted most frequently include the following:

○ Data retreats, needs identification, goal setting, data disaggregation, and using data to guide instruction were noted at 17 school sites.

○ Training in MAP testing and using MAP test results was noted at 10 school sites.

○ Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports was noted at 10 school sites.

○ Professional Learning Communities and professional collaboration were noted at eight school sites.

• Twenty-one (21) (29.6 percent) of the professional development topics were categorized as relating to instruction.

• Fifteen (15) (21.1 percent) of the professional development topics were categorized as relating to school climate.

• Other than the fact that a majority (50.7 percent) of the professional development topics were related to instruction and culture/climate, no discernible focus or theme was noted among the various professional development topics covered.

To assess the adequacy of the professional development program in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors compared the district’s professional development program against 18 characteristics of a comprehensive professional development program. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met. In order for the district’s curriculum management planning to be considered adequate, the district’s approach to professional development must demonstrate 13 (70 percent) of the characteristics of a comprehensive professional development program. The auditors’ assessment of the district’s professional development program is presented in Exhibit 3.2.3.

Exhibit 3.2.3

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Staff Development Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Staff Development Program



Adequate InadequatePolicy1. Has policy that directs staff development efforts. X2. Fosters an expectation for professional growth. Partial3. Is for all employees. XPlanning and Design4. Is based on a careful analysis of data and is data-driven. X5. Provides for system-wide coordination and has a clearinghouse function in

place. X

6. Provides the necessary funding to carry out professional development goals. X7. Has a current plan that provides a framework for integrating innovations

related to mission. Partial

8. Has a professional development mission in place. X


Exhibit 3.2.3 (continued)Curriculum Management Improvement Model Staff Development Criteria

Auditors’ Assessment of Staff Development ProgramKenosha Unified School District

May 2013


Adequate InadequatePlanning and Design9. Is built using a long-range planning approach. X10. Provides for organizational, unit, and individual development in a systemic

manner. Partial

11. Focuses on organizational change—staff development efforts are aligned to district goals. X

Delivery12. Is based on proven research-based approaches that have been shown to

increase productivity. X

13. Provides for three phases of the change process: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. X

14. Is based on human learning and development and adult learning X15. Uses a variety of professional development approaches. X16. Provides for follow-up and on-the-job application necessary to ensure

improvement. Partial

17. Expects each supervisor to be a staff developer of staff supervised. XEvaluation18. Requires an evaluation of process that is ongoing, includes multiple sources

of information, focuses on all levels of the organization, and is based on actual change in behavior.

X

Total 3 15Percentage 17%

Partially adequate is considered inadequate.

The auditors found the Kenosha Unified School District professional development program to be inadequate. A district’s professional development program is considered adequate if it meets 13 (70 percent) of the audit criteria. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.3, the Kenosha Unified School District’s professional development program was rated adequate or partially adequate on seven of the 18 criteria (38.9 percent) and inadequate on 11 (61.1 percent) of the 18 characteristics. Details regarding the auditors’ assessment of the audit characteristics follows:

Characteristic 1: Has policy that directs staff development efforts

This characteristic was rated inadequate. A professional development policy is in place. While Board Policy 4370 establishes an expectation that professional development opportunities will be aligned with professional development plans and focused on increasing instructional skills, it was considered weak in a number of key areas. Board Policy 4370 did not establish an expectation that professional development plans will be linked to district long-range plans and goals, that professional development needs will be based on student academic achievement needs and priorities, or that the results will be evaluated based on increases in student achievement.

Characteristic 2: Fosters an expectation of professional growth

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. Auditors found evidence that indicates professional development is valued in the Kenosha Unified School District. Board policy establishes an expectation for professional development but is weak in establishing a clear expectation that professional development will be provided for continual professional growth. Auditors found evidence that a wide variety of professional development


activities take place in the district but lack a district-wide focus. Some professional development activities are offered at the district level and are advertised through a catalog of courses and workshops. Title I school-wide improvement plans list professional development activities for schools receiving Title I funds, but similar plans were not found for schools that are not eligible to receive Title I funds. At the time of the audit, a comprehensive professional development plan was not in place; however, a three-year professional development plan has been developed for 2013-2016.

Characteristic 3: Is for all employees

This characteristic was rated inadequate. While professional development activities have been planned for district teachers and administrators, no evidence was found that a planned system is in place to provide professional development or training for all district employees. No policy expectation was found that would require professional development for all employees.

Characteristic 4: Is based on careful analysis of data and is data-driven

This characteristic was rated as inadequate. No evidence that professional development offerings have been developed in response to disaggregated student achievement data was found in documents provided to auditors for either school- or district-provided professional development. While Title I school-wide plans contained summaries of student achievement data, not all contained disaggregated achievement data. While some Title I school-wide plans contained disaggregated student achievement data, none documented how the planned professional development initiatives were developed or selected in response to the disaggregated student achievement data. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 states that the plan is based on district needs assessment and district student achievement data; however, there is no indication of what or how student achievement data was used to focus planned professional development initiatives. There is no policy expectation that the professional development program will be based on student academic achievement needs.

Characteristic 5: System-wide coordination with a clearinghouse function

This characteristic was rated inadequate. There is no clearly defined district function or role charged with the oversight and coordination of district and building level professional development. The Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development is responsible for coordinating, with building principals, professional development at all buildings. There is no reciprocal expectation that building principals coordinate site level professional development efforts with the Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development. Auditors found no evidence that there was any formal, comprehensive district-wide effort to coordinate professional development plans or activities.

Characteristic 6: Provides necessary funding

This characteristic was rated adequate. Budgets supporting professional development through general operating funds and Title IIA funds were provided to auditors. Title I school-wide plans did not include a budget indicating how building level Title I funds were allocated for professional development efforts. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 contains a three-year budget supporting planned district-level professional development initiatives. Auditors did not collect any evidence that would indicate the unavailability of professional development due to the lack of funding.

Characteristic 7: Plan providing a framework

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. At the time of the audit, there was no formal district professional development plan in place for the 2012-13 academic year. A three-year professional development plan for 2013-16 has been developed that provides a clear framework for professional development that is explicitly linked to the district’s Transformation Plan.

Characteristic 8: Has a staff development mission in place

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors were not provided any statement indicating the commitment, promise, or focus of the district’s professional development efforts. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 included the statement “…the plan will provide staff members with job-embedded professional


learning opportunities that engage adult learners while increasing knowledge and skill levels that will impact student learning,” but it was not represented or characterized as a mission statement.

Characteristic 9: Is built using a long-range planning approach

This characteristic was rated inadequate. At the time of the audit, no formal district-wide professional development plan was in place for the 2012-13 academic year, nor was there evidence that any long-range planning had been completed in the recent past. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 does present a three-year plan for professional development, but there is no clear indication of how this plan will be evaluated and revised over time. There is no policy expectation in place requiring multi-year professional development planning.

Characteristic 10: Provides for organizational, unit, and individual development

This characteristic is partially adequate. The district (organizational) provides some professional development opportunities (see Exhibit 3.2.2), in which teachers may voluntarily choose to participate. The majority of professional development opportunities are provided at individual school sites (unit). Some Title I school-wide plans indicated a limited range of professional development options that teachers could choose from, while other school-wide plans appeared to provide no choice. In Wisconsin an individual issued an Initial Educator License must design and complete a professional development plan that demonstrates increased proficiency in order to receive a Professional Educator License. The auditors found no description in district documents indicating how district, building, and individual professional development efforts would be aligned and coordinated.

Characteristic 11: Aligned with district goals

This characteristic was rated inadequate. District and site documents referencing professional development plans for the 2012-13 school year generally referenced three areas of focus: numeracy, literacy, and climate. These three focus areas, however, are not aligned with the goals stated in the district’s Transformation Plan. Several action steps in the Transformation Plan referenced professional development and included the following topics:

• Safe, legal and ethical use of digital information. (Goal 1, Strategy B)

• Professional development supporting authentic learning environments. (Goal 1, Strategy C)

• Professional development for application of best instructional strategies in student use of communication, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking skills. (Goal 1, Strategy C)

• Implement instructional coaching to support application of best instructional practices. (Goal 1, Strategy C)

• Professional development on assessment, feedback and reporting systems. (Goal 1, Strategy D)

• Expand district-wide cultural competency professional development. (Goal 2, Strategy C).

None of the district’s professional development goals were stated in terms of student achievement, and there were no goals that related specifically to the delivery of the district’s adopted curriculum.

Characteristic 12: Focus on proven research-based approaches

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors found no district-wide system in place to effectively manage, monitor, or evaluate the delivery of professional development at individual schools or at the district level. At the time of the audit, there was no comprehensive professional development plan in place to guide professional development in the district and ensure a focus on research-based approaches. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16, while it lists nine job-embedded professional learning strategies that are referenced in the professional literature, it does not provide clear references to research-based approaches for a majority of the professional development activities listed.


Characteristic 13: Provides for initiation, implementation, and institutionalization

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The locus of control over professional development was found to be centered on individual school sites with little institutionalization of training content. There is no formal process in place, or indicated in the Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16, to determine how training will flow from district initiatives and goals to departments, buildings, and individual staff members. Documentation of how professional development efforts are institutionalized across the school system was not evident.

Characteristic 14: Is based on adult human learning and development

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The content and delivery of professional development is often dependent upon building principals and, in many cases, building level instructional coaches. There is no organized method or documented expectation in place for how professional development activities will be conducted, how the content will be selected, or how professional development will be congruent with adult learning theory. The professional development action steps found in the Transformation Plan and the Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 are broadly stated with no measurable outcomes, making it difficult to measure if any change or growth in professional practice has occurred as a direct result of the professional development efforts.

Characteristic 15: Uses a variety of staff development approaches

This characteristic was rated adequate. As noted in Exhibit 3.2.2, a wide variety of professional development activities were planned and implemented during the 2012-13 school year. District level professional development courses were taught in traditional classroom settings and online. Site level professional development activities appeared to be dependent on those involved in planning the professional development activities and the trainer providing the training. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 contains a list of nine job-embedded professional learning strategies. While there appear to be a wide variety of approaches to delivery of professional development, auditors found no indication there had been any study or analysis of which strategies produced the best results in terms of improved professional practice and/or improved student achievement.

Characteristic 16: Provides follow-up and requires on-the-job application

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. Analysis of district documents provided auditors and interviews with district and school staff revealed that there is an emerging effort to support the application of skills acquired through district professional development activities using instructional coaches. Instructional coaches have not been universally allocated across the district, however. Monitoring of application of teaching practices by building principals was found to be inadequate (see Finding 3.5). The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 does emphasize skill application as part of the professional development plan, but expectations are not stated in measurable terms.

Characteristic 17: Expects each supervisor to be a staff developer

This characteristic was rated adequate. The job descriptions for building principals contained requirements that they would “Provide for opportunities and encourage staff members to participate in clinics, workshops, and state and regional meetings. Organize and manage workshops to improve skills of staff members in the use of aides [sic] to learning, libraries, and audiovisual media. Provide for a continuing development of instructional techniques and assist staff personnel in improving their methods and techniques.” Job descriptions for building principals, however, did not contain any requirements to monitor the participation in or implementation of professional development for school staff.

Characteristic 18: Requires an evaluation process

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Auditors found no evidence that the effectiveness of professional development activities has been evaluated in terms of specific outcomes concerning teaching practice or student learning. No documentation was provided to auditors that would indicate professional development programs have been assessed for quality or appropriateness. The Professional Learning Three-Year Plan 2013-16 does include provisions for the evaluation of professional development initiatives; however, evaluation strategies are vaguely described and contain no standard of desired or acceptable performance.


During interviews with district administrators and teachers, auditors heard comments concerning the district’s professional development efforts. The following are a sample of the comments received by auditors.

• “Professional Learning is based on the Transformation Plan.” (District Administrator)

• “If we’re going to have the Transformation Plan then we need help with differentiation, with technology, and with personalized learning.” (District Teacher)

• “We haven’t been trained in differentiated learning and personalized learning.” (District Teacher)

• “We had one day of training prior to implementing Houghton Mifflin and every once in a while we get emails with suggestions on how to do something. But that is all we have had in the way of professional development.” (District Teacher)

• “We used to receive monthly professional development, now we only receive email blasts announcing online training opportunities.” (District Teacher)

• “Each campus has been given the charge to spin your wheels but get where you need to go. Common Core training has been one day plus one hour at each campus.” (District Teacher)

• “Professional development is optional.” (District Administrator)

• “Our teachers need down to the detail PD on how to actually teach reading. Our PD is too global.” (Site Administrator)

• “Equity varies by teachers. We have done some training on culture and learning.” (District Administrator)

• “There is a need for significant professional development yet the PD department is too small, shifting the PD burden to the individual schools.” (District Teacher)

• “Eighth grade Algebra: Teachers were not provided any training. The decision was announced two weeks before the start of school. Didn’t have a curriculum as well.” (District Teacher)

• “Evans Newton, Inc. has provided support and training for Common Core.” (District Administrator)

• “Extensive professional development has been provided in implementing Professional Learning Communities.” (District Administrator)

• “Five asynchronous days are scheduled for middle school and high school students which provide teachers time for collaboration.” (District Administrator)

• “The professional development piece is not strong.” (District Administrator)

• “Since our building has no money for staff development, I take my instructional coach to trainings at the ESC and come back and try to train our people.” (Site Administrator)

• “Originally, Instructional Coaches were told to only work with those teachers that were interested in our coaching them. Then, this year, we were told to work with everyone.” (District Teacher)

• “We have not all been trained in the same program and some of us have not even been trained in coaching, and we are the coaches.” (District Teacher)

• “If we don’t offer the training to implement with consistency, we are not going to do very well.” (Site Administrator)

• “I can’t get the feel yet that what we do is impacting our students either positively or negatively.” (District Administrator)

Summary

The professional development program as implemented in the Kenosha Unified School District lacks sufficient system-wide focus to improve the delivery of curriculum or student achievement. The majority of professional development efforts are initiated and implemented at individual school sites. Only a few district-wide professional development opportunities have been offered. A wide variety of professional development


initiatives have been initiated among district schools, but there is no district-wide focus or coordination in place. The current approach to professional development does not contribute to systemic strength in the pursuit of goals, the pursuit of excellence in application of best practices in instructional strategies, or support or organizational performance improvement and quality control. There is no documentation that teacher evaluation results, student achievement data, or program results have been used in the planning of professional development activities or the evaluating of professional development activities (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8).

Finding 3.3: A deep analysis of district practices, policies, and pedagogy has not been initiated to address aspects of the organizational culture that perpetuate inequalities in student access to comparable programs, services, and learning opportunities.

In a well-managed school system, all students are placed in programs and activities with equal access to the curriculum and to services available in the district. Access should not be determined by gender, ethnicity, attendance area, or socioeconomic status. The auditors expect to find similar proportions of students by gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnic origin in specific programs as reflected in the general student population. No one group of student should be disproportionately represented in enrollment in various special programs and services.

While the term “equal” means “exactly the same,” the audit refers to “equity” as the principle of treating students in accordance with differentiated needs. Rather than distributing resources based on a per pupil allocation, equity requires that additional resources be directed to students with greater needs. Without equal access to programs and services, differential educational responses, and equitable distribution of resources, school systems perpetuate the disparities among students that a public school education was designed to ameliorate.

The auditors reviewed documents including board policies, district plans, and enrollment and participation reports compiled by school district and state personnel. They interviewed board members, community members, administrators, teachers, parents, and students.

Auditors found that district practices, as supported by both policy approval and professional practice, have had the effect of continuing and perhaps even creating inequities of student access to programming and educational opportunities. An intentional plan to address inequities in programming, student access to the curriculum, and support service allocation has not been initiated.

Policies approved by the board of education contain many references to educational opportunities for all students, evidenced as follows:

• Board Policy 6423: Talent Development Program reinforces the belief that the district has the responsibility to provide the “best possible education for every student, in every classroom in the district.” Additionally, the district identifies as its responsibility to provide all students with appropriate educational experiences.

• Board Policy 2211: Recruiting and Hiring- Administrative, Supervisory, and Technical Personnel indicates, “The Superintendent of Schools shall be responsible for seeking qualified candidates to fill administrative, supervisory and technical personnel vacancies in the District.” While this responsibility is delegated to the Department of Human Resources, there is no policy expectation that staff members resemble the cultural and racial makeup of the student population. Likewise, in the absence of a board policy detailing the components of job descriptions for hiring purposes (see Finding 1.4), the district has no guiding expectation to assemble a staff that resembles the student population.

• Board Policy 4370: Staff Development Opportunities emphasizes the importance of providing high quality professional development and in-service educational opportunities. Included is an expectation that teachers will be provided training on diversity; however, such training is not an expectation for all teachers, is not consistent across the district, and much staff development is voluntary (see Finding 3.2).

Several policies were found that established a clear expectation that students could not be denied access to the district’s educational programs.

• Board Policy 3280: Student Fees states, “No student shall be denied the opportunity to participate in school programs or activities because of his/her family’s inability to pay necessary fees and charges.”


• Board Policy 5110: Equal Educational Opportunity Discrimination Complaint states, “No student may be denied admission to, be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any curricular, extracurricular, student services, recreational or other program or activity because of the student’s sex, race, national origin, ancestry, creed, religion, color, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability or handicap.”

• Board Policy 6423: Talent Development Program states, “It is the District’s responsibility to provide all students with appropriate educational experiences to meet their needs and to help all students develop their talent to its fullest potential.” No policy references were found requiring review of equity data or developing procedures for fast-tracking students who lack sufficient skills for courses such as AP, honors, etc.

No board policies were noted that referenced change or implementing change processes for long-term institutionalization of district priority goals. Such policies would provide direction to the school administration in the development of planning documents as to expectations for implementation and supervision of programs that would impact district priorities.

Auditors found that planning does occur in the district. The key planning document is the Transformation Plan, which provides general direction to the school district and is to be the key link between the individual school buildings, departments, and instructional programs and the overarching district goals. However, current efforts are inadequate to fully achieve the intended effects of planning—focusing the district’s attention, energy, and resources toward achieving the mission. Planning across the system lacks connectivity and is inconsistently implemented, and planning documents vary in format and content. The quality of school and departmental plans varies and, in some departments, does not exist (see Finding 1.1).

Annual plans have been developed at the building level in response to the district Transformation Plan, and for those buildings that are required, to Title I funding for schools in Improvement, Corrective Action, or Making Progress status. During interviews, district personnel indicated that district, building, and departmental planning either is completed sporadically, completed and not utilized, or not completed at all. The end result is that program offerings, availability of services, and, in some cases, access to necessary programs are determined by the building of attendance, and not whether a needed program is available to a student.

The district Transformation Plan also does not contain references to a deliberate plan to address the achievement gap among populations of students (see Finding 4.3). The plan does indicate that all children should be successful and achieve at a higher level, but no district-wide initiative is indicated. By default then, the achievement gap issue is relegated to the building level plans, and in some cases is absent from building plans altogether. As a result, connectivity and constancy of programming between buildings is absent.

Student and Staff Characteristics

The audit team examined the ethnicity and gender of staff members compared to student ethnicity and gender. Exhibits 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 present the results of this comparison.

Exhibit 3.3.1

Gender of District Staff and StudentsKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Gender Staff Percent of Total Students Percent of

TotalFemale 2,805 72.4 11,155 48.5Male 1,070 27.6 11,831 51.5Total 3,875 100 22,986 100

Source: KUSD Human Resources Department


Exhibit 3.3.2

Ethnicity of District Staff and StudentsKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Race Staff (FTE) Percent Students Percent

White 3,407 87.9 12,413 54.7Hispanic of any Race 185 4.8 5,560 24.8Black or African American 240 6.2 3,517 15.5Asian 27 0.7 363 1.6Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 >0.03 23 0.1American Indian or Alaska Native 11 0.3 45 0.2Two or more Races 4 0.1 772 3.4Total 3,875 100 22,693 100Source: KUSD Human Resources Department, September 3rd Friday Enrollment, 2012-13

As can be seen in Exhibits 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, the teaching staff in the Kenosha Unified School district is predominantly white female and not representative of the gender split and ethnicities in the general student population. White teachers represent 87.9 percent of the teaching force, while White students represent 54.7 percent of all students. The percentage of Hispanic teachers is 4.8 percent of the teaching force, while Hispanic students make up 24.8 percent of the student population. The board does not have a policy or goal that addresses the issue of disparity between student and staff populations. Board Policy 4370 address the diversity within the educational system and requires training of staff on the topic of diversity, but this policy expectation is not fully implemented through professional development training of all staff (see Finding 3.2).

The follow comments related to staffing inequities were heard by the auditors during interviews:

• “Community groups want more Hispanic administrators.” (District Administrator)

• “Racial breakdown of staff does not represent the district.” (Board Member)

• “Difficulty in attracting Hispanic and African American faculty to Kenosha—they do not find the community very receptive.” (District Administrator)

• “We are working to build ethnic diversity through recruitment.” (Board Member)

• “Many minority teachers are hired and then they leave. The district should look at this to see why.” (Community Member)

• “It is a challenge to hire Blacks in the community. Faculty does not mirror students.” (District Administrator)


Student Suspensions and Student Retentions

The audit team examined student suspension and retention data to determine if any subgroups are more likely to be suspended than others. Suspension data was analyzed by student ethnicity. Data for other subgroups (gender, English proficiency, and special education) were not available to auditors. These data are presented in Exhibit 3.3.3.

Exhibit 3.3.3

Student Suspensions by Ethnicity vs. District PercentagesKenosha Unified School district

2011-12

Category Enrollment Students Suspended

Percent of Total Students

Suspended

Variance from District Average Suspension Rate

of 9.6 PercentDistrict Total 22,905 2,209 9.6

Asian 380 7 1.8 -7.8Black/Af. Amer. 3,557 920 25.6 +16.0

Hispanic 5,332 489 9.2 -0.4Amer. Indian 63 4 6.3 -3.3

Pacific Islander 20 1 5.0 -4.6Two or More 628 62 9.9 +0.3

White 12,935 736 5.7 -3.9Elementary School Range

Charles Nash 645 1 0.2 -9.4Brass Community 461 60 13.0 +3.4

Middle School RangePaideia Academy 74 3 4.1 -5.5

Washington 605 180 29.8 +20.2High School Range

Lakeview Tech 391 9 2.3 -7.3Hillcrest School 68 57 83.3 +73.7

Includes multiple suspensions per studentSource: Wisconsin School District Performance Report, 2011-12

The following can be seen from Exhibit 3.3.3:

• The overall suspension rate in the Kenosha Unified School District is 9.6 percent of the general student population.

• African American students are suspended at a higher rate than the district average.

• The rate of suspensions for elementary school students ranged from 0.2 percent at Charles Nash Elementary school to 13 percent at Brass Elementary School.

• The rate of suspensions for middle school students ranged from 4.1 percent at the Paideia Academy to 29.8 percent at Washington Middle School.

• The rate of suspensions for high school students ranged from 2.3 percent at Lakeview Technical School to 83.3 percent at Hillcrest School.

Kenosha Unified School District has begun an aggressive program to address the excessive suspensions in the district. As part of the program, a focus has been placed on reducing suspensions of all children, but especially those identified as more likely to be suspended and special student populations (male, African American/Black,


and students with disabilities). At a special meeting of the board of education held on April 30, 2013, data was presented to the board demonstrating a reduction in suspensions over the past three school years.

The audit team examined retention data to determine if any student subgroups were more likely to be retained than others. Retention data were analyzed by student ethnicity as well as other reported subgroups (gender, English proficiency, and special education.) These data are presented in Exhibit 3.3.4.

Exhibit 3.3.4

Student Retentions by Gender, Ethnicity, English Proficiency and SWD vs. District Percentages


Category Enrollment Students Retained

Percent of Total Students Retained

Variance from District Enrollment

Percent (2.1)District Total 22,660 451 2.1

EthnicityAsian 350 2 0.6 -1.5

Black/Af. Amer. 3,364 106 3.2 +1.1Hispanic 5,010 153 3.1 +1.0

Amer. Indian 55 2 3.6 +1.5Pacific Islander 21 1 4.8 +2.7

Two or More 610 10 1.6 -0.5White 12,250 177 1.4 -0.7

GenderFemale 10,512 192 1.8 -0.3Male 11,148 259 2.3 +0.2

Economic StatusDisadvantaged 11.013 359 3.3 +1.2

Not Disadvantaged 10,647 92 0.9 -1.2English Proficiency

Limited English 2,076 70 3.4 +1.3English Proficient 19,584 381 2.0 -0.1

Disability StatusWith Disabilities 2,815 84 3.0 +0.9W/O Disabilities 18,845 367 2.0 -0.1

Source: Kenosha Unified School District, Retentions 2011-12

The following can be seen from Exhibit 3.3.4:

• The overall retention rate in the Kenosha Unified School District is 2.1 percent of the general student population.

• African American and Hispanic students are retained at a higher rate than the district average.

• Pacific Islander and American Indian students are retained at a higher rate than the general population, but due to low enrollment, this affects few students (one and two, respectfully).

• Males are retained at a slightly higher rate than the general population.

• Economically disadvantaged, limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities are all retained at a higher rate than the general population.


• Retained students may be included in more than one category (e.g., economically disadvantaged and disabled are counted in both categories even though it is the same student)

In summary, the auditors examined the relationship of poverty, disability, ethnicity, and ELL status to suspension and retention rates. The higher suspension and retention rates associated with being economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, disabled, and/or a member of a particular ethnic group are notable and indicative of ineffective planning and service delivery for students of these categories. While the present intervention program cited above helps address the suspension and retention issues, problems still exist.

Comments from staff members support this reality:

• “In the past there were discipline inequities. If students were expelled they couldn’t be accepted into any other school. Now there is ‘wrap around’ service for kids.” (District Administrator)

• “We have been identified as suspending too many Black kids and students with LD, SLD, Cognitive disabilities, and behavior issues.” (District Administrator)

• “Suspensions were above the state suspension rate.” (District Administrator)

• “Some people see our schools as out of control because our suspension rates have dropped. Most places would be happy if suspension rates had dropped.” (District Administrator)

• “The public perception of schools is that children are running wild, but if they saw the great things that are happening in schools, they would know that it is not so.” (Community Member)

• “Our suspension rates have doubled this year because of move- ins from closed buildings fighting with the existing students.” (Site Administrator)

Charter School Enrollment

Auditors examined charter school enrollment to determine if equitable access to these programs was available to all students. Likewise, auditors visited all schools in the district and interviewed staff and administrators to collect data concerning the reality of enrollment and availability of programming to students. Auditors found that enrollment is inequitably distributed across all charter schools. Some student groups are underrepresented, while other groups are overrepresented.

Exhibit 3.3.5 contains the percentages of under -and over-representation by ethnicity.

Exhibit 3.3.5

Ethnicity of Charter School Student Enrollment vs. District EnrollmentKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Charter Schools AsianAfrican

American or Black

Hispanic Native American

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

White Total Enrollment

Brompton K-8 6 19 22 - - 3 149 199Percentage 3.0 9.5 11 0 0 1.5 75.0

Variance from District +1.4 -6.0 -13.8 -0.2 -0.1 -1.9 +20.3

Dimensions K-8 8 17 36 2 1 17 145 226Percentage 3.5 7.5 15.9 0.9 0.4 7.5 64.0

Variance from District +1.9 -8.0 -8.9 +0.8 +0.3 +4.1 +9.3


Exhibit 3.3.5 (continued) Ethnicity of Charter School Student Enrollment vs. District Enrollment


Charter Schools AsianAfrican

American or Black

Hispanic Native American

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

White Total Enrollment

Harborside Academy 6-12 7 74 121 - - 8 393 603

Percentage 1.2 12.3 20.0 0 0 1.3 65.0Variance from

District -0.4 -3.2 -4.8 -0.2 -0.1 -2.1 +10.3

KTech PreK-8 13 25 61 2 1 2 362 466Percentage 2.8 5.4 13.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 77.7

Variance from District +1.2 -10.1 -11.4 +0.2 +0.1 -3.0 +23.0

Kenosha eSchool K-12 2 9 20 - - 4 101 136

Percentage 1.5 6.6 14.7 0 0 2.9 74.0Variance from

District -0.1 -8.9 -10.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.5 +19.3

Source: KUSD Human Resources Department, September 3rd Friday Enrollment, 2012-13

The following can be noted from Exhibit 3.3.5:

• Several ethnic groups are under enrolled in district charter schools compared to the overall enrollment in the student population as follows:

○ African American/Black: Under enrollment range from -3.2 to -10.1

○ Hispanic: Under enrollment range from -4.8 to -13.8

○ Two or more Races: Under enrollment range from -0.5 to -3.0

○ In one school (Dimensions) Two or More Race students exceed the district enrollment averages by +4.1

• White student exceed the district enrollment averages in all charter schools, with the range of +9.3 to +23.0.


Auditors then examined the student enrollment in charter schools in terms of enrollment in special programs (economically disadvantaged, ELL, and students with disabilities). Exhibit 3.3.6 presents the data.

Exhibit 3.3.6

Special Programs in Charter Schools Enrollment vs. District EnrollmentKenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Charter Schools ELL SWD Economically Disadvantaged

Total Enrollment

Brompton K-8 4 13 54 199Percentage 2.0 6.5 27.1

Variance from District -7.0 -5.8 -23.5Dimensions K-8 12 11 54 226

Percentage 5.3 4.9 27.1Variance from District -3.7 -7.4 -23.5

Harborside Academy 6-12 28 54 224 603Percentage 4.6 9.0 37.1

Variance from District -4.4 -3.3 -13.5KTech PreK - 8 32 39 142 466

Percentage 6.7 8.4 30.4Variance from District -2.3 -3.9 -20.2

Kenosha eSchool K-12 2 19 47 136Percentage 1.5 14.0 34.6

Variance from District -7.5 +1.7 -16.0Total District Percentage 9.0 12.3 50.6

Source: KUSD Human Resources Department, September 3rd Friday Enrollment, 2012-13


• Economically disadvantaged students are under enrolled in all five charter schools, with the range of under enrollment from -13.5 to -23.5.

• Student with disabilities are under enrolled in four of the charter schools, ranging from -3.3 to -7.4

• Limited English proficient students are under enrolled in all five of the charter schools, ranging from -2.3 to -7.5.

During site visits to Kenosha Unified School District schools, auditors observed the under-representation noted above. In interviews with site administrators and other district staff, several explanations for the under-representation, were cited, including a lack of programming for special populations of students, lack of bussing, and a lottery system used to determine school choice placement.

• “At Brompton School students are accepted by lottery.” (Site Administrator)

• “Dimensions Learning Academy is on a bus route, but recruitment is still hard.” (District Administrator)

• “Bussing is not provided to this school. If students want to attend they need to find their own way here.” (Site Administrator)

• “Equity is not the same from school to school.” (District Teacher)

• “Nothing systematic in place to address high concentration of poverty.” (District Administrator)

• “We have equity issues in our building. The ELL kids don’t have any computers or even tables to put them on.” (Site Administrator)


• “We don’t have a program here for ELLs so they tend not to come here.” (Site Administrator)

• “Charter school enrollment doesn’t represent the district. Those in the know make the choice. We use a lottery system but they [families] have to sign up.” (Site Administrator)

• “There is inequity in terms of charters’ and academies’ enrollment reflecting overall student demographics.” (Site Administrator)

• “In an attempt to obtain more heterogeneous enrollment, all eighth grade students are entered into a lottery and letters sent to the first 100 selected.” (District Administrator)

• “Getting pushback around inclusion of special education students—community believes they should be isolated.” (District Administrator)

• “Our school has an ELL program. Enrollment is conducted on lottery, leaving space available to other students who are not native speakers of Spanish.” (Site Administrator)

Students using manipulatives to solve math problems at Kenosha School of Technology Enhanced Curriculum, one of several charter schools in the Kenosha Unified School District.

Enrollment in Special Programs

Auditors examined enrollment in programs geared for academically talented students to determine if equitable access to these programs was available to all students. Likewise, auditors visited all schools in the district and interviewed staff and administrators to collect data concerning the reality of attendance and availability of programming for academically talented students. Auditors found that attendance is inequitably distributed across reported programs for academically talented students. Some student groups are underrepresented, while other groups are overrepresented. Some data related to student participation in programs for academically talented students were not available from district personnel. Because of this, enrollment data for Advanced Placement and Gifted and Talented programs are not included in Exhibit 3.3.7 below.


Exhibit 3.3.7

District Enrollment in Special Programs by Ethnicity Kenosha Unified School District

2012-13

Programs

Asi

an

Afr

ican

A

mer

ican

or

Bla

ck

His

pani

c

Nat

ive

Am

eric

anTw

o or

m

ore

Rac

es

Whi

te

Eco

n.

Dis

adva

SWD

EL

L

Tota

l

Advanced Placement Data Not AvailableGifted and Talented Data Not AvailableKTEC 13 25 61 2 2 362 142 39 32 466Percentage 2.8 5.4 13.1 0.4 0.4 77.7 30.5 8.4 6.9Kenosha eSchool 2 9 20 0 4 101 47 19 2 136Percentage 1.5 6.6 14.7 0 2.9 74.3 34.6 14.0 1.5District Percentages 1.5 15.5 24.6 0.2 1.5 54.6 50.6 12.3 9.0Source: Data extrapolated from Kenosha Unified School District documents.


• Several ethnic and special needs groups are under enrolled compared to the overall enrollment in the student population as follows:

○ African American/Black: Enrollment ranges from 5.4 to 6.6 percent, below the district enrollment of 15.5 percent.

○ Hispanic: Enrollment ranges from 13.1 to 14.7 percent, below the district enrollment of 24.6 percent.

○ Economically disadvantaged: Enrollment ranges from 30.5 to 34.6 percent, below the district enrollment of 50.6 percent.

○ Student with disabilities: Enrollment ranges from 8.4 to 14 percent, resembling the range of district enrollment of 12.3 percent.

○ English language learners: Enrollment ranges from 1.5 to 6.9 percent, below the district enrollment of nine percent.

• White students exceed the district enrollment averages in special programs, with a range of 74.3 to 77.7 percent, compared to district enrollment of 54.6 percent.

During site visits to Kenosha Unified School District schools, auditors observed the under-representation noted above. In interviews with building administrators and other district staff, comments from staff members echoed the data presented above and indicated concern about equity and access to school programs for all students:

• “There was not equity in Curriculum. There was remediation Math in Middle School and 9th graders were still in remediation. Many were minorities. So we changed this by adding Algebra in 8th grade. We also added flexible groupings.” (District Administrator)

• “Parents want pure honors.” (District Administrator)

• “Students of color are not in Band and the Arts.” (District Administrator)

• “Is the Talented and Gifted program representative of the population? Yes and No. We take the top 10 of each ethnic group and low income, as well.” (District Administrator)

• “Kenosha eSchool is 75 percent white with 150 students full-time, and part-time students.” (District Administrator)


• “The limited representation of students of color in elective courses is about relevance.” (District Administrator)

• “The culture of the minority community chooses not to take honors/AP courses.” (Site Administrator)

• “When you look at our concerts, Golden Strings, our choirs—you do not see a lot of diversity.” (District Administrator)

Summary

Auditors found that district practices, as supported by both policy approval and professional practice, have had the effect of continuing and perhaps even creating inequities of student access to programming and educational opportunities. Board policies and district planning documents do not explicitly direct actions to address equity and equality issues within the district. As a result, an intentional plan to address inequities in programming, student access to the curriculum, and support service allocation has not been initiated. Staff personnel do not reflect the ethnic and gender characteristics of the student population, and although diversity training of staff is directed in board policy, such training has been inadequate. Student suspension data indicate over-representation of African American students. Student retentions data indicate an over-representation of African American and Hispanic students, as well as students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners. Although some data were not available to auditors, ethnic minorities and students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners tend to be underrepresented in programs geared toward academically talented students (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7).

Kenosha eSchool, which enrolls 136 students, offers full- and part-time enrollment options for students in grades K-12.

Finding 3.4: The district’s technology plan meets audit criteria, but instructional technology is not being integrated as prescribed by the Transformation Plan to promote technology and media literacy.

Technology planning in effective school districts leads to technology implementation that supports deeper and more meaningful learning for students. The systematic, efficient integration of technology into curriculum and instruction serves as a tool to increase student achievement. Technology also serves important roles in business and management functions. Appropriately funding and directing the use and integration of technology throughout the school district is an essential part of effective management and control. A written plan that outlines expectations, goals, guidelines, and evaluation protocols for the use and integration of technology is an effective means of ensuring consistent implementation across the district.

The auditors reviewed district policies, district and campus plans, job descriptions, and other district documents related to technology. Auditors conducted interviews with board members, district staff, parents, and community members to determine the use and integration of instructional technology within the district. Also, auditors conducted site visits to district campuses to observe the use of technology in the classroom.


Auditors found that the Kenosha Unified School District has a technology plan in place that meets audit criteria for adequacy. School board policy and district job descriptions are limited in relation to guidance for and responsibility related to technology use for the improvement of student learning. Auditors also found that while technology is available in classrooms, use of that technology is minimal.

Auditors reviewed board policies to determine the direction they provide to technology planning, financing, and implementation. Auditors determined that the following board policies had some relationship to technology:

• Board Policy 3535: Technology Acceptable Use notes that “the District’s technology resources are District assets” and use may be reviewed by the district as determined necessary.

• Rule 4370: Staff Development Opportunities states, “Inservice courses appropriate to the needs of the instructional staff and aligned with District initiatives will be organized and directed annually by the Coordinator of Staff Development, Library Media and Instructional Technology.”

• Board Policy 6633: Student Use of Internet System Practice requires that “All use of the Internet must be in support of education and research and consistent with the mission and strategic goals of the District.”

• Rule 6320A: Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation includes Instructional Technology Management and Instructional Technology Learning Effectiveness in the Instructional Program Review Cycle.

Board policy does not adequately direct the development, implementation, integration, and evaluation of a district technology plan for the improvement of student achievement or increased efficiency of business and management functions (see Finding 1.3). Auditors also reviewed available job descriptions to determine the roles and responsibilities related to technology in Kenosha Unified School District. The following job descriptions reference technology to varied degrees:

• Curriculum Coordinator – Instructional Technology and Library Media: “Lead, coordinate, and supervise the planning and implementation of instructional technology and library media programs in the District…Coordinate alignment of the District’s Information and Technology Plan with the District’s Transformation Design Plan. Coordinate professional development and training in the use of instructional technologies and library media resources.”

• Supervisor of Technology Services: “Assume the leadership role for the Technology Services activities of the District.”

• Elementary School Principal: “Demonstrate competency in the use of educational and business technology. Organize and manage workshops to improve staff skills in the implementation of…the use of relevant technology.”

• Middle School Principal: “Organize and manage workshops to improve the skills of staff members in the use of aides [sic] to learning, libraries and audiovisual media.”

• Senior High School Principal: Organize and manage workshops to improve staff skills in use of aids to learning, libraries, resource centers, closed circuit television and other audiovisual media.”

Only the job description for the Curriculum Coordinator – Instructional Technology and Library Media is up to date and relevant to current technology. The others job descriptions listed above are outdated and provide no clear linkage to current needs or available technology (see Finding 1.4).

Kenosha Unified School District currently has an information and technology plan in place. The current plan for 2011-2014 replaced the previous three-year plan that spanned school years 2008-2011. To determine the quality of the technology program in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors reviewed the following documents:

• Kenosha Unified School District Board Policy

• Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan


• Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Design Goals, Strategies and Action Steps, 2011-2012

• Kenosha Unified School District Information and Technology Plan, January 2011-June 2014

• Related job descriptions

• Sampling of 2012-13 campus plans

• Inventory of district computers and technology equipment

• Kenosha Unified School District budgets, 2011-2013

The Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Design Goals, Strategies and Action Steps addresses student learning and provides a basis for the integration of instructional technology in the classroom. Strategy B associated with Strategic Goal 1 establishes an expectation for the use of technology by students and staff, stating, “Ensure all students and staff are proficient in information, technology, and media literacy to be successful in the global community.” Utilizing the information gathered from The Transformation Plan, other district documents, interviews, and site visits, the auditors compared the district’s technology planning against 14 CMSi quality criteria for technology planning. To be considered adequate, 70 percent of the quality criteria must be determined to be adequate. Exhibit 3.4.1 presents the technology plan quality criteria and the auditors’ assessment as to adequacy.

Exhibit 3.4.1

Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Program and Auditors’ AssessmentKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

CriteriaAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology exists. X2. There is a clear statement of program philosophy/ vision. X3. A comprehensive view of technology exists. X4. A needs assessment has been completed and evaluated. X5. Measurable student goals and objectives exist. X6. An ongoing student assessment component exists. X7. An ongoing program assessment component exists. X8. There are comprehensive staff trainings with measurable standards for

equipment, application, and technology. X

9. School site equipment standards exist. X10. Internet access standards exist. X11. The role of the school library is stated. X12. An implementation budget has been identified. X13. A maintenance budget has been identified. X14. Technology site plans are aligned with district plans. X

Total 10 4Percent Adequate 71%

As can be noted in Exhibit 3.4.1, the Kenosha Unified School District’s technology planning met audit criteria. Auditors rated the technology plan as adequate in 10 (71 percent) of the criteria and inadequate in four of the criteria. Although the Kenosha Unified School District Information and Technology Plan met the audit criteria for adequacy, the auditors found that there are some key criteria missing or in need of improvement. The following discussion provides more information on what the auditors found with respect to each of the characteristics above.


Criterion 1 - Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology:

This criterion was rated inadequate. Board policies do not establish a clear expectation for a technology plan or the content for such a plan that would include instructional technology development, implementation, and evaluation.

Criterion 2 - Clear statement of program philosophy/vision:

This criterion was rated adequate. The Kenosha Unified School District’s Information and Technology Plan includes a vision statement that states, “The vision of the Information and Technology Plan is to ensure that all students and staff proficiently use information and technology to learn and communicate in an ever-changing global society that meets the diverse needs of all learners.” The plan also includes a list of beliefs that outline the direction of the plan. As noted above, the Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan addresses technology; however, the Information and Technology Plan does not directly reference the Transformation Plan (see Findings 1.1).

Criterion 3 - Comprehensive view of technology:

This criterion was rated adequate. The belief statements included in the vision and mission section of the plan present an overall view, including but not limited to: equitable access, ongoing professional development, an evaluative and ethical use of information and technology, and a high level of proficiency for use in a global society.

Criterion 4 - Needs assessment:

This criterion was rated adequate. A needs assessment, Next Generation Assessments (NGA), was utilized to update a previous plan that was in existence from 2008-2011.

Criterion 5 - Measurable student goals and objectives:

This criterion was rated inadequate. While student goals and objectives exist within the plan, many are not measurable as currently written.

Criterion 6 - Ongoing student assessment:

This criterion was rated adequate. The NGA Student Assessment will be utilized to determine if the standards and benchmarks are met as noted in the Standards and Benchmarks Information and Technology Literacy (Appendix K) section of the plan. Kindergarten through grade 12 standards and benchmarks are in place, with essential benchmarks noted.

Criterion 7 - Ongoing program assessment:

This criterion was rated adequate. Auditors gave credit since the action steps within the plan reference an evaluation of the steps upon implementation. However, an overall program assessment piece does not exist, and there is no process in place to evaluate the cost-benefit of the technology plan.

Criterion 8 - Comprehensive staff trainings with measurable standards for equipment, application, and technology:

This criterion was rated inadequate. Although there are staff training steps noted within the plan, not all are measurable, and application is not specific enough for consistent implementation across the district. The action plan is vague regarding how, when, and where all district and/or campus personnel will be trained, with timelines for trainings general in nature (i.e., “Summer 2011,” “Ongoing,” “2011-2012 school year,” “Annually”).

Criterion 9 - School site equipment standards:

This criterion was rated adequate. Action Plan 5.3.2 establishes a minimum classroom standard for June 2014 that includes the following: at least one student-accessible computer connected to the Internet per classroom, an appropriate computing device for each teacher, and one teacher multimedia station that includes a document reader and video projector per classroom. The plan further states with no date for completion, “All students will have access to interactive technology.”


Criterion 10 - Internet access standards:

This criterion was rated adequate. Internet access standards are addressed within the plan and cited in Appendix H with board policy included.

Criterion 11 - Role of the library:

This criterion was rated adequate. The library is referenced within the technology plan and cited in Appendix D. The librarians are to “collaborate to use authentic, research-based practices to proficiently integrate information and technology standards into the curriculum…” Further, the library is considered a “student-centered library media center designed to assist all students and staff …”

Criterion 12 - Implementation budget:

This criterion was rated adequate. The implementation budget is outlined and includes categories for: Library Media/Information Resources, Instructional Technology, Telecommunications/Infrastructure, Professional Development and Curriculum Development, District Projects, Administrative Technologies, Information Services Department, and Instructional/Library Media. Each broad category includes details with references to the Action Plan, funding source, and required dollars for implementation.

Criterion 13 - Maintenance budget:

This criterion was rated inadequate. No evidence of a maintenance budget exists within the Information and Technology Plan, nor was additional documentation provided to the auditors related to a technology maintenance budget. Neither does the technology plan specifically address the replacement or disposal of dated or obsolete instructional technology.

Criterion 14 - Technology site plans are aligned with district plans:

This criterion was rated adequate. The site plans are reflective of the district’s Transformation Plan and address teaching and learning in ways that meet student needs, including the integration of technology into the classroom.

In summary, the district’s technology plan met audit criteria in 10 of the 14 criteria and was found to be adequate overall. Aspects of the technology plan judged as inadequacies included board policies and administrative regulations for instructional technology, measurable student goals and objectives, staff training that has measurable standards, and a maintenance budget to ensure that the plan remains viable over time.

Availability of Instructional Technology in the Classroom

As school districts work to meet the learning needs of students, technology can be an effective means of meeting those needs if there is adequate technology available in the classrooms throughout the district. Auditors reviewed computer inventories and observation data from classroom visits to determine the availability of instructional technology from campus to campus.

The Kenosha Unified School District’s computer inventory data and a comparison of the desktop computers, laptop computers, and tablets available on each campus are presented in Exhibit 3.4.2. Computers to student ratios by campus are also noted.


Exhibit 3.4.2

Computer Inventory by School Including Computer to Student Ratios

Kenosha Unified School DistrictSchool Years 2011 and 2013

School

January 2011 March 2013

Des

ktop

s

Lap

tops

TOTA

L Te

chno

logy

Stud

ents

Rat

io

Des

ktop

s

Lap

tops

Tabl

ets

TOTA

L Te

chno

logy

Stud

ents

Rat

io

Elementary 1 to: 1 to:

*Bose 139 69 208 385 1.9 128 86 95 309 419 1.4*Brass 144 322 466 469 1.0 128 389 122 639 441 0.7*Bain SOLA 317 154 471 807 1.7 269 206 61 536 874 1.6*Forest Park 146 54 200 476 2.4 135 123 163 421 472 1.1*Frank 157 85 242 429 1.8 144 101 64 309 469 1.5*Grant 108 100 208 252 1.2 106 111 118 335 270 0.8*Grewenow 79 103 182 345 1.9 93 192 193 478 383 0.8*Harvey 104 110 214 357 1.7 99 103 56 258 310 1.2*Jefferson 171 94 265 325 1.2 108 102 121 331 287 0.9Jeffery 94 55 149 357 2.4 101 95 48 244 335 1.4*McKinley 135 82 217 261 1.2 106 122 44 272 331 1.2Nash 14 146 160 647 4.0 44 145 84 273 641 2.3Pleasant Prairie 126 61 187 573 3.1 131 174 77 382 596 1.6Prairie Lane 87 54 141 488 3.5 115 113 65 293 496 1.7*Roosevelt 89 44 133 395 3.0 99 122 97 318 442 1.4Somers 164 62 226 469 2.1 213 87 137 437 450 1.0*Southport 106 89 195 501 2.6 102 179 114 395 453 1.1*Stocker 126 107 233 571 2.5 123 273 270 666 512 0.8*Strange 215 76 291 502 1.7 218 109 101 428 502 1.2*Vernon 211 98 309 422 1.4 163 97 37 297 382 1.3Whittier 103 57 160 516 3.2 145 57 13 215 444 2.1*Wilson 111 54 165 238 1.4 107 69 33 209 211 1.0

Elem Average 134 94 228 2.1 131 139 96 366 1.3Middle School

*Bullen 342 170 512 802 1.6 326 274 124 724 873 1.2Lance 271 137 408 925 2.3 280 201 124 605 1059 1.8*Lincoln 285 193 478 653 1.4 347 357 279 983 778 0.8Mahone 271 114 385 990 2.6 320 207 106 633 1183 1.9*Washington 149 761 910 600 0.7 193 527 384 1104 620 0.6

MS Average 264 275 539 1.7 293 313 203 810 1.2


Exhibit 3.4.2 (continued)Computer Inventory by School

Including Computer to Student RatiosKenosha Unified School District

School Years 2011 and 2013

School

January 2011 March 2013

Des

ktop

s

Lap

tops

TOTA

L Te

chno

logy

Stud

ents

Rat

io

Des

ktop

s

Lap

tops

Tabl

ets

TOTA

L Te

chno

logy

Stud

ents

Rat

io

High School*Bradford 702 256 958 2003 2.1 714 424 76 1214 1641 1.4*Indian Trail 429 1075 1504 1312 0.9 667 1226 209 2102 1903 0.9*Reuther 344 90 434 546 1.3 391 356 171 918 445 0.5Tremper 665 216 881 2300 2.6 632 296 44 972 1797 1.8

HS Average 535 409 944 1.7 601 576 125 1302 1.1Overall Average 216 173 388 2.0 229 234 119 582 1.2

* Indicates Title I campusData were available only as a total count for the following schools for 2013 and therefore not included in comparison: Chavez, Hillcrest, Kenosha eSchool, Lake View, Brompton, Dimensions of Learning, KTEC, and Harborside .Source: Kenosha Unified School District Information and Technology Plan January 2011-June 2014; Kenosha Unified School District Computer/Tablet Count 3-28-2013; Kenosha Unified School District September 3rd Friday Enrollment 2012-13

As noted in Exhibit 3.4.2:

• In 2011, Nash Elementary School had the highest computer to student ratio of four students to one computer, with 160 computers for a student population of 647, compared to Washington Middle School, which had the lowest computer to student ratio of 0.7, with 910 computers for a student population of 600. The overall average across all levels was one computer for every two students.

• In 2013, Nash Elementary School again had the highest computer to student ratio of 2.3 to one with 273 computers for a student population of 641, compared to Reuther High School, which had the lowest computer to student ratio of 0.5, with 918 computers for a student population of 445. The overall average across all levels was one computer for every 1.2 students.

• The ratio of computers to student population remained the same or decreased on all campuses. However, a disparity in computers to student ratios exists within the Kenosha Unified School District.

• In 2013 at the elementary level, available instructional technology ranged from one computer for every 2.3 students at Nash Elementary School to one computer for every 0.7 students at Brass Elementary School.

• In 2013 at the middle school level, available instructional technology ranged from one computer for every 1.9 students at Mahone Middle School to one computer for every 0.6 students at Washington Middle School.

• In 2013 at the high school level, available instructional technology ranged from one computer for every 1.8 students at Tremper High School to one computer for every 0.5 students at Reuther High School.

• In 2011, the district average for available desktop computers was 216, and the district average for laptops was 173. The overall average for all available technology was 388.


• In 2013, the district average for available desktop computers was 229, the district average for available laptops was 234, and the district average for available tablets was 119. The overall average for all available technology in 2013 was 582.

An inventory dated January 2011, and included within the Information and Technology Plan, also indicates that 323 Promethean Boards, 20 Smart Interactive Boards, and 20 Polyvision Boards were installed in classrooms across the district as of that date. The number of interactive boards varied at the secondary level, with Bullen Middle School having as many as 33, while Lakeview High School had as few as three. On the elementary level, Brompton and Somers had no interactive boards available, while Jefferson had as many as 12.

Availability of instructional technology varied across the Kenosha Unified School District. A computer lab not in use at Lance Middle School.

Auditors examined line item campus budgets for the 2012 and 2013 school years to identify funding sources for campus technology. Funding sources become important to a district’s technology plan to determine if the district adequately funds the district’s minimum technology requirements for classrooms and to support district initiatives such as Rosetta Stone®. It is also necessary to determine if campuses that are not designated as Title I schools have adequate technology funding to support planned work. The absence of criteria within the Kenosha Information and Technology Plan for a direct link between purchased technology and improvement of student achievement may lead to technology purchases that are unnecessary or do not achieve the expected and desired outcomes. Funding sources and dollar amounts budgeted for campus technology during the 2012 and 2013 school years are shown in Exhibit 3.4.3.

Exhibit 3.4.3

Funding Sources for Campus Technology 2012 and 2013 Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

School Title I $ 2012

Local $ 2012

TOTAL 2012

Title I $ 2013

Local $ 2013

TOTAL for 2012/2013

Campuses with Title I Funds*Bose $78,199 $- $78,199 $62,503 $- $62,503 *Brass 66,181 0 66,181 60,343 0 60,343*Edward Bain CA 62,303 0 62,303 55,345 0 122,846*Edward Bain DL 0 0 0 57,721 0 57,721*Forest Park 105,760 0 105,760 77,790 0 77,790*Frank 340 0 340 1,300 0 135,511


Exhibit 3.4.3 (continued)Funding Sources for Campus Technology 2012 and 2013


School Title I $ 2012

Local $ 2012

TOTAL 2012

Title I $ 2013

Local $ 2013

TOTAL for 2012/2013

Campuses with Title I Funds (continued)*Grant 4,926 1,218 6,144 59,891 1,218 61,109*Grewenow 81,147 2,000 83,147 33,335 680 34,015*Harvey 0 1,000 1,000 18,691 1,000 95,124*Jefferson 18,700 0 18,700 26,480 0 26,480*McKinley 31,906 2,800 34,706 21,000 769 21,769*Roosevelt 82,423 0 82,423 39,376 0 48,249*Southport 48,160 0 48,160 12,000 0 12,000*Stocker 123,389 4,145 127,534 117,360 0 117,360*Strange 41,550 0 41,550 60,271 0 129,360*Vernon 20,634 250 20,884 20,170 250 20,420*Wilson 15,651 0 15,651 5,000 0 5,000*Bullen 9,112 8,479 17,591 99,810 8,479 25,420*Lincoln 32,779 3,500 36,279 158,314 3,500 161,814*Washington 99,712 0 99,712 37,965 0 37,965*Bradford 53,362 14,671 68,033 100,963 14,671 199,779*Harborside 28,100 92,025 120,125 25,822 77,900 343,972*Hillcrest 7,200 0 7,200 5,754 0 20,154*Indian Trail 90,016 6,560 96,576 83,347 6,560 364,126*Reuther 58,399 0 58,399 72,589 11,101 83,690

TOTAL $1,159,949 $136,648 $1,296,597 $1,313,140 $126,128 $1,439,268 Campuses with No Title I FundsBrompton $- $- $- $- $246 $246 Chavez 0 0 0 0 0 0Dimensions 0 112,341 112,341 0 112,341 246Jeffery 0 948 948 0 948 948KTEC 0 62,000 62,000 0 62,000 62,000Nash 0 4,862 4,862 0 4,862 62,948Pleasant Prairie 0 9,608 9,608 0 9,608 9,608Prairie Lane 0 0 0 0 4,057 4,057Somers 0 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 13,665Whittier 0 3,823 3,823 0 3,823 3,823Lance 0 46,226 46,226 0 47,623 47,623Mahone 0 17,191 17,191 0 89,973 51,446Kenosha eSchool 0 25,000 25,000 0 5,000 55,000Lakeview 0 11,000 11,000 0 11,000 33,000Tremper 0 19,165 19,165 0 19,165 88,000TOTAL $- $314,164 $314,164 $- $372,646 $372,646 Figures include: Sm Tech Eq <1K; New Tech Eq 1-5K; New Tech Eq >5K as noted in line item budgets.Source: School Line Item Detail FY13 Adopted All Funds; School Line Item Detail FY12 Final Budget All Funds



• Over $1.1 million and $1.4 million of Title I funds were budgeted for campus technology on Title I campuses in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

• In comparison, $314,164 and $372,646 of local funds were budgeted for non-Title I campuses, for school years 2012 and 2013.

• Other funding sources for campus technology may also be available for use, but only Title I funds and local funds were used for comparison purposes.

It can be noted from Exhibits 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 that Title I campuses tend to have a lower computer to student ratio than non-Title I campuses (although not on every campus), and that the use of Title I funds for purchases of technology exceed local funding for campus technology by 74 percent in 2013.

In summary, there is a wide disparity among campuses as to available technology for students and funding available for technology. Title I campuses have greater access to technology funding.

Implementation of Instructional Technology in the Classroom

The auditors observed a total of 487 classrooms in 40 schools. During these brief observations, auditors made note of students utilizing technology in 23 of the 486 classrooms (4.7 percent). Technology use was also noted in labs across the district where students were utilizing Rosetta Stone®, Tell Me More, and other software programs without direct instructional guidance from teachers. It was further noted that technology was used in some settings as an intervention strategy in lieu of a teacher interacting with students. In these cases, there were no clear instructional outcomes evident in the classrooms, and online interventions and programs differed from campus to campus and even classroom to classroom. The auditors were told by site administrators that a campus could choose to pilot a program if it appeared to meet the needs of their students, resulting in individual teachers and campuses working to close the achievement gap without a district plan to guide the identification, selection, implementation, and evaluation of online interventions.

The auditors also observed a passive use of technology by students rather than students engaging in critical thinking and problem solving, thus indicating that instructional technology in the Kenosha Unified School District is not utilized to increase cognitive rigor. From the observation data and the conversations with district personnel, there is no evidence of a common understanding of best practices for infusing technology into classroom instruction.

A summary of the auditors’ observations related to availability of classroom instructional technology is noted in Exhibit 3.4.4.

Exhibit 3.4.4

Available Instructional Technology Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Classrooms ObservedElementary Middle School High School

302 80 105Instructional Technology Observed in Classrooms

# Obs % Obs # Obs % Obs # Obs % ObsDocument Camera 155 51 36 45 38 36Student Response System 1 0 0 0 0 0Interactive White Board 186 62 67 84 49 47Mobile Device (Tablet) 29 10 2 3 1 1Laptop/Notebook 91 30 27 34 24 23Desktop 113 37 27 34 18 17Source: Auditors Classroom Observation Summary Data



• Of 302 elementary classrooms observed, 155 (51 percent) had document cameras and 186 (62 percent) had interactive white boards available for use.

• Of 80 middle school classrooms observed, 36 (45 percent) had document cameras and 67 (84 percent) had interactive white boards available.

• Of 105 high school classrooms observed, 38 (36 percent) had document cameras and 49 (47 percent) had interactive white boards available.

• A total of 32 tablets were observed in classrooms across all grade levels.

• A total of 142 laptop computers were noted in classrooms across all grade levels.

• A total of 158 desktop computers were noted in classrooms across all grade levels (computer labs were not included in the observation numbers).

The auditors also observed that use by students was minimal, was inconsistent in nature, and was at a low cognitive level across the district. A summary of the auditors’ walkthrough observations related to instructional technology is noted in Exhibit 3.4.5.

Exhibit 3.4.5

Use of Available Classroom TechnologyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Observed Classroom Use of TechnologyGrades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12

302 80 105Frequency of the Observed Application of Technology

# Obs % Obs # Obs % Obs # Obs % ObsCreating products 1 0.3 1 1.3 3 2.9Running simulations 4 1.3 0 0 3 2.9Interact and collaborate with peers 2 0.7 0 0 0 0Communicate ideas to multiple audiences 0 0 0 0 0 0Locate, organize, analyze and evaluate information 5 1.7 0 0 2 1.9Plan and manage activities 0 0 0 0 0 0Collect and analyze data 0 0 0 0 0 0Taking notes 1 0.3 1 1.3 0 0Reading 6 2.0 0 0 0 0Testing 2 0.7 0 0 0 0Receiving instruction 5 1.7 0 0 0 0Practicing skills 15 5.0 2 2.5 1 1.0Source: Auditors Classroom Observation Summary Data


• Students were observed using instructional technologies in 13.6 percent of the elementary classrooms visited. Auditors observed students practicing basic academic skills, such as basic math facts, in 15 (4.9 percent) classrooms. Students reading stories using iPads were noted in six (1.9 percent) classrooms. Students using computers to access Rosetta Stone®, an online foreign language program, were noted in five (1.6 percent) classrooms.

• Students were observed using instructional technologies in four (five percent) of the middle school classrooms visited.


• Students were observed using instructional technologies in nine (8.6 percent) of the high school classrooms visited. Students were observed creating a product or running a simulation in six classrooms.

In relation to the availability of technology on most campuses, auditors observed that use by students was minimal, inconsistent in nature, and at a low cognitive level across the district.

During interviews with board members, district staff, parents, and community members, comments were noted in three primary areas: the overall technology plan, campus access to technology, and the use or integration of the available technology. The following is a representative sample of interview comments received auditors:

Technology Plan:

• “It is too early to see results from the Transformational Plan, but we do see more technology.” (District Administrator)

• “Lots of intervention is tied to technology, but the control has been shifted back to the schools. There is no quality control.” (District Administrator)

• “We are doing so many interventions now that are technology related. If you want it on your campus you can get it. But there are no criteria, and no monitoring of pilots or interventions. It’s all willy nilly.” (Site Administrator)

• “I don’t think my child is getting anything from Rosetta Stone®. It would be better to have a combination approach where the students use the technology but have a teacher who could help them.” (District Parent)

• “There is a disconnect between teachers and technology.” (District Administrator)

Access to technology:

• “The district has made great gains in technology.” (District Parent)

• “There have been big gains in the area of technology access for our students.” (Community Member)

• “One of the strengths is that we have technology available in the classroom.” (District Teacher)

• “Technology is a huge issue for a campus that doesn’t have Title I money.” (District Teacher)

• “I receive no Title I money, and little district discretionary funds. We end up using PTA fundraisers to try and buy our technology equipment.” (Site Administrator)

Use of available technology:

• “Only the document camera and projector are effectively used.” (District Teacher)

• “The Promethean Board is just a glorified chalkboard.” (District Teacher)

• “Every room at my school has a Promethean board and less than half of the teachers are using them due to lack of training. It becomes a screen for the projector.” (District Teacher)

• “The district could improve by having professional development to incorporate technology in the curriculum.” (Site Administrator)

• “Teachers need more training in the use of Promethean boards.” (Site Administrator)

Summary

Overall, the audit team found a variety of computers and other instructional technologies available in the schools; however, the auditors did not see frequent use of the available technology by students. In addition, there is a disparity in access to technology available due to funding, as determined by a schools’ designation as a Title I campus. Although the district technology plan was considered adequate, there are no clear policies or job descriptions to support consistent implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the plan; thus, instructional technology is not being integrated as prescribed by the Transformation Plan to promote technology, media literacy, and improved student achievement (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).


Students reading independently using iPads at Pleasant Prairie Elementary School.

Finding 3.5: Teaching strategies observed during classroom visits and student work samples were not consistent with expectations expressed by district leadership and stated in the district’s Transformation Plan. Monitoring of instruction by building principals lacks sufficient focus to improve curriculum delivery.

Teaching is the central work activity that school systems are designed to include in order to impact desired and required student learning. Instruction comes into being as teachers follow work designed documents, which are developed to assist them to focus and connect student learning.

Monitoring curriculum delivery is essential to ensuring alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum. The greater the alignment, the greater the potential for higher student achievement on the assessed curriculum. The practice of monitoring instruction should be integral to the curriculum management process, and primary responsibility for monitoring the curriculum falls to the site administrator. Monitoring instruction involves the building principal frequently observing dominant teacher and student activities in the classroom, observing classroom teaching and lesson plans for evidence that the written curriculum is being taught, and providing teachers with constructive feedback regarding the effectiveness of their teaching and specific ways they could improve.

To determine whether teaching practices in the Kenosha Unified School District reflect expectations expressed in board policy, the Transformation Plan, curriculum documents, and other relevant district documents, auditors visited each school site and most classrooms and interviewed district administrators, teachers, and parents.

The auditors found that board policies and other district documents do not clearly establish expectations concerning instructional strategies and approaches. Large group instruction was the dominant instructional strategy and dominant student learning activity observed. Monitoring activities of site administrators lacked a consistent focus. A limited initiative was noted to train administrators to implement a classroom monitoring approach.

Auditors reviewed board policies and other district documents to determine whether clear expectations have been established regarding instructional approaches, teaching practices, and monitoring curriculum delivery in the district. The following board policies were reviewed regarding district instructional expectations:

• Board Policy 2400: School - Administration states, “The principal is the chief administrative and instructional officer of the school.” And, “The principal is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.”

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing - Administrative states, “Daily, principals are responsible for monitoring all of the programs within the building that could range from breakfast and zero hour classes to after school and evening courses.”


• Board Policy 4370: Staff Development Opportunities states, “District staff development inservice courses are designed to deepen knowledge of subject content; expand research-based instructional skills; provide ongoing classroom assistance in implementing new skills…”

• Board Policy 6100: Mission, Principles, Goals, Results establishes an expectation that “Every student will be engaged, demonstrate proficiency, show continuous growth, graduate.”

• Board Policy 6300: Curriculum Development and Improvement states, “The District’s academic content and the state’s academic standards adopted by the School Board shall serve as the basis for all curriculum and instructional program development in the District.”

• Board Policy 6310: Elementary School Curriculum states, “The District Content Standards and Benchmarks will serve as the guidelines for the development of instruction.”

Board policies do not establish clear expectations regarding teaching practices. Board policies contain general references to academic standards serving as the basis for all instructional programs and that every student will be engaged and demonstrate proficiency. Professional development courses are to expand research-based instructional skills. There is no clear expectation expressed through board policies directing building principals to develop and implement a plan to monitor the delivery of the district curriculum on a weekly basis. Overall, board policies do not provide a clear expectation regarding instructional approaches and strategies or active monitoring of curriculum delivery.

Job descriptions for the positions of Elementary Principal, Middle School Assistant Principal, Middle School Principal, High School Assistant Principal for Instruction, and Senior High School Principal were reviewed by auditors to determine what direction has been given regarding monitoring of curriculum delivery. District job descriptions state that building principals are responsible for the quality of the instructional program of the school and for evaluating staff in order to improve performance. The job description for High School Assistant Principal for Instruction contains a statement requiring teachers to be observed on a regular basis and providing teachers with detailed feedback that focuses on instructional skills. District job descriptions do not establish a clear expectation for building level administrators to monitor curriculum delivery on a regular basis.

General expectations for teaching practices in the Kenosha Unified School District were found in several district documents reviewed by auditors, including the Transformation Plan, the Teaching and Learning Instructional Framework, Professional Learning Plan for Administrators, and an summary of a software application tool, eCove®, for recording informal classroom observations. The district’s Transformation Plan establishes an expectation that instruction will be customized to meet the individual learning styles and preferences of students, that curriculum will individually paced, and that teachers will assume the roles of learning coaches, facilitators, and assessors. This plan establishes the expectation that instructional technology tools are to be used to enhance learning through the creation of models of personalized learning that encompass collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and communication around meaningful learning targets. The district’s Teaching and Learning Instructional Framework establishes an expectation for ensuring that instructional delivery is interactive and engaging, creating learning experiences that foster creativity, problem solving, and innovation and developing cross-cultural competencies using content and media literacies to acquire global knowledge. The instructional framework establishes an expectation that teachers will provide instruction that builds each student’s capacity to understand complex and challenging content; that embodies student interests, readiness level, and learning styles; that incorporate students’ heritage and culture as a foundation for instruction; and that teachers will serve as facilitators to engage students in their own learning. The district’s Organizational Training and Development department supports the district’s goal of individualizing instruction through on-line resources for differentiating instruction and integrating technology into instruction.


Classroom Observations

To observe the degree to which actual classroom activities matched district expectations, auditors visited all schools in the district and most classrooms in which instruction was occurring. During these brief classroom visits, auditors recorded and categorized their observations. These “snapshot” observations were collected for 487 classrooms, including 302 elementary classrooms, 80 middle school classrooms and 105 high school classrooms. Classroom visits were made during various times of the school day, including mornings, afternoons, at the beginning of the instructional period, during the middle of instructional periods, and at the end of the instructional periods. It is important to note that the segments of classroom activities observed by auditors were quite brief in duration, and the kinds of activities observed were dependent on the scheduling patterns of individual classrooms.

The first area of the auditors’ focus during classroom visits was the orientation of students to their work. Student orientation refers to whether students appear to be attending to the expected work. The work could be listening and interacting with the teacher, interacting with other students, or working alone. The nature of the learning task or what the teacher was doing at the time of the classroom visit is not part of this particular focus. Auditors rated the observed level of student orientation on a scale ranging from Few/None to All/Most. Exhibit 3.5.1 depicts the auditors’ observations.

Exhibit 3.5.1

Frequency of Observed Student Orientation by CategoryKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

All/Most About 3/4 About 1/2 About 1/4 Few None Could NotDetermine

K-5 6-8 9-12

As can be noted in Exhibit 3.5.1, in 58.1 percent of the classrooms observed, the auditors noted that all or most of the students displayed attentive behavior. Specifically, 64.6 percent of elementary students, 41.2 percent of middle school students, and 52.3 percent of high school students displayed attentive behavior. Examples of non-attending behavior observed included students with their heads down, students wandering around the room, students talking to a classmate while the teacher was presenting a lesson, and students playing with their smart phones. Student engagement—described as the student’s willingness, desire, and compulsion to participate in and be successful in the learning process—was not included as a focus of the auditors’ classroom observations. There are many factors that contribute to students’ interest and level of engagement in learning, including teacher influences, the student’s developmental level, and locus of motivation, that are beyond the scope of a brief classroom observation.


To observe the extent to which actual classroom activities matched the expectation of higher thinking skills, auditors noted the type of thinking skills that students were utilizing in their classroom activities. Auditors categorized the type of thinking skills noted using the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognition, which is presented in Exhibit 3.5.2. The revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was selected for this analysis based on auditors’ review of district professional development documents and interviews with district officials, both of which indicated staff has been receiving training on the use of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to guide in the selection of instructional approaches and activities that will engage students in higher levels of cognition. Additionally, during classroom visits, auditors collected and were provided by classroom teachers 361 samples of student work (artifacts) from classrooms in which the entire class was engaged with a particular artifact. Student artifacts were collected primarily from classrooms in which English language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies lessons were being taught.

Exhibit 3.5.2

Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Cognitive Process Dimensions

Cognitive Domain Definition of Domain

RememberingRetrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory, e.g., find out, learn terms, facts, methods, procedures, concepts

Understanding

Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. Understand uses and implications of terms, facts, methods, procedures, concepts

ApplyingCarrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Make use of, apply practice theory, solve problems, use information in new situations

Analyzing

Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure of purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Take concepts apart, break them down, analyze structure, recognize assumptions and poor logic, evaluate relevancy

EvaluatingMaking judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. Set standards, judge using standards, evidence, rubrics, accept or reject on basis of criteria

Creating

Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. Put things together; bring together various parts; write theme, present speech, plan experiment, put information together in a new and creative way

Source: 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.


The thinking skill analysis of observed classroom activities using Bloom’s revised taxonomy is presented in Exhibit 3.5.3.

Exhibit 3.5.3

Cognitive Types of Observed Classroom ActivityKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Activity

Rem

embe

ring

Und

erst

andi

ng

App

lyin

g

Ana

lyzi

ng

Eva

luat

ing

Cre

atin

g

Cou

ld N

ot

Det

erm

ine

Elementary K-5 71.8% 15.9% 2.3% 0 0 0 9.9%Middle School 6-8 58.7 17.5 1.2 0 0 0 22.5High School 9-12 54.3 34.3 4.7 0 0 0 6.7

As shown in Exhibit 3.5.3:

• The greatest percentage (86 percent) of all classroom activities had students engaged in remembering or understanding activities.

• A small percentage (2.7 percent) of all classroom activities had students engaged in application activities.

• No learning activities were observed that required the higher order thinking skills of analyzing, evaluating, or creating.

The thinking skill analysis of 361 student work samples using Bloom’s revised taxonomy is presented in Exhibit 3.5.4.

Exhibit 3.5.4

Cognitive Types of Collected Student ArtifactsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Student Work Artifact Content Area

Remembering/Understanding Applying Analyzing/Evaluating/

CreatingK-5 6-8 9-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 K-5 6-8 9-12

English Language Arts 106(100%)

19(95%)

12(100%) 0 1

(5%) 0 0 0 0

Mathematics 52(100)

49(100)

27(82) 0 0 6

(18%) 0 0 0

Science 15(100)

21(95)

9(75) 0 1

(5)3

(25) 0 0 0

Social Studies 8(100)

17(100)

8(100) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 3(100) 0 3

(75) 0 0 1(25) 0 0 0


• The greatest number (349) and percentage (96.7 percent) of the artifacts analyzed had students engaged in remembering and understanding activities.


• A small number (12) and percentage (3.3 percent) of the artifacts collected and analyzed had students engaged in application activities.

• No learning activities were observed that required the higher order thinking skills of analyzing, evaluating, or creating.

During the brief classroom visits, auditors noted the dominant teaching activity, the dominant student activities, and the presence and instructional use of technology (see Finding 3.4 for a summary of observed use of instructional technology). Categories of classroom activities for both teachers and students noted by auditors are presented in Exhibit 3.5.5.

Exhibit 3.5.5

Instructional Activity Classifications Used by Auditors to Collect Snapshot Data

Activity Classification DescriptionTeacher Activity

Large Group Instruction

Activity involving communication from the teacher to the class as a whole through lecture, demonstration, discussion, film, or video.

Small Group Instruction Interaction with small groups of students or individuals.

Individual Instruction

Providing individual students with additional instruction, remediation, coaching, feedback while other students are working independently on seatwork, writing, coloring, copying, engaged with a computerized learning module, or some classroom assignment.

Monitoring Supervision of student work or activities without active interaction between the teacher and students.

Other Other teaching activities that did not fit into the previous categories such as sitting at their desk, disciplining students, etc.

Student Activity

Large Group Whole classroom receiving direct instruction that may include discussion, demonstration, film viewing, or video presentations.

Small Group Students engaged in small group activities, including cooperative learning approaches.

Individual Work Students working independently on seatwork, writing, coloring, copying, engaged with a computerized learning module, or some classroom assignment.

Learning Centers

Students working independently or in small groups at different learning stations each with a specific activity related to a concept being taught in the classroom that provides students additional opportunities to master essential skills or engage in enrichment activities.

Warm-up/Review Students engaged in activities that are a review of prior learning or an activity to prepare student for new learning.

Watching Video Students engaged in watching a video as part of a lesson.Using Technology Students using technology in the learning process.

Testing/Assessment Students taking a test.Reading Students engaged in reading individually, in a small group or as an entire class.Writing Students engaged in journal writing or some writing assignment.

Speaking Students engaged in making an oral presentation to the entire class or a group of students.

Listening Students listening to a story sample, music sample


Exhibit 3.5.6 shows the types of teacher and student activities observed by the auditors in 487 classrooms of the Kenosha Unified School District. More than one activity may be noted for a classroom, such as small group and reading.

Exhibit 3.5.6

Table of Frequency of Observed Classroom Activities by Grade GroupingsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Activity Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12Teacher Activity

Large Group Instruction 43.7% 41.2% 53.3%Small Group Instruction 21.5 5.0 0Individual Instruction 5.9 3.7 .95Monitoring 19.5 36.2 31.4Other 4.9 11.2 12.3

Student ActivityLarge Group 44.7% 41.2% 47.6%Small Group 17.9 11.2 10.47Individual Work 30.8 41.2 39.0Learning Centers 3.6 1.2 0Warm-up/Review 1.3 3.7 .95Watching Video 0 1.2 0Using Technology 13.6 5.0 8.6Testing/Assessment 2.6 1.2 0Reading 12.6 0 17.1Writing 10.6 5.0 12.4Speaking 1.6 0 1.9Listening 22.2 15.0 27.6

As can be noted in Exhibit 3.5.6:

• The dominant teacher activity and student activity were large group activities at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels.

• The second most frequent student activity observed was individual work at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels.

• The second most frequent teacher activity observed at the elementary level was small group instruction.

• Monitoring students was the second most frequent teacher activity observed at the middle school and high school levels.

During structured interviews with building administrators, auditors inquired if any specific instructional practices had been identified at the district level that building administrators are expected to observe in district classrooms. Instructional teaching practices are those practices a teacher uses to teach curricular objectives. Instructional practices may be generic, such as dealing with student error; school and/or district focused, such as mastery learning; or subject-specific practices, such as guided reading. Exhibit 3.5.7 lists the responses received by auditors.


Exhibit 3.5.7

Instructional Practices Identified as Priorities by Building AdministratorsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Instructional Strategy FrequencyGuided Reading 9Small group instruction 6Differentiated instruction 4Daily 5™ 3Everyday Math® 3Cooperative Learning 2Learning targets posted 2Project based activities 2Teachers engaging students 2Writer’s Workshop 2Checking for understanding 1Clarity of expectations 1Fountas & Pinnell© 2Integrated creative arts 1Integrating technology 1Learning Centers 1Less teacher talk more student talk 1Questioning strategies – Bloom’s 1Readers Workshop 1Scaffolding 1Teachers moving around 1

As can be noted in Exhibit 3.5.7, a consistent expectation regarding implementation of specific instructional practices does not exist among district building administrators. Building administrators indicated during interviews with auditors that no district focus existed regarding instructional practices. Some principals were able to articulate expectations regarding specific instructional practices within their individual buildings, such as guided reading and writer’s workshop, but not from a district perspective. Absent suggested teaching practices contained within district curriculum guides (see Findings 2.3 and 2.4), a consistent instructional framework increases the probability of enhancing student achievement.

The Kenosha Unified School District’s Transformation Plan and Information and Technology Plan reference the use of technology tools to enhance student learning. To measure the extent to which technology tools are employed in district classrooms, auditors noted the presence of technology available in each classroom visited and noted if and how the technology was being utilized by students. Overall, auditors noted a limited use of the instructional technologies available in Kenosha Unified School District classrooms, which would advance the International Society for Technology in Education’s standards for students and referenced in the district’s Information and Technology plan. Finding 3.4 summarizes in more detail auditors’ observations regarding the presence and use of technology in district classrooms.

Monitoring of Curriculum Delivery

A primary responsibility of the building administrator is monitoring the delivery of curriculum. As an instructional leader, frequent observation of classroom instruction to determine if the written curriculum is being delivered accurately, if students are learning objectives to mastery, if instructional strategies are being used appropriately, and if teachers have the resources needed for effective teaching is critical to organizational


and instructional effectiveness. Board Policy 2410 establishes a general expectation that building principals are responsible for monitoring all district programs within a building on a daily basis. This policy, however, is not specific regarding the principal’s role in specifically monitoring the delivery of curriculum.

During site visits and in structured interviews, auditors inquired about the practices of building administrators in monitoring instruction to determine the extent to which informal classroom observations are being implemented and the methods used to conduct these observations. A total of 39 principals were interviewed directly about their current strategies for monitoring curriculum delivery in their schools. During interviews with administrators, auditors noted the following:

• No common protocol or practice for monitoring delivery of curriculum is currently in place in the Kenosha Unified School District.

• Seventeen (17) principals reported that they have received training in use of the eCove® software for collecting data on teaching practices and student behaviors. Few principals indicated that they were using eCove® with any consistency or fidelity.

• Sixteen (16) principals reported making regular, informal classroom visits to observe instruction in their schools.

• Fifteen (15) principals reported using assessment data, including formative assessments, Northwest Evaluation Association MAP® data, and results from the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE), as their primary means for monitoring curriculum delivery.

• Eleven (11) principals reported that they monitor curriculum delivery in part through conversations with collaborative teams or professional learning communities within their schools, instructional coaches, or teacher leaders.

• Six principals reported reviewing teacher lesson plans as their primary means for monitoring curriculum delivery.

Summary

Auditors found that the sample of observed instructional and learning strategies was not consistent with district expectations. Board policies do not provide a clear expectation regarding instructional approaches and strategies. The district’s Transformation Plan and Instructional Framework establish an expectation for learning to be customized based on students’ needs to support students’ acquiring of complex and challenging content. Data collected by auditors during brief classroom visits indicated that a limited range of instructional strategies and student learning activities is utilized. Whole class instruction was the predominant observed teaching strategy. Observed use of instructional technologies to personalize learning was limited to approaches that were implemented, for the most part, during large group instruction. If the samples of observed practices are representative of any given period of time in classrooms, then instructional practices are not aligned with district expectations. There is no consistent practice for building principals to monitor curriculum delivery. Many monitoring strategies are not based on classroom observations (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).


An English class listening to their teacher read at Bradford High School.

Students working independently at Bullen Middle School.


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 specific programs are actually producing desired learner outcomes or results;

• A data base to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program alternatives, as well as to engage in equity analysis;

• A data base to modify or terminate ineffective educational programs;

• A method/means to relate to a programmatic budget and enable the school system to engage in cost-benefit analysis; and

• Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions.

A school 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 find a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum, pre-K through grade 12, which:

• Was keyed to a valid, officially adopted, and comprehensive set of goals/objectives of the school district;

• Was used extensively at the site level to engage in program review, analysis, evaluation, and improvement;

• Was used by the policy-making groups in the system and the community to engage in specific policy review for validity and accuracy;

• 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 findings that follow in the area of Standard Four. Details follow within separate findings.

The auditors found that the Kenosha Unified School District lacked a formal planned approach to comprehensive student assessment and program planning and evaluation. Board policies were inadequate to provide guidance for comprehensive student assessment and program. Job descriptions lacked adequate specificity to direct district leaders regarding responsibilities for student assessment across all courses and for the evaluation of programs prior to adoption and during implementation. At the time of the audit, formative student assessment was limited to a diagnostic test in reading and mathematics at select grades, and no tools were available to provide summative data for the taught curriculum in all courses. No planned approach existed to evaluate programmatic efforts at all levels of the system---student, program, organization.

The scope of formal assessment of the Kenosha Unified School District curriculum was inadequate to guide decision making about the written and taught curriculum in all core and non-core courses. The overall scope of assessment for the district’s academic content did not meet audit criteria for assessing 100 percent of the core curriculum and 70 percent of all other courses. Overall, 10 percent of the core curriculum and zero percent of non-core curriculum had an assessment available. Assessments were in place for four percent of all courses offered in the district.

Data on state assessments showed that Kenosha Unified School District students performed lower than the state averages in almost all grade levels over the past four years and that substantial achievement gaps exist among ethnic and subgroup populations. Data trends indicate that existing gaps are not closing in a manner that puts all students on a trajectory for success within the span of their education in the district; gaps examined by the auditors were deemed to never close without strategic intervention to address deficiencies

Overall, formative and summative data were inadequate to evaluate all courses taught and provide a valid base for decision making to improve the design and delivery of services that impact student achievement: planning, curriculum management, professional development, program evaluation, budgeting, and facility management. Available data were limited to diagnostic data for reading and mathematics in some grades and to state test data for grades and courses measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam. The district had no formal processes in place to generate formative or summative data related to the delivery of the district curriculum; formative data from the diagnostic test did not measure the taught curriculum, and the state summative data lacked specificity and timeliness to be useful.

The district had no established process in place for program evaluation to guide adoption, implementation efforts, and assessment of effectiveness and cost-benefit, and to determine if programs and services contribute to meeting district-wide needs. Existing program evaluations lacked the components necessary to inform program implementation, modification, or termination.

Finding 4.1: The district lacks a comprehensive planning approach to student assessment and program evaluation to provide direction for producing expected learning results.

In addition to curriculum management planning (see Finding 2.1), there is also an audit expectation that school systems have in place a comprehensive, coherent planning process for student achievement assessment and program evaluation to provide a foundation for making decisions about the effectiveness of curriculum design, delivery, and related instructional programs. When the desired level of student achievement is not attained, district leadership and building principals often pursue the addition of new programs without knowing what is working and what is not. The result is an assortment of programs that are not coherently planned, implemented, monitored, and evaluated, often with no firm connection to student achievement.

A well-designed system for assessment and program evaluation provides teachers, site administrators, and the school district’s leadership with the means for determining how well programs and practices are producing desired learning results. A comprehensive plan for the assessment of student achievement creates a reliable, consistent method for measuring and reporting student progress. This, in turn, enables school leaders to evaluate


the instructional program and related efforts and to make decisions to continue programs, modify them, or discontinue those that are not effective.

To assess the presence and quality of a planned approach to assessment and program evaluation, the auditors looked at a variety of documents that showed evidence of planning for assessment, including board policies, the Transformation Plan 2012-2014, job descriptions, memoranda, and assessment calendars. Auditors also interviewed board members, district administrators, and teachers.

The auditors found no comprehensive planned approach to student assessment and program evaluation. Elements of planning for student assessment and program evaluation were found across several documents. However, these elements collectively were found to be inadequate to provide systemic direction for producing desired learning outcomes.

The auditors examined board policies and related documents for references providing guidance related to assessment planning and program evaluation. Auditors found no single board policy that addressed all components of assessment planning and program evaluation, but several policies contained elements related to one or the other:

• Board Policy 2110: Benchmarks establishes that “The Superintendent of Schools and administrative staff shall be responsible for achieving District and school-by-school benchmarks. The source of benchmarks will include bi-annual, periodic educational audits.” The policy calls for program evaluations to include individual school achievement data that are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and economic status.

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing specifies that the principal “is accountable for the academic and social progress for every student” and has the “responsibility to develop, implement, and evaluate a school improvement plan that establishes goals each year.”

• Board Policy 2250: Evaluation – Superintendent establishes that the evaluation of the superintendent “shall be directly related to the Superintendent’s position description and to annual performance goals established by mutual agreement by the Board and Superintendent.”

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review outlines expectations that new program adoption and implementation will be considered “in an orderly manner” that includes a rationale, program description, budget, and evaluation methods. The policy specifies components that are more fully delineated in Rule 6320: Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation. This rule expects that “Program reviews will include narrative information outlining what has been reviewed, how it was assessed, what types of data were collected, and how they were analyzed.”

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment requires the district to “maintain a program of testing for the purposes of diagnosis, assessment, instruction and accountability.” It specifies that “The testing program will provide: an assessment of the educational program of the District for purposes of reporting the overall status of the District and charting the growth of its students, by grade level and by school from year to year.” This policy establishes that “Academic testing in the District may include, but not necessarily be limited to: standardized achievement tests, behavior assessments, performance assessment measures, language proficiency assessments and subject area diagnostic tests.” The policy also addresses provisions for the assessment of students with disabilities and English language learners.

• Board Policy 8500: School Board Powers and Duties requires that the board “do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education, including establishing, providing and improving school district programs, functions and activities for the benefit of students.”

• Board Policy 8520: Board Goal Setting expects the board to engage in goal setting annually: “The goal setting process is to assist the Board in fulfilling its primary responsibility of establishing the purposes, programs, and procedures that will produce the best educational achievement needed by District students.”


Several policies addressed a planned approach to assessment and program evaluation. One policy established that the board set annual goals focused on the best educational program to attain student achievement. Other policies specify that the superintendent will be evaluated on duties related to his/her position and that the principal must annually evaluate the school improvement plan. Policy requires a district program of testing to measure student achievement and evaluate the educational program. The adoption of new programs was addressed with an expectation for an evaluation process. No policy specified that all of the taught curriculum would be measured for effectiveness or addressed the evaluation of existing programs and services at all levels of the system (organization, programs, and students) on a cyclical basis to ascertain cost-benefit.

Auditors examined the Transformation Plan 2012-2014 to determine direction for student assessment and program evaluation. A section titled “We will...” included the statement “Improve student achievement.” The Transformation Goals described the district approach to assessment as follows: “Assessment is varied, relevant, and utilizes sophisticated systems to track, illustrate, and translate student performance data; it incorporates innovative practices such as performance-based ePortfolios and embedded formative assessments that produce immediate results.” The document also included a statement about the use of assessment: “Feedback occurs in rapid cycles and is objective, connected to learning goals, and suggests the next step in the learning process.”

Auditors also examined a document titled Teaching and Learning Framework Explanation, which included a reference to assessment planning: “With this instructional framework, our standards-based curriculum, a valid system of assessment, and twenty-first century technology, students will exceed standards and be prepared to achieve and contribute to a global economy.”

Both of these documents view assessment as part of the learning process; neither specify a planned approach to the types of assessments to be used, data to be collected, or how data may be used to suggest “next steps in the learning process” or to help students “exceed standards and be prepared to achieve and contribute to a global economy.”

Auditors also examined job descriptions to determine direction provided for district staff in regard to assessment planning and program evaluation. The following job descriptions made reference to such responsibilities:

• Director of Instruction: has responsibility for “developing and improving educational programs in all subject areas” as well as “developing curriculum, testing and assessment, and program evaluation.” This position is also charged to “interpret results of the testing program and other evaluative instruments that assess individual, group, school, and District instructional process.” The job requires the person to “design and implement program evaluation in conjuncture with the School Evaluation Consortium.”

• Program Evaluation Coordinator and the Testing and Assessment Coordinator are expected to “Assume responsibility for the evaluation of all subject areas and programs in order facilitate curriculum improvement.” These employees must “Communicate the result of all evaluations to the Superintendent, School Board, community, and other administrators.” Other duties include a study of “the goals and objectives of all programs to be evaluated” so as to “assist instructional administrators in the development of evaluative criteria.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability assigns responsibility to “Assume the leadership role for all aspects of the District and State mandated norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and performance-based assessment programs.” The person holding this position “Serves as the primary coordinator and consultant in developing or selecting, administering, interpreting, and reporting student, school, district, and state evaluation programs and procedures” and must “Provide support to District personnel on educational research, including evaluation design and the collection and interpretation of data in order to identify educationally effective strategies, techniques and programs.”

• Instructional Coach has a duty to respond to “site needs derived from evaluation of student achievement data by supporting administration with the planning/ implementation of the District Transformation Plan.”

• Principal [Elementary, Middle, High School] and Assistant Middle School Principal have a primary function to “provide leadership in program development and improvement.” These positions are


also required to evaluate the instructional program and to involve staff in the evaluation of “present programs” and the “recommendation of new programs.”

• High School Assistant Principal of Instruction is expected to lead “the development, implementation, and evaluation of the school’s comprehensive educational program to create an optimal learning environment” and to monitor “school improvement by developing and implementing the school improvement plan.”

• Teacher must assess and respond to student need and report progress.

• Title One Elementary Intervention Specialist for Behavior must “assist staff with data analysis” and the development of the school improvement plan.

Job descriptions assigned duties for planning key aspects of an assessment program that would evaluate all subjects so as to improve curriculum implementation. Duties have been assigned to design program evaluation, establish criteria for such an evaluation, interpret and respond to data on student achievement, and examine present and new programs. While many key duties for a comprehensive approach to planning a student assessment program and providing for program evaluation were included in job descriptions, these duties were scattered across several different positions (some of which are no longer identified as functional) with no position charged with oversight of all aspects of a coherent assessment plan. Duties as assigned lacked adequate specificity to direct comprehensive analysis of the written and taught curriculum, and related programs, so as to inform decisions about curriculum refinement, or program effectiveness with a view to needed modifications, cost-benefit, or possible termination.

Overall, the references to assessment planning and program evaluation in board policy, the Transformation Plan 2012-2014, job descriptions, and district documents were inadequate to provide specific direction for the assessment of curriculum design and delivery and program effectiveness. All documents examined fell short of requiring responsibility for designing a comprehensive planned approach that would include student assessment in all areas of the curriculum and the use of formative and summative results to evaluate programs and organizational services.

Auditors expect to find a planned approach to measuring the effectiveness of curriculum design and delivery via student assessment in all courses taught and the use of data to measure program effectiveness to meet student needs. The audit criteria in Exhibit 4.1.1 illustrate the elements of a quality assessment program found in effective school systems where the tested curriculum provides a reliable feedback loop to the effectiveness of the written and taught curriculum and the instructional program in use. Typically, auditors rate a district’s assessment program against these criteria, but since no coherent program approach was presented, auditors present the criteria below to illustrate quality program characteristics.

Exhibit 4.1.1

Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and Program Evaluation Plan

Characteristics of a Planned Approach to Student Assessment and Program Evaluation1. Describes the philosophical framework for the design of the student 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.

2. Includes an explicit set of formative and summative assessment procedures to carry out the expec-tations outlined in the plan and in board policy. Provides for regular formative and summative as-sessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, student).

3. Requires that formative, diagnostic assessment instruments that align 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 ap-propriate level of difficulty (e.g., provides data for differentiated instruction).


Exhibit 4.1.1 (continued)Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and

Program Evaluation PlanCharacteristics of a Planned Approach to Student Assessment and Program Evaluation

4. Provides a list of student assessment and program evaluation tools, purposes, subjects, type of stu-dent tested, timelines, etc.

5. Identifies and provides direction on the use of diverse assessment strategies for multiple purposes at all levels—district, program, school, and classroom—that are both formative and summative.

6. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the central office staff and school-based staff for assess-ing all students using designated assessment measures, and for analyzing test data.

7. Specifies the connection(s) among district, state, and national assessments.8. Specifies the overall assessment and analysis procedures used to determine curriculum effective-

ness.9. Requires aligned student assessment examples and tools to be placed in curriculum and assessment

documents.10. Specifies how equity issues will be identified and addressed using data sources; controls for pos-

sible bias.11. Identifies the components of the student assessment system that will be included in program evalu-

ation efforts and specifies how these data will be used to determine continuation, modification, or termination of a given program.

12. Provides for appropriate trainings for various audiences on assessment and the instructional use of assessment results.

13. Delineates responsibilities and procedures for monitoring the administration of the comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan and/or procedures.

14. Establishes a process for communicating and training staff in the interpretation of results, changes in state and local student achievement tests, and new trends in the student assessment field.

15. Specifies creation of an assessment data system that allows for the attribution of costs by program, permitting program evaluations to support program-based cost-benefit analyses.

To meet audit standards, at least 11 characteristics (70 percent) must be in place and rated adequate.

Without a thoughtful approach to assessment and program evaluation, KUSD resources may be wasted on activities that do not provide valid and reliable data to measure the effectiveness of curriculum design and delivery and related instructional programs. A fluid approach, as currently exists in the district, that is not based on a sound philosophical framework for the design of assessment to monitor student attainment of expected goals may result in district and site leaders pursuing new programs and devoting professional time and effort to strategies that may not result in improved student achievement. In the absence of a comprehensive approach to the assessment of the entire curriculum, isolated actions within the district have resulted in the widespread use of a diagnostic test where data are being used as a proxy for achievement in the written curriculum. The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test provides data on growth in attaining core skills that are key elements of acquiring proficiency in literacy and numeracy; however, results are typically used by district staff to place students in instructional settings where instruction is derived from state standards that are conceptual and not delineated on a continuum by elements of proficiency. In other words, the response to the data does not match the scope of the data, so the intended outcome (growth in proficiency) may not be reached if follow-up instruction is not tailored to the deficits illustrated by the data.

A well-designed system for assessment includes formative and summative tools that include diagnostic and curriculum based measures that provide reliable data on student learning. Such tools are used purposefully to diagnose developmental proficiency needs and to determine learning of the district’s written curriculum. Some diagnostic data (such as MAP) are used for intervening to prepare students to be successful on a continuum of proficiencies expected in the development of expected skills over time/grades. Other diagnostic assessments may be curriculum based and used at all phases of the learning process within the written curriculum to measure


prerequisite knowledge and skill, prior mastery, initial acquisition after an opportunity to learn, and progress toward mastery over time. Summative curriculum-based assessments are used after adequate time to learn (distributed practice over several types of tasks over several weeks) to measure mastery. Data generated from a planned measurement system provide a consistent method of evaluating the instructional program so that decisions can be data driven about curriculum refinement, professional development, and program modification/termination. At the time of the audit, Kenosha Unified School District had no commonly used tools available to generate curriculum-based data, either formative or summative.

During interviews, auditors learned that staff at all levels have concerns about assessment planning and program evaluation.

• “I’m concerned about assessments. Where is the big long-range plan? I feel that we don’t know where we’re going.” (District Teacher)

• “We need more common curriculum assessments. Teachers are evolving in creating these but they are mostly site based now.” (Site Administrator)

• “Site teams are working on formative assessments. Each site does what suits them.” (District Teacher)

• “Each department works on their own common assessments. They use them at the grading period.” (Site Administrator)

• “Common assessments are not common; they are provided and optional.” (District Administrator)

• “This is the first year that we are assessing students three times a year using MAP.” (Site Administrator)

• “There has been so much that has happened here and I asked the team how we know how we are doing—they did not know.” (District Administrator)

• “Someone goes to a conference, and brings back something good [program]. We have no way of determining it will help Kenosha.” (District Administrator)

Summary

Auditors determined that current assessment practices in the Kenosha Unified School District were not supported by a comprehensive planned approach. There is no planned approach in place to measure student learning and mastery of the district curriculum, using formative and summative tools, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of curriculum design, providing feedback on delivery, and identifying the organizational impact of policies, services, and programs on the attainment of the district, state, and national expectations for student achievement. The district lacked a quality assessment program designed to measure student achievement in all courses and provide valid data to evaluate curriculum and instructional programs. Board policies and job descriptions referenced key elements of evaluating curriculum and programs but lacked cohesion in directing responsibility for a comprehensive evaluation process that informs decision making about curriculum and program effectiveness. Some efforts to formatively use data were in process but lacked direction in purpose and were isolated from the intended purpose of the district’s written curriculum. No curriculum-based assessment tools were in use to provide feedback on curriculum design and delivery in all courses. Procedures were not in place to link data from student assessment to program evaluation or to the refinement of the written and taught curriculum (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).


Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) is used by district teachers to place students in instructional settings.

Finding 4.2: The scope of formal assessment is inadequate for core and non-core K-12 courses to guide curriculum and instructional decision making.

A comprehensive summative assessment program based upon the district’s written curriculum allows the district to measure the effectiveness of the taught curriculum in attaining the desired levels of student achievement. It completes the connection between the written and the taught curriculum. Without summative assessment, the district has no factual way of knowing if its curriculum is appropriate for students or if it is being properly implemented in the classroom as designed. Formative data allow district administrators to monitor the effectiveness of classroom instruction in delivering the written curriculum and teachers to monitor individual student progress towards mastery of the curriculum on a regular basis. Frequent formative assessments provide data to make adjustments as needed prior to summative assessments. An effective assessment program requires that student achievement is evaluated in every course in every grade level.

The auditors examined various documents provided by district administrators as well as documents available on the district website and interviewed district administrators, principals, teachers, and parents to gather information about the scope of assessment in the district. To determine the scope of assessment in the district, the auditors focused on the tests that were administered in each academic content area for a grade level/course and calculated the percentage of offerings that were assessed.

The auditors found that the overall scope of assessment for the district’s academic content did not meet audit criteria for assessing 100 percent of the core curriculum and 70 percent of all other courses. Overall, 10 percent of the core curriculum and none of the non-core curriculum had an assessment available. Assessments were in place for four percent of all courses offered in the district. At the elementary level, 26 percent of the core courses were assessed, at the middle school 36 percent, and at the high school three percent of basic core courses had an assessment available.

The auditors examined various board policies to determine if direction was provided relative to the scope of district assessment:

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment establishes the scope of assessment in the district: “Academic testing in the District may include, but not necessarily be limited to: standardized achievement tests, behavior assessments, performance assessment measures, language proficiency assessments and subject area diagnostic tests.” The policy also addresses provisions for the assessment of students with disabilities and English language learners.

This board policy addresses the scope of assessment that may be included in the district but does not specify that an assessment program be in place to measure student attainment of the district’s expected curriculum


in all courses taught. No policy addressed formative assessment to inform the effectiveness of delivery and guide teacher monitoring of student progress, or summative assessment to evaluate curriculum design and appropriateness for the district population. Auditors determined that policy was inadequate to provide district administrators with guidance for planning a comprehensive scope of assessment of the entire district curriculum.

The auditors examined various job descriptions to identify responsibilities for the scope of the district assessment.

• Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability has been assigned the responsibility to “Assume the leadership role for all aspects of the District and State mandated norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and performance-based assessment programs.”

• Program Evaluation Coordinator and the Testing and Assessment Coordinator are expected to “Assume responsibility for the evaluation of all subject areas and programs in order to facilitate curriculum improvement.”

Job descriptions assign duties to manage state assessments and “the evaluation of all subject areas.”

Overall, board policies and job descriptions provide for a scope of assessment to include all subjects. Both sets of documents lacked adequate direction for the scope of assessment to include formative and summative measures that could be used to monitor effectiveness of the designed curriculum and related programs.

The auditors next examined other documents provided by district administrators to determine which tests were used in the district at the time of the audit. In particular, the following documents provided the primary data sources for the exhibits and narrative in this finding:

• The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website;

• Various documents from Kenosha Unified School District central office staff (assessment calendars, data tables);

• Programs of Study—course listings and descriptions used in exhibits in Finding 2.2; and

• Interview data from district administrators, principals, and teachers.

Auditors examined district documents to determine the scope and type of assessments administered. An alphabetical list of tests administered per grade level in 2012-13 is available in Exhibit 4.2.1. A blank space indicates that a specific test is not given. State required assessments are indicated with “S,” district required assessments are indicated with “D,” and optional assessments or assessments given to selected students are indicated with “O.”

Exhibit 4.2.1

Formal Assessments of Student PerformanceKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Assessment Titles K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12ACCESS (ELL Proficiency) S S S S S S S S S S S S SAmerican College Test

ACT: Explore D ACT: Plan OACT: Work Keys Business Writing D

Advanced Placement Tests O O OITED (High School Competency Diploma) DNational Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)(selected sampling)

Reading S SMath S S


Exhibit 4.2.1 (continued)Formal Assessments of Student Performance


Assessment Titles K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12MAP(Measures of Academic Progress) D D D D D D D DNaglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (Gifted and Talented identification) D

Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) S

Pre-Scholastic Aptitude Test DScholastic Aptitude Test O OWKCE

Reading S S S S S S SLanguage Arts S S SMathematics S S S S S S SScience S S SSocial Studies S S S

Key: S=Required state assessment; D=Required district assessment; O=Given to select students or optional; a blank space indicates that no formal test is given. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website, KUSD Testing Calendar 2012-13, and district documents related to testing administration.

The following observations may be made about Exhibit 4.2.1:

• The majority of the assessments administered in the district were required by the state, are criterion referenced, and are considered summative.

• State tests were administered in:

○ Reading/English and mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and grade 10

○ Language, science, and social studies in grades 4, 8, and 10

○ English language proficiency in all grades for English language learner students

○ Reading development in kindergarten

• State required testing was done by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8.

• District required tests include:

○ District adopted diagnostic tests (MAP) in reading and mathematics three times a year in grades 2-9.

○ ACT Explore in grade 9

○ ACT Work Keys in grade 12 for students needing to meet the writing graduation requirement

○ ITED for students seeking a Competency Diploma

○ Pre-Scholastic Aptitude Test for students in grade 10

○ A district adopted diagnostic test to identify students for the Gifted and Talented program was administered in grade 1.

• District optional tests include:

○ ACT: Plan at grade 10


○ Advanced Placement at grades 10, 11, and 12

○ SAT at grades 11 and 12

Overall, most state assessment was in the four core subjects at grades 3-8 and grade 10. District assessment was limited to diagnostic tests in reading and mathematics in grades 2-9, with an additional diagnostic assessment to identify gifted students in grade 1. Other district tests at the high school level were used to provide diagnostic information (Explore, Pre-SAT). Some district assessments were required by board policy to meet graduation requirements (Work Keys and ITED). The district testing program did not include curriculum based formative and summative assessments for all courses taught. This scope limits the quality of data available for decision making in that evaluation mechanisms did not provide for formative and summative assessment of curriculum delivery to ascertain if curriculum is appropriate to meet student needs or if the written curriculum is adequately delivered in all courses.

The auditors next examined the scope of assessment used to measure student attainment of the district’s curriculum by grade level/course. Auditors expected to find 100 percent of the core curriculum and 70 percent of the remaining curriculum being formally assessed by the state and/or the district. Only assessments that were required by the district or state were included in the analyses of the scope of the district assessment program for core and non-core courses in grades K-12. In Kenosha Unified School District, the only district required assessment was a diagnostic test in select grades for reading and mathematics; there were no formal curriculum based assessments in use.

Auditors prepared exhibits delineating the scope of the district’s formal assessments by elementary, middle school, and high school. The scope of assessments to measure core and non-core courses at the elementary level is presented in Exhibit 4.2.2.

Exhibit 4.2.2

Scope of the Formal Assessment, Kindergarten through Fifth GradeKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Grade/CourseNumber

Of Course Offerings

Courses Formally

Tested

Percent of Courses Formally

TestedLanguage Arts English 6 1 17Language Arts Spanish 6 0 0Reading/Literature-English 6 4 67Reading/Literature-Spanish 6 0 0Mathematics 6 4 67Social Studies K-5 6 1 17Science 6 1 17Physical Education/Development 12 0 0Music/Choir 12 0 0Art 6 0 0Enrichment A/B 12 0 0Lifelong Learning/Conduct 12 0 0Total Core Courses 42 11 26%Total Non-Core Courses 54 0 0%Total Courses 96 11 11%Data Source: Curriculum and assessment documents presented by district personnel



• Overall, 11 percent of the elementary curriculum was evaluated.

• No core subject met the audit expectation of 100 percent of the core curriculum measured formally by the district and/or state.

• Formal assessment was available for 26 percent of the core curriculum.

• No assessments were available for the non-core curriculum.

The scope of assessments to measure core and non-core courses at the middle school level is presented in Exhibit 4.2.3.

Exhibit 4.2.3

Scope of the Formal Assessment, Grades 6-8Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Grade/CourseNumber

Of Course Offerings

Courses Formally

Tested


TestedEnglish Language Arts 6 3 50Mathematics 7 3 43Social Studies 3 1 33Science 6 1 17Language Other Than English 8 0 0 Fine Arts 22 0 0Physical Education/Health 9 0 0Technology 4 0 0Other Electives 13 0 0Total Core Courses 22 8 36%Total Non-Core Courses 56 0 0%Total Courses 78 8 10%Data Source: Curriculum and assessment documents presented by district personnel.


• At the middle school level, 10 percent of all courses were assessed.

• No core content area met the audit criteria of 100 percent of courses assessed.

• Formal assessment was available for 36 percent of the core curriculum.

• No non-core course had an assessment.


The scope of assessments to measure core and non-core courses at the high school level is presented in Exhibit 4.2.4.

Exhibit 4.2.4

Scope of the Formal Assessment, Grades 9-12Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Grade/CourseNumber

Of Course Offerings

Courses Formally

Tested


TestedEnglish Language Arts 33 1 3Mathematics 36 1 3Social Studies 38 1 3Science 53 1 2Fine Arts 78 0 0Career and Technical Education 111 0 0Technology Applications 44 0 0Physical Education 10 0 0Foreign Languages 27 0 0Other Electives 24 0 0Total Core Courses 160 4 3%Total Non-Core Course 294 0 0%Total Courses 454 4 1%Data Source: Curriculum and assessment documents presented by district personnel.

As the data indicate:

• At the high school level, one percent of all courses offered were assessed.

• No core content area met the audit criteria of 100 percent of the courses formally measured by an assessment.

• Formal assessment was available for three percent of the core curriculum.

• There were no assessments available to measure non-core courses.

A summary of the scope of formal assessments available to measure the effectiveness of the district curriculum in core and non-core courses is presented in Exhibit 4.2.5.

Exhibit 4.2.5

Summary of Scope of the Formal Assessment, K-12Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

LevelCore

Courses Offered

Core Courses Formally

Tested

Percent Formally

Tested

Non-Core Courses Offered

Percent Formally

TestedElementary 42 11 26 54 0Middle School 22 8 36 56 0High School 160 4 3 294 0Totals 224 23 10% 404 0%Total All Courses 628 Total Tested 4%



• Overall, four percent of the district curriculum was formally tested.

• There were 224 core courses offered in grades kindergarten through 12, and 23 (10 percent) were assessed by a state and/or local assessment.

• Zero percent of the non-core curriculum was formally assessed.

The auditors interviewed board members, administrators, teachers, and parents about assessment in the district, and the following comments were typical responses related to the scope of assessment:

• “The MAP test is the only common test we use. The intent is to help teachers drive instruction.” (District Administrator)

• “There are no common assessments across the district.” (District Administrator)

• “Common summative assessments are in use at one high school but not district-wide.” (District Administrator)

Summary

Auditors found that the scope of formative and summative assessment was inadequate to guide decision making about the written and taught curriculum in the Kenosha Unified School District. Summative assessment was limited to those subjects and grade levels tested by state required assessments. The only common district assessment in use was a diagnostic test in reading and mathematics for grades 2-9. The Kenosha Unified School District did not have curriculum based formative assessments available to measure student learning during acquisition of learning or summative assessments to measure mastery after extended opportunities to learn. This lack of formative and summative data means that administrators have no objective way of knowing if the district’s curriculum is appropriate for students or if it is being properly implemented in the classroom as designed (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

Students working on a small group lab activity at The Brompton Elementary School.

Finding 4.3: Student performance on state assessments has remained lower than the state average in almost all grade levels over the past four years, and substantial achievement gaps exist among ethnic and subgroup populations, which, based on trend analyses, are likely to persist barring intervention.

Assessment data provide information for use by district personnel to determine the effectiveness of board-adopted curriculum and instructional practices in relationship to actual student performance. Assessment data complete the feedback loop from the written curriculum to the taught curriculum. Analyses of assessment data reveal any performance gaps in individual student learning, grade level deficiencies, and building level progress toward attainment of the district’s curricular goals and objectives, as well as state standards.


Comparison of student achievement data to a set of standards or to other students at local, state, and national levels helps administrators, teachers, and board members determine the effectiveness of district instructional programs. Analyses of achievement trends provide information on how assessment results change over time. Data analyses beyond that of the group as a whole help determine if all student sub-populations are achieving at the same level and, if not, which groups may need additional resources and interventions to be successful. In a system with effective quality control, performance for all students should improve over time, and performance gaps among student subgroup populations should reduce in size.

The auditors examined data provided by district staff and found on the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website, specifically the Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) link. Auditors reviewed WINSS data reports generated by the state based on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE) results. The analysis completed by the auditors included data from WKCE 2009-2012 for students in grades 3-8 and grade 10. Due to the fact that the state department changed the performance standard cut scores for reading and mathematics for the 2012 administration of the WKCE, auditors used these data for gap analysis purposes only and not to compare growth from year to year. This use of the data was supported by the following notation on the state department website:

“The WKCE performance standard changes in 2012-13 …do not significantly impair comparing the sizes of gaps between groups over multiple years. Specifically comparing reading and mathematics gap sizes in 2012-13 with gap sizes in 2011-12 may be affected to a small degree by one-time random effects of changing the cut points. However, generally speaking, all groups are affected by the performance standard changes in the same way, and readers should not be deterred from looking for trends in gap sizes over periods of several years or more.”

Auditors also examined data related to the performance rates on meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)/Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMO). Data on the Advanced Placement (AP) and American College Test (ACT) tests were examined along with participation rates by ethnicity.

Overall, auditors found that student performance on WKCE fell below statewide performance levels across most grades and subjects. In mathematics, Kenosha Unified School District students outperformed the state over three years in grades 6, 7, and 8, and over two years in grades 4 and 5. The largest performance gaps were noted at grade 10 in all subject areas across all years. An analysis of students’ performance on WKCE for the three major ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, and White) indicated that Black students were the lowest performing group and White students outperformed all ethnic groups each year. The achievement gap between Hispanic and Black students was generally 10 percent, and the achievement gap between Hispanic and White students ranged from the mid-teens to the mid-20s percent. Performance rates of socioeconomically disadvantaged students fell well below the achievement levels of non-economically challenged students. Significant achievement gaps existed for students with disabilities; in some grades/subjects this achievement gap exceeded 50 percent. The percentage of English language learners reaching proficiency levels fell below other students by 17 to 48 percent in 2010 and 2011, and fell 25-32 percent when the new cut scores were applied in 2012.

An analysis of the trend in the percentage of students meeting proficiency compared to the federal expectation for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) indicates the district fell short of being in the target range for 2012 in both reading and mathematics. The district was placed in program improvement status by the state in 2011 due to the persistent failure of special education students across all grades tested, and failure at the high school for Black, Hispanic, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students.

A years-to-parity analysis of the performance rates of English language learners, students with disabilities, and Black students indicates that existing achievement gaps will never close if current conditions remain the same. In other words, without deliberate intervention aimed to close the achievement gaps for these populations, the gaps will persist and may increase.

Data on the district’s AP test scores indicate that while a higher percentage of Kenosha Unified School District students scored three and above, the percentage of Black and Hispanic students participating in Advanced Placement exams was lower than state participation rates. For ACT scores, Blacks and Hispanics scored above the state each year, but scores for White students (while slightly lower than their state peers) were higher than


other ethnic groups. ACT participation rates for Blacks and Hispanics in Kenosha Unified School District were significantly below the state each year, while the participation rate for Whites was higher than the state.

Auditors examined board policies to determine the board’s expectations for student academic performance in Kenosha Unified School District. They found the following references to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of student performance data:

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment expects that “The testing program will provide: an assessment of the educational program of the District for purposes of reporting the overall status of the District and charting the growth of its students, by grade level and by school from year to year.” It also establishes that data will be disaggregated for interpretation and use by teachers and administrators “so that the test findings will influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students” and be used “for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.”

• Board Policy 1110: Parent/Guardian/Caregiver Surveys requires that a district-wide survey “shall be conducted once every three years to obtain parent/guardian/caregiver opinions regarding school operation and student success.” These data are to be used by the principal to make improvements.

Board policies provided broad direction for examining student performance and using disaggregated data to improve individual student growth, plan effective teaching, develop curriculum, and make reform. Board policies also call for input from stakeholders with a requirement that data be used to make improvements. Auditors determined that board policies call for an evaluation of “the educational program” with an expectation that staff use to data to “influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students,” but policy does not specify what staff must do in response to data showing gaps in achievement.

Auditors examined the Transformation Plan 2012-2014 for evidence of use of student performance data to improve the success rates of all students. The mission statement referenced feedback and implied that it was used in the learning process to improve learning: “Feedback occurs in rapid cycles and is objective, connected to learning goals, and suggests the next step in the learning process.” However, no goal or action step within the plan specified adequate guidance related to using student achievement data to attain the goals of the plan or close educational gaps.

Auditors examined job descriptions to determine if direction was provided for key district functions related to use of assessment and achievement data.

• Superintendent of Schools (draft job description) expects the person in this position to “See to the development throughout the District of high standards of performance in educational achievement.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability has been assigned responsibility to “Provide support to District personnel on educational research, including evaluation design and the collection and interpretation of data in order to identify educationally effective strategies, techniques and programs.”

• High School Assistant Principal of Instruction is charged with “gathering, analyzing, and using a wide range of data to inform decision making in the development of the school improvement plan and its priorities...developing and using systems for evaluating programs … with particular focus on matters related to curriculum.”

• Instructional Coach has a duty to respond to “site needs derived from evaluation of student achievement data by supporting administration with the planning/ implementation of the District Transformation Plan.” This position is also charged with guiding “analysis and interpretation of data to help increase student achievement.” In terms of knowledge and skills, the person in this position must have the “Ability to apply knowledge in order to… analyze and interpret data for future professional learning opportunities.”

• Director of Instruction has responsibility to “interpret results of the testing program and other evaluative instruments that assess individual, group, school, and District instructional process.”



• Title One Elementary Intervention Specialist for Behavior must “assist staff with data analysis.”

Overall, district job descriptions assigned monitoring responsibilities and called for the use of data to improve student achievement and programs. However, all job descriptions were vague about responsibility to use assessments to evaluate the impact of the written curriculum on student performance and to respond to gaps in achievement at the individual, school, and district levels.

Comparison of District and Statewide Performance on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (WKCE)

As noted previously, in an effective system, it is expected that student performance would improve over time. Auditors used state- and district-provided data to analyze trends in student achievement on WKCE over a four-year period (2009-2012) in reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In 2012, due to the transition to New College and Career Readiness Benchmarks for the WKCE, “the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction established new performance standards (cut scores) for the WKCE reading and mathematics content areas to more closely align with national and international expectations of what is required to be college and career ready. The higher cut scores are comparable to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) cut scores. A student earns a numeric score in each content area on the WKCE. This score is converted into one of four performance levels: Minimal, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.” Auditors included scores from the 2012 administration of the WKCE to illustrate gaps in achievement and not to compare growth.

The following exhibits compare Kenosha Unified School District results with statewide results on WKCE reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies in grades 3 through 8 and 10. A negative number indicates a gap between Kenosha Unified School District and state results. Data for the comparison were taken from WINSS reporting on the percentage of all students meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE Only report in each subject.

It should be noted that due to the transition to new cut scores in 2012, a higher scale score was required to attain Proficient or Advanced. The cut score details published by the state department and Kenosha Unified School District indicate that the range of cut scores to reach proficiency was raised by varying amounts across grade levels and subjects. Exhibit 4.3.1 provides the increase in scale scores required by each grade to reach proficiency in reading and mathematics on the 2012 WKCE.

Exhibit 4.3.1

New Cut Score Increases Required to Attain Proficiency on WKCE in 2012 Reading and Mathematics


Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10Reading 45 58 59 68 68 68 63Math 31 36 38 39 40 45 33Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website and KUSD documents


Exhibit 4.3.2 compares district and state results on WKCE reading assessments in grades 3-8 and 10 for 2009-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.2

Comparison of District with State WKCE Results: Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced

Reading, Grades 3 through 8 and 10Kenosha Unified School District

2009-2012

YearKUSD

% Prof or Adv

State % Prof or

AdvDifference

KUSD % Prof or

Adv

State % Prof or

AdvDifference

Grade 3 Grade 4 2009 74.9 78.3 -3.4 81.8 80.5 1.32010 78.5 79.1 -0.6 79.2 82.1 -2.92011 74.3 78.8 -4.5 78.1 80.5 -2.4

2012* 25.1 34 -8.9 26.8 32 -5.2 Grade 5 Grade 6

2009 78.2 79.3 -1.1 82.9 83.5 -0.62010 83.4 83.5 -0.1 85 85.4 -0.42011 74.7 79.5 -4.8 81.2 83.3 -2.1

2012* 30.4 34 -3.6 26.9 33.8 -6.9 Grade 7 Grade 8

2009 85.4 85.4 0 84.1 83.1 12010 85.5 85.7 -0.2 83.7 85.6 -1.92011 84.6 85.1 -0.5 81.2 83 -1.8

2012* 28.3 36.1 -7.8 28.6 39.3 -10.7 Grade 10

2009 70.6 75.5 -4.9

2010 69.9 73.9 -42011 67.9 77.3 -9.4

2012* 31.2 37.6 -6.4*Note: 2012 scores reflect new cut scores per Exhibit 4.3.1 Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website.


• For all years of WKCE results, 2009-2012, the percentage of Kenosha Unified School District students meeting Proficient or Advanced was less than the state in all grades, with the exception of grades 4, 7, and 8 in 2009, where there was no difference in the percentage meeting proficiency at grade 7, and a higher percentage than the state meeting proficiency in grades 4 and 8.

• The widest gap between Kenosha Unified School District and state performance was in 2012 for grades 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, with the greatest gap in grade 8 (10.7 percentage points below the state).

• Gaps in grade 10 were four percentage points to over nine percentage points across the years, with the greatest gap in 2011 (9.4 percentage points).


Exhibit 4.3.3 compares district and state results on WKCE mathematics assessments in grades 3-8 and 10 for 2009-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.3


Mathematics, Grades 3 through 8, and 10Kenosha Unified School District

2009-2012

YearKUSD

% Prof or Adv

State % Prof or

AdvDifference

KUSD % Prof or

Adv

State % Prof or

AdvDifference

Grade 3 Grade 4 2009 74.1 75.4 -1.3 79.9 79.5 0.42010 71.8 73 -1.2 79.9 78.3 1.62011 71.9 75.7 -3.8 75.2 79.1 -3.9

2012* 39.7 47 -7.3 43.4 48 -4.6 Grade 5 Grade 6

2009 80 77.3 2.7 80.6 77.2 3.42010 82.1 78.4 3.7 79.5 79 0.52011 77.1 78.3 -1.2 79 77.6 1.4

2012* 48.5 50 -1.5 44.2 51.2 -7 Grade 7 Grade 8

2009 81.9 80.1 1.8 80 77.2 2.82010 79.8 78.3 1.5 77.7 77.4 0.32011 81.8 79.9 1.9 80.9 78.4 2.5

2012* 43.4 46.3 -2.9 36.1 44 -7.9 Grade 10

2009 59.7 69.1 -9.4

2010 61.8 70.1 -8.32011 58.5 70.4 -11.9

2012* 32.5 43.6 -11.1*Note: 2012 scores reflect new cut scores per Exhibit 4.3.1 Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website

Based on the data presented in Exhibit 4.3.3 the following is noted:

• Kenosha Unified School District students outperformed state students in 2009-2011 in grades 6, 7, and 8, and in 2009-10 in grades 4 and 5.

• Kenosha Unified School District students in grades 3 and 10 had a lower percentage of students meeting proficiency than the state for each of the four years, with gaps ranging from 1.2 to 7.3 percent in grade 3, and from 8.3 to 11.9 percentage points in grade 10.

• The widest gaps across all years were at grade 10.

• The largest gaps for grades 3-8 occurred in 2012.


Exhibit 4.3.4 compares district and state results on WKCE language arts assessments in grades 4, 8, and 10 for 2009-2012. Grades 4, 8, and 10 were the only grades tested in language arts.

Exhibit 4.3.4


Language Arts, Grades 4, 8, and 10Kenosha Unified School District

2009-2012

Year KUSD % Prof or Adv

State % Prof or Adv Difference KUSD

% Prof or AdvState

% Prof or Adv Difference

Grade 4 Grade 8 2009 74.4 76.3 -1.9 61.8 63.7 -1.92010 73.8 75.1 -1.3 60 61.1 -1.12011 72.9 76 -3.1 61.9 63.4 -1.5

2012* 69 74.4 -5.4 52.9 59.6 -6.7 Grade 10

2009 58.5 67.5 -9

2010 64.3 70.9 -6.62011 60.9 69.4 -8.5

2012* 68.3 72.2 -3.9Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website

Based on the data presented in Exhibit 4.3.4, the following can be noted:

• The percentage of Kenosha Unified School District students meeting proficiency on the WKCE was less than the statewide percentage for all grades and all years.

• Overall, the gaps at grade 10 were greater than at grades 4 and 8. In grade 10, the greatest gap of nine percentage points in 2009 was followed by 6.6 and 8.5 percentage points over the next two years. The lowest gap was in 2012, 3.9 percentage points.

• The greatest gaps for grades 4 and 8 were in 2012 (5.4 and 6.7 percentage points, respectively).

Exhibit 4.3.5 compares district and state results on WKCE science assessments in grades 4, 8, and 10 for 2009-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.5


Science, Grades 4, 8, and 10Kenosha Unified School District

2009-2012

Year KUSD % Prof + Adv

State % Prof + Adv Difference KUSD

% Prof + AdvState

% Prof + Adv Difference

Grade 4 Grade 8 2009 72.8 76 -3.2 75.4 78.9 -3.52010 71.8 76.7 -4.9 70.9 76.4 -5.52011 71.1 76.1 -5 75.2 79.3 -4.1

2012* 66.6 76.4 -9.8 67.1 76.2 -9.1


Exhibit 4.3.5 (continued) Comparison of District with State WKCE Results:

Differences in the Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced Science, Grades 4, 8, and 10




% Prof + AdvState


Grade 10 2009 58.3 70.6 -12.3

2010 63 73.2 -10.22011 56.1 71.6 -15.5



• There was a gap between the percentages of Kenosha Unified School District and state students meeting proficiency on WKCE for all grades and years examined. The greatest gap was at grade 10 each year.

• There was an increase in the gap at grade 4 and 8 in 2012, when compared to the state.

• Gaps were greatest at grade 10, ranging from 10.2 to 15.5 percentage points.

Exhibit 4.3.6 compares district and state results on WKCE social studies assessments in grades 4, 8, and 10 for 2009-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.6


Social Studies, Grades 4, 8, and 10Kenosha Unified School District

2009-2012



% Prof + AdvState


Grade 4 Grade 8 2009 92.8 91.6 1.2 76.3 80 -3.72010 91.1 90.6 0.5 76.7 80.9 -4.22011 90.1 91.8 -1.7 76.2 80.2 -4

2012* 87.2 90.4 -3.2 75.1 80.8 -5.7 Grade 10

2009 66.7 73.9 -7.2

2010 71.3 78.4 -7.12011 64.8 74.7 -9.9



• Overall, Kenosha Unified School District had a lower percentage of students than the state reaching proficiency each year, with the exception of grade 4 in 2009 and 2010.


• The greatest gap between Kenosha Unified School District and the state for grades 4 and 8 occurred in 2012.

• Grade 10 had the greatest gap with the state across all years. Gaps ranged from 5.3 to 9.9 percentage points.

• Gaps at grade 8 ranged from 3.7 to 5.7 percentage points across the four years.

In summary, Kenosha Unified School District had fewer students meeting proficiency levels on the WKCE than the state in most grades for all years in reading, language arts, and science. In mathematics, the greatest gaps were in grades 3 and 10 across all years, while grades 6, 7, and 8 exceeded the state in three of the four years, and grades 4 and 5 exceeded the state in two of the four years. In social studies, grade 4 exceeded the state for two years. Grade 10 showed the widest gaps across all subjects for all years, with 2011 showing the widest gaps and science having the largest difference in performance.

Achievement Gaps among Student Subgroup Populations within the District

Conventional wisdom states that group differences in achievement are the result of disparate, inadequate, or ineffective educational experiences, rather than ethnic or demographic characteristics. There is an audit expectation that poverty, race, gender, or other ethnic or demographic differences should not predict differences among student achievement levels. Further, all subgroups in the student population are expected to achieve at comparable levels—demonstrating parity (or equivalency in achievement)—if not at the time of measurement, then at some reasonable future point in time, as a result of educational intervention.

The auditors sought to determine the existence and degree of achievement gaps among ethnic groups and student subgroups in Kenosha Unified School District. First, they examined the rates of achievement of students by ethnicity: Black (B), Hispanic (H), and White (W).

In the analysis of ethnic group performance, auditors used WKCE data for achievement in reading and mathematics for the last three years (2010-2012). The comparison of reading scores is presented in Exhibit 4.3.7.

Exhibit 4.3.7

Comparison: Percentage of Students by Ethnicity Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading


B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W B H WGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2010 63.5 69.7 85.4 61.3 71.1 87.7 66.2 75.1 91.1 72.4 78.2 90.8 74.4 76.5 91.5 66.7 76.5 91.2 47.9 54.9 78.42011 58.4 63.1 83.8 61.8 69.3 85.7 56.7 63 85.1 66 73.5 88.7 71.2 77.4 90.6 67.6 71.5 88.2 42.5 52.1 792012* 10.1 8.3 38.2 13.1 14.1 36.1 9.9 18.6 41 10.3 13.4 37.6 13.3 16.4 37.5 11.2 13.7 38.8 11.3 18.5 39.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ient

Reading: Percent Scoring Proficienct or Advanced by Ethnicity 2010-2012*

Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website. *Note: 2012 scores reflect new cut scores per Exhibit 4.3.1


From the data in Exhibit 4.3.7, the following can be noted:

• There was a disparity in the performance rates of ethnic populations in reading.

○ Black and Hispanic students consistently scored lower than White students in all grades and all years.

○ Black students scored lower than all subgroups in all grades and years with the exception of grade 3 in 2012, when Black students scored higher than Hispanic students.

○ Gaps between Black and White students ranged from 18 to 36 percentage points across grades for the two years prior to the revised cut scores (2010-2011). In 2012, the gaps ranged from 25 to 31 percentage points.

○ Gaps between Black and Hispanic students ranged from four to 10 percentage points across grades for the two years prior to the revised cut scores (2010 and 2011). In 2012, the gaps ranged from plus two (grade 3) to minus nine percentage points.

• While the proficiency rates were lower for all ethnic groups in 2012, the same pattern of disparity existed.

The comparison of mathematics scores is presented in Exhibit 4.3.8.

Exhibit 4.3.8

Comparison: Percentage of Students by Ethnicity Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics


BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WH BLK HISP WHGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10

2010 53.3 60.8 80.8 60.5 75.4 86.9 62.6 74.8 89.9 59.5 70.8 88 61 72.4 87.8 56.2 69.7 86.4 31.7 39.9 74.12011 53.5 62.6 81.3 54 64.3 85.3 54.8 69 87.4 56.2 71.8 88.2 65.6 73.7 89 61.3 75.5 88.2 29.8 43 70.12012* 18.9 22.7 55.2 22.3 32 53.8 26.1 35.5 59.8 21.8 29.8 57 15.8 29.9 57.1 14.5 21.3 47.1 6.9 17.4 42.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ient

Math: Percent Scoring Proficient or Advanced by Ethnicity 2010-2012*



• A pattern of disparity existed in the performance rates of ethnic populations in mathematics.

○ White students outperformed all other ethnic groups.

○ Black students were the lowest performing group.


○ Gaps between Black and White students ranged from 23 to 42 percentage points across grades for the two years prior to the revised cut scores (2010-2011). In 2012, the gaps ranged from 32 to 41 percentage points.

○ Gaps between Black and Hispanic students ranged from eight to 16 percentage points across grades for the two years prior to the revised cut scores (2010-2011). In 2012, the gaps ranged from four to 14 percentage points.

• While the proficiency rates were lower for all ethnic groups in 2012, the same pattern of disparity existed.

The analysis of the percentage of each ethnic group meeting the proficiency standard on WKCE shows that the White population outscored all ethnic groups in reading and mathematics. The Black population was the lowest performing group. Hispanic population scores ranged approximately 10 percentage points above their Black peers and 20 percentage points below White students.

Next auditors examined the performance levels of students identified as significant subgroups: economically disadvantaged, English language learners (ELL), and special education. The following exhibits compare percentages of students in the subgroups with the percentage of their peer groups meeting the WKCE proficiency level in reading and mathematics assessments from 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.9 presents the comparison of the percentage of economically disadvantaged (ED) and non-economically disadvantaged (NED) students meeting proficiency on WKCE in reading for 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.9

Comparison: Percentage of Economically and Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading


0102030405060708090

100

ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECDGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 68.3 89.1 67.6 91.8 72.5 93.6 77.4 92.8 77 93.5 74.4 92.1 55.6 78.92011 63.3 87.1 65.5 90.9 60.5 89.4 71.6 90.5 77.4 92 70.2 91.3 49.6 80.62012* 12 39.9 14.3 41 16.7 43.6 11.3 44.2 15.8 40.4 14.4 41.8 17.1 40.9

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ient

Reading: Percent Scoring Proficient or Advanced by Economically Disadvantaged and Non-Economically Disadvantaged 2010-2012*



• The percentage of non-economically disadvantaged students meeting proficiency on WKCE for reading was higher than the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in all grades in all years.


• Gaps for 2010 and 2011 (prior to new cut scores) ranged from 15 to 31 percentage points (rounded numbers), with nine of the 14 gaps being greater than 20 percentage points. The greatest gaps were in grades 3, 4, 5, and 10.

• In 2012, gaps ranged from 24 to 33 percentage points, with six of the seven gaps being 25 percentage points or more.

Exhibit 4.3.10 presents the comparison of the percentage of economically disadvantaged (ED) and non-economically disadvantaged (NED) students meeting proficiency on WKCE in mathematics for 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.10

Comparison: Percentage of Economically and Non-Economically Disadvantaged Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics


0102030405060708090

100

ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECD ECD NECDGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 61.1 82.9 70 90.5 70.3 93.1 69 90.3 68.7 90.3 65.5 88.7 41.2 75.42011 61.1 84.5 61.5 89.1 64.9 89.7 67.4 90.2 72.4 91.4 70.3 90.6 40 71.32012* 24.7 56.8 29.3 59.5 31.5 64.7 25.6 64.7 27.4 59 21.7 49.4 15.3 44.1

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ient

Math: Percent Scoring Proficient and Advanced by Economically Disadvantaged and Non-Economically Disadvantaged 2010-2012*



• The percentage of non-economically disadvantaged students meeting proficiency on WKCE for mathematics was higher than the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in all grades in all years.

• Gaps for 2010 and 2011 (prior to the new cut scores) ranged from 19 to 30 percentage points. The largest gap in the percentage of economically disadvantage students scoring proficient and advanced on the WKCE was noted in grade 10 for both years (34 and 31 percentage points, respectively).

• In 2012, gaps ranged from 28 to 39 percentage points, with five of the seven gaps being 30 percentage points or more.


Exhibit 4.3.11 presents the comparison of the percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities (Sw/oD) meeting proficient or advanced in reading on the WKCE from 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.11

Comparison: Percentage of Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading


0102030405060708090

100

SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oDGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 29.9 85.1 38 85.4 43.6 88.7 41.4 90.8 38.9 92.6 37.2 90.7 17.6 76.52011 32.7 80.2 28 84.8 30.4 81.4 33.2 87.4 39.2 90.7 32.8 88.7 23.3 74.42012* 4.4 27.7 4.7 29.5 3 34 5.6 29.8 2.2 31.8 3.7 32 7.6 34.4

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ienc

y

Percent Proficient or Advanced in Reading: Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities



• The percentage of students without disabilities meeting proficiency on WKCE for reading far exceeded the percentage of students with disabilities meeting the standard in all grades in all years.

• Gaps for 2010 and 2011 (prior to new cut scores) exceeded 50 percentage points in 10 of the 14 gaps; the remaining gaps exceeded 45 percentage points.

• In 2012, gaps ranged from 23 to 31 percentage points, which was significantly less than gaps in the previous two years.


Exhibit 4.3.12 presents the comparison of the percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) and students without disabilities (Sw/oD) meeting proficient or advanced in mathematics on the WKCE from 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.12

Comparison: Percentage of Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics


0

20

40

60

80

100

SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oD SWD Sw/oDGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 33.9 76.9 45.9 85 48.4 86.7 37.5 85.1 33.5 87.1 33.3 84.2 19.8 67.42011 36.3 77 37.1 80.3 38.7 82.8 31.6 85 32.3 88.5 32.3 88.4 19.9 64.12012* 17.7 42.4 14.1 46 10.6 53.5 8.9 48.9 7.6 48.2 4.7 40.3 5.8 36

Perc

ent M

eetin

g Pr

ofic

ient

Percent Proficient or Advanced in Math: Students with Disabilities and Students without Disabilities



• The percentage of students without disabilities (Sw/oD) meeting proficient or advanced in mathematics on the WKCE between 2010-2012 far exceeded the percentage of students with disabilities (SWD) in all grades for all years.

• Gaps for 2010 and 2011 (prior to new cut scores) ranged from 38 to 56 percentage points, with five of the 14 gaps being greater than 50 percentage points, seven greater than 40 percentage points, and two greater than 38 percentage points. The greatest gaps were in grades 5, 6, and 7.

• In 2012, gaps ranged from 25 to 43 percentage points, with three of the seven gaps being 40 percentage points or more and three being 30 percentage points or more.


Exhibit 4.3.13 presents the comparison of the percentage of English language learner (ELL) and English proficient (EP) students meeting proficient or advanced in reading on the WKCE from 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.13

Comparison: Percentage of English Language Learner and English Proficient Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Reading


ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EPGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 63.2 80.5 53.2 82.8 60.2 86 65.8 87.1 64.4 88 60.3 86.3 26.7 72.82011 52.9 77.3 56.7 80.7 39.3 79.3 53.5 83.8 65.3 86.9 56.9 84.1 22.9 712012* 3.1 28.5 2.6 29.4 0.9 32.8 0.7 28.7 0.7 31 0 31.7 0 32.3

0102030405060708090

100

Percent Proficient or Advanced in Reading: English Language Learners and English Proficient



• The percentage of English proficient (EP) students meeting proficient or advanced in reading on the WKCE for 2010-2012 was greater than the percentage of English language learner (ELL) students in all grades for all years.

• Gaps between English proficient and ELL students ranged from 17 to 48 percentage points in 2010 and 2011 (prior to new cut scores). Of these gaps, three of the 14 were greater than 40 percentage points, 10 were greater than 20 percentage points, and one was less than 20 percentage points (17 percentage points).

• In 2012, gaps between EP and ELL students ranged from 25 to 32 percentage points, with four gaps greater than 30 percentage points and three gaps greater than 20 percentage points.

• The greatest gaps were at grade 10 across all years.


Exhibit 4.3.14 presents the comparison of the percentage of English language learner (ELL) and English proficient (EP) students meeting proficient or advanced in mathematics on the WKCE for 2010-2012.

Exhibit 4.3.14

Comparison: Percentage of English Language Learner and English Proficient Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced on the WKCE in Mathematics


ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EP ELL EPGrade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade10

2010 58.3 73.5 64.4 82 65 84.1 56 82.3 57.8 82.5 53.7 81.1 17.4 652011 57.2 74 56.8 77.4 56.8 79.7 58.4 80.9 61.7 84.2 65.7 82.7 24.8 60.82012* 14.9 43.6 17.9 46.2 13.8 51.3 4.3 47.1 9.7 46.9 7.7 39.1 0 33.6

0102030405060708090

Percent Proficient or Advanced in Math: English Language Learners and English Proficient



• The percentage of English proficient (EP) students meeting proficient or advanced in mathematics on the WKCE for 2010-2012 was greater than the percentage of English language learner (ELL) students in all grades for all years.

• Gaps between English proficient and ELL students ranged from 16 to 47 percentage points in 2010 and 2011 (prior to new cut scores). Of these gaps, two of the 14 were greater than 35 percentage points, seven were greater than 20 percentage points, and five were greater than 15 percentage points.

• In 2012, gaps between EP and ELL students ranged from 28 to 43 percentage points, with three gaps greater than 35 percentage points and four gaps greater than 28 percentage points.

• The greatest gaps in 2010 and 2011 were at grade 10; the greatest gaps in 2012 were in grades 5, 6, 7, and 10.

Given the gaps in achievement among ethnic groups and population subgroups, the auditors looked at trends of proficiency in the district to determine how the district as a whole was meeting proficiency expectations. According to the statewide accountability system, districts and individual schools must make adequate yearly progress toward Wisconsin’s Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) for reading and mathematics. Based on these AMOs, all students in the district must be on target to attain 40.3 percent proficiency in reading and 52.9 percent proficiency in mathematics by the 2012-13 school year. Auditors analyzed the percentage of district students meeting proficiency levels per the revised AMOs for 2010-2013. This analysis is presented in Exhibit 4.3.15.


Exhibit 4.3.15

District Trend: Percentage of Students Meeting Proficient or Advanced On the WKCE in Reading and Mathematics


2010-11 2011-12 2012-13*Reading 30.4 30 28.3AMO Goal 35.5 37.9 40.3Math 43.6 43.1 40.6AMO Goal 46.7 49.8 52.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

District Trend of Percent Meeting Proficiency or Advanced 2010-2013


As the data indicate, Kenosha Unified School District is not on track to reach the statewide accountability targets by 2012-13 in either reading or mathematics. Based on the 2012 WKCE results in reading, the district has a gap of 12 percentage points. In mathematics, the gap in 2012 is 12.3 percentage points. Proficiency rates in reading across the three years examined remained close to 30 percent while the accountability expectation established by the revised AMOs was 40.3 percent for 2012. Proficiency rates in math show a similar pattern, with scores staying in the low 40s percent while revised AMOs expect 52.9 percent by 2012. The pattern of proficiency rates shows limited growth over time in the percentage of students reaching proficiency levels in either reading or mathematics.

In summary, data indicate that gaps in achievement across ethnicities, subgroups, school sites, and the district have resulted in the failure of Kenosha Unified School District to meet achievement targets established by the state of Wisconsin. The district as a whole fell below target rates of achievement expected to educate students to acceptable levels of proficiency. The district was placed in “program improvement” status by the state in 2011 due to the lack of adequate progress in the performance rates of special education students across all grades and subjects, and the lack of progress by most ethnic populations and subgroups at the high school level.

Estimated Years for Subgroups to Achieve Parity with Comparison Groups

In the previous section, auditors provided performance comparisons of several subgroups. In this section, auditors provide estimates of the length of time required for a low performing subgroup to achieve at the same level as a comparison group (“Years to Parity”). To arrive at estimated Years to Parity, auditors calculated the difference in percent of students in the subgroup and comparison group demonstrating proficiency for each year (“Difference”). Next, they calculated the positive or negative change in that difference from one year to the next (“Change in Difference”). This figure was divided by the number of intervals (total number of years minus one) to yield “Gain by Year.” A positive number meant the achievement gap was closing, and the final year difference between the subgroup population and the comparison group was divided by the Gain by Year to arrive at an estimate of Years to Parity. A negative “Gain by Year” meant the achievement gap was widening,


and one could assume achievement of the subgroup would never reach parity with that of the comparison group, barring intervention.

Auditors performed years-to-parity analyses for one grade at each level—elementary, middle, and high school—for the following student groups: English proficient/limited English proficient, students without disabilities/students with disabilities, White students/Black students. They selected one subgroup, English proficient/limited English proficient, to illustrate the calculations used to derive the years to parity estimate. Results for the other calculations are presented in a separate exhibit.

Exhibit 4.3.16 displays years to parity calculations for WKCE reading proficiency among English proficient and limited English proficient students in grades 5, 8, and 10 for 2008-2011.

Exhibit 4.3.16

Estimated Years to Achieve Parity English Proficient/Limited English Proficient Students

On the WKCE Reading in Grades 5, 8, and 10Kenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Percent Proficient and AboveSubgroup Grade/Subject 2008 2009 2010 2011

English Proficient Grade 5 Reading 81.9 82.3 86 79.3Limited English Proficient Grade 5 Reading 68.7 56.6 60.2 39.3Difference -13.2 -25.7 -25.8 -40Change in difference (First year difference-Final year difference) -26.8Gain by year (Change in difference)/(number of years-1) -8.9Years to Parity (Final Year gap/gain by year) Never Percent Proficient and Above

Subgroup Grade/Subject 2008 2009 2010 2011English Proficient Grade 8 Reading 85.6 86.8 86.3 84.1Limited English Proficient Grade 8 Reading 68.7 60.5 60.3 56.9Difference -16.9 -26.3 -26 -27.2Change in difference (First year difference-Final year difference) -10.3Gain by year (Change in difference)/(number of years-1) -3.4Years to Parity (Final Year gap/gain by year) Never Percent Proficient and Above

Subgroup Grade/Subject 2008 2009 2010 2011English Proficient Grade 10 Reading 72.4 73.6 72.8 71Limited English Proficient Grade 10 Reading 26.4 30.9 26.7 22.9Difference -46 -42.7 -46.1 -48.1Change in difference (First year difference-Final year difference) -2.1Gain by year (Change in difference)/(number of years-1) -0.7Years to Parity (Final Year gap/gain by year) NeverData Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website and Kenosha Unified School District documents.

As can be noted in Exhibit 4.3.16, from the sample of grades analyzed, parity will never be reached between limited English proficient and English proficient students in reading at grade 5, 8, and 10 if conditions for learning remain the same.


Auditors used the same process to calculate years to parity between students without disabilities/students with disabilities and between White students/Black students in reading for the same years as above. A summary of these analyses is presented in Exhibit 4.3.17.

Exhibit 4.3.17

Estimated Years to Achieve Parity Students without Disabilities/Students with Disabilities in Grades 5, 7, and 10

White Students/Black Students in Grades 4, 8, and 10 WKCE Reading


Comparison GroupsGain

by Year

Grade/Subject Years to Parity

Students without Disabilities Students with Disabilities -3.05 Grade 5 Reading NeverStudents without Disabilities Students with Disabilities -11.5 Grade 7 Reading NeverStudents without Disabilities Students with Disabilities -3 Grade 10 Reading NeverWhite Students Black Students -1.95 Grade 4 Reading NeverWhite Students Black Students -0.4 Grade 8 Reading NeverWhite Students Black Students -2 Grade 10 Reading NeverData Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website and Kenosha Unified School District documents.

As can be noted in Exhibit 4.3.17, the data show parity of proficiency rates in reading among students without disability/students with disabilities and White students/Black students is unlikely to happen given trends in student achievement over the years 2008-2011.

In summary, estimates of years to parity showed that achievement gaps among limited English proficient, students with disabilities, Black students, and their peers were not decreasing at a rate that would put these students on a path to proficiency. When gaps continue to move in a negative direction, it indicates that parity is not reachable unless current conditions change to intervene and rectify the existing rate of performance. This persistent reality over the four years examined fails to represent the district’s vision stated in the Transformation Plan 2012-2014: “Maximizing the brilliance of children,” or carry out their mission: “To assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” Auditors found no documentation that district or site plans targeted closing achievement gaps for these populations.

Advanced Placement (AP) and American College Test (ACT)

Auditors examined data related to student scores and participation rates for Advanced Placement (AP) and American College Test (ACT) tests. For both tests, auditors looked at score by ethnicity and the participation rates of the major ethnic groups. The analysis of AP data is presented in Exhibit 4.3.18.


Exhibit 4.3.18

Percentage Scoring 3 and Above by Ethnicity and Participation Rates by Ethnicity Advanced Placement Exam (AP)Kenosha Unified School District

2010-2012

B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

Score 3 and Above by Ethnicity Participation Rates by PercentKUSD 0 60 68 51 58 65 0 66 70 2 4 8 2 4 10 1 4 11STATE 32 53 70 32 54 69 29 52 70 2 5 11 3 6 12 3 6 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent

AP Score 3 and Above with Participation Rates by Ethnicity

Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin’s Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) website.


• Kenosha Unified School District had a higher percentage of students scoring 3 and above than the state for Hispanics in all years, and for Blacks in 2011.

• White students had a lower percentage scoring 3 or above than the state in 2010 and 2011, and were even with the state in 2012.

• The percentage of White students scoring a 3 or above was higher than the percentage of other ethnicities.

• Kenosha Unified School District had zero Black students scoring 3 and above in two of the three years examined.

• For participation rates, Kenosha Unified School District had fewer Black students than the state percentage participating in 2011 and 2012. In 2010, Kenosha Unified School District had the same percentage of Black students participating as the percentage statewide.

• Kenosha Unified School District had fewer Hispanic and White students than the state percentages participating in all years.

While Kenosha Unified School District had a higher percentage of Hispanic students scoring 3 and above on the AP exam across all years, the participation rate for Hispanics was one point below the state in 2010 and two points below the state in 2011 and 2012. Participation rates for Black students on the AP exam were only one to two percent of Kenosha Unified School District students participating. Participation rates for Hispanics were four percent each year, and White students were eight to 11 percent across the three years.


The analysis of ACT data is presented in Exhibit 4.3.19.

Exhibit 4.3.19

Scores by Ethnicity and Participation Rates by Ethnicity American College Test (ACT)


B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W B H W2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

Scores by Ethnicity Participation by EthnicityKUSD 18 20 22 18 19 22 17 20 22 7 10 73 8 14 68 8 14 66STATE 16 19 23 16 19 23 16 19 23 51 42 58 54 47 59 50 56 59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

ent

ACT Scores and Participation Rates by Ethnicity

Data Source: Documents provided by Kenosha Unified School District staff


• Average composite ACT scores for Black and Hispanic students in Kenosha were at or above the state average in each of the three years depicted.

• Average composite ACT scores for White students in Kenosha were consistently below the state average in each of the three years depicted.

• Average composite ACT scores for Black and Hispanic students in Kenosha were consistently below the composite ACT scores for White students in Kenosha.

• The percentage of Black and Hispanic students taking the ACT in Kenosha was significantly lower than the percentage of Black and Hispanic students taking the ACT across the state of Wisconsin.

• The percentage of White students taking the ACT in Kenosha was considerably higher than the percentage of White students taking the ACT across the state of Wisconsin.

Less than 10 percent of Kenosha Unified School District students participating in the ACT test were Black students, and less than 15 percent were Hispanic. More than two-thirds of participants were White. In Kenosha Unified School District, participation in the ACT test is optional. Participation data may be interpreted within the context of course offerings, academic expectations for Black and Hispanic students, and staff perceptions.

Auditors interviewed district and school administrators and teachers, board members, and parents about student performance in Kenosha Unified School District. Some comments illustrated that administrators anticipate gaps because of their urban population; few comments referenced the gaps in achievement presented in this finding.

• “We have the gaps that urban schools will have.” (District Administrator)

• “Some groups don’t do as well as others. Our African American students struggle.” (Site Administrator)

• “We do better than most districts our size.” (District Administrator)


• “There is an equity issue around achievement gaps. We have huge gaps at some sites [interviewee named one school].” (District Administrator)

• “WKCE is once a year test and it is an autopsy. You have four months before you get results to help you do something. If you are not doing something before that, you are in trouble. That is why we use MAP.” (District Administrator)

• “This year, we have done MAP three times. MAP correlates with WKCE.” (District Administrator)

• “0.79 is the correlation between MAP and WKCE. That is their data. They told us.” (District Administrator)

• “We use MAP to drive our curriculum. It shows teachers what the students need to learn.” (Site Administrator)

Overall, interview comments showed a level of resignation to low test scores because of the urban student population and some recognition that student performance was not meeting expectations for some groups and sites. The assessment in use (MAP) was viewed as a means to move students to better performance on the WKCE by some, while another administrator communicated that there was a low correlation between this test and the expectations of the WKCE.

Summary

Over time, Kenosha Unified School District student performance on WKCE assessments fell below statewide performance levels at most grade levels and in most subjects. Mathematics was the only subject where Kenosha Unified School District students outperformed the state in some grades over two or three years. Grade 10 had persistently lower rates of proficiency than the state in all subjects each year.

Based on an analysis of performance by ethnicity, Black students fell below Hispanic and White students, with White students significantly outperforming all ethnicities, and Hispanics scoring moderately higher than Blacks but approximately 20 percentage points lower than White students. Performance rates of socioeconomically disadvantaged students fell well below the achievement levels of non-economically challenged students. Large gaps in student performance (exceeding 50 percentage points) existed for students with disabilities. The percentage of English language learners reaching proficiency was approximately half of the percentage achieved by other students in 2010 and 2011, and close to a third below other students when the new cut scores were applied in 2012.

An analysis of the trend in the percentage of students meeting proficiency compared to the federal expectation for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) showed that the district fell far short of being in the target range, and no school met the target any year, including 2012-13. Due to the district being placed in program improvement in 2011, it is charged with addressing the persistent failure of special education students across all grades tested, and the failure at the high school level to have some students groups make adequate yearly progress: Black, Hispanic, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students.

A years-to-parity analysis of the performance rates of English language learners, students with disabilities, and Black students compared with their peers showed that existing gaps will never close without strategic intervention. If achievement gaps for these populations are not addressed, the gaps will persist and may increase.

Data on the district’s AP scores indicate that while a higher percentage of Hispanic students scored 3 and above across all years, the participation rate for Hispanics was one percentage point below the state in 2010 and two percent percentage points below the state in 2011 and 2012. The rate of White students scoring 3 and above fell below the state rate by two to four percent percentage points across the three years. On the ACT, composite scores for Black and Hispanic students were above the state composite score, but participation rates in Kenosha were significantly below the average participation rate in Wisconsin. Composite ACT scores for White students were slightly lower in Kenosha compared to the state composite score but participation rates in Kenosha were higher than the average participation rate in Wisconsin. Participation rates for Blacks and Hispanics in Kenosha Unified School District were significantly below the state each year, while the participation rate for White


students was higher than the state. Of the Kenosha Unified School District students participating in ACT, two-thirds were White, less than 15 percent were Hispanic, and less than 10 percent were Black.

Overall, Kenosha Unified School District student performance falls below state averages, and achievement gaps for some ethnicities and several subgroups are widening, indicating that existing district efforts are failing to educate all students to the levels expected by state and federal criteria. This persistent trend of achievement failure is in direct contrast to the district slogan, “Maximizing the brilliance of children” (see Recommendations 2 and 6).

Finding 4.4: Formative and summative data are not available to evaluate all courses taught, and data use for key functions such as planning, curriculum management, professional development, program evaluation, budgeting, and facility management is not in place to improve the design and delivery of services that impact student achievement.

Use of student assessment data from a variety of sources is essential for sound curriculum management and responsible decision making for various district functions, as well as for classroom instruction. Direction for linking feedback to the improvement of learning should originate from board policy. Effective assessment measures include student achievement data, survey and follow-up studies, program evaluation, audits, and reviews. The resulting data serve as bases for comprehensive planning, program evaluation, professional development, and budget prioritization.

In effective districts, the assessment process is ongoing, programmatic, and systemic. Administrators and teachers demonstrate a clear understanding of how students are assessed on required testing instruments. In those school systems, all administrators and teachers know how to analyze important trends in the instructional program, as well as areas of strength and weakness by classroom, groups of students, and individual students. School leaders and teachers make frequent use of assessment data to design classroom instruction aimed at improving student achievement. Various forms of data are used to identify needs that can inform decision making at the school and district levels.

Summative assessment is used retrospectively when evaluating programs or student outcomes. This form of assessment is used to determine how well the program, group, or individual achieved predetermined goals. Formative assessment, on the other hand, is used at various points during implementation of a program or instruction, in time to make changes that will affect outcomes. In other words, assessments are summative if the results are used to judge performance or effectiveness; assessments are formative if the results are used to modify programs or instruction in time to affect student learning and program outcomes. When properly used, both summative and formative assessments add value to systemic decision making.

Effective use of data includes disaggregating data consistently and in meaningful ways for the district leaders to determine that all sub-populations are attaining the instructional goals and objectives district-wide and within each school. Each school leader and teacher makes frequent use of data to design programs and classroom instruction that is targeted to improve student achievement.

To determine the status of data use in Kenosha Unified School District, the auditors reviewed board policy, job descriptions, data reports from the state, local program evaluation reports, the district strategic plan (Transformation Plan), and school improvement plans. Auditors also conducted interviews with administrators, teachers, and parents to better understand how data were used in the district.

Auditors found that some direction for data use has been established by board policy and job descriptions. The direction in board policy referenced data use to improve programs for student achievement, and job descriptions assigned duties to use data to improve curriculum and instructional processes. Guidelines for completing school improvement plans required a data review to establish annual goals. While there was evidence that state summative data were included in school improvement plans, these data were not aligned with objectives to drive deliberate actions to address achievement gaps evident in the data. Limited data requirements were found related to program evaluation (see Finding 4.5), the redesign or refinement of curriculum (see Finding 2.1), the approach to professional development (see Finding 3.3), budget allocation (see Finding 5.1), or facility management (see Finding 5.2).


Auditors examined board policies to ascertain direction regarding the use of data for decision making. Among policy references to data use were the following:

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment calls for “appropriate reports to the School Board, parents/guardians and the public, disaggregating all test data by ethnicity, gender, special education, and socio-economic status.” It also requires that “District and building Report Cards” include “disaggregated data by student group as required by federal law.” It specifies that data disaggregation be done to aid “interpretation and use by teachers, administrators and other professional staff members so that the test findings will influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students.” This policy also directs that “data be used for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.”

• Board Policy 1110: Parent/Guardian/Caregiver Surveys requires that the principal collect and summarize results from a district-wide survey and “disseminate to parents/guardians/caregivers the results of the survey” with a statement about “how they plan to use the results for school improvement.”

• Board Policy 8530: Board Self-Assessment states that the board’s “self-assessment is essential to the continued improvement and success of a school district.” This evaluation “should be based on the broad aspects of education in the District including the tenets of the District’s Strategic Plan.”

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review requires that new program requests include data: “Rationale (the problem to be resolved in terms of student achievement and/or student development).”

• Board Policy 7200: Facilities Planning specifies that considerations for educational facility construction, additions, or remodeling shall include data related to “characteristics of the community, instructional program, enrollment data, description of curriculum organization, personnel requirements, and diversity of the student population.”

While board policy called for the use of data for individual student and school improvement and building construction, no policy established expectations linking data to closing achievement gaps, targeting the improvement of learning for all student groups/subgroups through evaluation of key district functions such as the appropriateness of curriculum design, the effectiveness of delivery, the impact of programs in use, comprehensive planning of organizational intent for student outcomes, professional development, and deployment of district resources through budgeting and facility use (see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.5, 5.1, and 5.2).

Auditors reviewed district job descriptions and noted the following examples that provided direction for data use:

• Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability has been assigned the responsibility to “Provide support to District personnel on educational research, including evaluation design and the collection and interpretation of data in order to identify educationally effective strategies, techniques and programs.”

• Director of Instruction has responsibility to “interpret results of the testing program and other evaluative instruments that assess individual, group, school, and District instructional process.”

• Program Evaluation Coordinator and the Testing and Assessment Coordinator are expected to “Assume responsibility for the evaluation of all subject areas and programs in order facilitate curriculum improvement.”

• Curriculum Coordinator [Various Subjects] is charged to “Monitor student achievement and assist with district data retreats to evaluate the effectiveness of the district curriculum.”



• Title One Elementary Intervention Specialist for Behavior must “assist staff with data analysis” and the development of the school improvement plan.

• High School Assistant Principal of Instruction is charged with “gathering, analyzing, and using a wide range of data to inform decision making in the development of the school improvement plan and its priorities.”

Auditors found that across several job descriptions some direction was provided for data use to improve instructional processes, evaluate the district’s curriculum, monitor the Transformation Plan, and support school improvement planning. Job descriptions for personnel related to budget and facilities did not link decisions to student performance data so as to allocate resources based on identified needs. Data use was not adequately specific regarding responsibilities for monitoring sound curriculum management across all levels of the system or for decision making for various district functions that impact student achievement. Overall, direction for data use was generic in nature and no oversight was assigned directing responsibility for data use as a feedback loop for accountability to further student attainment of targeted outcomes in all courses and for intervening when data indicate gaps that warrant action.

Auditors examined documents used as data sources and procedures referenced by staff related to data use in the district to determine what practices were in place and how they were used. The auditors reviewed the following documents and referenced them in rating existing practice using audit criteria for formative and summative use of data. The documents used are presented in Exhibit 4.4.1

Exhibit 4.4.1

Documents Presented to Auditors for ReviewKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Document DateBoard Policies VariousTransformation Plan 2012-2014 2012Title I Site Plans 2012-13WINSS Performance Reports 2009-2013KUSD Performance Reports 2009-2013District and Site Accountability Report Cards 2009-2012Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports 2008-2011SMART Goals for Departments and Sites 2013AMAO Data 2009-2012Program Evaluation Reports 2009-2011

The audit team examined the district’s existing approach to data use through a review of district documents listed in Exhibit 4.4.1 and analyses of observation and interview data. They evaluated evidence found against five audit characteristics of a quality instructional approach to formative and summative student assessment data use.

According to audit expectations, formative data encompass an evaluation of all phases of learning in all courses taught. This type of data is derived from assessments that measure how the written curriculum is acquired and mastered by students. In the Kenosha Unified School District, no such assessments were in place. District level assessment was a diagnostic test, MAP, that provided data regarding student growth over time in key elements of reading and mathematics. While these elements were linked to broad strands of the Common Core Standards, the test was not designed to measure mastery of the key concepts in the Common Core Standards. Data from this assessment did not provide evidence that students had mastered the depth of meaning required by the Common Core Standards. Results from the diagnostic test were being used formatively to direct delivery of the written curriculum even though there was no clear alignment between test data and the target curriculum. This misuse of the data has the potential to mislead those interpreting and using that data, in that it creates confusion


about students acquiring basic skills of literacy and numeracy with the expectation that students gain mastery of the conceptual content delineated in state standards/district curriculum. Such confusion may result in high stakes consequences for students who do not have access to the curriculum for which they are held accountable.

At the time of the audit, no curriculum based tests were in use in Kenosha Unified School District to provide formative or summative data. Since the data from the district’s diagnostic test were widely used as formative data, auditors elected to examine the current approach to these data against audit criteria to illustrate how formative assessment data would be used as an instructional process. The analysis of an adequate instructional approach to formative data is presented in Exhibit 4.4.2.

In order for formative instruments, data and data use to be considered adequate, at least four of the five characteristics must be rated as adequate. Exhibit 4.4.2 presents the characteristics along with the auditors’ ratings. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present and no points were assigned. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned. A discussion of the auditors’ rating follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 4.4.2

Formative Student Assessment Instruments, Data, and Use Characteristics of an Adequate Instructional Approach


CharacteristicAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Provides teachers with formative achievement data for the students in

their class(es). Data from the prior year(s) assessments are available by student, so every teacher has data for their new students at the beginning of the year or course.

Partial

2. Identifies for the teacher the individual student’s formative data for every discrete objective, his or her respective level of achievement for that objective, and where he or she is within that level for each administration of the formative assessments. Data include group or subgroup levels of achievement for a given concept/standard.

X

3. Presents for every objective the individual formative student achievement level within the context of the district’s schedule or sequence of objectives or pacing chart.

X

4. Presents teachers with longitudinal data for each student, organized by class roster, and specifies the gain required to close any identified achievement gaps. This information is intended to assist teachers in moving all students to grade-level performance over the course of their education within the district.

X

5. Identifies formative student assessment instruments that teachers may use prior to teaching targeted concepts, knowledge, or skills to diagnose individual student mastery of those targeted objectives. These formative instruments allow teachers to determine whether students are making desired progress over time.

X


Partial ratings are considered inadequate

The analysis presented in Exhibit 4.4.2 indicates the district’s instructional approach to formative assessment was inadequate, meeting none of the audit criteria. A minimum of four of the five characteristics (80 percent)


must be in place in the existing process for it to be considered adequate to provide a framework for an effective approach to formative student assessment data use. An explanation of the auditors’ ratings follows:

Characteristic 1

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. Auditors found a system in place for teachers to access data related to a diagnostic assessment of core skills in reading and mathematics. These data were housed in a system that included data from the past two years of administration. Teachers could access this system and find data per student, updated continuously as students moved throughout the year. While the system exists, the data do not inform teachers regarding student performance in the district’s written curriculum from year to year due to the nature of the assessment tool.

Characteristic 2

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Data from the current district test did not provide data per discrete objective. No data tools were available to teachers to identify each student’s level of achievement in all elements of each standard so instruction could be tailored to help students attain mastery of the objective. The assessment in use was not designed to measure the written curriculum.

Characteristic 3

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The current district assessment was not administered in concert with the pacing of instruction. This diagnostic assessment was administered three times a year as prescribed by the sponsoring agency.

Characteristic 4

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Data from the current district test were not designed to specify gains required to master discrete objectives. The data provided were normative and tracked growth independent of specific standards in the district’s written curriculum.

Characteristic 5

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The district did not have formative assessments available to determine if students had already mastered content prior to instruction. No formative assessment tools were designed to be used before, during, and after instruction.

Overall, the district’s approach to formative data use was inadequate to provide useful information to teachers in delivering the district’s curriculum. Data from the diagnostic assessment in use were limited to measurements of growth in key skills indicating proficiency in numeracy and literacy. No formative assessments were available to provide feedback on student learning within the district’s written curriculum so as to inform delivery and support student attainment of the target curriculum. While some data were available to use in decision making, the data derived from the district’s use of a diagnostic test were limited to measures of proficiency and lacked the scope and depth of assessment needed to provide feedback on the delivery of the system’s curriculum.

Next, the auditors analyzed the district system of summative assessment instruments, data, and data use through examination of district documents, observations, and interviews and analyzed these using audit criteria. Auditors found that the district did not have summative assessment tools other than state tests required for select grades/courses. The following analysis relates to summative data use for those tests administered by the state. The characteristics of an adequate instructional approach to summative student assessment data use and the auditors’ ratings are presented in Exhibit 4.4.3. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present and no points were assigned. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned. A discussion of the auditors’ rating follows the exhibit.


Exhibit 4.4.3

Characteristics of Summative Student Assessment Data Use for an Adequate Instructional Approach

Auditors’ Ratings of District ApproachKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

CharacteristicAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Provides teachers with student achievement data for each student in their

class(es). Data from prior years’ assessments are available by student, so every teacher has data for their new students at the beginning of the year or course.

Partial

2. Identifies for the teacher the individual student’s summative data for every objective, his or her respective level of achievement for that objective, and where he or she is within that level. Data include group or subgroup levels of achievement for a given concept/standard.

X

3. Presents the student’s summative achievement data for every objective within the context of the district’s sequence of objectives or pacing chart. X

4. Presents teachers with longitudinal data for each student, organized by class roster, and specifies the gain required to close any identified achievement gaps. This information is intended to assist teachers in moving each student to grade-level performance over the course of their education within the district.

X

5. Identifies formative student assessment instruments that teachers may use prior to teaching targeted concepts, knowledge, or skills to diagnose individual student mastery of those targeted objectives based on summative achievement data from one or more years. This allows teachers to determine whether students are making desired progress over time.

X


Partial ratings are considered inadequate

The analysis presented in Exhibit 4.4.3 indicates that the district’s instructional approach to summative assessment was inadequate, meeting none of the audit criteria. A minimum of four of the five characteristics (80 percent) must be in place in the existing process for it to be considered adequate to provide a framework for an effective approach to summative student assessment data use. An explanation of the auditors’ ratings follows:

Characteristic 1

This characteristic was rated partially adequate. The only summative data available were from state assessments, and these data were housed in the Zangle system. Data were retrievable by a teacher needing access to data for individual students on their current year’s class roster. Data were available in the data system for all years since 2005. However, these data were limited to those courses tested by state assessments. No summative data were available for other courses/grades.

Characteristic 2

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Data from state tests were not available per discrete objective. Data were presented by broad subject strands that did not inform teachers about where gains were needed to demonstrate mastery of the strand. No district summative tools were available to provide such data to teachers.


Characteristic 3

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam is administered in November each year and was not designed to fit into district pacing or sequencing of objectives. Results were not available until January/February, making the data not useful to evaluate student progress in a timely manner. The district lacked a tool to provide timely summative data to monitor student attainment of course outcomes in all courses at all grades.

The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam data could be used retrospectively for program evaluation, to analyze curriculum design, to target specific subject area strands for professional development, to establish district- and school-specific annual plans to improve student achievement, to allocate funds to meet the greatest needs, and to manage facility use to serve student attainment of the target curriculum. Auditors did not find that summative data were well used for any of these purposes. Student achievement data were not used in what is considered the district strategic plan, the Transformation Plan 2012-2014. Site improvement plans did not adequately link data showing gaps in student achievement with deliberate actions to close these gaps. Site plans followed a pattern of generic action steps that did not represent meaningful action to bring all subgroups to parity within a reasonable timeframe (see Finding 4.3). Professional development was topic driven versus data driven (see Finding 3.2). There was no evidence that budget allocations or facility development take student achievement data into account when deploying district resources (see Findings 5.1 and 5.2).

Characteristic 4

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Longitudinal Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam summative data per student, per class roster, and per subject strand were available to teachers. However, these data lacked the specificity necessary to identify gains needed to close achievement gaps. All data were presented by broad strands that provided no details as to the aspect of learning needed to improve performance. No summative district tools were in place to analyze achievement gaps evident on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam so as to specify discrete areas for growth to move each student to grade-level performance.

Characteristic 5

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No formative assessment instruments were available to assess a student’s prior mastery of a target objective, and no summative achievement data provided adequate specificity to inform teachers about a student’s prior mastery of a given objective. The responsibility for determining whether each student is making desired progress was not well articulated; several job descriptions name various responsibilities, but no oversight or coherent structure has been established to monitor the closing of achievement gaps that have persisted for several years (see Finding 4.3).

Overall, Kenosha Unified School District does not have an adequate instructional approach to the use of summative student assessment data. Summative data were limited to state assessment results for grades/courses tested and were available only by broad strands and not by objective. While longitudinal data from state tests could be disaggregated, these data were not adequate to provide teacher access to data on gains needed to close achievement gaps. No district assessment provided summative data at the objective level within the pacing of instruction, and achievement gaps were not analyzed or data adequately used to improve district and site actions to move each student to grade-level performance.

Auditors found that most district and site personnel were using data from the district’s diagnostic test and believed that this was helping them to plan instruction to increase student achievement. Representative comments provided to auditors during interviews reflected these sentiments:

• “All schools are using student assessment data to identify areas of greatest need and research strategies for increasing student achievement.” (District Teacher)

• “The MAP test is aligned to the Common Core in reading and math.” (District Administrator)

• “We use MAP as a diagnostic. They SHOULD design lessons based on what kids’ needs are. That is differentiated instruction to meet different learners.” (District Administrator)


• “MAP…we hope it is designed to help teachers drive instruction. It is an assessment for learning. As a teacher, I have scores, so then I look at these and look at curriculum and start alignment for teaching.” (District Administrator)

• “Teachers take the results of MAP and they plan their lessons from there. The data directs what they teach.” (District Administrator)

• “We use MAP data to group students for instruction.” (Site Administrator)

• “We use MAP to determine the readiness level of the students to help personalize their learning.” (District Administrator)

• “I used MAP data to evaluate the effect of multiage classrooms. I have looked at math growth data…MAP calculated the growth.” (District Administrator)

• “This year, we have done MAP three times. We have looked at difference in fall to winter. Fifty (50) percent should meet projected growth by that time. If students are under performing, schools look at data to move kids farther.” (District Administrator)

Summary

The Kenosha School District lacked direction to focus staff at all levels of the organization on the use of student performance data to guide the business of educating the youth of the Kenosha community. Direction for data use was inadequately addressed in board policy and job descriptions. District leaders lacked a systematic approach to using data to carry out district functions related to closing achievement gaps and moving all students to grade-level performance as evident in documents and procedures regarding district and site planning, curriculum design and delivery, professional development, program evaluation, budgeting, and facility management. Auditors found that access to summative data was limited to results of state tests, and no district summative data were gathered to inform staff about student progress or program effectiveness. Student achievement data were not used in the design of the district’s strategic plan, Transformation Plan 2012-2014, and there was limited use of data in site improvement plans. No plan adequately addressed closing the achievement gaps evident in summative state data. Both formative and summative data were limited in scope and quality and were used ineffectively in decision making regarding curriculum design or delivery, professional development, and annual goal setting for improvement of services impacting student achievement (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8).

A variety of data walls, used by teachers to document the academic

progress of their students, were noted in many classrooms.


Finding 4.5: Evaluation processes have not been established to guide the district in adopting, implementing, and analyzing instructional programs for cost-benefits or for their effectiveness in meeting the system’s desired outcomes for student achievement.

Districts typically invest substantial dollars and human resources in programs to maintain, augment, or enhance the instructional program. Programmatic efforts have the potential to address diverse needs and provide unique opportunities for students to access learning. When programs are adopted to fulfill identified needs, designed to accomplish specific goals and objectives, implemented with fidelity to program design, monitored consistently during implementation, and evaluated annually, they can become a dynamic part of the educational design and delivery. However, when organizational procedures are not in place to assess the need and quality of programs before they are adopted, and when strategies for monitoring and evaluation are not used consistently, programs can consume district resources that could be allocated in ways that may achieve better results. Such lost opportunities for system improvement exist when program evaluation is infrequent, inadequate, or inappropriate.

Program evaluation is a multilayered process of obtaining data regarding the quality of program design, its alignment to district and department goals, the fidelity of implementation, resource needs, outcomes attained over time, and cost-effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. In order to accomplish these purposes, program evaluation includes a set of desired characteristics. The auditors frame their analysis using four basic questions:

I. Is there a program evaluation plan in place (to evaluate curriculum, stand-alone programs, or particular district functions, e.g., personnel services, maintenance)? (Program Evaluation Design)

II. What is the quality of the program evaluation approach? (Program Evaluation Design)

III. Is the program evaluation approach used, and are programs evaluated? (Program Evaluation Delivery)

IV. Does using the program evaluation data make any difference? (Program Evaluation Delivery)

To ascertain the status of program evaluation taking place in the Kenosha Unified School District, auditors examined board policy, job descriptions, and other relevant documents provided for the audit and interviewed administrators, teachers, and board members. They examined existing program evaluation documents presented by district staff.

Auditors found that direction for program evaluation addressed in board policy was limited to a set of components that were generic in nature. Job descriptions referenced program evaluation in terms of examining individual, school, and district “processes.” The district had no formal process in place to evaluate programs; the few evaluations presented to auditors were compliance related, with one completed to ascertain direction for a dual language program within the context of federal and state accountability. Completed evaluations were not linked to system results, and all but one were inadequate to inform decision making for program continuation, refinement, or termination.

Auditors examined board policies to determine the direction given to staff regarding program evaluation. The following policies contained references:

• Board Policy 2110: Benchmarks establishes that “The Superintendent of Schools and administrative staff shall be responsible for achieving District and school-by-school benchmarks. The source of benchmarks will include bi-annual, periodic educational audits.” The policy calls for program evaluations to include individual school achievement data that are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and economic status.

• Board Policy 2400: School – Administration establishes that the principal “is responsible for the administration of the total educational program within the school.”

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing specifies that the principal “is accountable for the academic and social progress for every student” and has the “responsibility to develop, implement, and evaluate a school improvement plan that establishes goals each year.”

• Board Policy 3110: Annual Operating Budget expects that the annual budget “translates into financial terms the educational programs and priorities for the District.” This policy specifies that “The purpose


of the annual operating budget is to identify financial resources for the educational program of the District and to provide a basis for accountability in fiscal management.”

• Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review outlines expectations that new program adoption and implementation will be considered “in an orderly manner” that includes a rationale, program description, budget, and evaluation methods.” The policy specifies components that are more fully delineated in Rule 6320: Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation. This rule expects that “Program reviews will include narrative information outlining what has been reviewed, how it was assessed, what types of data were collected, and how they were analyzed.”

• Board Policy 6460: Testing/Assessment establishes that data will be disaggregated for “interpretation and use by teachers, administrators and other professional staff members so that the test findings will influence the positive educational growth and development of individual students” and “ for planning effective teaching and curriculum development and reform.”

• Board Policy 7200: Facilities Planning links the specifications for educational facility construction, additions, or remodeling to “program considerations” and the “instructional program.”

Overall, board policy directs program evaluation to improve individual student achievement, to influence effective teaching, to support curriculum development and reform, to inform program adoption, to direct the budget according to educational program priorities, and to use facilities to match the instructional program. Auditors determined that board policy addresses several key elements necessary to manage program evaluation. Policies, however, did not adequately direct the allocation of resources based on identified need (via data), or the continuing evaluation of programs in use so as to analyze effectiveness, monitor relevance to district priorities for student achievement, and establish criteria for termination.

Auditors also analyzed job descriptions to ascertain how staff duties addressed program evaluation. The following job descriptions included roles and responsibilities related to program evaluation:

• Assistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership and Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Leadership are expected to provide for the “evaluation of the various programs” and “Provide for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and for the recommendations of new programs and procedures.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability is assigned responsibility to “Provide support to District personnel on educational research, including evaluation design and the collection and interpretation of data in order to identify educationally effective strategies, techniques and programs.”

• Program Evaluation Coordinator and the Testing and Assessment Coordinator are expected to “Assume responsibility for the evaluation of all subject areas and programs in order to facilitate curriculum improvement.” These employees must study “the goals and objectives of all programs to be evaluated” so as to “assist instructional administrators in the development of evaluative criteria.”

• Director of Instruction has responsibility for “developing and improving educational programs in all subject areas” as well as “developing curriculum, testing and assessment, and program evaluation.” This position is also charged to “interpret results of the testing program and other evaluative instruments that assess individual, group, school, and District instructional process.” The job also requires the person to “design and implement program evaluation in conjuncture with the School Evaluation Consortium.”

• Curriculum Coordinator [Various Subjects] is charged to “Monitor student achievement and assist with district data retreats to evaluate the effectiveness of the district curriculum.”



• Principal [Elementary, Middle, High School] and Assistant Middle School Principal have a primary function to “provide leadership in program development and improvement.” These positions are also required to evaluate the instructional program and to involve staff in the evaluation of “present programs” and the “recommendation of new programs.”

• High School Assistant Principal of Instruction is expected to lead “the development, implementation, and evaluation of the school’s comprehensive educational program to create an optimal learning environment” and to monitor “school improvement by developing and implementing the school improvement plan.” This person is charged with “gathering, analyzing, and using a wide range of data to inform decision making in the development of the school improvement plan and its priorities...developing and using systems for evaluating programs…with particular focus on matters related to curriculum, monitor and support the data analysis, development and implementation of the school improvement plans instruction, and program evaluation, as well as the State and District testing programs.”


• Title One Elementary Intervention Specialist for Behavior must “assist staff with data analysis” and “the development of the school improvement plan.”

Overall, duties have been assigned to carry out program evaluations. Duties included in job descriptions provided for the evaluation of all subjects, various programs (present programs and to make recommendations for new programs), and school improvement programs; some duties indicated that an evaluation design would be in place and that data would be collected, analyzed, and used to identify effective strategies and programs and to improve the district’s curriculum. While many elements of quality program evaluation were described, duties were scattered among several job descriptions with no position being directed to assume responsibility for the management of a comprehensive system to guide the district in adopting, implementing, and analyzing instructional programs for cost-benefits or for their effectiveness in meeting the system’s desired outcomes for student achievement.

Auditors examined existing structures and processes for program evaluation presented by district personnel and relayed through interviews and document review. An analysis of existing program evaluation procedures in the district follows and is framed by the four basic questions noted earlier.

I. Presence of Program Evaluation Plan or Process (Design)

Auditors found the presence of a program evaluation process in place in Kenosha Unified School District. Many policies and job descriptions called for program evaluation and established purposes and elements. While no district program evaluation model was in place, some program evaluations were completed in the last four years.

II. The Quality of the Program Evaluation Plan and/or Process (Design)

To determine the quality of program evaluation design, a set of audit criteria has been identified to evaluate the plan and/or process used in the district. Using board policies, job descriptions, and program evaluations presented, auditors analyzed the district approach against audit quality criteria.

Exhibit 4.5.1 presents the audit criteria for quality program evaluation design along with the auditors’ rating of the district’s approach. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present and no points were assigned. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned. A discussion of the auditors’ rating follows the exhibit.


Exhibit 4.5.1

Characteristics of a Quality Program Evaluation Plan or Process and Auditors’ Assessment of the District’s Approach


Characteristics of a Quality Program Evaluation Plan or ProcessAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Describes board or administrative directives to have program evaluation

procedures in place X

2. Specifies procedures for program evaluation, including needs assessment and formative evaluation and summative evaluation methods X

3. Specifies the proficiencies of persons responsible for conducting the evaluation, enhancing likelihood that findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance

X

4. Expects multiple measures designed to obtain quality data about the goals and objectives of the program and to be accurate and reliable measures X

5. Provides for multiple measures of data collection to be used, including both quantitative and qualitative data X

6. Directs ongoing formative assessments for the first two years for any new program implementation and summative evaluation at the end of the third year

X

7. Directs that all existing programs undergo a program evaluation at least every three years X

8. Expects procedures used in the evaluation process to be clearly described X9. Specifies that program evaluation reports clearly describe the program,

including its context, purposes, and procedures X

10. Expects program evaluation reports to be utilized to support timely decisions regarding program effectiveness, identify both strengths and weaknesses of the program, and include findings and recommendations for continuation as is, modification, or termination

X

11. Directs program evaluation designs to be practical, ethical, and cost effective, and to adequately address relevant political issues X

12. Expects all proposals for the initiation of new program to include needs assessment data, a description of formative and summative evaluations, and data collection procedures

X


As can be noted from Exhibit 4.5.1, the current program evaluation process for the Kenosha Unified School District is inadequate when analyzed against audit quality criteria. The audit expectation is that eight (8) out of the 12 criteria are met when an evaluation process is adequate to meet organizational needs for determining if programs contribute to system outcomes. Program evaluation elements in place in the Kenosha Unified School District meet two of the 12 quality criteria (17 percent). An explanation of the auditors’ ratings follows:

Characteristic 1

This characteristic was rated adequate. Board policy and job descriptions called for program evaluation to be carried out. Board Policy 6320: Instructional Program Adoption, Implementation, and Review outlines expectations that new program adoption and implementation will include “evaluation methods” and that an “instructional program review format will be followed to provide consistency as various areas go through the review process.” The job descriptions for the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership


and Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Leadership assign responsibility for the “evaluation of the various programs” and “for the involvement of staff in the evaluation of present programs and for the recommendations of new programs and procedures.” Several other job descriptions describe procedures to be designed and used to evaluate all subjects and programs and how the data are to be used to examine district and site processes.

Characteristic 2

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The components of the format for program evaluation in Board Policy 6320 and Rule 6320 do not address needs assessment or formative and summative evaluation methods. No other document addressed program evaluation procedures that included the elements of this criterion.

Characteristic 3

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The qualifications for evaluators were not addressed.

Characteristic 4

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The components of program evaluation in Board Policy 6320 and Rule 6320 only require “Findings/Participation/Student Growth—Success Indicators” but do not specify multiple measures that are designed to collect quality, reliable data.

Characteristic 5

This characteristic was rated inadequate. Neither board policy or rule, or any other document, referenced the type of data included in “Success Indicators.” No descriptors addressed quantitative and qualitative data.

Characteristic 6

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No direction was presented to formatively assess new programs continuously within the first two years of implementation and to summatively evaluate such programs at the end of the third year.

Characteristic 7

This characteristic was rated inadequate. There was no expectation for a scheduled review of all existing programs every three years.

Characteristic 8

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The procedures to be used to derive information for a program evaluation were not addressed.

Characteristic 9

This characteristic was rated adequate. Board Policy 6320 and Rule 6320: Procedures for Instructional Program Adoption and Implementation outline a format for evaluation reports and include components that address program description, context, purpose, and procedures.

Characteristic 10

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The relationship between program evaluation reports and timely decisions regarding program effectiveness was not addressed.

Characteristic 11

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No document or process required that evaluation design be practical, ethical, cost effective, and adequately address relevant political issues.

Characteristic 12

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No board policy, rule, or job description articulated that proposals for program initiation include a needs assessment, a description of formative and summative evaluations, and data collection procedures.


Overall, the district’s approach to program evaluation was inadequate. Board policies and job descriptions lacked a coherent approach with assigned responsibility to guide an evaluation process that provided useful information to district and site personnel for decision making about assessing needs, determining program quality, monitoring implementation, and evaluating the impact of programs related to expected outcomes.

III. Program Evaluation Use (Delivery)

The auditors reviewed program evaluation usage by examining the quantity of evaluations taking place, the quality of program evaluations completed, and the response to report findings and recommendations.

Frame 1: Quantity of Program Evaluations Taking Place

The auditors examined existing district-level evaluations presented to determine the quantity of program evaluations taking place. The auditors found four program evaluations completed within the last four years. None of the four evaluations represented an established district expectation for program evaluation prior to adoption, or for monitoring or decision making related to program continuation, modification, or termination. Two evaluation reports were required by a sponsoring agency, and two were commissioned by the district.

All four evaluations completed were for instructional programs. A summary of these evaluations is listed in Exhibit 4.5.2.

Exhibit 4.5.2

Quantity of Program Evaluations Presented for Instructional ProgramsKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Instructional Programs Evaluation Date

Entity Requiring Evaluation

Scope of Evaluation

Evaluation of the Dual Language Program at the Edward Bain School of Language and Art March 2009 District Complete

Technology Resource Deployment Scorecard July 2010 District BriefEngineering Certification Document 2: Self Assessment May 2010 Agency BriefAP Five-Year School Score Summary 2012 Agency SummaryTotal Federal/State/Agency Instructional Programs Evaluated 2Total District Instructional Programs Evaluated 2Total Evaluation Reports Completed 4Data Source: Documents provided by Kenosha Unified School District personnel

As can be noted from Exhibit 4.5.2, program evaluations for instructional programs over the four-year period listed evaluations for two agency programs and two district programs. The scope of reports ranged from brief, to summary, to a complete analysis. In all, a total of four reports were completed for instructional programs.

Overall, the scope of documentation presented indicated that program evaluations were not used to determine the effectiveness and cost benefit of all existing programs. Evaluation evidence lacked adequate quality control for program management in terms of the scope of programs evaluated. Auditors observed and learned during interviews that many programs were in use across sites within the district; four evaluations in four years do not represent an established process for program evaluation.

Frame 2: Quality of Program Evaluation Reports/Documents

The auditors examined one example of a district report to determine how well it met audit criteria for a quality program evaluation. Auditors chose the report titled “Evaluation of the Dual Language Program at the Edward Bain School of Language and Art” (March 2009) prepared by the Center for Applied Linguistics. The analysis against audit criteria is presented in Exhibit 4.5.3. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a


characteristic were present and no points were assigned. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned. A discussion of the auditors’ ratings follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 4.5.3

Curriculum Management Improvement Model Program Evaluation Criteria Auditors’ Assessment of Program Evaluation against Audit Characteristics



Adequate InadequateThe program evaluation report/document…1. Describes why this program was selected to be evaluated, with reasons

that suggest an expected evaluation outcome. X

2. Presents a description of the program goals, objectives, activities, individuals served, context, funding source, staffing patterns, and expected outcomes.

X

3. Uses multiple measures of data collection, resulting in both quantitative and qualitative data. The report describes what data were collected from what sources and the collection methodology.

X

4. Reports clearly describe the program evaluation procedures, findings, and recommendations. X

5. Clearly describes procedures used in the evaluation process. X6. Program evaluation designs are practical, ethical, cost effective, and

adequately address relevant political issues. X

7. Reports are provided in a timely manner so that timely decisions regarding program effectiveness and continuation can be made. X

8. If a sampling technique was used, it was adequate to support the conclusions that were drawn or any generalizations made to different settings or populations.

X

9. Individuals responsible for the program evaluation were “independent” or, if not, there was no attempt to control the evaluation results. X

10. Findings of the evaluation seem to be supported by the evidence reported in the evaluation document. X

11. Recommendations are supported by the findings and are practical in that they are within the capacity of the organization to implement. X

12. The document contains only substantive and related information. XTotal 10 2

Percentage of Adequacy 83%

As the analysis in Exhibit 4.5.3 indicates, the sample district report “Evaluation of the Dual Language Program at the Edward Bain School of Language and Art” (March 2009) met 10 out of the 12 (83 percent) audit curriculum management program evaluation criteria for adequacy. This rating meets the audit standard. The auditors’ analysis of scoring in Exhibit 4.5.3 follows.

Characteristic 1

This characteristic was rated adequate. The evaluation report stated the purpose of the evaluation in terms of an expected evaluation outcome: “to determine how EBSOLA can help students develop academic skills in English to meet the academic requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) while preserving its dual language model and the program’s goals of bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural understanding.”


Characteristic 2

This characteristic was rated inadequate. The program description was expressed in terms of its history in this school but did not address the program goals, objectives, funding, staffing, or expected outcomes.

Characteristic 3

This characteristic was rated adequate. The report used multiple measures of data that were quantitative and qualitative and specified how data were collected, from what sources, and the methodology used.

Characteristic 4

This characteristic was rated adequate. The report included clear descriptions of evaluation procedures, findings, and recommendations.

Characteristic 5

This characteristic was rated adequate. The methodology clearly delineated procedures used in the evaluation process and provided a descriptive chart.

Characteristic 6

This characteristic was rated inadequate. No information was provided to ascertain evaluation design costs or the ethical objectivity of the company hired to complete the analysis.

Characteristic 7

This characteristic was rated adequate. The sample report used for this analysis was commissioned by the district for district purposes. It was completed in spring, indicating that it was done in a timely manner to inform decision making for the following school year.

Characteristic 8

This characteristic was rated adequate. The report used a sampling technique and it was adequate to support the conclusions.

Characteristic 9

This characteristic was rated adequate. The individuals completing the report were independent of the school district and showed no indication that they attempted to control evaluation results.

Characteristic 10

This characteristic was rated adequate. While the recommendations did not logically follow the evidence, a rationale was provided based on research to justify the recommendations within the context of this specific program.

Characteristic 11

This characteristic was rated adequate. The recommendations in the report followed the findings and were adequately clear to address the elements of the findings.

Characteristic 12

This characteristic was rated adequate. The report contains only information related to this specific program evaluation.

Overall, the sample report analyzed met audit criteria for a quality program evaluation. The report included key elements expected by audit standards. The elements that did not meet audit criteria included an adequate description of the program and how the program evaluation design was vetted for adequacy in terms of ethics, cost effectiveness, and practicality. In all, the quality of the evaluation was adequate to guide district personnel in making decisions about continuation, refinement, or termination of the program.


IV. Efficacy of Problem Evaluation Data (Delivery)

No documentation was presented to auditors indicating the use of program evaluation data to make decisions about program adoption, modification, or termination at the district or site level. During site visits and interviews, auditors learned that large amounts of funds have been invested in software and related licenses, as well as other types of programs. There was no guidance related to program purchases and no procedures in place to use evaluation data to make an assessment of the cost-benefit of such expenditures. As one principal noted, “Our response to a deficit is to get a program.”

Auditors observed a broad array of programs at Title I schools and the absence of support programs at non-Title I schools. Many of the programs were used as interventions, and, in many cases, programs were adaptive to the user’s performance so students worked alone. When students experienced error, the program provided a lower level task, leaving the student without the benefit of a teacher who could actively engage the student in understanding his/her error. Without evaluation, such practice may mask the fact that just because students receive intervention, they may not benefit from it in the long-term as the intervention may not provide for growth in the conceptual understanding needed to overcome the deficit in performance.

Auditors interviewed staff regarding the use of program evaluation data. Comments revealed that program evaluation was not viewed as a systematic practice or part of a district-wide approach to decision making. Some representative comments follow:

• “I don’t know that we have done a good job of reviewing programs to determine if they are effective.” (District Administrator)

• “There are no common measures to tell us which programs are working.” (District Administrator)

• “Program effectiveness has been determined based on oral data exchanged between principals and teachers.” (District Administrator)

• “There are no evaluations of programs. We add but we don’t take away or have a way to know which ones are not doing the job.” (District Administrator)

• “There are no criteria for adopting a program or for evaluating it. Dropping a program is usually fund related, not impact related.” (District Administrator)

• “Sites adopt their own programs; there are many more of them at Title 1 Schools.” (District Administrator)

• “Sometimes teachers find programs and they bubble up to the district.” (District Administrator)

• “Companies sometimes give us a program for free to do a pilot. If the teacher or principal likes it they buy it.” (District Administrator)

• “We used to have high fidelity to programs like Read 180 but now it is up to the site, and school leaders vary in their opinions.” (District Administrator)

• “Each school does its own evaluation of programs.” (District Administrator)

Auditors determined that use of program evaluation data was not part of current practice among central and site administrators. The existing culture views programs as part of site autonomy, with no linkages connecting program quality with effectiveness in meeting the intended purposes or the cost-benefit in terms of impact on student achievement.

Summary

Program evaluation in the Kenosha Unified School District lacked direction to drive the establishment of processes to guide program adoption, implementation, assessment of effectiveness, and cost-benefit analysis, or to ascertain if programs contribute to district expectations for students. Existing program evaluation was limited in scope and quality. Many programs were in use, and large sums of money have been invested in programs, but there was no accountability for how such expenditures were benefitting students and helping to close persistent achievement gaps (see Finding 4.3). No procedures were in place to guide needs assessment


prior to program adoption, inform adjustments during implementation, or to determine when programs were not meeting an identified need. District and site personnel reported that program evaluation was not part of district practice and, as a result, no system was in place to guide matching limited resources to needs, to prioritize expenditures, or to maximize staff effort (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8).



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 financial allocations;

• A financial data base and network that can track costs to results, provide sufficient fiduciary control, and be used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions;

• Specific means that have been selected or modified and implemented to attain better results in the schools over a specified time period;

• A planned series of interventions that have raised pupil performance levels over time and maintained those levels within the same cost parameters as in the past;

• School facilities that are well-kept, sufficient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of the instructional program; and

• Support systems that function in systemic ways.


This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Five. Details follow within separate findings.

Auditors found a traditional budget development process in place with no clear linkages between district goals and priorities and budgetary allocations. Financial allocations in the Kenosha Unified School District are not driven by program priorities, achievement needs, or cost-benefit analysis of educational programs and services. No references were found aligning specific financial allocations to the district’s Transformation Plan. Over a five-year period, district expenditures have exceeded revenues and unassigned fund balances have been below limits set by administrative rules. Measures have been taken to reduce expenditures through school closures and reduction in personnel. Per pupil allocations vary greatly depending upon designation as a Title I or non-Title I campus; however, there is no indication that the expenditure of additional funds translates into higher student achievement.

Overall, the auditors found that the majority of the facilities in the Kenosha Unified School District are well-maintained, with adequate space to facilitate a positive learning environment for students at the current level of enrollment. While a capital improvement plan is in place, there is no comprehensive long-term facilities plan in place to address current and future facilities needs and to ensure that optimum physical environments are provided for learning in the schools.


Finding 5.1: The district’s budget process does not meet the audit’s standards of adequacy to be designated as a curriculum-driven budget. Allocation of budgetary resources is not driven by strategic priorities or an assessment of program effectiveness.

Educational programs require adequate financial support to remain viable and support improved student achievement over time. A school district’s productivity is enhanced when clear linkages exist between the curriculum and the budget. The budget, therefore, is the major financial planning document for expressing in dollars the goals and priorities of the district. System-wide productivity is enhanced by budgetary decisions that allocate adequate resources to those programs that align with district goals and priorities and that demonstrate success in meeting those goals. Without this systemic linkage, district decision makers can spread fiscal resources too thin, stray from the district’s mission, continue to fund ineffective programs, and serve the students of the district ineffectively, inequitably, or inconsistently.

Kenosha Unified School District states in the Transformation Plan’s mission statement the desire “To assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” For the district to achieve its mission, careful monitoring is required to ensure that budgeting and fiscal practices are aligned to the district’s mission and goals.

To determine the financial condition of the district, the budget planning processes utilized, and the use of performance feedback in making budgetary decisions, the auditors reviewed district policies, annual budgets, financial audits, budget planning documents, job descriptions, and other district documents related to budgeting and the allocation and disbursements of the school district’s resources.

Board policies of the Kenosha Unified School District related to financial planning, budgeting, fiscal responsibility, and decision making are noted below:

• Board Policy 2410: School Support Staffing – Administrative states, “The role of principals is complex…They are accountable for the discretionary district budgets, all grant funding, and any other revenue sources specific to their school.”

• Rule 3110: Annual Operating Budget directs, “The district shall adhere to the following guidelines and decision-making procedures and develop an annual budget based on an annual budget calendar.

○ The annual operating budget shall be the financial plan for the operation of the District and shall provide authority for the obligation of funds, except for school board expenditures and all major maintenance projects. Separate budgets shall be developed for the Board and major maintenance projects. The budget document shall include all existing indebtedness, anticipated revenue, proposed appropriations for the following year, and include all anticipated unexpended or un-appropriated balances and surpluses for each budgetary fund. It also must show actual revenues and expenditures for the preceding year.

○ The Chief Financial Officer shall be responsible to the Superintendent for the preparation of the budget. The Finance Office shall provide guidance and budgeting parameters to be used by all District budget managers as they build their respective budgets.

○ The Superintendent shall review the proposed budget with the Board according to the time line listed on the annual operating budget calendar. The District will account for all eligible activities within the community service fund 80. Administration will annually designate the services/programs that are eligible. A fiscal report will be attached to recommendations for new programs or revisions of existing programs. A summary of the proposed budget, notice of the place where the detailed budget may be examined, and notice of the time and place of the public hearing on the proposed budget will be published as a Class I notice at least 10 days prior to the time of the public hearing on the budget and the annual meeting. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible to the Superintendent for providing this notice.”


• Board Policy 3111: School Board Budget states, “The Board budget shall be developed in accordance with the same budget development process; i.e., standard format, preparation and presentation format and time frame development, used for the District’s annual operating budget.”

• Board Policy 3112: Budget Administration states, “All capital appropriation budgets must maintain a three year plan that shall be reviewed, amended and approved by the Superintendent or designee as necessary as part of the annual budget process. The Chief Financial Officer shall establish guidelines in the development of such plans and approve changes throughout the year that have a financial impact on the District. Any plan modifications require the approval of the Superintendent.”

• Board Policy 3113: Fiscal Impact Statement directs, “The District annually prepares and approves annual operating, capital improvement, special projects and grant budgets. Once approved by the School board, these budgets are regularly monitored to ensure the appropriate and timely expenditure of District funds. During this budget preparation and approval period, the Board evaluates the various budget assumptions, alternative funding recommendations, and current programs to allocate the available financial, human and physical resources to effectively implement the policies and programmatic objectives of the District.”

• Board Policy 3323: Fund Balance states, “The Administration’s recommended budget to the School Board will include a reserve fund balance recommendation for carryover of unexpended funds for specified projects, a reserve for encumbrances, and a designated fund balance for cash flow purposes. Rule 3323 further states, “The District will strive to maintain a fund balance in the operating fund equal to a minimum of 15% of budgeted appropriation, representing approximately 45 days of operations. At most, Kenosha Unified will maintain a maximum fund balance in the operating fund equal 20% of budgeted appropriation, representing approximately 90 days of operations.”

• Board Policy 8500: School Board Powers and Duties states, “The School Board shall have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the District and adopt an annual budget to fund the education program and operation. It shall operate within state and federal laws and do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education, including establishing, providing and improving school district programs, functions and activities for the benefit of students.”

Auditors found that Kenosha Unified School District board policies provide some direction for budget planning, development, and implementation. The policies, however, do not support stakeholder involvement in the process, rank ordering of program components for changing district needs, feedback and evaluation of current programs, or justification for the implementation implantation of new programs requiring budget dollars.

A review of selected job descriptions provided the following directions relating to financial and budgetary responsibility and related accountability:

• Superintendent (Draft): “The superintendent shall be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the District. He is responsible for the effective operation of the District; general administration of all instructional, business or other operations of the District; and for advising and making recommendations to the Board of Education with respect to such activities. See that the development, authorization, and the maintenance of an appropriate budgetary procedure is properly administered. Prepare the annual proposed budget and submit it to the Board by March 1 or at such earlier date as is necessary to provide an adequate opportunity for the Board’s discussion and deliberation.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Business: “Administer policies of the District on matters related to business services and provide leadership in program development and improvement. Assume the leadership role for the District’s Business functions. Administer the functions within Business including: Human Resources, Business Services, Finance and Facilities Services.”

• Chief Financial Officer: “The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position of the Kenosha Unified School district provides leadership, direction and supervision of all financial operations of the District. Duties are performed in accordance with established policies and procedures, as well as recognized accounting and financial principles. Produces and manages the District’s annual budget to support the Superintendent’s


key academic initiatives. This includes: interpreting legislative and programmatic guidance, ensuring all governmental regulations and requirements are distributed to staff, and monitoring compliance. Acts as the Superintendent’s representative at District Finance committee meetings. Implement and adhere to District policies and procedures, rules and regulations, and directives. Prepares long and short term financial plans for use by administrators and Board who consider educational needs, population projections, development plans, staffing needs, and revenue projections. Explains financial budget allocations to department heads to inform them of available funds. Assist in administering the adopted annual District budget.”

• Director of Business Services: “Administer the Finance and Budget Analysis function of the district.”

• Director of Facilities Service: “Develop and manage District budgets involving custodial operations, maintenance operations, improvements or new construction to buildings, sites, and utilities. Oversee the development of budgets for Food services, Transportation, Warehouse, Copy Center and Utilities.”

• Financial and Budget Analyst: “Assist with the district budgeting process, including development, implementation and analysis. Participate in the development and approval of planning, research, and evaluation of programs involving budgeting and financial services in the District.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership: “Prioritize, develop, coordinate and evaluate elementary school budgetary requests and expenditures. Participate in the budget planning process for the District, state and federal money.”

• Assistant Superintendent of Secondary School Leadership: “Prioritize, develop, coordinate and evaluate Secondary instructional budgetary requests and expenditures. Prepare a budget for the operation of the Secondary schools. Participate in the budget planning process for District, state and federal money.”

• Elementary School Principal: “Assume responsibility for the total program of the school and, in cooperation with other administrators, assume responsibility for various services within the school. Evaluate, coordinate, modify, and compile budget requests. Recommend and interpret the school’s budget requests. Supervise the operation of food, custodial, and pupil transportation services.”

• Middle School Principal: “Supervise the operation of food, custodial, and pupil transportation services. Evaluate, coordinate, modify, and compile budget requests. Recommend and interpret the budget.”

• Senior High School Principal: “Supervise the operation of food, custodial, and pupil transportation services. Supervise the operation of food, custodial, and pupil transportation services. Evaluate, coordinate, modify, and compile budget requests. Recommend and interpret the school’s budget request.”

A review of district job descriptions indicates that budgetary and financial management responsibilities are assigned to various administrators. There is a specific expectation requiring the preparation of short- and long-term financial plans for use by administrators and the board as they consider the educational needs of the Kenosha Unified School District.

Economic and Financial Standing

Economic and financial standing provides contextual data for any Curriculum Audit™. The following general economic and academic information was extracted from Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, adopted budgets, preliminary budgets, information found on the district’s website, and interviews with board members, district administrators, and other stakeholders.

From fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2011, total general fund revenues increased 12.3 percent. However, from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, total general fund revenue decreased 5.1 percent. Exhibit 5.1.1 presents a summary of changes in revenues by source as found in the district’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and adopted budgets.


Exhibit 5.1.1

Summary of Revenues by SourceKenosha Unified School District

FY 2008 through FY 2013

Fiscal Year Local State Federal Other Total Change2008 $85,862,586 $153,010,542 $16,849,473 $2,097,393 $257,819,9942009 89,661,873 142,747,388 35,616,425 5,876 268,031,562 4.0%2010 92,384,146 152,625,147 32,641,979 1,001,452 278,652,724 4.02011 99,939,016 164,778,840 23,485,542 1,361,022 289,564,420 3.92012 97,387,574 155,070,668 21,466,446 8,255,505 282,180,193 -2.62013* 93,569,886 160,907,787 18,687,642 1,661,809 274,827,124 -2.6

* Figures for fiscal year 2013 have not been audited.Source: Data extrapolated from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the Kenosha Unified School District’s 2012-2013 Adopted Budget

The following is noted in Exhibit 5.1.1:

• State aid is the largest source of general operating revenues, representing an average 56 percent of revenues each year.

• Local revenues, including local property taxes and miscellaneous income, make up one-third (or 33 percent) of the annual operating budget.

• Federal revenues, including Title I funds, federal grants, and federal stabilization funds, represent 6.5 percent to 11.7 percent of the annual budget.

• Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009; 2009 and 2010; and 2010 and 2011, total annual revenues increased four (4) percent each year.

• Between fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and 2012 and 2013, total annual revenues declined 2.6 percent each year.

As revenues increased from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011, and then decreased for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, district expenditures were adjusted accordingly. From fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2011, total district expenditures increased by 14 percent. However, from fiscal 2011 to fiscal year 2013 total expenditures decreased by 13.2 percent. Exhibit 5.1.2 presents a summary of changes in district general operating expenditures as found in the district’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and adopted budgets.

Exhibit 5.1.2

Summary of Expenditures by AreaKenosha Unified School District

FY 2008 to FY 2013

Fiscal Year Instruction Support

Services Operations Debt Capital Projects Total Change

2008 $155,424,051 $39,987,259 $42,411,173 $22,563,983 $14,316,205 $274,702,6702009 164,347,709 44,200,531 43,629,300 14,318,845 9,419,289 275,915,674 0.4%2010 171,415,159 45,400,898 46,193,024 15,229,068 29,899,026 308,137,174 11.72011 180,661,138 49,040,173 50,171,502 16,526,963 16,808,215 313,207,991 1.62012 166,413,082 45,299,603 48,353,812 23,932,631 4,432,631 288,431,886 -7.92013* 158,522,409 51,988,846 42,215,000 17,599,214 558,553 270,884,022 -6.1

* Figures for fiscal year 2013 have not been audited.Source: Data extrapolated from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the Kenosha Unified School District’s 2012-2013 Adopted Budget.


The following is noted in Exhibit 5.1.2:

• Instruction, which represents principally teacher salaries and wages, is the largest category of expenditure, representing 57 percent of the annual operating budget.

• Support Services, which includes student support services, general district administration, and building administration, on average represents 16 percent of the annual operating budget.

• Operations, which includes general business services, facilities maintenance, and operations, also on average represents 16 percent of the annual operating budget.

• Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, expenditures increased 0.4 percent; between fiscal years 2009 and 2010, expenditures increased 11.7 percent; and between fiscal years 2010 and 2011, expenditures increased 1.6 percent.

• Between fiscal years 2011 and 2012, expenditures declined 7.9 percent; and between fiscal years 2012 and 2013, expenditures declined 6.1 percent.

Presented in Exhibit 5.1.3 is a comparison of actual district revenues and expenditures for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and estimated revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2013.

Exhibit 5.1.3

Comparison: Revenues and ExpendituresKenosha Unified School District

FY 2008 to FY 2013

$200,000,000

$220,000,000

$240,000,000

$260,000,000

$280,000,000

$300,000,000

$320,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*Fiscal Year

Revenue Expenditures

*Figures for fiscal year 2013 are estimates.

As can be noted in Exhibit 5.1.3, for five of the fiscal years depicted, district expenditures have exceeded district revenues. The 2013 fiscal year budget, as adopted by the board of education, is based on revenues exceeding expenditures by $2,943,102.

In addition to revenues and expenditures, auditors reviewed the district’s general operating fund balances over the past nine fiscal years. Board Policy 3323 provides some guidance regarding operating fund balances: “Kenosha Unified School District recognizes that an adequate operating fund balance (unrestricted net assets) is necessary to maintain a strong fiscal position in order to meet unanticipated expenditures or emergencies and to reduce the costs of borrowed funds.” Rule 3323 provides more detail regarding the preferred operating fund balance, stating, “The District will strive to maintain a fund balance in the operating fund equal to a minimum of 15% of budgeted appropriation, representing approximately 45 days of operations.” For accounting purposes, fund balances are recorded in different categories based upon definitions developed by the General Accounting Standards Board. Following are brief definitions of the four types of fund balances displayed in Exhibit 5.1.4.


• Non-spendable fund balance: includes amounts that cannot currently be spent, including prepaid expenses, amounts held in inventory, balances of long-term notes and loans receivable, and value of land and other property acquired and held for resale.

• Unassigned fund balance: is used for reporting spendable fund balance in the General Fund that represents amounts that have not been restricted, committed, or assigned.

• Restricted fund balance: includes amounts that have constraints placed on their use that are either the terms of grants, or restrictions established by contributors, laws, or regulations.

• Assigned fund balance: includes amounts that have been set aside for specific purposes by the board of education or a district official who has been given the authority to assign amounts for specific purposes.

Exhibit 5.1.4 presents a multi-year summary of district general operating fund balances over a nine-year period.

Exhibit 5.1.4

Summary Operating Fund BalancesKenosha Unified School District

Fiscal Years 2004-2012

General Fund All Other Governmental Funds

Fiscal Year Non-Spendable Unassigned

Percent of

RevenuesRestricted Assigned Total Fund

Balance

Percent of

Revenues2004 4,304,877 8,729,031 4.3 3,344,807 413,375 16,792,090 8.22005 4,042,911 9,619,188 4.4 2,251,662 488,022 16,401,783 7.82006 5,238,539 10,748,661 4.7 22,940,966 655,623 39,583,789 16.52007 4,403,764 15,115,756 6.2 21,819,472 718,863 42,057,855 13.92008 4,379,290 17,676,886 6.9 2,200,333 918,670 25,175,179 9.82009 3,379,196 19,227,453 7.2 13,769,108 915,309 37,291,066 17.32010 3,147,295 20,486,400 7.4 21,732,456 750,466 22,482,922 17.32011 4,522,438 12,287,547 4.2 5,005,368 657,693 22,473,046 7.52012 4,317,847 11,365,881 4.0 365,574 277,738 16,327,040 8.2


• Except for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the district has maintained an unassigned fund balance of four percent.

• Unassigned fund balances have been below the 15 percent minimum established in Rule 3323 for all nine years depicted.

• If fiscal year 2013 revenues and expenditures are audited as adopted, the assigned fund balance could potentially increase to $14,308,983, or 5.3 percent of fiscal year 2013 projected revenues. The unassigned fund balance would still fail to meet the guide lines set forth in Rule 3323. There is no long-term plan in place to address the status of the district’s unassigned fund balance.

A school district must continually look at student enrollment and staffing figures when setting budgets, particularly during financial downturns. Student enrollment has remained fairly steady, with an overall loss of 130 students over five years (0.6 percent loss). Exhibit 5.1.5 shows changes in student enrollment figures.


Exhibit 5.1.5

Student EnrollmentKenosha Unified School District

School Years 2007-2012

School Year EnrollmentEnrollment Increase/Decrease

Percent Increase/Decrease

2007-08 22,769 184 0.82008-09 22,838 69 0.32009-10 23,019 181 0.82010-11 23,122 103 0.52011-12 22,978 -144 -0.62012-13 22,639 -339 -1.5

Source: Kenosha Unified School District 2012-13 Adopted Budget


• Student enrollment figures were highest in the 2010-11 school year with 23,122 students.

• Four of six years noted increases in student enrollment, while two of six years (2011-12 and 2012-13) showed declines in student enrollment.

Exhibit 5.1.6 shows changes in staffing figures for Kenosha Unified School District.

Exhibit 5.1.6

StaffingKenosha Unified School District

School Years 2007-2011

Employee GroupYear

2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08Administration 122 119 118 113 111Teacher & Instructional Support 1637 1630 1835 1791 1780Secretarial & Clerical 139 136 141 142 139Educational Assistants 262 261 299 309 313Service & Carpenters 215 210 205 212 214Interpreters 11 10 10 11 11Other/Misc. 61 57 44 47 36

TOTAL Full-Time Equivalent 2447 2423 2652 2625 2604Source: KUSD Fiscal Year 2011-2012 CAFR


• Total full-time equivalent units increased from 2007-08 to 2009-10.

• In the 2010-11 school year, 229 staffing units were eliminated.

• Two hundred and five (205) of the 229 staffing units eliminated were from the teacher and instructional support group, and 38 staffing units were eliminated from the educational assistants group.

• Twenty-four (24) positions were added for the 2011-12 school year.

• For the 2011-12 school year, seven positions were added to teacher and instructional support; three positions were added to the administration; three positions were added to secretarial and clerical; one to educational assistants; five to service and carpenters; one to interpreters; and four to other/misc.


Auditors found that as revenues increased, expenditures increased and actually exceeded revenues as noted in the trend data (see Exhibit 5.1.3). In an effort to address the issue, schools were closed and positions were eliminated, primarily in the teacher and instructional support area. As a result, class size increased and multi-age classrooms were created in an effort to manage financial deficits. Some charter schools moved from leased facilities to district facilities and now pay rent to the district. During the same period of time and prior to that, the Kenosha Unified School District operated with a fund balance that was well below that required by board policy. While the Wisconsin Department of Public Education does not provide guidelines regarding fund balances, the Department of Public Education does state, “A district with an appropriate fund balance can: avoid excessive short term borrowing thereby avoiding associated interest cost, accumulate sufficient assets to make designated purchases or cover unforeseen expenditure needs, and demonstrate financial stability and therefore preserve or enhance its bond rating, thereby lowering debt issuance costs.”

Budget Planning

To determine if the district budget development process was linked to the district’s policies, mission, goals, and curriculum, the auditors assessed the district’s planning procedures using six CMSi components of a curriculum-driven budget. In the absence of a budget planning document, auditors reviewed Budget Council agendas and meeting minutes, board meeting minutes, and the budget calendar followed in the budget development and management process.

Exhibit 5.1.7 lists the CMSi components of a curriculum-driven budget along with the auditors’ assessment of the degree to which the budget development process and resulting budget are driven by and focused on curriculum. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present and no points were assigned. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned. A discussion of the auditors’ ratings follows the exhibit.

Exhibit 5.1.7

Components of Curriculum-Driven Budgeting and Ratings of AdequacyKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Performance-based Budget CriteriaAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessment of

operational curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources. X

2. Rank ordering of program components is provided to permit flexibility in budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on changing needs or priorities. X

3. Each budget request or submittal shall be described so as to permit evaluation of consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance or results. X

4. Cost benefits of components in curriculum programming are delineated in budget decision making. X

5. Budget requests compete for funding based upon evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum effectiveness. X

6. Priorities in the budget are set by participation of key educational staff in the allocation and decision-making process. Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are reflected and incorporated in budgeting decisions.

Partial


Partial ratings count as inadequate

As shown in Exhibit 5.1.7, the characteristics of curriculum-driven budgeting were not evident in the district budgeting processes. The audit expectation is that five out of the six criteria are in place to ensure a budget planning process and a budget that are curriculum focused. An explanation of the auditors’ rating follows.


Criterion 1 – Connections

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors were not presented with data verifying the effectiveness of any district program in relationship to its cost. Board policy does not address program effectiveness related to budgeting. A variety of programs and interventions are evident in the district and vary from campus to campus and even classroom to classroom. The failure to meet this criterion is noted by a district administrator: “Programs or interventions depend on whatever deal the vendor can persuade a principal or individual teacher to buy.”

Criterion 2 – Rank Ordering

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors found no formally documented rank ordering of budget priorities, nor a fund allocation process used to support increased student achievement. The only reference to rank ordering or priority order is found in Rule 3110 related to major maintenance projects.

Criterion 3 – Description for Evaluation of Funding Consequence

This criterion was rated inadequate. Board Policy 3113 recommends but does not require that a Fiscal Impact Statement be completed “to ensure that each of these recommendations is evaluated in a consistent manner, and in terms of its specific budgeting impact on the current and future District budgets.” In documents presented to the auditors, two templates were included: Program Evaluation Template and Program Evaluation Template – School Version. The Program Evaluation template for district level budgeting says, “The template for 2011-12 is to be completed for all existing and eliminating programs, initiatives and/or projects.” In completing the form, narratives and data must be included to support: deliverables/program measures, program description, budget request dollar amount, and priority/ranking for the budget. In addition at the campus level, funding sources and FTEs must be included. Auditors found no evidence of the use of the Program Evaluation template. District level administrators confirmed in interviews that the template had not been used. Implementation of existing board policy and the use of the existing templates would have created adequacy for this criterion.

Criterion 4 – Cost-benefit Analysis

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors determined that cost-to-benefit analysis was not used as an essential component of the budget decision-making process. Although the Budget Council meets on a regular basis, and has representation from across the district including district and site administration, teachers, and support personnel, evidence is not apparent in meeting minutes that curricular and instructional decisions impact budgeting decisions. During years of deficit budgeting, schools were closed and personnel were eliminated. However, cost-benefit analysis was not utilized. As one district administrator stated, “Budget reductions have been huge. We maintained all our programs despite the cuts, but we have higher class sizes”.

Criterion 5 – Competition on the Basis of Need and Effectiveness

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors did not identify a consistent approach for establishing a linkage between program funding and demonstrations of program effectiveness. For this criterion to be met, all expenditures within both school and district budgets must formally compete for funding based upon the evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement. Schools in Kenosha Unified School District do not use a formal process to make these decisions, and in some cases auditors found that dollar amounts on line item campus budgets were a mere reflection of the previous year’s line item budget figure for the same object or function.

Criterion 6 – Decision-making Process

This criterion was rated partially adequate. The Kenosha Unified School District budget process includes legal requirements that govern the process. Evidence of meeting legal requirements was met through review of board meeting minutes, Budget Council meeting minutes, and budget documents. The Budget Council includes key personnel from the district and campus levels and states as their purpose, “fiscal responsibility, ensure the budget aligns with transformation design, develop a balance between the revenue and expenses, and strategize best solutions for all stakeholders of KUSD.” However, Budget Council meeting minutes, interviews with district personnel, and documents provided to the auditors indicate that budget decisions are based primarily


on dollars available, rather than a well-planned, systematic approach to determine the needs of district students and expend the available dollars accordingly. As stated by a district administrator, “We are really just trying to keep the ship afloat.”

One method for examining the linkage between the budget process and the achievement of district goals is to look at the allocation of district dollars as related to student enrollment and student achievement. The Kenosha Unified School District’s Transformation Design states as its vision, “Maximizing the Brilliance of Children.” Exhibit 5.1.8 displays per pupil allocations by campus based on Fund 10 (general education), Title I, and a total allocation of the two funds. It also shows 2011-12 campus results from the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (WKCE) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD), that include student achievement in reading and math; student growth in reading and math; closing gaps for reading, math, and graduation; and on-track and post-secondary readiness.

Exhibit 5.1.8

Per Pupil Allocations by CampusKenosha Unified School District

FY 2013

LocationAdjusted

Enroll for Alloc

Total FY13 Fund 10

Site Budget

Per Pupil Alloc

Fund 10

FY13 Title I Budget

Per Pupil Alloc Title I

Fund 10 Plus Title

I Per Pupil Total

2011-12 WKCE & WAA-SwD Test Results

ElementaryPleasant Prairie 586.4 $60,712 $103 $n/a $n/a $103 74.2Prairie Lane 478.4 49,437 103 n/a n/a 103 81.8Somers 437.0 45,291 103 n/a n/a 103 75.6Whittier 423.0 43,707 103 n/a n/a 103 68.8Jeffery 324.4 33,748 104 n/a n/a 104 69.2Nash 629.8 64,952 103 n/a n/a 103 76.2Bain Creative Arts 498.2 51,306 102 279,278 561 663 60.7Bain Dual Language 348.0 35,846 103 181,040 520 623 not ratedBose 399.2 41,398 103 149,420 374 477 64.2Brass 429.2 44,529 103 249,240 581 684 61.3Forest Park 455.8 47,110 103 148,800 326 429 69.3Frank 456.6 47,311 103 280,522 614 717 59.9Grant 260.2 27,242 104 119,040 457 561 61.6Grewenow 369.6 38,401 103 150,040 406 509 68.1Harvey 299.8 31,239 104 96,720 323 427 67.2Jefferson 276.8 28,912 104 146,320 529 633 64.1McKinley 318.4 33,157 104 176,700 555 659 57.9Roosevelt 430.4 44,577 103 146,940 341 444 75.2Southport 439.8 45,520 103 155,000 352 455 69.3Stocker 496.8 51,453 103 157,480 317 420 67.8Strange 488.8 50,614 103 246,760 505 608 62.1Vernon 367.6 38,175 103 166,160 452 555 68.2Wilson 197.6 20,873 105 110,716 560 665 60.1

Average $103 $457 $441


Exhibit 5.1.8 (continued)Per Pupil Allocations by CampusKenosha Unified School District

FY 2013

LocationAdjusted

Enroll for Alloc

Total FY13 Fund 10

Site Budget

Per Pupil Alloc

Fund 10

FY13 Title I Budget

Per Pupil Alloc Title I

Fund 10 Plus Title

I Per Pupil Total

2011-12 WKCE & WAA-SwD Test Results

Middle SchoolLance 1060 182,341 172 n/a n/a 172 69.5Mahone 1188 203,947 171 n/a n/a 171 70Bullen 874 150,944 172 318,680 365 537 67.2Lincoln 779 134,908 173 386,260 496 669 64.7Washington 620 108,069 174 294,500 475 649 64.6

Average $172 $445 $439 High SchoolLakeview 421 86,585 205 n/a n/a 205 80.1Tremper 1819 347,256 190 n/a n/a 190 60.4Indian Trail 1911 364,410 190 388,120 203 393 58Bradford 1645 314,812 191 386,880 235 426 59.1Reuther 450 91,992 204 131,440 292 496 not rated

Average $196 $243 $342 OtherBrompton 199 1,569,094 7,884 n/a n/a 7,884 80.1Dimensions of Learning 226 1,781,986 7,884 n/a n/a 7,884 78.2

KTEC 453.8 3,682,246 8,114 n/a n/a 8,114 76.74K Program 246 155,262 631 n/a n/a 631 not ratedE-School 175 1,379,857 7,884 n/a n/a 7,884 not ratedHarborside 606 4,778,247 7,884 113,460 187 8,071 71.9Hillcrest 75 14,948 199 37,820 504 703 not rated

Average $5,783 $346 $5,882 Note: 1)Fund 10 Site Budget includes: Total Unrestricted Pupil Allocation, Student Fees, & Total Building Related only; it does not include: Police Supervisor, Misc. Fund 10 Adjustment, Reductions Due to Prior Yr. Overages, PT Library Clerk, Sp Ed Teacher Units, Supplies per Teacher Unit, or CDS Funds. 2)Title I Budget figures are basic allocations and do not include supplemental Title I funds. Source: (Adopted) FY13 School Operations Allocations; School Line Item Detail FY13 Adopted All Funds; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website (WKCE & WAA-SwD)


• Elementary:

○ Bain Creative Arts had the lowest general fund per pupil allocation at $102 and Wilson had the highest at $105.

○ The average general fund per pupil allocation was $103.

○ Six of 23 campuses (Pleasant Prairie, Prairie Lane, Somers, Whittier, Jeffery, and Nash) receive no Title I funds. Of the 17 campuses that receive Title I funding, Stocker had the lowest Title I per pupil allocation at $317 and Frank had the highest at $614, a range of $297.

○ The average Title I fund per pupil allocation for the 17 designated elementary campuses was $457.


○ When general funds and Title I funds are combined, the six non-Title I campuses receive $103 per pupil as compared to Frank, which receives a total of $717 per pupil.

○ Prairie Lane, which has a per pupil allocation of $103, had the highest 2011-12 WKCE score at 81.8, while McKinley, which receives $659 per pupil, had the lowest score at 57.9.

• Middle School:

○ Mahone had the lowest general fund per pupil allocation at $171 and Washington had the highest at $174.


○ Two of five campuses (Lance and Mahone) receive no Title I funds. Of the three campuses that receive Title I funding, Bullen had the lowest Title I per pupil allocation at $365, and Lincoln had the highest at $496, a range of $131.

○ The average Title I fund per pupil allocation for the three designated middle school campuses was $445.

○ When general funds and Title I funds are combined, the two non-Title I campuses receive about $171 per pupil as compared to Lincoln, which receives a total of $669 per pupil.

○ Mahone, which has a per pupil allocation of $171, had the highest 2011-12 WKCE score at 70, while Washington, which receives $649 per pupil, had the lowest score at 64.6.

• High School:

○ Indian Trail and Tremper had the lowest general fund per pupil allocations at $190, and Lakeview had the highest at $205.


○ Two of the five campuses (Lakeview and Tremper) receive no Title I funds. Of the three campuses that receive Title I funding, Indian Trail had the lowest Title I per pupil allocation at $203, and Reuther had the highest at $292, a range of $89.

○ The average Title I fund per pupil allocation for the three designated high school campuses was $243.

○ When general funds and Title I funds are combined, the two non-Title I campuses receive about $205 and $190, respectively per pupil, as compared to Reuther, which receives a total of $496 per pupil.

○ Lakeview, which has a per pupil allocation of $205, had the highest 2011-12 WKCE score at 80.1, while Indian Trail, which receives $393 per pupil, had the lowest score at 58. Reuther, which had an overall per pupil allocation of $496, was not rated for 2011-12.

• Schools listed under the “Other” operate under different funding formulas determined by the type of school (charter, pre-kindergarten, alternative).

Other than a Title I designation, auditors were unable to find any budgeting criteria that would explain the differences among schools in per pupil budget allocations. While 25 of the 40 campuses in the Kenosha Unified School District receive additional per pupil funds through Title I there is no discernible correlation between per pupil budget allocations and student achievement. For additional data related to funding of instructional technology and allocations of local and Title I dollars, see Finding 3.4.

Auditors conducted interviews with board members, district and site administrators, teachers, parents, and other community members to obtain data regarding the budget development process, the involvement of stakeholders in the process, the method and procedures for disbursing the district’s financial resources, and the impact of budget decisions on district planning and operations. Auditors repeatedly heard during interviews that Kenosha Unified School District had a $58-60 million deficit. As noted in Exhibits 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3, spending has


exceeded revenues, and fund balances have remained below minimums established by administrative rule . The following comments were noted in the interviews:

• “The public is having difficulty separating the Transformation Plan from the budget reductions.” (District Administrator)

• “We scrubbed the budgets and looked at differences between actual expenditures and budgeted. We have implemented a variety of operations options to reduce costs—vendor reductions, use of multi-function machines. We’ve looked at restructuring support services.” (District Administrator)

• “Our total operational reserves are below 8 percent. Board policy says a minimum of 15 percent.” (District Administrator)

• “Previously, things were not a tightly run ship. There is now better control of dollars coming into and going out of this district.” (District Administrator)

• “The focus now is saving money and putting teachers back into classrooms. There is a breakdown in understanding school finance. The board didn’t adopt budget assumptions until just recently. Board members disagree on how much of fund balance to maintain. The board doesn’t formally approve spending unreserved undesignated fund balances.” (Board Member)

• “We have a $58 million budget gap over two years due to state budget reductions.” (District Administrator)

• “We spent time trying to figure out the district’s finances. The district was using fund balance to support the budget.” (District Administrator)

• “Part of the budget reduction process evaluated district space. Several of the charters were renting space from faith-based institutions. Now they are renting space within the district.” (District Administrator)

• “This is a tough financial period for us. State funding and our enrollment not increasing; and stimulus money went away.” (District Administrator)

• “While there was no money and we made cuts, we found out that consultants were hired. One contract was $200,000 and another was over $300,000. By the time we knew, $1.4 million was spent.” (Board Member)

• “Multi-age classes came about as a result of the funding issues.” (District Administrator)

• “Budget reductions have been huge. Losing $60 million has stressed our schools and secondary schools have been hit really hard. We maintained all our programs despite the cuts, but we have higher class sizes.” (District Administrator)

The following comments are related to funding allocations and the use of district monies:

• “I receive no Title I money, and little district discretionary funding. We use PTA fundraisers to help.” (Site Administrator)

• “Resources at the middle school are not close to the resources available at the high school.” (Site Administrator)

• “Our PTA does a lot of fundraising, sponsors a craft fair to help us out.” (District Parent)

• “Charters are funded at 80 percent of state per pupil revenue times enrollment.” (District Administrator)

• “Title I funds are the only funds used to support schools with high concentrations of poverty.” (District Administrator)

• “The board has not addressed the funding at this time. I think they would find this challenging and it is an equity issue.” (District Administrator)


Summary

Kenosha Unified School District has ongoing financial issues related to revenues, expenditures, and fund balance. Expenditures have exceeded revenues for a period of five years (FY 2008-2012). During the same period, unassigned fund balances have remained below levels required by board rules, putting the district in a financial position that does not allow for emergencies or unforeseen changes that may occur. Measures have been taken to reduce expenditures through school closures and reduction in personnel. Board policy does not speak to student achievement in relationship to budget planning and use of district dollars. Resource allocations are not driven by curricular goals, achievement need, or cost-benefit analyses of programs and services. Per pupil allocations vary greatly depending upon designation as a Title I or non-Title I campus; however, there is no indication that more funds translate to improved student achievement (see Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8).

Multiage classrooms have been implemented in Kenosha Unified School District elementary classrooms. Posters clarifying the difference between multiage

classrooms and split classrooms have been posted in district schools.

Finding 5.2: The majority of district facilities are well maintained and adequate to support the district’s educational programs. There is no formal, multi-year facilities plan in place to inform and guide planning and funding of facility improvement projects.

The physical environment of a school is an important indicator of the educational staff’s ability to deliver the curriculum effectively. Facilities that are well-maintained and clean create a learning environment that supports and promotes the delivery of the overall instructional program. In addition to the overall condition of facilities, equipment, fixtures, and grounds, the availability of adequate space to deliver instructional programs also impacts the effectiveness of curriculum delivery. Comprehensive facilities assessment and planning, including regular monitoring and reporting on the execution of the plan, provide direction and set priorities for district capital improvements and allow for annual plan revision and alignment with the budget allocation process.

Auditors visited all schools and classrooms where instruction was occurring to gather information concerning the learning environment. In addition, non-instructional areas that impact instructional climate and school safety were viewed as well. District policies, job descriptions, and other documents related to facilities and grounds were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with board members, staff, parents, and community members to obtain additional information about the impact of facilities on teaching and learning.


The auditors found that the majority of facilities in the Kenosha Unified School District are well-maintained and that response to concerns and problems regarding facilities is prompt, with effective remediation forthcoming. The auditors also found adequate space to facilitate a positive learning environment for students. However, a comprehensive long-term facilities plan is not in place to ensure that the district is prepared financially for the task of maintaining the quality of the existing facilities and the possibility of future construction, renovation, or consolidation of campuses.

The Kenosha Unified School District School Board has established policies that describe board expectations and assign responsibility for the district property and facilities. The following policies address these expectations and responsibilities:

• Rule 3110: Annual Operating Budget states, “All major maintenance projects, shall be submitted to the School board in priority order for approval. Any subsequent changes to the ranking of priorities must be communicated to the Board in writing and approved by a majority vote of the Board before any work begins except emergency maintenance conditions which may endanger persons, land, physical plan or equipment. Emergency maintenance may be carried out with the approval of the Director of Facilities and timely reporting to the Board at the next regular School Board meeting.”

• Board Policy 3113: Fiscal Impact Statement states, “The District annually prepares and approves annual operating, capital improvement, special projects and grant budgets.”

• Board Policy 3600: School Safety notes, “The Director of Facilities/designee shall serve as District Safety Coordinator and coordinate all activities related to the safe and health of school facilities.”

• Board Policy 3700: Facilities Management states that “The Director of Facilities shall be responsible for the operation of District facilities and the supervision of the custodial staff.”

• Board Policy 3710: Facilities Maintenance directs, “Facilities maintenance shall include annual and long-range programs as well as emergency procedures.”

• Board Policy 3711: Improvement of Maintenance Projects states, “A Major Maintenance Projects List shall be developed annually by the Department of Facilities Services. This list shall be reviewed by the Superintendent of Schools and/or designee for adherence or compliance with the District’s Strategic Plan and Goals. This list, with estimated costs, shall be presented to the School Board’s Planning, Facilities and Equipment committee for review and comment and then to the Board no later than April 1st of each year.”

• Board Policy 7200: Facilities Planning states, “School facilities should provide an environment for effective educational development for all students for a diverse student population. Long range plans should exist that provide a basis for meeting District facilities needs in an orderly manner and making school facilities available at the time and in the place needed. Planning of school facilities will be consistent with the best acceptable current methods for the practical implementation of educational programs. Educational, diversity and community needs shall be considered in the planning of school facilities.”

• Rule 7200: Facilities Planning specifically addresses a long-range plan: “A. Long-Range Planning - 1. The Superintendent of Schools or designee shall establish a Long-Range Facilities Planning Committee for the purpose of developing a five-year plan that will be reviewed annually to determine long-range district facility needs and be presented to the School board periodically as directed by the School Board. 2. A comprehensive long-range facilities plan should consider several factors, including the following: a. The educational program to be offered. b. The number and location of individuals to be served by the school system. c. The space needs required beyond existing facilities. d. The financial implications to the community. e. The organization of attendance units. f. The geographic and demographic characteristics of the District. g. The adequacy of existing facilities to meet program needs. h. The minority/majority of populations within the attendance area.”


• Board Policy 7210: Forecasting Enrollments notes, “Enrollment forecasts…shall be used in planning school facilities and in making decisions…”

• Board Policy 7320: Consultant Services states, “Consultant services may be used to assist the district staff in development of major construction, additions or remodeling programs consistent with School Board policy and approved budget.”

• Board Policy 8850: School Board Committees notes, “The School Board believes committees can be useful in the decision-making process and in the conducting of Board business. By using a Board committee structure, the Board is able to conduct its business in an efficient and effective manner, study issues facing the District more in depth, and take more ownership in things happening in the District. The Board shall have four standing committees… (3) Planning, Facilities and Equipment. Each standing committee shall consist of three Board members. The function of all Board committees should be fact-finding, deliberating and advising, but not legislating or policymaking. The Planning, Facilities and Equipment Committee has the following duties: assist in the preparation and updating of the District’s five-year capital improvement budget, work with community groups to develop a financial plan to accommodate the implementation of the District’s physical plan plans…”

Kenosha Unified School board policy specifically requires a comprehensive long-range facilities plan based on educational, financial, community, and demographic factors. Policy defines “long-range” as five years. In addition to board policies, two district job descriptions contain specific duties and responsibilities pertaining to facilities as noted below:

• Superintendent (Draft): “Develop and recommend to the Board long-range plans consistent with population trends, cultural needs, and the appropriate use of District facilities, and see to the development of long-range plans which are consistent with board objectives.”

• Director of Facilities Services: “Assume the leadership role for the District’s facilities and engineering activities. Anticipate problems and be creative and resourceful in creating solutions to those problems. Lead and direct the operation and maintenance (daily and major) of school District facilities and assist the Superintendent in the planning and designing of new and remodeled school facilities. Plan and manage the District’s 5-year major maintenance and capital improvement plan. Develop and plan for immediate and long range building and site needs.”

Job descriptions again specify a long-range facilities plan that is consistent with board policy in defining “long-range” as five years.

An expectation of the audit is that a district has a comprehensive facilities plan in place to guide the maintenance and improvement of district facilities over time to ensure an appropriate environment for student learning. The Kenosha Unified School District Facilities Department sets high expectation for employees working with the district’s Facilities Services Department. These expectations are reinforced through the Facilities Services Department Work Rules and Procedures (2007) manual, which states, “The Facilities Services employee is entrusted with what is usually a community’s largest single investment – its school facilities. However, the responsibility does not stop with the care of the physical facility. It also includes the safety, health and comfort of all persons who use this facility.” The Facilities Services Department Work Rules and Procedures manual, however, does not contain all the necessary components of a comprehensive long-range facilities plan but rather serves as an employee handbook for job requirements within the department.

Auditors used eight criteria to assess the quality of the Kenosha Unified School District’s facility planning efforts. Auditors examined district facility planning documents; interviewed district administrators, faculty, and board members; and conducted site visits to all school campuses to determine the adequacy of the district’s facilities planning efforts. Exhibits 5.2.1 lists the components associated with quality facilities planning along with the auditors’ assessment. An “X” in the “Adequate” column indicates that the characteristic was met and a score of one point was assigned. “Partial” indicates that not all parts of a characteristic were present and the characteristic is considered inadequate. An “X” in the “Inadequate” column indicates that the characteristic was not met and no points were assigned.


Exhibit 5.2.1

Comparison of Facilities Planning Efforts to Components of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities Plan


Components of a Comprehensive Long-Range Facilities PlanAuditors’ Rating

Adequate Inadequate1. Philosophical statements that reflect community aspirations and the

educational mission of the district and their relationship to short- and long-range facilities goals

X

2. Enrollment projections that take into account any known circumstances that may change the pupil population X

3. The current organizational patterns of the district and identification of possible organizational changes necessary to support the educational program

Partial

4. Identification of educational programs considered by designers of capital projects for renovation or addition of school facilities X

5. A detailed evaluation of each facility, including assessment of structural integrity, mechanical integrity and efficiency, energy efficiency, operations and maintenance, and health and safety requirements

X

6. Prioritization of needs for renovation of existing facilities and the provision of additional facilities X

7. Cost analysis of potential capital projects to meet the educational needs of the district, including identification of revenues associated with capital construction

X

8. Procedures for the involvement of all stakeholders of the school community in the development and evaluation of the long-range facilities plan X

Total 4 5Percentage of Adequacy 37.5%

Partial ratings are considered inadequate.

As can be noted in Exhibit 5.2.1, district facilities planning did not include all eight components considered a necessary part of comprehensive long-range facilities planning. Facilities planning efforts in the Kenosha Unified School District met three of the eight criteria and partially met one criteria for a 37.5 percent adequacy. To be consider adequate, district facility planning efforts needed to meet at least five of the eight components. The following provides a brief discussion of each criterion and auditor assessment of associated district plan components.

Criterion 1 – Philosophical Statement

This criterion was rated adequate. The introduction portion of the Facilities Services Department Work Rules and Procedures (2007) states, “The environment in which students learn is very important in helping to achieve the highest possible levels. Research has identified the importance of a clean, safe, and orderly environment on the achievement levels of students. Clean, safe, and orderly environments are necessary for high levels of student academic achievement. Expecting students to perform to their highest levels is not possible in a building that is dirty and not maintained properly. High performance must permeate the entire organization, including the Facilities Services staff.”


Criterion 2 – Enrollment Projections

This criterion was rated adequate. The district staff maintains detailed records of student enrollment trends, as noted in annual budget documents. Board Policy 7210 requires that the Department of Educational Accountability forecast enrollment for facilities planning and share with the school board annually.

Criterion 3 – Educational Program Support

This criterion was rated partially adequate. Planning documents reviewed by the auditors did not include a review of organizational patterns or contingency planning for modification of patterns based on district need. The Updated Elementary Capacities (2013) chart maintained by the Facilities Department looks at classroom space with less than 700 square feet and classroom space greater than 700 square feet to determine available space on each campus. Dedicated special education classroom availability is also included, as are smaller resource classrooms and book storage rooms. In an interview with district administrators, it was noted that when schools were considered for closure due to financial constraints, classroom availability was considered as one criterion for closure. Age and overall condition of buildings were additional criteria noted. However, no detailed documentation was provided to support the decisions.

Criterion 4 – Educational Programs Needs

This criterion was rated inadequate. Although the district employs a full-time architect to facilitate the renovations and alterations to district facilities, auditors were not presented with documentation to support education specifications and how they are utilized to support programmatic changes that meet the needs of students.

Criterion 5 – Facility Needs Assessment

This criterion was rated adequate. The Facilities Department maintains detailed specifications related to all district facilities. A Building Envelope Management Database maintains records on each building within the district related to mechanical systems, roofs, electrical, and plumbing needs.

Criterion 6 – Renovation and New Construction

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors were not presented with plan components that address criteria for renovations or new construction. Auditors received a capital projects plan for 2011-12 that listed projects and repairs for one year. The plan listed capacity projects related to three campuses with an estimated cost but did not look beyond the current year, nor were priorities established.

Criterion 7 – Capital Cost Analysis

This criterion was rated inadequate. Costs associated with various maintenance projects were included in the capital projects plan for 2011-12. In previous years, revenues for capital projects came primarily from long-term bonds. In FY 2012 and 2013, revenue is from miscellaneous revenue. Due to district financial constraints, “the capital budget was cut to a minimal amount,” as noted in a memo dated May 2, 2013, and shared with auditors. The audited budget for FY 2012 was $4.4M, while the adopted budget for FY 2013 was $217,156. A multi-year plan with project costs and revenue sources was not provided to the auditors.

Criterion 8 – Stakeholder Involvement

This criterion was rated inadequate. Auditors were not presented with documentation related to stakeholder involvement. However, the district website provided access to minutes of the Planning, Facilities, and Equipment Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Kenosha Unified School District School Board.

Collectively, the facilities planning documents shared with the auditors did not meet the level of adequacy set forth by the eight criteria noted above. The auditors found, however, that the district has a philosophical statement related to facilities that supports improved student achievement. They also found that the district maintains records related to enrollment trends and projections to plan for future facility needs. And, the district maintains detailed assessments of each facility within the district.


Kenosha Technology Enhanced Curriculum School, which is leased from the City of Kenosha, is the oldest school building in Kenosha.

One purpose for the development of a comprehensive facilities plan is to analyze data related to district and building enrollment along with building capacity to plan for overages of capacity of some campuses and under-utilization of others. Building capacity is also important to ensure the district is utilizing financial resources in the most economical manner possible to achieve the desired academic outcomes for students. In the past year, Kenosha Unified School District closed an elementary campus and a middle school campus in part due to budgetary limitations. Auditors examined district enrollment figures and building enrollment and capacities to determine if school facilities are adequate to house district programs and student enrollment, in a limited financial climate. Finding 5.1, Exhibit 5.1.4 gives details of district enrollment from 2007-2013.

An Updated Elementary Capacities (2013) chart was provided to auditors. The data indicate there are 90 available or open elementary classrooms across the district, with only two elementary schools having no available classrooms. A memo attached to the chart stated that updated middle school and high school charts were not available to share with auditors. Campus enrollment and building capacity data are included in Exhibit 5.2.2.

Exhibit 5.2.2

Student Enrollment and Building CapacityKenosha Unified School District

May 2013

Building Enrollment Capacity Percent of Capacity

High SchoolsBradford 1,641 1,992 82.4 Indian Trail 1,903 2,500 76.1 Lakeview 421 400 105.3 Reuther-445/Harborside -603 1,048 695 150.8 Tremper 1,797 2,147 83.7

Total High School 6,810 7,734 99.6%Middle Schools

Bullen 873 825 105.8 Lance 1,059 1,010 104.9 Lincoln 778 945 82.3 Mahone 1,183 1,035 114.3 Washington 620 775 80.0

Total Middle School 4,513 4,590 97.5%


Exhibit 5.2.2 (continued)Student Enrollment and Building Capacity


Building Enrollment Capacity Percent of Capacity

Elementary SchoolsBose 419 507 82.6 Brass 441 659 66.9 Cesar Chavez 164 250 65.6 Curtis Strange 502 583 86.1 Edward Bain 874 1,089 80.3 Forest Park 472 507 93.1 Frank 469 659 71.2 Grant 270 329 82.1 Grewenow 383 405 94.6 Harvey 310 481 64.4 Jefferson 287 405 70.9 Jeffery 335 481 69.6 McKinley 331 405 81.7 Nash 641 684 93.7 Pleasant Prairie 596 684 87.1 Prairie Lane 496 608 81.6 Roosevelt 442 481 91.9 Somers 450 659 68.3 Southport 453 633 71.6 Stocker 512 684 74.9 Vernon-382/Brompton-199 581 785 74.0 Whittier 444 709 62.6 Wilson 211 380 55.5

Total Elementary School 10,083 13,067 77.0%Charter SchoolsBrompton 199 see Vernon Dimensions of Learning 226 200 113.0Harborside/Paideia 603 see Ruether Kenosha eSchool (leased facility) 136 no data KTEC (leased facility) 466 441 105.7

Total Charter School 1,630 641 109.3%District Total 23,036 26,032 86.1%

Source: September 3rd Friday Enrollment 2012-13; Adopted 2012-2013 Budget, October 2012


• Overall district building capacity was determined to be 86.1 percent. This does not include buildings where data was not available, as noted.

• High schools have the highest level of capacity at 99.6 percent, followed by middle schools at 97.5 percent, then elementary schools at 77 percent.


• Disparate ranges of capacity are evident at all levels of district classroom buildings. Capacities at high school range from 76.1 percent to 150.8 percent, middle schools from 80 percent to 114.3 percent, and elementary schools from 55.5 percent to 94.6 percent.

• Reuther High School also houses Harborside Charter School and is at 150 percent of capacity.

• Seven schools are over 100 percent of capacity.

• Seven schools are below 70 percent of capacity, all at the elementary level.

Interviews with board members, district personnel, parents, and community members yielded the following comments related to district facilities:

• “Facilities are in pretty good shape and well-maintained.” (Site Administrator)

• “Buildings in these schools are gorgeous. Facilities are outstanding. They are in good shape.” (District Administrator)

• “Many school districts have what are referred to as 5- or 10-year capital plans. For many of those districts the 5-year plan is a stand-alone document that may or may not be updated annually. I think that process works fine especially for small school districts. Our process is a series of living documents for the various building components...” (District Administrator)

• “In the late summer and early fall, we review the highest priority projects in all areas (building components) to develop the proposed capital plan for the coming year.” (District Administrator)

• “The Facilities Department does a good job of keeping up with the age of our building.” (Site Administrator)

Summary

Overall, the auditors found that the majority of the facilities in the Kenosha Unified School District are well-maintained. The auditors also found adequate space to facilitate a positive learning environment for students at the current level of enrollment. Elementary campuses have more room for growth than the middle schools or high schools. The auditors, however, did not find a comprehensive long-term facilities plan to assist the district in maintaining the quality of the current facilities and planning the need for possible future construction, renovation, or consolidation of campuses (see Recommendations 2, 3, and 8).

School buildings in the Kenosha Unified School District were found to be generally well maintained. The media center at Nash Elementary School displays a Nash automobile, which was produced in Kenosha.


IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSI CURRICULUM AUDIT™ TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE KENOSHA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTBased 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 findings shown under each of the standards of the audit.

In the case of the findings, they have been triangulated, i.e., corroborated with one another. In the case of the recommendations, those put forth in this section are representative of the auditors’ best professional judgments regarding how to address the problems that surfaced in the audit.

The recommendations are presented in the order of their criticality for initiating system-wide improvements. The recommendations also recognize and differentiate between the policy and monitoring responsibilities of the board of education, and the operational and administrative duties of the superintendent of schools.

Where the PDK-CMSi audit team views a problem as wholly or partly a policy and monitoring matter, the recommendations are formulated for the board of education. Where the problem is distinctly an operational or administrative matter, the recommendations are directed to the superintendent of schools as the chief executive officer of the school system. In many cases, the PDK-CMSi audit team directs recommendations to both the board and the superintendent, because it is clear that policy and operations are related, and both entities are involved in a proposed change. In some cases, there are no recommendations to the superintendent when only policy is involved or none to the board when the recommendations deal only with administration.

Audit recommendations are presented as follows: The overarching goals for the board and/or the superintendent, followed by the specific objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.”

Recommendation 1: Develop a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan that addresses the findings and recommendations contained in the Curriculum Audit™ report. Align district decision and actions toward closing gaps identified in the audit findings.

A school district served by district leaders that is committed to academic excellence and has high expectations for the achievement of all students develops a shared vision that is consistently communicated through the actions and practices of the organization and through the results achieved. Effective planning is essential for focusing and organizing district efforts toward achieving its goals. Comprehensive planning benefits students by increasing the probability that effective programs, practices, and resources will be available at every level of the school district. A school district committed to academic excellence systematically collects and analyzes student achievement data at the classroom, grade, department, building, and district level; identifies gaps between current and desired performance; identifies possible strategies to enhance teaching practices; and then organizes interventions to close any performance gaps. While many innovations work for some groups of students, and may be preferred by teachers, ultimately district staff and leadership must determine if the instruction, programs, and services of the school district are making a difference. Ensuring that all students are provided appropriate opportunities to learn and are achieving at desired levels is critical and requires school districts to be thoughtful about how they engage students and the expectations held for their success. Responsibility within a successful school district is discharged through numerous short- and long-term plans and actions including curriculum development, professional development, instruction, and student assessment.

The mission, goals, and belief statements adopted by the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education communicate an expectation that all students are to achieve at high levels. The district’s organizational system of policies, role definitions, plans, programs, and interventions is inadequate in design and implementation to ensure alignment of district decisions and establish a system-wide focus on improving student achievement over time. Approaches to curriculum design, student assessment, and professional development lack many of the components necessary to ensure that student achievement is predicated on appropriate opportunities for all students to learn (see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).


The leadership of the Kenosha Unified School District has commissioned and received a Curriculum Audit™. The audit report represents a detailed examination of the design and delivery of the K-12 curriculum and the results achieved in terms of student achievement. The audit report contains specific recommendations for actions that district leadership can take to ameliorate conditions outlined in the findings and to improve curriculum design and delivery. Without a plan to synthesize the audit findings and recommendations into a coherent plan of action, district leadership assumes the increased likelihood of failed implementation, and the inefficient use of limited district resources. It is recommended that within six months of receiving this second Curriculum Audit™ report, the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education take steps to ensure development of a cohesive set of multi-year plans, aligned with board goals, which are coordinated to focus the resources of the district in accomplishing identified priorities.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education:

G.1.1: Direct the superintendent to develop a five-year plan that addresses the findings and recommendations included in the Curriculum Audit™ and that focuses and aligns organizational efforts, at all levels including classroom, department, grade level, building, and district, toward achieving the student learning goals established by the board. The audit findings and recommendations represent significant organizational change that will require time to implement and incorporate into the school district’s organizational culture.

G.1.2: Direct the superintendent to present to the board annually an operational budget that includes the resources necessary to implement the five-year implementation plan directed in Action G.1.1.

G.1.3: Appropriate the resources necessary for the superintendent to carry out the five-year implementation plan. If the board is unable to appropriate the resources requested, direct the superintendent to modify the implementation plan by extending the timelines so the plan can be accomplished within the available resources.

G.1.4: Assess board practices and actions and use the results to revise, as necessary, board governance policies (8000 Series-Internal Board Operations) to ensure they clearly define the role and responsibilities of the board regarding district governance, policy development, operational oversight, relations with the superintendent, public engagement, community relations, and advocacy of public education.

G.1.5: Review the Transformation Plan to ensure the stated mission (purpose), vision (short-term desired results), core values (drivers of action), and strategic directions (focus of time and resources) still present a compelling direction for the Kenosha Unified School District to guide decision making, resource allocation, and the collective energy of the organization to ameliorate discrepancies between current and desired results (see Recommendation 2). Before finalizing any revisions to the Transformation Plan, direct the superintendent to connect transformation goals and principles with current research regarding student learning and equity in educational outcomes and describe what each transformation principle and goal would look like when operationalized in individual classrooms, schools, and the district.

G.1.6: Incorporate into the board’s annual goals, goals directly related to the implementation of the superintendent’s multi-year plan for addressing the findings and recommendations contained in the Curriculum Audit™ report. Require the superintendent to report every six months on the progress made in addressing the audit findings and recommendations specifically in terms of changes in organizational and professional practices.

G.1.7: Direct the superintendent to assist the board in developing a clear, concise, comprehensive policy framework that includes the following:

• Policies that delegate through the superintendent the operation of the school district and describe desired results. Policies should not be too prescriptive or detailed such that they invite micromanagement or blur the lines between the roles of the board and the superintendent.

• Policies that define the board’s expectations in terms of organizational design, planning, curriculum design and content, system accountability, and program interventions.

• Policies that describe the procedures the board expects to be used in the operations of the school district. These policies may also define the limits of authority granted to the superintendent.


• A requirement that all key district functions, programs, and interventions be evaluated at designated intervals to ensure the school district is achieving the results desired by the board.

G.1.8: Direct the superintendent to develop administrative regulations or guidelines that provide detailed direction for how board policies will be carried out and implemented.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Kenosha Unified School District Superintendent:

A.1.1: Develop a five-year plan (as referenced in Action G.1.1) that addresses the findings and recommendations included in the Curriculum Audit™ report. The five-year implementation plan should describe desired results, contain explicit statements of action, establish specific timelines, assign roles and responsibilities, and include a detailed listing of the resources that will be required to accomplish each action step.

A.1.2: Assist the board in reviewing, and if necessary, revising, the Transformation Plan to ensure that the stated mission, vision, core values, and strategic directions present a compelling direction for the Kenosha Unified School District. Assist the board in connecting the transformation principles and goals with current educational research regarding student learning and equity in educational outcomes, and describe what each transformation principle and goal would look like when operationalized in individual classrooms, schools, and the district.

A.1.3: Assist the board in developing a clear, concise, comprehensive policy framework using the audit findings as a guide (see Recommendation 3).

A.1.4: For critical policies, develop comprehensive administrative regulations that clearly describe how board policies will be implemented. Incorporate into administrative regulations all of the characteristics displayed in Exhibits 1.3.2 through 1.3.6 of the Curriculum Audit™ report to ensure administrative regulations are capable of clearly communicating district operational procedures and practices.

A.1.5: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum and assessment plan to ensure maximum student achievement. The purpose of a cohesive and comprehensive curriculum management plan is to establish a systematic process for curriculum development in all areas, to coordinate supporting functions for overall efficiency and effectiveness, and to devise a process to monitor and ensure revisions of the curriculum that will lead to improved student achievement. Such a plan brings order to the development of a comprehensive, aligned curriculum and provides the district with a framework to manage the design and delivery of the curriculum. A comprehensive plan is critical to the effectiveness of a learning organization and to the quality of the teaching-learning process (see Recommendation 5 and 6).

A.1.6: Revise and implement a comprehensive professional development plan that is designed on the basis of clearly identified curriculum, assessment, student achievement, and job performance needs. A professional development plan should establish a clear focus on student learning and the improvement of student achievement. A comprehensive professional development plan and a related action plan are necessary if the school district is to eliminate student achievement gaps and improve academic achievement for all students. It is imperative that the professional development plan build the capacity of teachers to effectively teach students representing a variety of cultures, races, and economic conditions. The professional development plan should help teachers examine their own cultural values, develop an understanding of the values of others, and apply what they learn about cultural differences to the improvement of classroom practices. The professional development plan also must anticipate and take into account the needs of teachers as they move to integrate different practices and innovations within their individual classrooms (see Recommendation 7).

A.1.7: Develop and implement a comprehensive set of job descriptions that ensure the work of key positions is aligned with the design, delivery, and monitoring of curriculum. Revise the job description for building principals clearly establishing their role as instructional leaders (see Recommendation 4). Include in the listing of job responsibilities the following:

• Define and articulate for faculty, staff, students, and the community the school district’s educational philosophy, mission, values, core beliefs, and goals.


• Through participation in district curriculum development training, develop a thorough understanding of the district’s curriculum. Systematically monitor the delivery of the written curriculum and engage faculty in ongoing discussions about instructional decisions and their impact on student achievement.

• Systematically assess and monitor student progress using a variety of formative and summative measures. Use student assessment data to identify performance gaps and to inform decisions regarding the design and implementation of instructional interventions.

• Develop building level professional development plans that address specific building level needs and are aligned and coordinated with the district’s professional development plan and goals. Monitor individual professional development plans and monitor the demonstration of successful instructional strategies in the classroom.

• In conjunction with building faculty, and based on student achievement data, develop school improvement plans that are researched-based, aligned with district goals, and focus building resources toward ensuring all students achieve at high levels. Monitor building improvement plans based on the impact on student achievement.

A.1.8: Provide building principals, key district leaders, and curriculum coordinators with training, coaching, and support in their roles as instructional leaders. Include in their training the following content:

• Curriculum alignment,

• Deep curriculum alignment,

• Curriculum management,

• Data disaggregation,

• Textbook/resources/student artifact calibration,

• Curriculum monitoring,

• Reflective conferences,

• Increasing academic learning time,

• Effective instructional methods,

• School planning for change interventions, and

• Increasing teacher and student engagement rates.

A.1.9: To gain clarity on what needs to be accomplished in order to achieve the board’s vision, collect accurate, detailed data and use analysis of the data to determine the status of the school district in terms of the board’s transformational principles and strategic directions. Specifically, examine the effectiveness of district interventions that have been implemented to improve student achievement. Terminate those interventions that, within a three-year period, have failed to achieve their original goals. Identify interventions that will most likely close the achievement gaps, particular among minority and low income students. It is not necessarily the number of innovations that is important but rather the targeted linkage between the interventions and system goals.

A.1.10: Develop and implement a plan for providing parents with the support and training they need in order to effectively support their children in acquiring the district’s curriculum. Include the following components in a plan for parent involvement:

• Draft, for board consideration, a policy that requires the development of purposeful parental involvement.

• Make parent involvement a district-wide and school-wide priority by assigning at least one person in each school the responsibility for coordinating and supporting parent involvement efforts.

• Identify and address barriers to effective parental involvement.


• Work with community agencies and businesses to provide services and supports to families.

• Provide a range of organizations and opportunities for parents to participate actively in school decisions.

• Provide training and a variety of opportunities for parents to support student and school progress.

• Establish effective school-to-home and home-to-school communications.

• Assist families in understanding child development, and assist schools in understanding families.

A.1.11: Develop a communications plan for communicating district program and results in addressing the findings and recommendations of the Curriculum Audit™ report. Address in the communications plan:

• Modes of communications, including use of the district website and social media;

• Communicating in multiple languages to include second language families or families that are not fluent in English; and

• Staff communications so district priorities and efforts are clear.

These recommendations, if implemented, should provide district staff with the means to address the findings contained in the Curriculum Audit™ report while focusing all district efforts toward achieving equity in student achievement outcomes.

Recommendation 2: Ensure clarity through consistent district planning. Develop cohesive written plan documents that meet audit criteria and are communicated to all stakeholders. Use system performance data to identify gaps between the current status and desired outcomes.

Effective planning is essential for focusing and organizing district resources to meet changing student needs. Long-range planning provides a systemic means to sustain constancy of purpose as a district works towards achieving its goals. Comprehensive planning increases the probability that effective programs, practices, and facilities will be available to students regardless of growth, economic changes, and other effects of community evolution.

The auditors found that while planning does take place in the Kenosha Unified School District, current efforts are inadequate to fully achieve the intended effects of planning—focusing the district’s attention, energy, and resources toward achieving the stated mission: “To assure every child experiences high quality, personalized learning success.” Planning across the system lacks connectivity, is not consistently implemented, and varies in format. The quality of school and departmental plans varies. Typically, annual school plans have been developed as a response to funding requirements and, more recently, the district Transformation Plan. Other departmental plans have been developed but not fully implemented. These plans lack key elements needed to provide clear direction for organization efforts, to ensure connectivity across the system, and to provide a cohesive focus for the achievement of system priorities (see Finding 1.1).

Comprehensive plans are missing in the areas of curriculum management (see Finding 2.1), professional development (see Finding 3.2), student assessment and program evaluation (see Finding 4.1), and budgeting (see Finding 5.1). A relationship between district, school, and department planning and the budget planning process was not evident (see Findings 1.6 and 5.1).

It is recommended that within one year of receiving this audit report, the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education take steps to ensure the development of plans for key district functions and require that all plans are aligned to the district’s Transformation Plan, coordinated to focus the resources of the district in accomplishing identified priorities, and address the components of quality plans displayed in Exhibits 1.1.2 and 1.1.4.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended for the consideration of the Board of Education of Kenosha Unified School District:

G.2.1: Direct the superintendent to draft for consideration by the board a policy that guides planning functions within the district. Ensure that the policy language adheres to audit criteria and requires the development of comprehensive, district-wide, long-range plans with annual renewal provisions and linkages among plans


(building level plans, curriculum management plans, professional development plans, student assessment and program evaluation plans, technology plans, budget plans, facilities plans, etc.) that are aligned with the Transformation Plan.

G.2.2: Adopt a board policy for comprehensive district-wide, long-range planning, which focuses district efforts toward improved student achievement. Require that the planning functions be designed to ensure that the long-range strategic plan drives other plans, that there is collective planning among buildings and functions, and that the budget development procedures outlined in Recommendation 8 are timed in coordination with annual strategic planning activities.

G.2.3: Annually, review the Transformation Plan (strategic plan) as part of the board’s annual goal setting process, ensuring that the Transformation Plan is a living document responsive to the conditions and needs of the school district.

G.2.4: Direct the superintendent to establish budgeting procedures that ensure district, school, and departmental planning priorities are reflected in budgeting and spending (see Recommendation 8).

G.2.5: Direct the superintendent to expand the Transformation Plan into a comprehensive, long-range plan designed to provide direction for the district for at least five years. This five-year plan should contain clear measurable goals, the accomplishment of which will move the district toward its vision for all children.

G.2.6: Direct the superintendent to prepare annual written status reports on progress toward the goals of the Transformation Plan based on levels of student achievement and to use annual evaluation data to review and revise the plan.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent of the Kenosha Unified School District:

A.2.1: Assist the board in developing policy language that guides planning functions as outlined in Actions G.2.1 and G.2.2. Policy language should address the following:

• Assign to the superintendent responsibility for providing overall direction for all short- and long-range planning that is designed to achieve the mission, vision, and strategic directions established by the board.

• Require planning to be based on an analysis of current system results and desired system results.

• Require all district plans to be clearly aligned with system priorities.

• Require the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of district, school, and department plans that incorporate system-wide student achievement targets.

• Require plans to be reviewed and updated annually.

• Require district plans to be evaluated using both formative and summative measures of student academic achievement.

• Require planning timelines to be coordinated with budget development timelines.

• Require that plan implementation and results become a component of administrator evaluations.

• Require regular reports to the board on the status of all district plans.

A.2.2: Utilize the Curriculum Audit™ report in the prioritization of strategies to achieve focus and to identify management clusters of activities.

A.2.3: Develop administrative regulations for the implementation of a board policy addressing district strategic, long-range planning. Specifically address how plan development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation will be operationalized across departments and schools in the district.

A.2.4: Expand the Transformation Plan into a comprehensive long-range plan to guide the district for at least five years. In developing the long-range plan:


• Review all state and federal planning, goal setting, and reporting requirements for consolidation into a comprehensive long-range plan that supports district student learning goals.

• Use all currently available district data, including the Curriculum Audit™, district surveys, disaggregated student achievement data, and other district data sources, to inform long-range planning.

• Refine all district planning goals, strategies, and actions steps to ensure alignment with the Transformation Plan and clarity in the language used to describe plan goals, strategies, and actions.

• Ensure that the Transformation Plan and other district plans contain a doable number of action steps based on audit recommendations and within the context of available system human and financial resources.

• Develop specific measurable goals and objectives, based on student expectations and professional practices of staff, which will move the district toward attainment of the vision expressed in the Transformation Plan.

• Review and revise action plans to ensure that activities integrate staff development needs, data collection, support resources, and support costs.

• Assign responsibility to district staff.

• Establish a measurable evaluation component for each goal, strategy, and action step.

A.2.5: Create a communication plan to share the mission vision, goals, strategies, action steps, and performance measures with the board, staff, parents, and community. Use the district website and/or other combinations of social media tools to transparently communicate on a quarterly basis an update on the status of goals, strategies, and actions steps.

A.2.6: Develop a district model for district, department, and school improvement plans that utilizes a consistent format and includes the following components:

• Multi-year improvement plans that are aligned with the district’s mission, vision, and strategic goals;

• Goals based on the analysis of student achievement data and other data;

• Clearly established and measurable goals;

• Strategies that are research-based within the context of similar systems, that address the goals to be accomplished;

• Resources and funding for each strategy/objective;

• Methods of monitoring and evaluation included in plan design;

• Evaluation based on formative and summative measurable data;

• Identification of persons responsible for implementing strategies;

• Professional development linked to achievement of district goals; and

• A focus on changing professional practices and measuring the changes.

A.2.7: Establish a timeline to review the Transformation Plan annually prior to the review and revision of district, department, and school long-range plans to facilitate planning alignment and the coordination of district efforts.

A.2.8: Continue to review the Transformation Plan on an annual basis prior to budgeting or initiating new programs or interventions.

A.2.9: Designate in the annual operating budget the resources needed to implement the priorities of the long-range Transformation Plan.


A.2.10: Design a monitoring system and an evaluation component to determine the effectiveness of the Transformation Plan and district, department, and school long-range plans in terms of improved student achievement rather than activities completed.

A.2.11: Define roles and responsibilities associated with district planning and revise job descriptions and performance evaluation criteria to reflect the changed duties and responsibilities in the areas of planning, curriculum, professional development, budgeting, data analysis, and district operations.

A.2.12: Provide extensive and ongoing training for board members, administrators, faculty, and staff on the use of data for decision making, program interventions, and planning. Provide training in understanding and adhering to the critical components of an effective planning process, building the capacity of district staff to address components of the planning process as they assess school and department needs, and setting realistic goals and performance-based activities.

The Transformation Plan provides a start upon which to refine the district’s mission and vision for the future and to develop comprehensive long-range plans for the improvement of student achievement in the Kenosha Unified School District. The board of education and administration are responsible for maintaining rational focus for the district and authorizing and initiating only those programs or projects that are directly related to the district’s vision, mission, and strategic goals. Maintaining consistency of purpose is critical to attaining higher levels of academic achievement for all students. The coordination and consolidation of all planning efforts will result in a unified district effort.

Curriculum Management and Assessment Planning

It is essential that the Kenosha Unified School District create and implement a comprehensive curriculum management and assessment plan to ensure maximum student achievement. The purpose of a cohesive and comprehensive curriculum development and management plan is to establish a systematic process for curriculum development in all areas, to coordinate supporting functions for overall efficiency and effectiveness, and to devise a process to monitor and ensure revisions of the curriculum that will lead to improved student achievement. Such a plan brings cohesion, continuity, and a framework to manage the design and delivery of curriculum. A comprehensive curriculum management and assessment plan is critical to the quality of the teaching-learning process (see Recommendations 5 and 6).

Professional Development Planning

Professional development activities that are designed based on clearly identified curriculum, assessment, and job performance needs are particularly important actions to attain district goals. While plans, strategies, and goals may establish a compelling focus for an organization, it is through the development of the knowledge, skills, collaborative interactions, and decision-making capacity of all district employees that the district will achieve desired improvement in student achievement. Increasing the capacity of district employees is best accomplished through a long-range, coordinated plan of professional development (see Recommendation 7).

Recommendation 3: Review, revise, adopt, and implement board policies to provide for a sound system of curriculum management and control.

A comprehensive set of school board policies is necessary to guide the management of a school system and express the expectations and intentions of the elected body legally charged with governance of the school district. Current, sound board policies provide an updated legal framework for school district operations and help create educational focus for ongoing decision making at the district and building levels. Policies are a reliable reference for district administrators in responding to recurring issues and making operational decisions to promote the consistency of administrative practices and the cohesion of organizational functions.

The current board policies of the Kenosha Unified School District are inadequate in scope and inadequate in quality to guide curriculum management and the district’s educational program (see Finding 1.3). Policies that direct planning, curriculum design, program integration and interventions, professional development, curriculum monitoring, student assessment, the allocation of resources, and facilities planning were considered weak (see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4. 3.5, 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2).


The auditors’ recommended actions address the primary needs in the area of policy as identified through audit analysis. Additional recommendations in this audit report identify specific areas of policy weakness as well. The actions need to be addressed during the next 24 months in order to establish clear parameters for operations and job performance and to communicate expectations for follow-up.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education.

G.3.1: Establish a timeline for the review of existing board policies and the development of a comprehensive set of board policies that will provide a unifying, clear, philosophical framework for the district’s approach to curriculum development and delivery. Key policies that meet the criteria outlined in Exhibits 1.3.2 through 1.3.6 should be developed and adopted within the next 12 months.

G.3.2: Establish a clear distinction between what a board policy is and what constitutes an administrative regulation.

• Board Policy establishes what the board considers the general goals and acceptable practices for the school district. Through its policies, the board exercises it statutory duties and powers to govern, control, and manage the affairs of the school district, including strategic direction, organizational structure, curriculum, assessments, finances, facilities, and performance standards. In addition, through policy, the board delegates authority to and through the superintendent to administer the school district. The superintendent and district employees are responsible for implementing the policies of the board. Policies are generally written in clear, succinct terms; generally are legally binding; and once adopted provide a system of accountability for the board and superintendent. Policies are formally adopted by the board.

• Administrative Regulation is the superintendent’s direction to school district employees on how to implement board policy, laws, and regulations in the day-to-day operations of the school district. Regulations provide the details of policy implementation and assign responsibility and accountability and establish the standards of performance. They are developed and implemented by the superintendent in partnership with district administration, faculty, and staff. Administrative regulations are generally not adopted by board action.

G.3.3: Direct the superintendent to prepare an administrative regulation outlining a process for board policy development that includes the following:

• Establishes how the need for a board policy is identified. The need for a new policy may be identified by:

○ The board,

○ The superintendent,

○ Staff, or

○ A stakeholder.

• Identify triggers that would require development of a new board policy or revisions to an existing board policy, including:

○ Changes in the external operating environment,

○ Change to government statutes or regulations,

○ Review of the district’s strategic direction,

○ New initiatives within the district, or

○ Need for consistency across the district.

• The board will authorize the superintendent to draft a new board policy or the revision of an existing policy. In its authorization, the board will clearly define the desired purpose and outcomes for the


policy and make a preliminary determination of the scope of the policy (to whom the policy would apply).

• The Board Personnel/Policy Committee will review draft policies submitted by the superintendent for the following considerations:

○ Is the content of the policy within the scope of the board’s authority?

○ Does the policy support the district’s mission, vision, core values, and strategic direction?

○ Is the policy reasonable?

• Initial Reading. Based on the recommendation from the Board Personnel/Policy Committee, the draft policy is placed on the board’s agenda for initial reading. At this time, the full board has the opportunity to discuss the policy or redirect the policy back to the Board Personnel/Policy Committee for additional refinement based on the questions, comments, and suggestions obtained during the initial reading. The policy will be re-presented to the board for an initial reading.

• Final Reading. The period between initial and final reading allows time for concerned persons to ask questions, make comments, and offer suggestions for changes and improvements to the policy. At this time, the full board has the opportunity to discuss the policy or redirect the policy back to the Board Personnel/Policy Committee for additional refinement based on the questions, comments, and suggestions obtained after the initial reading. If revised, the policy will be represented to the board for an initial reading.

• Adoption. Upon adoption the policy will be posted to the district’s web-based policy archive and staff will be notified.

G.3.4: Direct the superintendent to prepare and present for review and adoption drafts of revised and new policies that will meet the criteria outlined in Exhibits 1.3.2 through 1.3.6 and address policy deficiencies identified in the finding included in this report. Specifically:

• Revise Board Policy 8520 to explicitly require the development of system-wide, long-range plans that are congruent and incorporate student achievement targets and require written plans in the areas of curriculum, assessment, professional development, school improvement planning, technology, and facilities planning. Establish an expectation linking the use of disaggregated student achievement data to the evaluation of key district functions including curriculum design, curriculum delivery, intervention programs, professional development, budgeting, and facility planning. Establish in policy an expectation that the superintendent and staff will collectively discuss the future and implementation of change processes.

• Revise Board Policy 6300 to include the following requirements:

○ A planned curriculum review process that includes review of instructional resources and assessments.

○ Board adoption of the written curriculum.

○ The alignment of the district’s curriculum with national standards and high stake and increased rigor of district curriculum beyond that required by state and nation standards.

○ The alignment of the district’s assessments with the district’s adopted curriculum.

○ The alignment of all textbooks, instructional resources, and online and software applications with the district’s adopted curriculum.

○ The inclusion in all curriculum guides of clearly stated learning objectives, a statement of prerequisite skills or knowledge, suggested instructional strategies, and strategies to assess learning. Require the number of learning targets to be feasible to ensure mastery of essential learning’s within allocated instructional time.


○ A statement requiring vertical articulation and horizontal coordination of the curriculum within schools, across grade levels, and among schools.

• Revise Board Policy 6320 to include a statement requiring new programs be reviewed annually with reports to the board during the first three years of implementation. Require the use of pupil performance results to inform changes in programs over time in order to show consistent improvement.

• Revise Board Policy 6423 to require ongoing review of district equity data for developing procedures for fast-tracking students who lack sufficient skills for courses such as AP, honors, etc.

• Revise Board Policy 6430 establishing an expectation that teachers are responsible for delivery of the board adopted policy. Include a statement requiring that mastery learning practices be employed at all grade levels and for all content areas including electives.


○ The entire taught curriculum is measured for effectiveness.

○ Student achievement data are used to identify subject areas that require additional emphasis and budgetary support.

○ District assessments go beyond that which is required for state accountability and are more rigorous than external high stakes assessments.

○ Formative assessments are used to inform the effectiveness of curriculum delivery and to guide teacher monitoring of student progress.

○ Summative assessments evaluate curriculum design and appropriateness for the district population.

○ The use of assessment data is required to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs and services at all levels of the system on a cyclical basis to ascertain cost-benefit.


○ The superintendent must establish, implement, and maintain a multi-year professional staff development plan that is aligned with district goals, priorities, and adopted curriculum, and that supports improved student learning.

○ Professional development plans must be linked to district long-range plans and annual district goal priorities.

○ Professional development needs should be identified, prioritized, and coordinated at the district, school site, and individual level.

○ Professional development needs must be based on a careful analysis of student achievement results and aggregated professional summative evaluation ratings.

○ Professional development plans should be evaluated based on the improvement in instructional practices and the impact on increased student achievement.

○ Professional development plans should provide professional staff development opportunities that use research-based approaches in both content and delivery.

○ Professional development plans should provide for organizational, collegial, and individual development that includes follow-up, monitoring, and on-the-job application to support acquisition and application of instructional strategies.

○ Professional development plans must be funded sufficiently to obtain the desired professional development goals.

• Revise Board Policy 4380 requiring that performance appraisals be linked to critical job functions. Include a statement that a specific purpose for teacher evaluations is the improvement of student achievement.


• Revise Board Policy 2110 to require annual benchmarks to be used for monitoring program effectiveness.


○ Adherence to a program centered budgeting process that includes incremental budgeting and funding possibilities;

○ A multi-year budget process that provides ongoing support for curriculum and program priorities and connects costs with program expectations and data-based needs;

○ Program evaluation and identification of specific measurable program goals before the budget process begins;

○ Documentation of costs to ensure that expenditures are aligned within revenues and cost-benefit analysis is facilitated; and

○ The allocation of resources according to documented needs, assessment data, and established district curriculum and program goals and priorities.

• Revise Board Policy 3323 clearly establishing unassigned fund balance upper and lower limits. Require a vote of the board to establish a budget that results in a unassigned fund balance that exceeds the limits established in board policy.

• Revise Board Policy 2211 to require job descriptions to include, as an essential function where appropriate, accountability for the design and delivery of curriculum, including gains in student achievement.

• Revise Board Policy 2300 to clarify the superintendent’s direct reports.

• Revise Board Policy 2410 to include an expectation that building principals are responsible for monitoring the delivery of the adopted curriculum on a weekly basis and ensuring gains in student achievement.

• Revise Board Policy 2710 requiring that job descriptions be maintained for all positions depicted on the organizational chart.

• Draft and adopt a policy that references connecting support services such as transportation, technology, nursing, food service, and maintenance to student learning. Include an expectation for the evaluation of support services and periodic reports to the board.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Kenosha Unified School District Superintendent of Schools:

A.3.1: Assist the board in implementing Actions G.3.1 through G.3.4 listed above. Provide draft policy language that offers clarity of expectations where needed to meet the audit criteria in Exhibits 1.3.2 through 1.3.6 and address other findings contained within the Curriculum Audit™ report.

A.3.2: Prepare an administrative regulation outlining a process for the development of regulations that includes the following:

• Establish how the need for an administrative regulation will be identified. The need for an administrative regulation may be identified by:

○ The superintendent,

○ District administrators, or

○ District staff.

• Triggers for a new or revised administrative regulation may include:

○ Addition or changes to board policies,

○ Addition or changes to governmental statutes or regulations,


○ Changes in the internal and/or external operating environment,

○ New initiatives within the district, or

○ Need for consistent policy implementation across the district.

• In developing administrative regulations, consult with those directly responsible for implementing the guiding board policy.

• The Superintendent’s Leadership Council will review the draft administrative regulation for the following considerations:

○ Is the regulation consistent with the guiding board policy?

○ Is the regulation consistent with local, state, and federal laws?

○ Is the regulation sufficient to consistently guide implementation of the guiding policy?

○ Can the regulation be reasonably implemented?

• Upon final approval by the superintendent, distribute the administrative regulation to the Board Policy Committee, all district administrators, and staff. Publish the regulation to the district’s web-based policy archive.

A.3.3: Disseminate adopted board policies to all administrators. Publish board policies and administrative regulations on the district’s website-based policy archive as soon as feasible to enable easy internal and external access to the most current policies and regulations.

A.3.4: Include discussions of adopted policies and regulations in Leadership Council meetings and other administrative meetings as adoptions are completed. Monitor for consistent implementation.

A.3.5: Establish a system to maintain policy congruence with state and federal laws, regulations, and other requirements.

Recommendation 4: Revise, adopt, and implement a table of organization and job descriptions that provide for control of district functions and lead to intended student outcomes.

Successful organizations have an organizational chart and accompanying job descriptions that provide the structure and working parameters for a logically organized, clearly focused, and efficient administrative team. Quality control and productivity depend on clear communication of the responsibilities and relationships of the organization. Effective relationships among the leadership positions support the smooth operation of schools and help sustain the focus on students and learning.

The current organizational chart does not meet audit criteria for sound organizational management. Span of Control is exceeded for the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents of Elementary and Secondary Leadership, and Director of Special Education. The Full Inclusion principle is not met due to the exclusion of teachers from the organizational chart. As a result, Chain of Command is incomplete to determine the direct line of supervision for teachers in the district. The district’s job descriptions do not meet audit criteria; many are outdated, and there is no process in place or policy regarding the development or revisions of job descriptions (see Finding 1.4).

The auditors developed a set of changes to the organizational chart that would help ameliorate the problems identified in Finding 1.4. The suggestions include implications for deletion, re-organization, or expansion of some job descriptions; a few additions are also included. These recommended changes were designed to conform to the principles of organizational management used in the audit evaluation.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Board of Education of Kenosha Unified Public Schools:

G.4.1: Direct the superintendent to develop a revised Organizational Chart to ensure that the decision-making process will help realize the district’s vision, mission, and transformation goals.


G.4.2: Direct the superintendent to draft, for board consideration and adoption, a policy that requires all job descriptions to include clear and concise statements of qualifications, links to the chain of command, functions, duties, responsibilities, and, where appropriate, the relationship to curriculum design and delivery.

G.4.3: Direct the superintendent to prepare a comprehensive set of job descriptions for all employees.

G.4.4: Revise Board Policy 2300 eliminating the requirement that directors and all executive directors/assistant superintendents are directly responsible to the superintendent.

G.4.5: Annually, review Board Policy 2710: Line and Staff Relations – Organizational Chart.

Administrative Functions: The following steps are recommended to the Superintendent of Kenosha Unified Public Schools:

A.4.1: Develop, for consideration by the board, a draft policy that requires all job descriptions to include clear and concise statements of qualifications; establish links to the chain of command; define essential functions, duties, and responsibilities; and, where appropriate, delineate the relationship to the curriculum design and delivery. Require job descriptions for all employees, and require a periodic review of those documents to ensure they are accurate, complete, and consistent with the district’s current organizational structure. At a minimum, job descriptions should include the following elements:

• Date approved/most recently revised,

• Titles that are descriptive of the duties associated with the position,

• Physical demands of each position, and

• The criteria included in Exhibit 1.4.4:

○ Qualifications consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the position.

○ Immediate links to the chain of command.

○ A statement identifying the supervisor and a statement identifying all positions supervised by the incumbent or that the incumbent has no supervisees. No employee should have more than one supervisor.

○ A detailed explanation of the functions, duties, and responsibilities of the position.

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

A.4.2: Develop a revised Organizational Chart, which illustrates appropriate grouping of functions and appropriate scalar relationships and follows the principles of sound organizational management outlined in Exhibit 1.4.3 (see Appendix C, Recommended Table of Organization). In revising the organization chart, consider the following suggestions to increase the focus and alignment of the work of the organization on instruction and improving student achievement:

• Reclassify both the position of Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning and the position of Executive Director of Business Services as Deputy Superintendents, which report directly to the Superintendent.

• Create three Area Superintendent positions, which will be directly responsible for supervising the day-to-day operations of the district’s PK-12 schools, facilitating principals working together in their interventions for higher student achievement, and providing school-based administrators regular and ongoing mentoring and coaching. Organize the Area Superintendents by geographic clusters of PK-12 feeder schools.

• Create the position of Director of Curriculum and Assessment, which will be directly responsible for overseeing the district’s curriculum management system and district-wide assessment plan. The director will be responsible for making recommendations for future study and work, leading research projects, and assisting in developing alternative assessments. The director will work collaboratively


with the Director of Instruction, as well as with other administrators and staff, to implement curricula and assessment programs in the district. The director will provide appropriate professional development for teachers and administrators in the development and implementation of curricula and assessment. The director will report to the Deputy Superintendent for Teaching and Learning.

• Evaluate the roles and responsibilities of the Curriculum Coordinators for impact and cost-benefit. Ensure there is a clear linkage between their role responsibilities and support of curriculum development and delivery in the district. Clarify their responsibility in the teacher appraisal process and the supervision of teachers (see Recommendation 2). Consider alternative models of curriculum leadership that have more potential for building overall curriculum leadership capacity across the entire school district.

• Reclassify the position of Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development as Director of Instruction. This position will be responsible for overseeing professional development and instructional delivery in the district. The director will oversee implementation of the district’s instructional methodology aligned with district curricula along with the district’s equity plan. The director will work collaboratively with the Director of Curriculum and Assessment, as well as with other administrators and staff, to implement curricular programs. The director will provide appropriate professional development for administrators in the instructional delivery of curricula in the buildings. The director will report to the Deputy Superintendent for Teaching and Learning.

• Create the position of Instructional Technology Coordinator, which will be responsible for leading the effective integration of technology-based teaching and learning tools in the delivery of curriculum and measuring student achievement.

• Have the positions of Instructional Technology Coordinator, Coordinator of Student Equity, Talent Development Coordinator, Summer School Coordinator, and Instructional Coaches report to the Director of Instruction.

• Create the position of Director of Federal Programs and Grants, which will be responsible for aligning all federal programs and grants with the district’s curriculum and instructional program to increase the capacity of the district to improve student achievement.

• Have the position of Title I Coordinator, Even Start Coordinator, and Senior Center Director report to the Director of Federal Program and Grants.

• Place teachers in the organizational chart.

• Realign business services so that the Chief Financial Officer, Director of Food Service, Director of Information Technology, and Director of Human Resources report directly to the Deputy Superintendent for Business Services.

• As part of the staffing audit recommended in Action A.4.5, consider phasing out the purchasing department and using more cost effective options.

A.4.3: Develop comprehensive job descriptions for all district positions that meet audit criteria. Ensure that all job descriptions contain a clear statement of qualifications and that the chain of command identifies only one direct report. Ensure the listing of job responsibilities contains clear statements about the position’s linkage and responsibility to curriculum and instruction. Eliminate job descriptions for positions that are no longer included in the district’s organizational structure.

A.4.4: Revise the Executive Director of Business (Deputy Superintendent for Business Services) job description to include a clear statement as to the employee’s role in supporting the district’s educational mission, including developing and implementing a curriculum-driven budget, aligning support services with the district’s mission, and requiring the use of data-driven decision-making strategies.

A.4.5: Direct the Director of Human Resources to conduct a detailed audit of all Educational Support Center work tasks and job positions based on the “highest and best use” principle to maximize efficiency and productivity. Through the staffing audit, identify:


• All works tasks currently being completed for each job position in the Educational Support Center.

• Essential work tasks required by state and/or federal laws and regulations or board policies.

• Non-essential and/or obsolete work tasks that are not required by federal laws, regulations, or board policies.

• Work tasks that are directly related to achieving the district’s vision, mission, and strategic direction.

• Work tasks that are duplicated across two or more job positions.

• Work tasks that could be automated or facilitated through use of technology and/or software solutions.

• Work tasks that could be scheduled at different times to allow for more efficient staffing utilization throughout the calendar year.

• Communication patterns that are inhibiting effective work task completion.

• Environmental, office, and personal distractions that are reducing efficiencies.

Based on an internal staffing audit, develop for consideration by the superintendent a staffing recommendation for the Educational Support Center that is optimized to accomplish critical and essential work tasks in the most efficient and effective manner, that eliminates obsolete and redundant or work tasks that are not essential to the district’s mission, and that utilizes software and technology solutions for streamlining and coordinating central work functions.

Restructuring the overall work of an organization is a complex task that requires careful planning, clear job descriptions, professional development, and support. It is recommended that these changes be in place within two years of receiving the Curriculum Audit™ report.

Recommendation 5: Develop and implement a curriculum management system that establishes an aligned curriculum available to all students and supports attainment of student proficiency.

A school district can improve curriculum design and delivery through the development of comprehensive curriculum management processes and a sound plan to implement that system. The purpose of a comprehensive curriculum management process is to establish a systematic process for curriculum development in all areas, to coordinate supporting functions for overall efficiency and effectiveness, and to devise a process to monitor and increase the likelihood of the delivery of the planned curriculum. It is essential, for the improvement of student achievement scores, for the school district to create and implement a comprehensive curriculum management process that is guided by board policy and includes procedures to direct the design and delivery of curriculum. This process should ensure that a set of cohesive, vertically-articulated learning objectives, as well as student assessments constructed to reflect students’ achievement of those objectives, are in place.

Through curriculum management planning, a school district can achieve and maintain a quality, aligned curriculum that produces desired results. When the plan and its timelines are adhered to, the district is able to place quality curriculum in the hands of all teachers well in advance of state standards and assessment changes. Therefore, improved student achievement is more likely to occur despite state changes. This planning must address not only technology integration but also issues of students who are not demonstrating achievement.

Once curriculum and assessments are designed, delivery occurs through classroom instruction that focuses on the mastery by all students of the district’s learning objectives. Alignment of all three ingredients—written, taught, and tested curriculum—is essential if district personnel are to be successful in raising student achievement to higher levels.

The auditors found that while board policy provides some guidance concerning the design, delivery, assessment, and revision of curriculum, there is no well-delineated policy requiring a comprehensive plan for curriculum development (see Findings 1.3 and 2.1). Current curriculum documents are inadequate in scope and quality to direct teaching and learning in the Kenosha Unified School District (see Findings 2.2 and 2.3). Teachers’ access to comprehensive curriculum guides was inconsistent, and available guiding documents were inconsistent in format, inadequate in content, and lacked sufficient internal consistency between learning objectives,


instructional materials, and instructional practices (see Finding 2.4). A analysis of a sample of online programs found some programs to be adequately aligned with content standards while others were inadequate to promote student mastery of those standards (see Finding 2.5).


G.5.1. Direct the superintendent to develop a comprehensive curriculum management planning policy for board review and adoption that provides direction for the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of curriculum. Include the following policy requirements:

• A requirement for alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

• A requirement that all courses offered at every grade level, beginning with the four basic core courses, be supported by quality written curriculum including:

○ The expectation of K-12 articulation of learning goals and objectives,

○ A consistent format for the design of quality curriculum guides, and

○ A process for the integration of technology with the design and delivery of curriculum.

• A requirement of differentiation and program integration and alignment into the written curriculum.

• A requirement of equitable curriculum access and delivery to all students.

• A requirement that all courses offered at every grade level, beginning with the four basic core courses, be assessed by the district for student learning.

• A requirement for a curriculum management plan that includes procedures for the design and delivery of the curriculum, a periodic review of the curriculum, professional development needs, timelines, responsibilities, monitoring, evaluation, and budgeting.

• A requirement of accountability for the design and delivery of the adopted curriculum through roles and responsibilities in current job descriptions.

• Formal board adoption of all curricula prior to implementation.

G.5.2: Require that planning within and among departments be aligned to the curriculum management plan.

G.5.3: Require the school site planning be linked to the implementation of the district’s curriculum management plan and district goals.

G.5.4: Establish through policy that curriculum and assessment are system-wide decisions and the delivery of the curriculum is a site-based decision.

G.5.5: Approve funding for any program only as part of the budgeting process and after assurances that the program is based on identified student needs, is aligned with the district curriculum, and will be evaluated for positive effects on student achievement.

G.5.6: Commit adequate financial resources to support the curriculum development cycle and the training needed to assist staff in designing and delivering high quality curriculum.

Administrative Functions: The following steps are recommended to the Superintendent of Kenosha Unified Public Schools:

A.5.1: Immediate Action: Design and implement a process to align all teaching with the content of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE).

• Assign appropriate staff the task of deconstructing sample WKCE and ACT test items to determine the knowledge, skills, process, concepts, and vocabulary students will be asked to demonstrate. Identify the conditions under which students will be asked to demonstrate their knowledge. Supplement sample WKCE with assessment samples released by other states.


• Provide staff time to determine at what grade level students should demonstrate mastery of the knowledge, skills, process, concepts, and vocabulary assessed on the WKCE. Ideally, mastery should be achieved the year prior to the year mastery is expected on the WKCE.

• Develop detailed critical learning objectives, which are specific learning segments related to the knowledge, skills, process, and concepts derived from the analysis of the WKCE and other released assessments, that students are to master at each grade or development level. Develop an academic calendar for teaching and reinforcing the development and mastery of each critical objective.

• Hold principals accountable for monitoring the teaching of the content tested on the WKCE.

A.5.2: Review district policies for sound curriculum and instructional management and prepare revised or drafts policies for review and adoption by the board of education.

A.5.3: Design a comprehensive curriculum management plan to include the following components (sample attached):

a) A philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum (standards-based, results-based, competency-based);

b) A periodic cycle of curriculum review for all subject areas at all grade levels;

c) The roles and responsibilities of the board, central office staff members, and school-based staff members;

d) The timing, scope, and procedures for curricular review;

e) The format and components of alignment of/for curriculum guides;

f) An explanation of how state and national standards will be included in the curriculum;

g) An overall assessment plan and procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness;

h) The approaches by which tests and assessment data will be used to strengthen curriculum and instruction;

i) The design of a comprehensive staff development program linked to curriculum design and delivery;

j) Procedures for monitoring curriculum delivery; and

k) A communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery, as well as celebration of progress and quality.

A.5.4: Establish and implement a seven-year curriculum review cycle that includes the design of curriculum guides. During the initial review cycle, develop local curriculum guides for every instructional offering in the district.

A.5.5: Select a Curriculum Guide Design Team. The Curriculum Guide Design Team should include a small number of individuals representing all content areas and grades K-12. Design a district-wide model format for curriculum guides that are functional and user-friendly and incorporate the following components:

• Content standards and benchmarks,

• Prerequisite learnings,

• Content or learning objectives,

• Criteria and standards for determining mastery,

• Sample assessment items similar to those in the state assessment,

• Sample assessment items that present or simulate real life application of the learnings,

• Suggested initial teaching strategies,

• Suggested approaches for re-teaching,

• Suggested extending strategies,


• Suggested interdisciplinary strategies, and

• Suggested instructional resources.

A.5.6: Establish a timetable for developing, over the initial seven-year review/development cycle, a scope and sequence of skills, PreK-12, that need to be mastered, along with academic pacing calendars and comprehensive curriculum guides for each subject and course offered. Begin first with English/language arts, followed in order by mathematics, science, and social studies. Base the development of the scope and sequence and curriculum guides on national content standards, state standards, and curricula developed by other school districts. Organize objectives using a downward spiral of student learning objectives from the twelfth grade down through pre-kindergarten. Once curriculum guides have been developed for the core content areas, develop curriculum guides for other subjects and courses concurrently.

A.5.7: Select a qualified curriculum review team to critique the curriculum guides as they are drafted and revised by the design team. In addition to teachers who teach the discipline under review, the review team should include a principal, teachers trained in technology, special education, gifted education, and district leaders responsible for curriculum development and design. Also, consider using external consultants to validate the curriculum content.

A.5.8: Submit curriculum for adoption by the board of education.

A.5.9: Train all instructional personnel in the delivery of the board adopted written curriculum.

A.5.10: Develop a district-wide, 12-K assessment plan that incorporates administration and use of feedback from the following to evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum in terms of student achievement:

• Assessments mandated by the state.

• Criterion-referenced tests. Establish a schedule for tests (quarterly is suggested) across all grade levels and subjects, including end-of-year exams. Create classroom benchmark assessments that can provide feedback about individual objectives regarding performance of individual students.

• Provide staff development for classroom teachers in the development and use of sound classroom assessment strategies that match district learning objectives and provide students with practice in a variety of assessment formats.

A.5.11: Establish a committee comprised of key district instructional leaders to develop an instructional model to be used in the district. The model, whether adopted from existing models or created by district staff, should include the following:

• Instructional planning, based on district curriculum objectives and analysis of student needs, which leads to selection of the most appropriate instructional strategies.

• Instructional delivery, which includes information and examples directly related to the objectives.

• Student practice related to the objective, the monitoring of student learning with appropriate feedback, and re-teaching or enrichment as needed by individual students.

• Evaluation, including monitoring and recordkeeping that tracks each student’s status relative to objectives to be learned and directs re-teaching as necessary.

A.5.12: Charge the professional development committee with the responsibility of planning a five-year staff development program for teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders as an integral part of the curriculum development, implementation, and assessment process that is reviewed and revised annually. Hold staff accountable for its implementation, including monitoring of curriculum delivery by district and school administrators.

• Starting with the English/language arts curriculum, train all staff members, regardless of subject area expertise, on that one curriculum area, on how the curriculum was developed, how to use the guides,


and how this one content area could impact instruction in other disciplines. Continue this training for all four core content areas as the curricula are developed and adopted by the board of education.

• Incorporate training in assessment of student learning with the delivery of the written curriculum so that student mastery becomes the focus of instruction.

• Continue work in the other curriculum areas (math, science, and social studies) in succeeding years. Proceed slowly while developing a broad base of understanding and acceptance.

A.5.13: Develop a system for consistent monitoring of curriculum implementation throughout the district. Instructional administrators should observe the curriculum being taught in the classrooms on a regular basis, per board policy. The following strategies are recommended for the structure of curriculum monitoring in the district:

• Determine the curriculum objective that is being learned in the classroom and the cognitive type of thinking that is being employed.

• Compare taught objectives to the district curriculum guide for congruence.

• Determine the alignment of activities/resources to the objective(s) being taught.

• Determine effective teaching practices taking place with attention to differentiated instruction to meet students’ needs.

• Note other objectives and teaching practices observed throughout the classroom.

• Plan when and how feedback will be given to teachers to assist them in growing professionally.

A.5.14: Develop a communication plan to assist staff in understanding the curriculum design and delivery process so that coordinated curriculum implementation will occur. Ensure clarity in roles for ongoing coordination, monitoring, and support of curriculum implementation.

A.5.15: Require ongoing professional development for teachers and building administrators in research-based, effective instructional strategies for delivering a challenging curriculum to all students.

A.5.16: Hold building administrators accountable for monitoring and coaching curriculum implementation and classroom teaching. Provide training for building principals to strengthen their skills in assessing the extent to which an aligned curriculum is being taught by all teachers.

A.5.17: Conduct a review, based on adopted program evaluation procedures, of all programs in the district, focusing on their purposes, impact on student learning, and cost effectiveness. Create a panel of teachers, building administrators, and district level administrators to recommend which programs will be maintained as is, which need to be modified, and which need to be eliminated based on evaluation data.

A.5.18: Provide additional learning and practice opportunities for students who need extra time for mastery. Feasibility of added time will be determined, in part, by budgetary and scheduling constrictions.

The development and implementation of a comprehensive curriculum management plan that includes all policies and procedures, related to curriculum design, implementation, linkages of multiple programs to curriculum, vertical and horizontal alignment, equity, and clear expectations, will improve focus and continuity as the district strives to increase academic achievement for all students.

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for student assessment and program evaluation that requires data use at district and site levels to close the achievement gaps persistent among ethnic populations and subgroups, to raise the level of achievement for all students, and to provide feedback for decisions regarding curriculum management and program adoption, implementation, continuation, expansion, modification, or termination. Align student and program assessment with the curriculum management system and support long-range planning.

Development and implementation of a comprehensive plan that addresses student assessment and program evaluation provide school system leaders with quality information to make rational and intentional decisions


about the design of curriculum, the delivery of instruction, the effectiveness of programs, and the effectiveness and efficiency of all district functions. Such a plan communicates to the public the methods of measurement and accountability used by the district’s leadership.

In Kenosha Unified School District, the auditors found board policies, job descriptions, and planning approaches to be inadequate to direct comprehensive student assessment and the use of data to close achievement gaps, provide feedback for curriculum modification and program evaluation, and inform funding allocations and facility requirements for programmatic implementation (see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, and 5.2). The scope and design of the assessment program in the district was limited to a diagnostic assessment of literacy and numeracy proficiencies; comprehensive formative and summative assessment of the written curriculum was not in place to provide feedback to students, parents, teachers, and administrators about results of student attainment of expected outcomes in all core and non-core courses (see Findings 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5). At most grade levels and in most subjects, student achievement remained below the state levels for the past four years, and gaps persist among ethnic populations and significant subgroups (see Finding 4.3).

Auditors found that program evaluation for effectiveness and cost-benefit was not part of regular practice in Kenosha Unified School District (see Finding 4.5), and that achievement data have not been adequately used to inform improvement planning at the district or site levels (see Finding 4.4). District budget development practices (see Finding 5.1) did not indicate that student performance data were used to establish priorities for instructional delivery to improve the success of all students or to address facility needs (see Finding 5.2) necessary to support student learning (e.g., space for intervention delivery, technology resources).

The absence of a comprehensive plan for student assessment and program evaluation means the district lacks critical linkages with the curriculum (see Findings 2.1 and 2.2) and, therefore, direction for producing desired learning outcomes. The leadership of Kenosha Unified School District needs to consider, as a priority, the design and implementation of a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan or planning process. Having an assessment process in place can serve as a means to acquire, organize, and analyze information needed to guide instructional planning; inform teachers about student learning; assess program effectiveness; and make critical decisions regarding the educational program, district practices, and resource allocations. This plan should be in place prior to the beginning of the next academic year.

Auditors recommend the development of district policies directing the design of comprehensive planning for student assessment in all core and non-core courses, PreK-12, and for the use of valid and reliable data to evaluate programs so as to determine the cost-benefit of programs and their alignment with district priorities. Due to the significant gaps in student achievement presented in Finding 4.3, direction through policy and administrative action are immediate needs to address student deficits and determine which programs and services are assets in closing achievement gaps. Auditors recommend the development of such policies and action plans prior to the beginning of the next academic year.

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the members of the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Trustees:

G.6.1: Direct the superintendent to present to the board for review and adoption a policy that provides a framework for a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan and includes the following:

• Description of the philosophical framework for the design of the student assessment program and direction for both formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade.

• Requirement that formative, diagnostic assessment instruments are aligned to the district curriculum and are administered to students frequently to give teachers information for instructional decision making.

• Requirement that curriculum documents model types of assessment approaches to be used on an ongoing basis to monitor learning.

• Requirement that a pool of quality assessment items and tasks be available to teachers of all core courses (at a minimum) and all non-core courses to use diagnostically during instruction.


• Requirement that district staff provide secure summative assessment tools that are aligned with the curriculum and used to measure mastery of key content after adequate opportunity to learn.

• Direction for use of data to analyze group, school, program, and system student trends. Include an expectation that when achievement gaps are evident in the data, aggressive action must be used to intervene.

• An expectation for ongoing formative and summative program evaluation, an explicit set of formative and summative procedures to carry out these expectations, and provisions for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, and student).

G.6.2: Direct the superintendent to prepare for board review and adoption a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan as described in policy under Action G.6.1.

G.6.3: Require the superintendent to make regular reports to the board regarding the status of student performance on state and local assessments. Such reports must identify growth patterns, persistent gaps, and a formal evaluation of actions implemented to close gaps.

G.6.4: Commit adequate resources to support the implementation of comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation planning and intervention (see Finding 5.1 and Recommendation 8).


A.6.1: Assist the board in developing a policy that provides direction for development and implementation of a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan as described in G.6.1.

A.6.2: Develop a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan containing the following elements:

• The philosophical framework for the design of the student assessment plan and direction for both formative and summative assessment of the curriculum by course and grade in congruence with board policy.

• Requirement that formative, diagnostic, curriculum based assessment instruments are aligned to the district curriculum and are administered to students frequently to give teachers information for instructional decision making.

• Requirement that a pool of quality assessment items and tasks be available to teachers of all core courses (at a minimum) and all non-core courses to use diagnostically during instruction.

• Requirement that district staff provide secure summative assessment tools to measure concept mastery after students have had adequate opportunity to learn (practice and apply newly acquired learning in multiple settings over several weeks/months).

• An expectation for ongoing formative and summative program evaluation, an explicit set of formative and summative procedures to carry out these expectations, and provisions for regular formative and summative assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, and student).

• Inclusion of a list of student assessment and program evaluation tools, purposes, subjects, type of student tested, timelines, and so forth. Tools should make use of diverse formative and summative assessment strategies for multiple purposes at all levels.

• Direction for data to be disaggregated by objective, student, subgroup, school, and program, and used to respond to needs, gaps, and possible causes of results.

• An expectation for aggressive action in response to data trends indicating achievement gaps for individuals, in subgroups, at sites, or in programs. Direct that such action be monitored frequently for impact and modified as necessary to attain improved results within a specified time frame.


• Specification of responsibilities of the central office staff and school-based staff for assessing all students using designated assessment measures, and for analyzing and responding to test data. Identify how accountability will be monitored, frequency of monitoring, and consequences for lack of adequate response to closing achievement gaps in a timely manner.

• Specification of connection(s) among district, state, and national assessments.

• Description of overall assessment and analysis procedures for use in determining curriculum effectiveness.

• Requirement that aligned student assessment examples and tools be placed in curriculum and assessment documents.

• Specifics regarding how equity issues will be identified and addressed using data sources, including controls for possible bias.

• Identification of components of the student assessment system to be included in program evaluation and specifics as to how these data will be used to determine continuation, modification, or termination of a given program.

• Establishment of processes for communicating with and training staff in the interpretation of results, changes in state and local student achievement tests, and new trends in the student assessment field.

• Provision for appropriate trainings for various audiences on assessment and the instructional use of assessment results.

• Delineation of responsibilities and procedures for monitoring administration of the comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan and/or procedures.

• Description of creation of an assessment data system that allows for the attribution of costs by program, permitting program evaluations to support program-based cost-benefit analyses.

A.6.3: Assign responsibility for development and implementation of formalized procedures for systematic student assessment and program evaluation aligned with the curriculum management plan (see Recommendation 5) and A.6.2.

A.6.4: Establish clear criteria for administrators and teachers in board policies, job descriptions, and personnel appraisal systems on use of assessment data for diagnosing student needs, evaluating student progress, intervening to close achievement gaps, determining curriculum and program effectiveness, and making decisions in all district operations (see Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and Recommendations 2, 3, and 4).

A.6.5: Expand training in formative and summative data access, analysis, and use in facilitating teaching and learning. Extend this training to all instructional staff and administrators and provide systems to connect this training to district-wide efforts to increase student achievement.

A.6.6: Establish criteria for needs assessment and curriculum alignment in program adoption processes. Expect all program evaluations (prior to adoption, during implementation) to provide a cost-benefit analysis and recommendations for continuation, expansion, modification, or termination. Expect all program evaluations to included evidence of benefit to student performance.

A.6.7: Make regular quarterly reports to the board regarding the status of student performance on state and local assessments. In these reports, identify growth patterns, persistent gaps, and a formal evaluation of actions implemented to close the gaps.

This recommendation, if implemented, should give district and site leaders access to quality data and provide direction for data use to assess student progress and provide direction for sound decisions about intervention, appropriateness of curriculum design, effectiveness of instructional delivery, the impact of programs in use, and the allocation of district resources. Additionally, assessment and evaluation data will be available for use in informing students, parents, and other stakeholders of the effectiveness of district efforts in educating students.


Recommendation 7: Design and implement a comprehensive professional development process that provides for coordination with the curriculum management plan and for the use of student achievement data in the evaluation of the effectiveness of professional development efforts.

A cohesive and coordinated professional development plan is committed to aligning a system’s resources to effectively and efficiently implement the district’s written curriculum and support training in instructional strategies to meet identified teacher and student needs. Such a plan also includes ongoing evaluation of professional development design and delivery to determine whether the training has led to improved student learning and achievement. An effective professional development program is coordinated at the district level, supported during implementation, and monitored to ensure institutionalization over time. Finally, the professional development program is focused and prioritized to make the best use of limited employee training time and fiscal resources.

The design of the professional development program in the Kenosha Unified School District was found to be inadequate, lacking sufficient focus necessary to ensure improved delivery of curriculum over time and improve student achievement. A variety of professional development activities are provided, and the lack of planning, guidance, and coordination has resulted in a fragmented approach. The range of instructional strategies observed in district classrooms was limited and did not reflect the district’s expectations. Student achievement data have not been used to evaluate the effectiveness of the district’s professional development program. There is no clear expectation within board policies that requires a comprehensive, coordinated professional development plan (see Findings 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5).

Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Board of Education of the Kenosha Unified School District:

G.7.1: Direct the superintendent to revise Board Policy 4370 to align with the 18 Quality Criteria for Staff Development found in Exhibit 3.2.3. Direct the superintendent to develop for consideration and adoption a board policy that establishes a clear expectation for a written plan for the development and implementation of a comprehensive, coordinated professional development program with clear direction for how professional development needs will be identified, prioritized, and coordinated at the district, school site, and individual levels. Establish within this policy guidance directing the procedures and criteria that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the district’s professional development efforts.

G.7.2: Direct the superintendent to develop a multi-year professional development and implement a professional development program plan that meets the requirements of a revised Board Policy 4370 and ensures district-wide consistency, continuity, and quality control. The plan should evolve from consideration of at least the following factors:

• Congruency with the district’s staff appraisal data,

• Curriculum monitoring data,

• Student assessment data,

• Program evaluation data,

• Student equity needs,

• Needs for system-wide use of assessment data to influence decision making,

• Needs for effectively integrating the use of technology as both a teaching and learning tool,

• District strategic priorities, and

• Staff requests for assistance in curriculum or classroom management needs.

The plan should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of each activity to enhance student achievement. This evaluation component will help determine whether the professional development program is achieving the desired results.


G.7.3: Direct the superintendent to revise administrator job descriptions to clarify roles and responsibilities and to require that all professional development be coordinated through a centralized administrator.

G.7.4: Require annual reports on evaluations of professional development initiatives in terms of improved student achievement and demonstrated teacher use and competence in the classroom.

G.7.5: Commit adequate resources for implementation of a comprehensive professional program plan.


A.7.1: Revise Board Policy 4370 to define the purpose of professional development, to be in congruence with state expectations and the goals of the district, and to align with the Quality Criteria for Staff Development. Develop, for consideration by the board, a board policy to direct the development and implementation of a comprehensive written professional development plan focused on the effective delivery of the adopted curriculum that aligns with the district’s strategic plan and implementation projects. Through policy, set out the following expectations:

• Alignment of a mission for professional development with that of the district and a focus on organizational change consistent with district goals;

• A framework that takes a long-range planning approach and focuses on organizational change with professional development efforts in line with district goals;

• A norm of continuous improvement and learning for all employees;

• Provision for district-wide, school-based, and individual development in a systemic manner;

• Supervisors to serve as staff developers of those supervised;

• Basis in data-based analysis of needs;

• A focus on proven, research-based approaches with demonstrated effectiveness in increasing productivity;

• Provision of support for all three phases of the change process—initiation, implementation, and institutionalization—which require provision of on-the-job application and follow-up training and support necessary to cement new learning;

• Use of various staff development and adult learning approaches, all based on understanding of adult learning and development;

• Ongoing evaluation using multiple information sources, focusing on all levels of the organization, and based on actual changed behavior;

• System-wide oversight and coordination; and

• Provision for necessary funding to carry out staff development goals.

A.7.2: Review all existing administrative guidelines that reference professional development to ensure they are aligned with the professional development board policy referenced above. Ensure that administrative guidelines focus on increasing the capacity of staff to deliver the written curriculum and enhance student achievement. Establish an expectation that the development of a multi-year professional development plan aligned with the new strategic plan be completed within the next six months.

Develop an administrative regulation that provides clear direction for the development of a multi-year professional development plan. Include the following in the administrative regulation:

• Establish a professional development committee to guide development of a comprehensive, multi-year professional development plan and assist in the evaluation of professional development in the district.

• Establish the requirement that the professional development plan will include the following elements:


○ Organizes adults into learning communities whose goals are aligned with those of the school and district;

○ Requires skillful school and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement;

○ Requires resources to support adult learning and collaboration;

○ Uses disaggregated student data to determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress, and help sustain continuous improvement;

○ Uses multiple sources of information to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact;

○ Prepares educators to apply research to decision making;

○ Uses learning strategies appropriate to the intended goal;

○ Applies knowledge about human learning and change;

○ Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to collaborate;

○ Prepares educators to understand and appreciate all students; create safe, orderly, and supportive learning environments; and hold high expectations for students’ academic achievement;

○ Deepens educators’ content knowledge, provides them with research-based instructional strategies to assist students in meeting rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to use various types of classroom assessments appropriately; and

○ Provides educators with the knowledge and skills to involve families and other stakeholders appropriately.

○ Provide for a minimum of 50 hours of planned professional development per year for all faculty and administrators.

A.7.3: Design a multi-year professional development plan that addresses the Quality Criteria for Staff Development, as well as the following:

• Incorporation of a multi-year plan that is reviewed and updated annually in response to student achievement data and changing district and building professional learning needs;

• Congruence with the district’s staff performance appraisal system;

• Ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of professional development initiatives using multiple data sources;

• Employment of data from curriculum monitoring, staff performance appraisals and annual reviews, student assessment and achievement, student equity issues, program evaluations, and staff requests for assistance in curriculum implementation or classroom management needs; and

• Classroom follow-up support to ensure transfer of learning from professional development programs.

The multi-year professional development plan should evolve from consideration of the following factors:

• The goals established in the district’s strategic plan;

• The goals established in individual school renewal plans;

• District policy that directs staff development;

• Congruency with the district’s staff evaluation criteria;

• Findings of building administrators in annual staff evaluations and ongoing conferences;

• Curriculum monitoring data;

• Analysis of past student achievement trend data;


• Staff requests for assistance in curriculum or classroom management tasks;

• The design of the district’s curriculum management system;

• The design of the district curriculum;

• The design of assessments used to measure student achievement;

• Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of professional development initiatives using multiple data sources;

• Clear goals and purposes for professional development based on a comprehensive analysis of district performance data;

• Classroom-based follow-up support to ensure transference of teaching strategies into effective classroom practice; and

• Direct linkages to the budget development process.

A.7.4: Limit the focus of the district professional development program to no more than four goal areas, aligned with the Transformation Plan, and directly focused on increasing the capacity of teachers and administrators to deliver the written curriculum and enhance student achievement.

A.7.5: Provide a framework to coordinate all professional development efforts in the district to ensure that professional development efforts are aligned with identified district goals and needs. All program efforts need a well-designed process so that the system is not overloaded by building and department level initiatives that may not be coordinated and that compete for limited financial resources, time, and attention of teachers. The professional development framework should also address the facilitated transfer of learning and the use of regular and constructive feedback to inform individual progress.

A.7.6: Reclassify the position of Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development as Director of Instruction, which holds responsibility for directing, coordinating, and facilitating the development and implementation of a multi-year, district and building level professional development plans. The Coordinator of Organizational Training and Development should work collaboratively with curriculum coordinators to identify effective instructional strategies in support of the adopted curriculum; work with building administrators in the effective monitoring of curriculum delivery; and serve as a catalyst for innovation in the use of technology for delivery of instruction.

A.7.7: Update district and building administrator job descriptions to clarify their professional development roles and responsibilities related to implementing a planned and coordinated professional development program.

A.7.8: Develop a professional development program specifically for building administrators and curriculum coordinators in the following areas:

• Instructional leadership to promote student achievement;

• The collection and analysis of assessment data to be used in decision making about curriculum and implementation of appropriate interventions;

• Instructional strategies and core competencies for teaching economically disadvantaged, at-risk, and special needs students;

• Generic instructional strategies and content-specific instructional strategies;

• Strategies for ensuring alignment of the written, taught, and assessed curriculum;

• Strategies for monitoring curriculum delivery;

• Engaging teachers in reflective conversations about their work;

• Strategies for increasing and maximizing academic learning time; and

• Strategies for effective student-teacher engagement.


A.7.9: As regular components of administrator meetings, provide training in curriculum content, assessment, and instructional strategies in order to enhance and refine administrators’ capacity in monitoring implementation of the district’s curriculum and instructional interventions.

A.7.10: Incorporate into a multi-year professional development plan training and support for teachers and administrators to develop their abilities to examine their own cultural values, develop an understanding of the values of their students, and apply what they learn about cultural differences to the improvement of classroom practices.

A.7.11: Develop a professional development program specifically for support staff in the district.

A.7.12: Ensure that annual operating budgets contain sufficient funding to implement the professional development plan.

A.7.13: Provide an annual written report to the board on progress toward the goals identified in the professional development plan based on levels of student achievement.

When fully implemented, this recommendation will sharpen the district’s focus on professional development that is designed to enhance the professional capacity of teachers by connecting content and pedagogy with the impact of the instructional practices of teachers on student achievement. A professional development plan should be developed within one year of receiving this report.

Recommendation 8: Design and implement a comprehensive, curriculum-driven budget development process that emphasizes cost-benefit analyses that links resources to instructional priorities.

An effective school district links human and financial resource decisions to established system-wide goals and priorities. The budget development process incorporates student assessment and program evaluation data and consistently re-prioritizes annual spending in response to those sources of feedback. A well-planned and implemented curriculum-driven budget process will enable the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education and superintendent to effectively allocate district resources with a cost-benefit system.

The current budget development process in the Kenosha Unified School District is traditional in function and structure primarily on prior-year expenditures with a subjective process for determining the allocation of available resources. Financial decision making in the Kenosha Unified School District is weak in its commitment to linking fiscal allocations to the district’s strategic plan and curricular and programmatic needs. The board’s financial policies lack a clear expectation that district financial goals will be connected to programmatic and curricular priorities. Financial documents are inadequate in their ability to communicate the link between financial allocations and intended outcomes of various program expenditures. The district makes little use of data about program effectiveness to guide the financial decision-making process (see Findings 1.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 5.1).

A well-planned and implemented curriculum-driven budget process would offer the Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education a greater probability of attaining curricular goals in an environment of constrained resources and with greater cost effectiveness. A curriculum-driven budgeting process establishes links between district programs, curriculum goals, student achievement, and costs. Budgeting parameters provide clear guidance for planning resource allocations to sustain programs and assure comparable student access to instructional resources. With these linkages and parameters in place, the public will have a better idea of what is funded and why, and the school leadership will have a more credible rationale for funding allocations to specific programs and eliminating others based on data.

Transition to a curriculum-driven budget is a step-by-step process that should be implemented over a period of three years. Given attention to these recommendations, the Kenosha Unified School District will better be able to establish tangible connections between organizational goals and expectations and resource allocations.



G.8.1: Direct the superintendent to design and prepare for board adoption a comprehensive set of financial policies that link system performance and the achievement of stated goals into the financial decision-making process to support development of a budget based upon defined and measured educational needs and accomplishments. Such policies will serve as efficient and effective guidelines for the board, Superintendent, and Leadership Council in the allocation of district resources and in linking costs to programs.

G.8.2: Direct the superintendent to establish a three-year timeline to bring about systemic change in the district’s financial decision-making process.

G.8.3: Provide the superintendent with a timeline and decision-making framework that will provide direction and parameters for developing an annual operating budget. The decision-making framework should include the following components:

• A statement outlining the board’s understanding of current context and realities, as they exist in the Kenosha Unified School District. This statement should include the following:

○ A summary of the current issues, external trends, and challenges confronting the school district;

○ A summary of progress made toward attainment of the board’s strategic goals; and

○ A multi-year budget assumption, which includes enrollment, revenue, expenditure, and fund balance trends and projections.

• A broad statement of the board’s desired results as a direct response to the expenditure of district financial resources. This should be a statement of desired ends and not a statement defining the means to achieve the ends.

• A statement identifying strategies or actions that should not be used by the district in attaining desired ends and goals.

• It is recommended that the timeline and decision-making framework be established at least 16 months before formal adoption of the annual operating budget.

• It is recommended that the budget timeline and decision-making framework be publicly communicated, including posting to the district’s website.

G.8.4: Direct the superintendent to include a cost-benefit analysis for each program in the district, with an evaluation cycle (every three years as a minimum) to ensure programs and interventions used in the district are effective in achieving desired student achievement results. The cost analysis should include setting a minimum required student achievement standard in order to maintain a program/intervention.

G.8.5: Review and revise, as necessary, the current Transformation Plan (strategic/long-range planning process) to ensure that budget planning is linked to multi-year strategic goals.

G.8.6: Adopt a comprehensive set of financial policies that require continuous auditing of the district’s financial status and establishment of a link between budget allocations and their impact on individual curricular programs. Actual costs and benefits should be assigned to the curricular areas to provide a more detailed record of decision making and planning.

G.8.7: Retain within the role of the superintendent the oversight of financial decision making along with the responsibility for overseeing the mission of the organization. This ensures a comprehensive picture of the system as well as connectivity between program and budget and facility planning.

Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Superintendent for the Kenosha Unified School District:

A.8.1: Develop, for board consideration, a comprehensive set of financial policies that support clear linkages between district programs/curricular priorities and financial decisions.

A.8.2: Design strategies for including budget decision making as part of the district’s overall systematic planning process. Budget development is not an independent task performed annually. Financial planning


needs to be an ongoing process to ensure that budget allocations are based on curricular priorities, program objectives, and ongoing evaluations of program effectiveness and disaggregated student achievement.

A.8.3: Ensure a comprehensive system of student assessment and program evaluation, as described in Recommendation 6, is fully implemented to ensure the availability of data that can be used in making decisions regarding the allocation of financial resources.

A.8.4: Establish procedures and prepare documents that communicate the budget process and goals throughout the system, and require that budget and staffing proposals reflect a direct connection to established district goals. Establish a communications link, during regularly scheduled executive leadership council meetings, to enhance the sharing of budget/cost information, achievement data, and evaluations of program effectiveness. Such linkages will facilitate cost-benefit analysis of programs and help inform future budgeting decisions.

A.8.5: Appoint a “Budget Design Team” that will be responsible for developing budget options for consideration within the framework and assumptions established by the board of education. The design team should include key district leadership and representatives from various internal stakeholder groups such as building principals and teacher leadership.

A.8.6: Develop a three-year plan for full implementation of curriculum-driven budgeting and establish linkages with performance data. The major steps of implementing curriculum-driven budgeting include the following:

• Identify various educational activities or programs, and group them into broad areas of need or purpose served. Examples could include elementary instruction, middle school instruction, high school instruction, instructional support programs, special education services, district administration, professional development, technology, and maintenance. Divide the organization into the most logical, but least number necessary, subgroups based on the existing operating structure.

• Assemble all budgetary information related to each curricular or program area identified. Combine assessment information on student achievement, coupled with related leading and lagging performance indicators, to permit more accurate evaluation of the connection between expenditures and results. Clarify criteria for establishing basic and needs-driven allocation planning for the various divisions, and communicate those to budget developers.

• Build budget “packages” within each of the subgroups by the priority with which they deliver the objectives of the area of need or purpose. For example, any given program could be defined and packaged into units, which provide programs and services at (1) 90 percent of last year’s budget, (2) 100 percent of last year’s budget, and (3) 105 percent of last year’s budget level. These percentages will differ over time, as the system becomes more sophisticated and data-driven.

• Assign the responsibility of preparing budget packages for each of the identified subgroups to specific administrators. Each budget package needs to represent a level of activity that builds sequentially on the previous packages. Budget packages should be concise and meaningful and be developed with broad district-wide input.

• Using organizational performance data and appropriate involvement of staff (including principals, supervisors, directors, coordinators, and teachers), define current and desired levels of services and program objectives.

• Attach a goal statement to each program area or package that states the purpose it serves. Each budget request shall be described to permit evaluation of the consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance results.

• Goal statements and budget packages are compiled and given to appropriate staff to gather data to describe service levels, program outputs, and cost benefits.

• Budget packages, including costs, are compiled into a worksheet with instructions for evaluating and ranking.


• Past cost information, especially expenditures as a percentage of the budget, is coupled with performance data and recommendations are made to guide preliminary budget-building estimates.

• Budget program packages are given to the Budget Design Team for evaluation and ranking. Budget requests need to compete with each other for funding based upon evaluation or priority of need and relationship to achievement of program effectiveness. Compiled results are published in a tentative budget and program packages listed in order of ranked priority.

• Prior to finalizing budget options for consideration by the board, seek input on preliminary budget options from key district stakeholders including faculty, staff, and the community. Refine budget options in consideration of input received from stakeholder groups.

• Build the capital outlay and improvement budget from a zero base each year. Develop multi-year projections for capital improvements, including life-cycle replacement and preventive maintenance costs. Prioritize needs based on health, safety, and impact on the learning environment and protection of capital investments. Capital needs change annually and do not reoccur once met and paid for.

• Finalize budget allocations based on the decision framework established by the board, including board approved budget assumptions and the program funding priorities and rankings by the Budget Design Team, and recommend to the board.

• The board reviews recommendations, evaluates priorities, establishes which programs and services are to be funded and at what level, and adopts the budget.

A.8.7: Provide ongoing training and follow-up support to district administrators, principals, and other key staff during the transition to curriculum-driven budgeting.

With a curriculum-based approach to budgeting, both finances and programmatic efforts are integrated and, therefore, monitored simultaneously. It is important to note that this process needs to be developed carefully and systematically and cannot be implemented overnight.

Given this approach to budgeting, changing funding or allocation levels are based on “How well are we doing?” instead of “How much did we spend last year?” District administrators, the board, and the public will have a more complete idea of what is funded and what is not in operations, programs, and services of the Kenosha Unified School District.

In addition, tangible linkages can be identified among curriculum results, curriculum objectives, and curriculum costs. It will be easier to explain why certain portions of the budget are increasing or decreasing each year. The superintendent and board of education should have a credible rationale and system for appropriating and/or reallocating finances, especially from old, obsolescent, or unproductive programs and activities to new, emerging programs or activities of high priorities.

It cannot be emphasized enough that principals, directors, supervisors, teachers, and other staff must be key stakeholders in the budget decision-making process. Without their involvement, the educational priorities may not be focused or appropriately selected.



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 findings 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 deficiency.

The auditors subjected the Kenosha Unified School District to a comparison of predetermined standards and indicators of quality, and discrepancies were noted. These constitute the findings 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 expected that the superintendent, her 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 findings.

Normal audit practice is the board of education receives an audit, they do not accept it. After review of the audit report, the board requests the response of its superintendent. When the superintendent’s response is received, then the board is in a position to act upon those 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.

Located along the shores of Lake Michigan, midway between Chicago and Milwaukee, the Kenosha Unified School District is the third largest district in the state of Wisconsin, serving more than 22,000 students. Over the past two decades, as the population in the Kenosha area increased, so has the racial and economic diversity, which is reflected in the makeup of students attending Kenosha schools. Nearly half of the student body has identified themselves as other than White, and over half of all students are considered economically disadvantaged. With the changes in student population, the Kenosha Unified School District is confronted with many of the challenges typically associated with poverty, including disparities in academic achievement, discipline referrals, suspension rates, access to advanced programs, expectations for student success, and the application of effective instructional strategies.

Expectations and demands placed on public schools both at the state and national level are constantly changing. Over the of the past three years, the Kenosha Unified School District has confronted several new realities simultaneously, including changes in state academic content standards, higher expectations for student achievement, decreases in state education funding, and changes in state collective bargaining laws that significantly changed longstanding employer-employee relationships. While legislatures may change state education policy, ultimately local school boards are responsible for effectively implementing state laws and managing the affairs of the school district. When school boards have in place a comprehensive framework of governance policies that support effective planning and decision making, the district will benefit from the board’s forward thinking and proactive leadership. However, when there is a lack of clarity regarding the roles of governance and management, and a lack of organizational structures focused around the mission of teaching and learning, school districts run the risk of failing to serve the needs of their students.

In order for school boards and district administrators to meet increasing expectations and demands for improved student learning, they need to be consistently engaged in short- and long-range planning. Planning in the Kenosha Unified School District for critical functions such as curriculum development, professional development, student and program assessment, and school improvement has not been coordinated into a unifying effort that focuses on attainment of district goals. The Transformation Plan articulates a vision and core values for the school district but lacks sufficient clarity to communicate what the transformational principles should look like when fully realized. The lack of clarity, and the lack of research links to best practices within the Transformation Plan, have permitted multiple interpretations of the transformational principles to evolve. While planning is taking place in the district, it is not of sufficient quality and has not been coordinated into one cohesive set of actions capable of focusing the efforts of district staff and the allocation of district resources toward increasing student achievement.

The ability to address academic diversity in the classroom and promote high expectations for all students is an important challenge confronted by school districts and teachers across the country. Accountability


measures, as currently required at the state and federal levels, increase the importance of having in place a well-documented curriculum management and student assessment plan. Without comprehensive curriculum guides in place that clearly delineate desired learning outcomes, suggested instructional strategies, and appropriate evaluation methods that are implemented consistently district-wide, the learning experience of students can become fragmented. Without a comprehensive curriculum management system in place, student achievement as measured by required assessments becomes less an outcome of the curriculum taught and more a factor of the students’ background and prior experiences. The Kenosha Unified School District lacks a cohesive approach to the design, development, implementation, and monitoring of the district curriculum. The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate at all levels and for all content areas. The quality of district curriculum documents is also inadequate to direct teaching and provide a rigorous educational program for student achievement. Multiple efforts to develop curriculum exist across the district but are isolated at individual school sites and are not sufficiently coordinated district-wide to establish and bring focus to the instructional work, resulting in multiple interpretations regarding student learning.

To meet the varied needs of all students, the teacher’s role is to determine the learning sequence, pacing, and instructional strategies necessary to ensure all students achieve mastery of meaningful content standards. Sustained implementation of teaching strategies that have the potential of increasing student achievement requires ongoing professional development for all staff who affect student learning. Training focused on instructional strategies and deepening teacher content knowledge makes it possible for teachers to move their students to deeper understanding of the content. Well-designed professional development programs support adult learning by using a variety of training approaches, including job-embedded learning and professional coaching with constructive feedback. The design of the Kenosha Unified School District’s professional development program is determined primarily by individual school sites, resulting in the lack of sufficient focus or coordination to inform instructional practices district-wide. A comprehensive professional development plan is not in place to prevent a fragmented approach to professional learning. There is no process in place to ensure professional development is driven by disaggregated student achievement data, student achievement goals, district priorities, or organizational needs. No indication was found that the district’s professional development programs have increased the number of students demonstrating proficiency on the state knowledge and concepts examination.

A comprehensive student and program assessment system is critical to informing district decision making. Utilizing a variety of formative and summative assessment approaches, a comprehensive assessment program provides district decision-makers timely feedback specific to the progress students are making toward clearly defined learning outcomes. An assessment program that does not provide adequate coverage of the taught curriculum limits the ability of decision-makers to know how well the curriculum is functioning to improve student learning. A student and program assessment plan is not in place in the Kenosha Unified School District. Board policies and administrative rules are inadequate in defining roles, responsibilities, and assessment strategies ensuring the consistent use of data to inform curriculum design and instruction. The scope of assessment available for the ongoing diagnosis of student acquisition of the curriculum is inadequate. While there is evidence district leadership is reporting student achievement data, there is no indication such data have been used systematically to evaluate the effectiveness of district policies, instructional practices, programs, and interventions. Without a comprehensive assessment plan, decisions about curriculum, instruction, compensatory programs, interventions, and other operational decision are subjective at best.

Increasingly, textbooks and other traditional educational resources are being replaced by electronic resources, including software applications and online learning programs. The rapidly evolving education technology marketplace already offers a wide variety of electronic resources from which teachers may choose. Selecting instructional technologies and electronic resources that facilitate curriculum delivery and student learning will be a challenge if school districts do not have protocols in place for evaluating these resources to ensure they are fully aligned with the district’s adopted curriculum and state content standards. There are many software applications and online learning solutions in use across the Kenosha Unified School District, but there is no systematic process in place for evaluating or formally adopting these resources. A review of a sample of online programs currently used in the Kenosha Unified School District found some programs to be adequately aligned in content, context, and cognitive demand to support student attainment of the state content standards. Others


programs were found insufficiently aligned with state content standards to support students in their mastery of the content.

Changing national and state economic priorities have essentially eliminated the predictability of state educational funding. A predictable increase in state education funding has been replaced by year-to-year volatility. Increases in state school aid funding, if realized, are increasingly earmarked for implementation of state mandated initiatives and/or linked to measured growth in student achievement, thus limiting the spending authority of local school boards. School districts that have in place an effective, multi-year, curriculum-driven budgeting process are better positioned to adapt to fluctuations in anticipated funding while maintaining a clear focus on the district’s own strategic mission and priorities. In the Kenosha Unified School District, a traditional budget development process is in place that lacks clear linkages between district goals, priorities, and budgetary allocations. Financial allocations have not been driven by clearly established program priorities, achievement needs, or cost-benefit analysis of educational programs and services. Also, the practice of planned operating budget deficits places the district in a precarious situation where it may be unable to respond to unforeseen economic conditions placing the district’s educational programs at risk of disruption.

The efficacy of the recommendations contained in this audit report rests on the development of a comprehensive and focused board policy framework. Of all the requisite conditions necessary to put into place the components of a comprehensive curriculum management system, board policies are fundamental. When board policies are absent or unclear, it allows individuals to make decisions as they see fit, increasing the likelihood of inconsistencies and organizational conflicts. The scope of the adopted policies in the Kenosha Unified School District is inadequate to ensure that a framework exists capable of institutionalizing expectations, roles, responsibilities, and decision making to guide all necessary aspects of curriculum management and the educational program. Administrative rules should not substitute for board policies; rather, administrative rules are the tools through which the superintendent communicates expectations and defines the logistics by which board policies will be implemented.

The recommendations offered by the audit team to ameliorate the conditions outlined in the findings are based on practices known to have been effective in similar school systems and an analysis of the organizational intent and mission. All should help bring the school district closer to audit standards and improve student achievement results over time in the Kenosha Unified School District. Effecting change in the Kenosha Unified School District in terms of decision making, professional practices, and student achievement, however, will require more than simply implementing the recommendations outlined. In order to address persistent gaps in student achievement, the board, district leadership, and district staff will need to address institutional practices and beliefs that have limited the ability of all students to benefit from the district’s educational programs and achieve at high levels. Also, consideration should be given to what parents may have to offer in support of the education goals established by the board through adoption of the Transformation Plan. Implementation of the audit recommendations included in this report will require systemic planning and will take months to several years to implement. Full implementation of the recommended actions of the board and professional staff will increase the likelihood that every child will experience high quality, personalized learning success in the Kenosha Unified School District.



VI. APPENDICES



Appendix A

Auditors’ Biographical Data

Randall B Clegg, Ed.D., Lead Auditor

Dr. Clegg’s professional background includes 35 years working in public schools as a teacher and administrator. Dr. Clegg’s administrative experience includes serving as an athletic director, junior/senior high school principal, and 28 years as a school superintendent. He has broad experience in long-range planning, fiscal planning and management, personnel management, curriculum design and development, and school facilities planning. Periodically Dr. Clegg works as a consultant providing school districts technical support in the areas

of curriculum management, financial planning, and curriculum monitoring including classroom walkthrough training. Over the years, Dr. Clegg has been a presenter at various state and national conferences speaking on topics addressing budget development, technology planning, and curriculum integration. Dr. Clegg received his B.M. degree from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, his M.S. and Ed.S. degrees from Winona State University, and his Ed.D. degree from the University of Northern Iowa. Dr. Clegg completed his CMAC audit training in 1993 and has served as an auditor and lead auditor in 16 states.

Olive Mc Ardle Kulas, Ed. D., Auditor

Dr. Olive McArdle Kulas is a retired educator who provides professional consulting for school districts, individual school sites, state departments, and other educational organizations. She has 40 years experience in the education profession as an elementary and middle school teacher, as a building principal, and as a district executive for curriculum management. Her experience includes staff development for teachers and principals in curriculum design, implementation through effective instruction, assessment design, and using data results to

inform instruction. Dr. McArdle Kulas completed her masters in curriculum at Gonzaga University, a masters in business at National University, and her doctorate in curriculum and instruction at the University of Southern California (USC). Dr. McArdle Kulas completed her CMAC audit training in 1996 and has provided system audits for school districts, state departments of education, and individual school sites in California, Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, Georgia, Idaho, Washington DC, and Bermuda.

Eve Proffitt, Ed.D., Auditor

Dr. Eve Proffitt is the Co-Director of the P20 Innovation Lab at the University of Kentucky. She was the Dean of Education, the Associate Dean for Graduate Education and full Professor of Education at Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky. She is retired as Director of Student Achievement and Disability Law for the Kentucky School Boards Association. Formerly, Dr. Proffitt was an Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Support, the Director of Special Education, a building principal, a federal grants writer, and a teacher

for the Fayette County Schools in Lexington, Kentucky. Dr. Proffitt has extensive experience in educational administration, curriculum development, collaboration and inclusion, differentiated instruction, innovation and next generation learning, and disability law. She has served as the Chairperson of the Governor’s Educational Improvement Advisory Committee in Kentucky as well as participated in Kentucky Leadership Academy, the Kentucky Education Reform Act Fellows Program, and the Regional Service Center Associates Program. She is Past President of Phi Delta Kappa, International. She serves as a consultant statewide and nationally on special education curriculum, co-teaching, and differentiated instruction. Dr. Proffitt received her M.A. degree from Eastern Kentucky University and her Ed.D. from the University of Kentucky. Dr. Proffitt received her CMAC audit training in 1989 and is a lead auditor and a former board member for CMSi.


Appendix A (continued)Auditors’ Biographical Data

Kim Nisbett, Ed.D., Auditor

Dr. Kim Nisbett is currently serving as the Coordinator of School Counseling, a district office administrative position at Roosevelt School District in Long Island, New York. Dr. Nisbett earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from Liberty University, and worked in the Banking industry in New York City and Florida for 14 years before becoming an educator. She has served as a high school teacher, high school guidance counselor, and high school assistant principal, before being promoted to the District Office

level. Dr. Nisbett is in her 14th year as an educator. Dr. Nisbett holds a Masters Degree in School Counseling from Webster University an Educational Specialist Degree in Educational Leadership from Nova Southeastern University and a Doctorate in Organizational Leadership also from Nova Southeastern University.

Sue Shidaker, Auditor

Ms. Shidaker is an educational consultant based in Washington. She has also served as an assistant superintendent in Washington and Arizona and previously as a curriculum coordinator, school administrator, and teacher of English Language Arts in secondary schools in five states. Sue’s career path also included seven years as a Governor’s special assistant for public schools and higher education, law, local government, and health/social services. For two years she was Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration.

Sue was a school board president and president of the Alaska School Boards Association, and has served on numerous other boards and commissions in education and in state and local government. She completed her B.A. degree in English at Ohio Wesleyan University and her M.Ed. in education administration at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. She also completed additional graduate work at Duke University, The Ohio State University, Arizona State University, and Seattle University. Ms. Shidaker has led Curriculum Audits™ since 1989 and has led or participated on audit teams in 25 states. She also has conducted audit training (Levels I and II) and deep curriculum alignment training in addition to consulting and coaching regarding other school improvement strategies. Sue is the author of two chapters in the text The Curriculum Management Audit: Improving School Quality and of several independent articles on education and government. She is also co-author of A Practitioner’s Guide for Managing Curriculum and Assessment, published in 2006.

Jeffrey Tuneberg, Ph.D., Auditor

Dr. Jeffrey Tuneberg is the Director of Curriculum with the Mercer County Educational Service Center, Celina, Ohio. He has over 30 years experience in education, including over 20 years in administration. His teaching background includes experience in urban (Cleveland Public Schools) and suburban settings, as well as overseas (Guam). He was selected as a Fulbright Memorial Fund Teacher Program representative to Japan in 1997. He is also an adjunct professor at Wright State University Lake Campus, Celina, Ohio, and

Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio. Dr. Tuneberg received his B.S. in Education, M.Ed., and Ph.D. from Bowling Green State University, Ohio. He has served as a consultant to school districts in Ohio, Tennessee, and Oklahoma on issues of teacher licensure, school improvement, and value-added student growth measures. He completed his CMAC training in 1999, and has conducted curriculum audits in Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and New Jersey. He is also a presenter for the Classroom Walk-Through Program, SchoolView, the Baker’s Dozen Program, and Deep Curriculum Alignment.


Appendix A (continued)Auditors’ Biographical Data

Susan N. Van Hoozer, M.Ed., Auditor

Sue Van Hoozer has been an educator for 38 years. She was a teacher at the elementary level and taught developmental reading, remedial reading, and language arts in middle school and high school. Mrs. Van Hoozer was an elementary principal, high school assistant principal, and high school principal. She worked in human resources and served as Executive Director of Schools, supervising principals, for the San Angelo Independent School District in San Angelo, Texas. Mrs. Van Hoozer currently works as an education specialist for Education

Service Center, Region XV in Texas, where she provides technical assistance and professional development for principals and superintendents. She received her B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from Angelo State University. Mrs. Van Hoozer completed her audit training in Tucson, Arizona, in 2004, and has done audits in California, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Texas, and Virginia.



Appendix B

List of Documents Reviewedby the

Kenosha Unified School District Audit Team

2011-12 Capital Projects Plan (January 2011)2012-13 Grants2012-13 Title I Budget2012-2013 Brass Community School Solutions Teams 2012-2013 Budget Assumption, Preliminary, Updated (August 2012)2012-2013 McKinley Elementary Literacy Goals2012-2013 Professional Learning for Administrators to Improve Student Achievement (September 2012)2013-14 Budget Calendar – Preliminary (December 2012) 21st Century Community Learning Center Grant Notice of Award (June 2012)6th Grade Technology Education Course Syllabus (June 2007)7th Grade Technology Education Course Syllabus (June 2007)8th Grade Technology Education Course Syllabus (June 2007)9th Grade Crew Curriculum GuideAccounting Course Syllabus (March 2008)Accounting Curriculum Map (December 2008)Administration for Children and Families Notice of Award (June 2012)Adopted 2008-2009 Budget (October 2008)Adopted 2009-2010 Budget (October 2009)Adopted 2010-2011 Budget (November 2010)Adopted 2011-2012 Budget (October 2011)Adopted 2012-2013 Budget (October 2012)Advanced Accounting Curriculum Map (December 2008)Advanced Accounting Honors Course Syllabus (March 2008)Agreement between The Kenosha School Board and The Kenosha Education Association (July 2011)AIMS Program - Attendance Improvement Means Success Grant Notice of Award (September 2010)ALEKS® Building Reports (April 2013)ALEKS® Pilot Implementation Plan - Phase 1 (June 2012)Aligning CCSS with Classroom Instruction: Common Core Shifts in ELAAllowable Test Practices for All Students (2012)AP District Summary by School (2012)AP Five-Year School Score Summary (2012) April & May 2013 District Professional Development (April 2010)Assessment Guides (K-5) LiteracyAutomotive 2 Curriculum Map (March 2009)Automotive Technology 1 Curriculum Map (April 2013)Avanti Beginning ItalianBalls Study—Teachers Guide—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Benchmark Reading Level Expectations by QuarterBistro Course Syllabus (March 2008)Board of Education Group Norms and Communication ProtocolsBoard Policies and Administrative RegulationsBose Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsBose Elementary School CommitteesBose Elementary School Elementary Teacher Packer (2012-13)Bose Elementary School Literacy Goals (2012-13)


Appendix B (continued)List of Documents Reviewed by the

Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamBose Elementary School Schedule (2012-13)Bose Elementary Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Bradford High School 2012-2013 Faculty CommitteesBradford High School 2012-2013 Title One School-wide PlanBrass Community School Schedule (2012-13)Brass Community School Staff Handbook (2012-13)Brass Community School Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Brass Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsBrass Elementary School Literacy Goals (2012-13)Brompton Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsBrompton Schedule (2012-13)Brompton School Governance Board Membership HandbookBrompton School Survey Results (2011) Budget Council Meeting Agendas October 2011 through December 2012Budget Council Members as of 4/30/2013Building Envelope Management DatabaseBuilding Relationships Course Syllabus (October 2007)Building Relationships Curriculum Map (April 2013)Building Site Facility Inventory (April 2013)Building Trades 1 Course Syllabus (October 2008)Building Trades II Course Syllabus (December 2008)Buildings Study—Teachers Guide—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Bullen Middle School Grid Master Schedule Report (2012-13)Bullen TeamsBullenTitle I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Business & the Economy Course Syllabus (November 2011)Business and Personal Law Course Syllabus (March 2008)Business and Personal Law Course Syllabus (November 2010)Business and Personal Law Honors Course Syllabus (November 2008)Business and Personal Law Honors Scope & Sequence (June 2009)Business Leadership and Ethics Curriculum Map (May 2007)CAD 1 - Introduction Course Syllabus (October 2008)CAD 2 - Intermediate Course Syllabus (October 2008)Career Foods/Foods 3 Course Syllabus (October 2007)Career Foods/Foods 3 Curriculum Map (October 2007)Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act Grant Notice of Award (September 2012)Carpenters’ and Painters’ Salary and Welfare Agreement (2008-11)CCSS Reading Informational Text Standards K-5Changes to Kenosha Unified Standards, Curricula, and Assessments (November 2012)Charles Nash Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Charter School Financing (July 2012)Child Development 1 Course Syllabus (March 2008)Child Development 1 Curriculum Map (April 2013)Child Development 2 Course Syllabus (March 2008)Child Development 2 Curriculum Map (April 2013)Civil Engineering & Architecture Course Syllabus (December 2008)Civil Engineering and Architecture - Honors Course Syllabus (December 2008)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamClassification, Compensation and Personnel Policy for General Administrative, Instructional Administration, Supervisory and Technical Personnel (2011-13)Classification, Compensation, and Personnel Policy for Non-Represented, Non-Supervisory, Miscellaneous Employees (2009-11)Clothes Study—Teachers Guide—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Collaborative Common Core Work ScheduleCommittees Indian TrailCommon Core Aligned Lesson Plan TemplateCommon Core Cadre Action PlanCommon Core Implementation January-AprilCommon Core Power Point Training (October 2012)Common Core State Standards Survey (December 2012)Common Core: State Standards Initiative Newsletter KUSDCommunications Curriculum Map (July 2009)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008 (December 2008)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 (December 2009)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 (December 2010)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 (December 2011)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 (November 2012)Computer Applications Course Syllabus (Draft) (August 2012)Computer Applications Course Syllabus (Draft) (July 2012)Computer Applications for Info Tech Course Syllabus (November 2008)Computer Applications for Info Tech Curriculum Map (December 2008)Computer/Tablet Count (March 2012)Conferencing and Observation Schedule for Each Member of CCSS TeamConsiderations for Selection Science Instructional MaterialsConstruction Planning Course Syllabus (October 2008)Construction Systems 1Course Syllabus (October 2008)Construction Systems 2 Course Syllabus (October 2008)Construction Systems 2 Curriculum Map (January 2009)Construction Systems I Curriculum Map (January 2009)Consumer Auto and Care Curriculum Map (October 2006)Content Guide and Pacing (July 2012)Contractors (2012-13)Counselor/Social Worker Assignments 2012-13Course Syllabus for Biology (August 2007)Courses and Textbooks for Elementary SchoolsCourses and Textbooks for Kenosha Elementary School (April 2013)Courses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified Elementary SchoolsCourses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified High SchoolsCourses and Textbooks for Kenosha Unified Middle SchoolsCreative Curriculum ® Classroom materials listCreative Curriculum ® Correlation to K-5 Standards and Benchmarks (April 2010)Crowe Horwath Executive Summary Status Update (October 2011)Culinary Skills/Foods 2 Course Syllabus (September 2009)Culinary Skills/Foods 2 Curriculum Map (October 2007)Curriculum and Instructional Materials Adoption 6-12 Social Studies Update and Recommendation for Adoption Purchase (October 2009)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamCurriculum DirectivesCurriculum Evaluation and Instructional Materials Adoption Cycle (2008)Curriculum Evaluation and Renewal Cycle (2003-13)Curriculum Evaluation and Renewal Cycle Purchase Years of Materials Currently in UseCurriculum Map Digital Electronics (July 2009)Curriculum Map Fundamentals of Engineering/Manufacturing (March 2011)Curriculum Map Introduction to Design, Engineering & Technology (July 2009)Curriculum Map Introduction to Engineering Design (July 2009)Curriculum Map Principles of Engineering (July 2009)Curriculum Map Update to: Drafting, Electronics & MachiningCurtis A. Strange Elementary Literacy GoalsCurtis A. Strange Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Curtis Strange Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Curtis Strange School Emergency Procedures/Guidelines (December 2012)Desktop Publishing Course Syllabus (June 2007)Digital Electronics Curriculum Map (July 2009)Digital Imaging Curriculum Map (July 2009)Dimensions Music, Art, Physical Education Schedule (2012-13)Dimensions of Learning Staff Handbook (January 2012)Discovering FrenchDistrict Boundary & Enrollment Advisory Committee (November 2006)District Calendar August 2012 - June 2013District Professional Development (February – May 2-13)District Results for ALEKS (July 2012)Donations to the DistrictDonations to the District July 2010 to April 2013Draft, Rosetta Stone Language Learning Learner Survey (April 2013)Drafting, Electronics & Machining Course Syllabus (April 2013)Early Childhood Education Course Syllabus (September 2008)Early Childhood Units 1-6Early Education Handbook (July 2012)Early Education PD Plan (September 2012)Early Education Survey Summary 2010-11`Early Education Unit 1 through Unit 6 (January 2013)Early Learning Handbook (July 2012-March 2013)EBSOLA Smart GoalsEBSOLA Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsEducation Support Professionals’ Salary and Welfare Agreement (2009-11)Edward Bain School Creative Arts Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Edward Bain School of Language Arts Schedule (2012-13)Elementary Music and Art Schedules (2012-13)Elementary School Staffing (January 2013)Employee Evaluation GuideEngineering Certification Document 2: Self-Assessment (2009)Entrepreneurship Curriculum Map (June 2007)Equity Audit (2011-12)Evidence Sheets (Math and Literacy)Expectations for Implementation of Creative Curriculum ®



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamExpeditionary LearningExpeditionary Learning Core Practice BenchmarksExpeditionary Learning: Flexible Grouping Patterns for Differentiation (2012-13)Exploring Health Careers Course Syllabus (September 2009)Exploring Health Occupations Course Syllabus (October 2007)Exploring Health Occupations Curriculum Map (April 2013)Facilities Capital Project Planning Memo (May 2013)Facilities Services Department Work Rules and Procedures (2007)Facilities Utilization Report (April 2013)Family Clothing/Clothing I Course Syllabus (October 2007)Family Clothing/Clothing I Curriculum Map (May 2007)Family Foods/Foods 1 Course Syllabus (October 2007)Family Life Health Objectives and Curriculum (September 2004)Family Life Objectives and Curriculum Kindergarten-Grade 12 (May 2000)Family Life Objectives Kindergarten - Grade 12 (September 2004)Fashion Careers/Clothing 2 Course Syllabus (November 2007)Fashion Careers/Clothing 2 Curriculum Map (May 2007)FASTT Math Facts Implementation Guide (April 2008)Fast Facts - Kenosha Unified School District (Brochure)February and March 2013 District Professional Development (February 2013)February, March and April 2013 District Professional Development (February 2013)Fifth Grade Assessment GuideFifth Grade ChecklistFifth Grade Common Core ImplementationFinal Recommendation 2007-2008 School Boundary ReconfigurationFinancial and Process Assessment Services Review (January 2011)Financial Literacy Curriculum Map (May 2007)First Grade Assessment Guide (September 2012)First Grade ChecklistFirst Grade Common Core ImplementationFiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Calendar Fitness Gram (2013)Food & Nutrition/Foods 1 Course Syllabus (November 2010)Food & Nutrition/Foods 1 Curriculum Map (November 2007)Foods and Nutrition/Foods 1 Course Syllabus (September 2009)Forest Park 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsForest Park Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Forest Park School Staff Handbook (2012-13)Forest Park Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Forest Part Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsFourth Grade Assessment GuideFourth Grade ChecklistFourth Grade Common Core ImplementationFrank 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsFrank El Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Frank Elementary Leadership Team 2012-2-13Frank Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Frank Elementary School 2012-13 SMART Goals



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamFrank Elementary School Master Schedule (2012-13)Fundamentals of Engineering/Manufacturing Curriculum Map (March 2011)FY13 School Allocations Operations (October 2012)Grewenow Elementary – GroupingGilbert S. Lance Middle School Student Handbook (2012-13)Grade 6 21st Century Course Description (Draft) (October 2012)Grade 7 21st Century Course Description (Draft) (October 2012)Grade 8 21st Century Course Description (Draft) (July 2012)Grant 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsGrant Committees ListGrant Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Grant Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsGrant Elementary School Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Grants Two Year Summary (2012-13)Graphic Communications Curriculum Map (July 2009)Grewenow 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsGrewenow CommitteesGrewenow Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Grewenow Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsGrewenow Elementary School Handbook (August 2012)Grewenow Elementary School Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Grid Master Schedule Report Washington Middle School (2012-13)Grouping of Students at Forest ParkGrouping/Placement at StockerGrowing Up Ready 6 Course Syllabus (September 2007)Growing Up Ready 6 Curriculum Map (September 2007)Growing Up Ready 7 Course Syllabus (September 2007)Growing Up Ready 7 Curriculum Map (September 2007)Growing Up Ready 8 Course Syllabus (October 2008)Growing Up Ready 8 Curriculum Map (September 2007)Harborside - Paideia Master Schedule (2012-13)Harborside Academy Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Harborside CommitteesHarborside Staff Handbook (2012-13)Harvey 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsHarvey Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Harvey Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsHarvey School CommitteesHead Start Supplement Notification of Grant Award (August 2012)Health, Safety and Nutrition Course Information (April 2010)High School Attendance Boundaries Report (November 2009)High School Capacities (April 2013)High School Course Catalog 2012-2013 (August 2012)High School Course Directory (2012-13)High School Course Syllabus Digital Electronics (June 2012)High School Course Syllabus Introduction to Engineering Design (August 2012)High School Course Syllabus Principles of Engineering (January 2013)High School Course Syllabus Technology Systems 1



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamHigh School Courses Catalog (2012-13)High School Mathematics Course SequenceHigh School Texts by CourseHigh School Texts by Course (April 2013)High School, Middle School, and Elementary Common Core TeamsHillcrest School Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Hillcrest School Training/Staff Development ManualHonors Biotechnology Quarter I FinalHow to access ebooks using a computerIDEA Detail Budget Report, Kenosha School District (April 2013)IDEA Discretionary Project, Seclusion and Restraint Training Grant Notice of Award (August 2012)Implementation of the Common Core State Standards: Phase I, II, III (2011-14)Implementation of the Common Core State Standards (2011-14)Implementing the Common Core Literacy PlanImplementing the Common Core: Building and District Level ConsiderationsIndian Trail High School and Academy Master Schedule - Semester (2012-13)Indian Trail Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Infant Lab Course Syllabus (September 2008)Infant Lab Curriculum Map (August 2007)Information and Technology Plan (2011-14)Interest Areas—Volume 2—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Interior Design 1 Curriculum Map (May 2007)Interior Design 2 Course Syllabus (May 2007)International Business Course Syllabus (April 2013)International Business Curriculum Map (April 2013)Internship Curriculum Map (May 2009)Introduction to Business Course Syllabus (December 2008)Introduction to Business Course Syllabus (October 2008)Introduction to Computer Programing/Robotics Curriculum Map (April 2013)Introduction to Design, Engineering & Technology Curriculum Map (July 2009)Introduction to Engineering Design Curriculum Map (July 2009)Introduction to Medical Terminology Course Syllabus (September 2009)Introduction to Medical Terminology Curriculum Map (May 2007)Investing for your Future Course Syllabus (October 2008)Investing for your Future Course Syllabus (April 2008)Jefferson 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsJefferson Elementary Group, Retention, and PlacementJefferson Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Jefferson Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsJefferson Elementary School Staff Handbook (August 2010)Jefferson Elementary Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Jeffery 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsJeffery Committees for 2012-2013Jeffery Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Jeffery Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsJeffery Elementary School Handbook (2012-13)Jeffery Grouping of StudentsJob Description: Assistant Superintendent of Educational Accountability (April 2012)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamJob Description: Assistant Superintendent of Elementary School Leadership (April 2012)Job Description: Assistant Superintendent of Secondary School Leadership (March 1998)Job Description: Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning (March 1998)Job Description: Athletics Coordinator (July 1999)Job Description: Chief Communication Officer (March 2009)Job Description: Chief Financial Officer (April 2012)Job Description: Community School Relations Manager (December 2010)Job Description: Compensation and Benefits Manager (July 2011)Job Description: Computer Educational Technology Resource TeacherJob Description: Coordinator – Language Acquisition Program (September 2010)Job Description: Coordinator - Talent Development (July 2010)Job Description: Coordinator of Human Resources (October 2000)Job Description: Coordinator of Organization Training and Development (April 2012)Job Description: Coordinator of Special Education (March 2008)Job Description: Coordinator of Special Education and Student Support (April 2012)Job Description: Coordinator of Title One (April 2012)Job Description: Counselor - Elementary School (March 2012)Job Description: Counselor - High School (March 2012)Job Description: Counselor - Middle School (March 2012)Job Description: Curriculum Coordinator - Instructional Technology and Library Media (August 2011)Job Description: Curriculum Coordinator – Literacy (April 2012)Job Description: Curriculum Coordinator – Mathematics and Science (July 2010)Job Description: Curriculum Coordinator – Science (July 2010)Job Description: Curriculum Coordinator – Social Studies (July 2010)Job Description: Dean of StudentsJob Description: Director of Facilities Services (April 2012)Job Description: Director of Food Services (April 2012)Job Description: Director of Human Resources (April 2012)Job Description: Director of Information Services (April 2012)Job Description: Director of Instruction (March 1998)Job Description: Director of Pre-School Job Description: Director of Special Education and Student Support (April 2012)Job Description: Dual Language Support TeacherJob Description: Elementary Librarian (April 1983)Job Description: Elementary Resource TeacherJob Description: Elementary School Principal (March 2013)Job Description: Fine Arts Coordinator (March 2013)Job Description: Head Start Administrator (February 2002)Job Description: Human Resources Specialist (September 2012)Job Description: Instructional Coach (May 2012)Job Description: Instructional Technology Teacher (April 2012)Job Description: K-8 Coordinator (March 1998)Job Description: Middle School Assistant Principal (January 2000)Job Description: Middle School Principal (October 1984)Job Description: Pre-School CoordinatorJob Description: Professional Development Specialist (November 2009)Job Description: Professional Development Teacher Consultant (October 2010)Job Description: Program Evaluation Coordinator (March 1998)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamJob Description: Program Support Teacher (April 2010)Job Description: Senior High School Principal (October 1984)Job Description: Student Engagement and Equity Coordinator (June 2011)Job Description: Superintendent of Schools (Draft)Job Description: Supervisor of Technology Services (March 1998)Job Description: Teacher Consultant ESLJob Description: Teacher Position (August 2010)Job Description: Testing and Assessment Coordinator (October 1999)Job Description: Assistant Superintendent of Business (July 2010)K-12 revised Family Life Objectives (September 2004)Kenosha eSchool 2012-2013 School CommitteesKenosha School of Technology Enhanced Curriculum Staff Handbook (2012-13)Kenosha Unified Curriculum Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics (October 2012)Kenosha Unified School District Adopted Budget (2008)Kenosha Unified School District Adopted Budget (2009)Kenosha Unified School District Adopted Budget (2010)Kenosha Unified School District Adopted Budget (2011)Kenosha Unified School District Adopted Budget (2012)Kenosha Unified School District Circulation Statistics (March 2013)Kenosha Unified School District Employee Handbook (July 2013)Kenosha Unified School District Financial Transformation July 2010 ForwardKenosha Unified School District High School Course Catalog (2013-14)Kenosha Unified School District Libraries Collection Statistics (March 2013)Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Personnel GuidebookKenosha Unified School District Reading Comprehension Strategies K-5 (July 2012)Kenosha Unified School District Transformation Plan (March 2012)Kenosha Unified School District Writing Expectations K-5 (June 2008)Kindergarten Assessment GuideKindergarten ChecklistKTEC 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsKTEC CommitteesKTEC Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsKUSD AP Results from 2012 (February 2013)KUSD Curriculum Evaluation and Instructional Materials Adoption Cycle (2008)KUSD Curriculum Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics Packet (October 2010)KUSD Elementary School Courses Taught by Building (April 2013)KUSD Financial Transformation (July 2010)KUSD High School Courses Taught by Building (April 2013)KUSD Literacy Framework: Reading WorkshopKUSD Middle School Courses Taught by Building (April 2013)KUSD Middle School Program Capacities (April 2013)KUSD Reading Comprehension Strategies K-5 (July 2008)KUSD Science Kit Distribution Schedule (2012-13)KUSD Writing Continuum ELA 6-8 (August 2008)KUSD Writing Expectations K-5 (June 2008)Lakeview Technology Academy Teacher Handbook (2012-13)Leadership Course Syllabus (March 2008)Leadership Course Syllabus (October 2008)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamLearning A Living Course Syllabus (June 2007)Learning Strategies Course (Outline)Letter from Wisconsin Department of Instruction re: Racial Disproportionality in Special Education Data (March 2013)Lincoln CommitteesLincoln Middle School Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Lincoln Middle School Staff Information Folder (2012-13)List of Fine Arts Program InnovationsLiteracy—Volume 3—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Manufacturing 1 Curriculum Map (January 2009)Manufacturing 1 Curriculum Map (March 2009)Manufacturing Process 1 Curriculum Map (May 2009)Manufacturing Process II Curriculum Map (May 2009)Mary Lou Mahone Middle School Faculty Handbook (2012-13)Master Schedule by Course Kenosha eSchool (2012-13)Master Schedule by Course Lance Middle School (2012-13)Master Schedule by Course Reuther Central High School (2012-13)Master Schedule by Course, Bradford High School (2012-13)Master Schedule by Course, Hillcrest School (2012-13)Math Standards 3-5 (April 2013)Mathematics—Volume 4—The Creative Curriculum (2010)McKinley Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsMcKinley Elementary School-wide Intervention (2012-13)McKinley Elementary Title I School-wide Plan (2012-13)McKinley Leadership CommitteeMedical Interventions Course DescriptionMemorandum Breakfast/Lunch for Pre-School Classrooms (September 2010)Memorandum KUSD Early Education (February 2013)Memorandum: 2011-2012 Class Lists (June 2011)Memorandum: Comparison of MAP Reports to GOLD Reports (October 2012)Memorandum: Early Education Beliefs (August 2012)Memorandum: Meals and Snack for Early Education (August 2012)Memorandum: Non-Public School Affirmation of Participation in Title Programming (February 2013)Memorandum: Student Placement in Early Education Classrooms (May 2011)Memorandum: Tentative Location of the Early Education Classrooms (May 2011)Memorandum: Universal Early Education (February 2013)Middle School Program Capacities (April 2013)Middle School Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Project Lead the Way Program (April 2013)Moments Literaires: Anthologie Pour CoursMultimedia Production II Curriculum Map (May 2007)Multimedia Video Announcements Curriculum Map (May 2007)Nash 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsNash Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsNash Staff Climate SurveyNew Six Year Goals and Benchmarks for Academic Indicators (February 2006)Objectives for Development and Learning—Volume 5—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Official Class Size Statistics for the 2012-2013 School Year (September 2012)Online Language Learning Program Access for CurriculumOrganizational Training and Development 2012-2013 Committees



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamOverview of Findings: Administration for Children and Families on-site monitoring review (August 2012)Overview of Findings: Administration for Children and Families on-site monitoring review (April 2009)PACE Development Meeting (outline) (October 2012-March 2013)PACE Development TimelinePacing CalendarPaidea House at Harborside Academy 2012-2013 Course RequestsParent/Guardian Survey (December 2012)Parent/Guardian Survey (February 2013)Parenting Course Syllabus (June 2007)Parenting Curriculum Map (April 2013)Personal Finance Course Syllabus (January 2008)Personal Finance Course Syllabus (October 2008)Personal Finance Course Syllabus (September 2007)Personal Finance Curriculum Map (June 2007)Personal Finance Honors Course Syllabus (October 2007)Personal Finance Honors Course Syllabus (October 2008)Personal Finance Honors Course Syllabus (September 2007)Personal Finance Honors Curriculum Map (June 2009)Phoenix Project Program Manual (2012-13)Pleasant Prairie 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsPleasant Prairie Elementary (2012-13)Pleasant Prairie Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsPleasant Prairie ‘Weekly Updates (Samples)Power Point slides: Expansion of KUSD Preschool Power Point slides: Final Recommendation 2007-2008 School Boundary Reconfiguration (November 2012)Power Point slides: Learning CommonsPrairie Lane 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsPrairie Lane Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsPre-school Curriculum Alignment Committee Meeting Minutes (December 2009-March 2010)Principles of the Biomedical Sciences CoursePrinciples of Engineering Curriculum Map (July 2009)Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan (March 2013)Professional Development Program Review and Long-range Plan (June 2006)Professional Learning Communities Mid-Term Survey (February 2013)Professional Learning for Administrators to Improve Student Achievement: Transformation Plan Goal (2012-13)Professional Learning Three-year Plan 2013-16Proposed Boundary Change Recommendations (November 2006)ProStart/Bistro Curriculum Map (November 2010)Random Sample of Completed Summative EvaluationsReaders Workshop Survey Response Summary (September 2012)Reading Evidence Sheet Grades K-5Reading Instructional Materials Adoption Kindergarten Through Grade 5 (September 2011)Reading Readiness Checklists (K-5) November 2011Reading/Language Arts/English Unit Design Template (February 2013)Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Study—Teachers Guide—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Report: Monitoring of ESEA Consolidated Programs School year 2012-13 (November 2012)Retiree Medical Expense and Liability Calculations Under GASB Statements 43/45 (November 2012)Reuther Blended Learning Schedules



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamReuther Central High School Fall Newsletter (January 2013)Reuther Central High School Fall Newsletter (November 2012)Reuther Central Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Reuther Committees (2012-13)Roosevelt 2012-2013 Reading GoalsRoosevelt Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Roosevelt Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsRoosevelt Elementary School Staff Handbook (2012-13)Roosevelt Elementary School Title I school-wide Plan (2012-13)Rosetta Stone Version 3, Level 1 - Course ContentsSafe and Supportive Schools Project Grant Notice of Award (August 2012)Sample Teacher ContractScholastic Read 180 rBook Teacher’s Edition (2000)School Board Meeting Minutes (July 2010 – March 2013)School Social Workers and Counselors (2010-11)School Social Workers and Counselors (2011-12)Scope and Sequence DeutschScope and Sequences ItalianoSecond Grade Assessment GuideSecond Grade ChecklistSecond Grade Common Core ImplementationSecond Step® A Violence Prevention Curriculum Preschool/Kindergarten Teacher’s Guide (2000)Second Step—Teachers Guide (2000)Secretarial and Clerical Salary and Welfare Agreement (2009-11)Service Employee Salary and Welfare Agreement (2009-12)Small Business Ownership Course Syllabus (October 2008)Small Business Ownership Curriculum Map (June 2007)Small Engine Repair and Maintenance Curriculum Map (November 2010)Somers 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsSomers Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Somers Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsSomers Elementary School 2012-2013 CommitteesSomers Elementary School Staff Handbook (2012-13)Somers Elementary School Student/Parent Handbook (2012-13)Southport 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsSouthport El Title I Elementary (2012-13)Southport Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Southport Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsSPARK High School PE ProgramSPARK Physical Education Program Grades 3-6SPARK Physical Education Program Grades 6-8 (2000)SPARK Physical Education Program Grades K-2 (2008)SPARK Preliminary Curriculum Considerations (1994)Spark ™ Physical Education Program Grades 3-6Spark ™ Physical Education Program Grades 6-8 (August 2001)Spark ™ Physical Education Program Grades K-2May 2013 District Courses and Workshops (2013)Staff Handbook Frank Elementary School (2012-13)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamStaffing Priorities Criteria Fy14Standards and Benchmarks Mathematics (June 2006)Standards and Benchmarks Mathematics Grades K-5 (January 2013)Starting a Business Curriculum Map (April 2013)Stocker Elementary 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsStocker Elementary CommitteesStocker Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Stocker Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsStocker Elementary School Staff Handbook (2012-13)Stocker Elementary Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Stoker 2012-2013 Parent/Guardian Survey (November 2012)Strange 2012-2013 Professional Learning Communities Mid-Year Team Survey (February 2013)Strange Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsStrange Teams/Committees (2012-13)Strategic Plan 2008-2009 (August 2008)Strategies for Teaching Reading and Comprehension (October 2008)Student Activity Funds Guidelines (November 2009)Student Success Handbook Grant Elementary SchoolSubstitute Teachers’ Salary and Welfare Agreement (2009-12)Talent Development Long Range Plan Update (January 2009)Talent Development Program Review and Long-Range Plan (May 2006)Talent Development: Advanced Place Program Exam Information (2012-13)Talent Development: Gifted 7 Talented Program Assessment & Testing Program (2012-13)Talent Development: Program Overview & School Board Policy (2009)Teacher Professional Performance AssessmentTeaching and Learning Historical Information Regarding Instructional Materials Adopting (July 2012)Teaching and Learning Administrators’ Meeting Minutes (August 2012 – March 2013)Teaching and Learning Content Coordinator Meeting (July 2012 – March 2013)Teaching and Learning Content Coordinators’ Meeting Minutes (July 2012-March 2013)Teaching and Learning Framework ExplanationTeaching and Learning Report Card Focus Group (2012-13)Teaching Strategies GOLD Child Assessment Portfolio (2010)Tech Ed. Grade 7 Curriculum Map (June 2007)Technology Grade 6 Curriculum Map (June 2007)Technology Grade 7 Curriculum Map (June 2007)Technology Resource Development Scorecard (July 2010)Tell Me More Scope and Sequence ChineseTell Me More Scopes and Sequences EnglishTell Me More Scopes and Sequences EspanolTell Me More Scopes and Sequences FrancaisTell Me More Scopes and Sequences SpanishTextile Arts Course Syllabus (September 2007)Textile Arts Curriculum Map (July 2007)The Assessment Accommodations Matrix for English Language Learners (2012)The Assessment Accommodations Matrix for Students with Disabilities (2012)The Brompton School 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsThe Brompton School Handbook (212-13)The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool Objectives for Development & Learning Volume 1 – 5 (2010)



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamThe Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool Teaching Guide Balls Study (2010)The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool Teaching Guide Buildings Study (2010)The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool Teaching Guide Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Study (2010)The Creative Curriculum ® for Preschool Teaching Guide Trees Study (2010)The Curative Curriculum® for Preschool Teaching Guide Cloths Study (2010)The Foundation—Volume 1—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Third Friday Pupil Count (September 2012)Third Grade Assessment GuideThird Grade ChecklistThird Grade Common Core ImplementationTimeline for Common Core Cadre – Elementary (April 2013)Timeline for Common Core Cadre - Middle School/High School (April 2013)Title I Allowable Expenditure Guidelines (2012-13)Title I Focus Schools Grant, 2793 Kenosha School District (2013)Title I Prevention and Intervention Services for Neglected and Delinquent or At-Risk Children and Youth (August 2012)Title I-A Instructional Budget, 2793 Kenosha School District (2013)Title II-A Budget, 2793 Kenosha School District (2013)Title III-A Budget, 2793 Kenosha School District (July 2005)Transformation Design: Goals, Strategies and Action Steps Teaching and Learning Department (2011-12)Transformation Plan 2012-2013 Budget Preliminary Recommendations (May 2012)Transformation Plan: Maximizing the Brilliance of Children (2011-14)Trees Study—Teachers Guide—The Creative Curriculum (2010)Tremper High School - Quarter 4 Master Schedule (April 2013)Tremper High School Building Level TeamsUnits of Study for KindergartenUnits of Study K-5 (2012)Updated Elementary Capacities (2013)Updated Elementary Capacities Chart and Memo (April 2013)USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Grant Notice of Award (September 2012)Utilization Report (May 2013)Various Faculty HandbooksVarious School Staff BulletinsVernon 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsVernon Elementary Committees and TeamsVernon Elementary Schedule (2012-13)Vernon Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsVernon Elementary Title I Schoolwide Plan (2012-13)Washington Academic Content Action Teams (2012-13)Washington Middle School Schoolwide Title I Plan (2012-13)Washington Middle School Staff Handbook 2012-2013Web Page Design Course Syllabus (August 2007)Web Page Development Course Syllabus (November 2008)Welcome to ALEKS® Training and Resources to Create Dramatic Learning Outcomes (September 2012)What is a Unit of StudyWhittier 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsWhittier 2012-2013 Parent/Guardian Survey (November 2012)Whittier Elementary School 2012-13 SMART Goals



Kenosha Unified School District Audit TeamWhittier Elementary School 2012-2013 Teams and CommitteesWhittier Elementary School SIT ProcessWhittier Elementary Staff HandbookWilson 2012-2013 Literacy GoalsWilson Elementary ScheduleWilson Elementary School 2012-13 SMART GoalsWisconsin Model Early Learning Standards Third Edition (February 2011)WKCE Schedule ‘12 (October 2012)World Language Program Update (April 2012)Writing Assessment Guide K-5Youth Options Program (Brochure)



Appendix CRecommended Table of Organization

(3) A

rea

Supe

rinte

nden

ts

Prin

cipa

ls

H.S

./M.S

. A

ssis

tant

Prin

cipa

ls

Teac

hers

Dep

uty

Supe

rinte

nden

t fo

r Tea

chin

g &

Le

arni

ng

Dire

ctor

of

Cur

ricul

um

and

Ass

essm

ent

Dire

ctor

of

Inst

ruct

ion

Dire

ctor

Fede

ral

Prog

ram

s &

Gra

nts

Dire

ctor

Spec

ial E

d.

Cur

ricul

um

&A

sses

smen

t C

oord

inat

ors

Inst

ruct

iona

l C

oach

es

Sum

mer

Sc

hool

C

oord

inat

or

Inst

ruct

iona

l Te

chno

logy

C

oord

inat

or

Tale

ntD

evel

opm

ent

Coo

rdin

ator

Sp. E

d.

Coo

rdin

ator

Coo

rdin

ator

of

Ath

letic

s

Dep

uty

Supe

rinte

nden

t Fo

r Bus

ines

s Ser

vice

s

Dire

ctor

of

Food

Ser

vice

D

irect

orFa

cilit

ies &

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dire

ctor

of

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Dire

ctor

of

Hum

an

Res

ourc

es

Die

tary

Man

ager

Arc

hite

ct

Ope

ratio

ns

Supe

rvis

or

Mai

nten

ance

Su

perv

isor

HR

Coo

rdin

ator

Prod

uctio

n M

anag

er

Net

wor

k M

anag

er

Title

I C

oord

inat

or

Dire

ctor

Seni

orC

ente

r

Com

pens

atio

n &

Ben

efits

Sy

stem

s A

naly

st

Res

earc

hA

naly

st

Dat

abas

e A

dmin

istra

tor

Prog

ram

mer

Tech

nici

ans

Dis

tribu

tions

M

anag

er

Chi

ef F

inan

cial

Off

icer

Bud

get M

anag

er

Acc

ount

ing

&

Payr

oll M

anag

er

Ana

lyst

s

Spec

ialis

ts

Dire

ctor

of

Com

mun

ity

Partn

ersh

ips &

M

edia

Rel

atio

ns

Com

mun

ity S

choo

l R

elat

ions

C

oord

inat

or

Even

Sta

rt C

oord

inat

or

Web

Spe

cial

ist

Inte

ract

ive

Com

mun

icat

ions

Sp

ecia

list

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n

Supe

rinte

nden

t of

Sch

ools

Teac

hers

Stud

ent

Equi

ty

Coo

rdin

ator