Curriculum Management Audit
A Curriculum Management Audit
of the
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Anchorage, Alaska
Students at Susitna Elementary School engage
in a geography lesson about the United States.
International Curriculum Management Audit Center
Phi Delta Kappa International
Eighth and Union
Bloomington, Indiana 47404
September 2002
CURRICULUM AUDIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW OF THE AUDIT PROCESS
In the spring of 2002, the Anchorage School Board commissioned Phi Delta Kappa International to
conduct a curriculum audit for the Anchorage School District. A curriculum audit examines the
extent to which there is alignment between the delivery of instruction and standards, benchmarks,
curriculum, instructional materials and student performance measures. An audit reveals the extent to
which staff and officials have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of
curriculum management. Such a system enables the district to make maximum use of its human and
financial resources in the education of students. The goal of the study is not to commend the
district for its successes, but to make recommendations on how to improve instruction and
student academic performance.
The Board and administration requested that auditors respond to the following questions:
Expectations : To what extent are there clear expectations for students and teachers? To what
extent do instructional practices align with district goals and expectations? To what extent do daily
practices reflect approved course content, adopted standards, and adopted instructional materials?
Productivity: To what extent do the design and operation of the school district and its individual
parts support productivity and efficiency? To what extent do processes support stated goals?
Standards: To what extent is there alignment between Alaska content standards, student
performance standards, local curriculum frameworks and results shown through the Alaska student
assessment system?
Assessment: To what extent and how effectively is assessment used to guide curricular and
instructional decision making?
The Board and administration also asked the auditors to examine how well the District serves subpopulations including gender groups, racial-ethnic groups, bilingual populations, special education
students, gifted students, and socio-economic groupings.
In order to assess a district’s systems, auditors review three data sources: documents, interviews
and site visits. Auditors evaluate these areas to determine if there is a relationship between the
written curriculum, the material being taught and the skills being tested.
Auditors employ five standards that reflect an ideal management system. They describe a system
that uses its human and financial resources for the greatest benefit of its students. The audit
describes each standard and the district’s existing state with respect to the standard. It also
recommends measures the district can take to achieve the standard.
This executive summary outlines each standard and the most significant recommendations for
reaching each standard. The full audit report describes the standards, findings and
recommendations in more detail.
AUDIT STANDARDS AND MAJOR FINDINGS:
STANDARD 1: A school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs
and personnel. A school district meeting this standard has a clear set of policies with regard to
management and curriculum and has clearly defined and measurable goals.
Finding 1.1
Board policies and administrative procedures are inadequate to promote
system-wide quality control.
Finding 1.2
No strategic plan or long-range plan exists to guide District administrative
decisions that will connect and focus organizational activities and tasks.
Finding 1.3
The tables of organization for the District and the Curriculum and Evaluation
Department do not meet audit criteria for the sound general management of the
school district; many job descriptions are under revision or do not match the
tables of organization. The role of coordinator is not defined by a recent boardapproved job description.
Finding 1.4
Staff development is fragmented, unfocused on system priorities,
competitive of teacher time, and not provided for all staff. It lacks the
coherence and long-range direction necessary to support instructional practices
designed to improve student achievement.
Finding 1.5
Formal teacher and administrative appraisals are aligned with the state
standards, but ineffective in providing constructive feedback to promote
professional growth and consistent quality instruction within and across the
District’s schools.
STANDARD 2: A school system has established clear and valid objectives for students.
A district meeting this audit standard has clear, valid and measurable student standards for learning
that are set into a workable framework for their attainment.
Finding 2.1
The District lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan to
establish processes, procedures, and timelines for curriculum review,
development, and implementation.
Finding 2.2
Curriculum guides are adequate in scope to guide elementary teachers, but are
not adequate for secondary schools.
Finding 2.3
Curriculum guides are inadequate in design quality to guide teaching effectively
and inadequate to promote deep alignment. While connected to the Alaska
Content Standards, there is insufficient specificity to ensure consistently high
achievement for all students.
Finding 2.4
The Instructional Technology Plan does not meet all audit criteria and is
inadequate to guide effective implementation and integration of technology in the
educational program.
STANDARD 3: A school system demonstrates internal connectivity and rational equity in
its program development and implementation. A district meeting this standard can show how
its program has been created as the result of a systematic identification of its deficiencies. Such a
district has equity in its curriculum/course access and directs its resources toward the areas of
greatest need. The curriculum is monitored and supported by professional development.
Finding 3.1
Inequalities exist among schools in program participation and
administrative practices for students of color.
Finding 3.2
There are inequalities in educational programs, facilities, and access to
technology within the school system.
Finding 3.3
If classroom snapshot data are typical of day-to-day instructional practices,
they are not consistently congruent with District goals, nor is there sufficient
variation to be successful with all students.
STANDARD 4: The district uses results from system-designed or adopted assessments
to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. A district meeting this
audit standard has a comprehensive system of assessment used extensively at the site-level to
review and improve programs. Assessment is also used to formulate short and long-term goals for
each site and for the district as a whole.
Finding 4.1
Anchorage School District test scores are above state averages,
however, scores have been nearly flat for five years. The scope of assessment
is not adequate. An analysis of achievement gaps between majority/minority
students shows some progress, but other areas remain unchanged or worsening.
Ratios of “years to parity” show that at the current rate, some gaps will take
from one to 26 years to be closed, and some indicate that there is little hope for
closure.
Finding 4.2
While test and other demographic data have been compiled in a comprehensive
document, the “bridges” to data use are neither systematic nor systemic to
inform decisions related to curriculum development, staff development, budget
development, and site-level instructional decisions to improve student
achievement.
Finding 4.3
There is inconsistent use of test and other data within the schools
to improve student achievement growth. While some principals are aggressive
and “data-focused,” others lack either interest and/or skill in using data to
construct plans or pursue strategies that are likely to yield improved student
achievement. Data disaggregation does not include ethnicity at the site-level.
Finding 4.4
There has been little systematic program evaluation by District personnel; Board
members indicate frustration with the lack of data regarding program
effectiveness, especially around budget development.
Finding 4.5
There is no assessment plan in place for the design or acquisition of testing
instruments, the evaluation of curricular areas that are not state-required, or for
the stipulation of goals and objectives to guide the assessment process (and
which fulfill a locally-adopted board policy).
STANDARD 5: A school system has improved productivity. A system meeting this standard
demonstrates improved pupil performance, even in the face of diminishing revenues.
Finding 5.1
The District’s independent auditors’ analysis of past financial trends
reveals fiduciary soundness. However, if a projected trend of revenues and
expenditures is realized, the District’s financial condition will be compromised.
Finding 5.2
The budget development process is comprehensive in nature but lacks
procedures for considering assessment data and curriculum-related priorities.
Finding 5.3
School facilities are generally in good condition, well-maintained,
clean, and safe. There is a long-range facilities plan.
AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS:
Recommendation 1-Policies and Six-Year Plan:
Develop new and revised school board policies that guide the administration in improving
accountability for student learning, confront the inequalities among ethnic and racial groups, and link
budgeting practices with system improvements.
1.1
Create a six-year educational plan for the District that focuses on student achievement
and erasing the achievement gaps of minority children.
1.2
Revise the budget process to include needs assessment based on student data, costbenefit analysis and district-wide curriculum priorities.
1.3
Upgrade and expand board policies regarding curriculum design and delivery to
respond to federal and state accountability.
Recommendation 2-Curriculum Department and Staff Evaluation:
Define and implement a focused, sound and integrated support structure to carry out goals and
erase achievement gaps.
Adequately staff the Curriculum and Evaluation Department linked to assessment and improving
student performance. Reconfigure staff to support the development, implementation and evaluation
of curriculum.
Create a teacher and administrator evaluation system that provides for setting goals and feedback
on growth targets.
2.1
Reconfigure the Curriculum and Evaluation Department to provide focused and
integrated support for the design and delivery of curriculum aligned to state standards.
Require staff to monitor building-level staff efforts.
2.2
Establish administrative regulations that detail how the Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation should function.
2.3
Revise teacher, coordinator and administrator evaluation documents to provide
feedback that promotes gains in student achievement.
Recommendation 3-Administrative Plans:
Require top level administrators to create multi-year plans linked to erasing the achievement gaps.
Support site-based plans that do the same and require a three-year review linked to student data.
Revise the Instructional Technology Plan so it directly relates to enhancing instruction and improving
student achievement.
3.1
Create a comprehensive curriculum management plan including design, delivery,
monitoring and evaluation of the curriculum. Design and implement curriculum guides
that promote effective delivery of the curriculum and improve student learning.
3.2
Develop an assessment plan, linked to the District’s educational plan. The assessment
plan should provide policy makers, administrators and teachers with data connected to
strategies to improve achievement for all students.
3.3
Create a procedure to require all programs undergo a three-year review linked to
student achievement data.
SUMMARY:
A curriculum management audit is an “exception” report, designed to identify areas in which a
district fails to meet an ideal standard. Auditors establish standards, review the district’s current
status relative to those standards, and make recommendations for improvement.
This audit recognizes that the Anchorage School District (unlike most of its counterparts throughout
the United States) operates in an environment of fiscal uncertainty. The District’s fiscal dependence
on local and state funding authorities has made it difficult to plan beyond the current fiscal year.
In order to meet the demands of the recently reenacted federal law, "No Child Left Behind," and
State of Alaska accountability mandates, the District must develop a long-term plan to improve
student achievement.
The administration only recently acquired the ability to disaggregate assessment data to determine
the rate of progress for socio-economic, racial-ethnic and gender groups. Having this data allows
the District to evaluate the achievement gap and confront any inequities among students.
Some schools and departments have already begun to use data to drive instructional methods and
emphasis. Others are being trained to use assessment results to develop goals. The challenge is to
apply these efforts throughout the District.
District staff must review the successes in Anchorage schools and identify “best practices” that
foster student achievement. These “best practices” must then be funneled through the curriculum
system so that all students will have the benefit of quality instruction that yields proven results.
The administration embraces the opportunity to improve student achievement and considers
closing the achievement gap its number one priority. The superintendent and staff will
prepare a response to the recommendations and develop a timeline for implementation. The
administration is committed to implementing a six-year plan that identifies specific student
needs ands areas of instructional success and ensures all students have the same opportunity
to be successful.
A Curriculum Management Audit
of the
ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Anchorage, Alaska
Conducted Under the Auspices of
International Curriculum Management Audit Center
Phi Delta Kappa International
P. O. Box 789
Bloomington, IN 47404-0789
(Copyright use authorization obtained from
Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.
P. O. Box 857, Johnston, IA 50131)
September 2002: Anchorage, Alaska
Members of the Anchorage School District Audit Team:
Fenwick W. English, Ph.D., Senior Lead Auditor
Professor and Program Coordinator, Educational Leadership
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Dr. Ricki Price-Baugh, Auditor
Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and
Instructional Development
Houston Independent School District, Texas
Dr. Rosanne Stripling, Associate Lead
Auditor
Prof. of Educational Administration Instructional,
Texas A&M University
Texarkana, Texas
Dr. Curtis A. Cain, Auditor
Director of Curr. and Professional Development
Park Hill School District, Kansas City, Missouri
Ms. Rosalie Gardner, Associate Lead
Auditor
Curriculum Specialist
Columbia Community School District, Illinois
Ms. Beverly Freedman, Auditor
Superintendent of Educational Programs
Durham District School Board, Canada
Dr. Joe Gasper, Associate Lead Auditor
Assistant Superintendent
Newaygo County Intermediate Unit, Michigan
Dr. Kendra Johnson, Auditor
Associate Supt, Curriculum, Instruction,
and Staff Development
North Kansas City School District, Kansas
Dr. Penny Kowal, Auditor
Associate Superintendent
for Educational Services
Millard, Nebraska
Ms. Socorro Shiels, Intern Auditor
Coordinator of Curriculum
Grant Union High School
Sacramento, California
Mr. John Rouse, Associate Lead Auditor
Superintendent of Schools
Port Aransas Independent School District
Port Aransas, Texas
Dr. Betty Steffy, Senior Lead Auditor
Chapel Hill Associates
North Carolina
Ms. Norma Maldonado, Auditor
Instructional Director
San Antonio Independent School District, Texas
Ms. Kathryn LeRoy, Intern Auditor
Specialists, Leadership Development
Region IV Education Service Center, Houston, Texas
Dr. Elizabeth Hammerman, Intern Auditor
Math/Science Consultant
Seven Counties, North Carolina
Dr. Rebecca Shore, Intern Auditor
Lecturer
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
A Curriculum Management Audit
of the
Anchorage School District
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
Background..........................................................................................................................................2
Governance of the Anchorage School District.......................................................................................4
Background Purpose and Scope of the Work..........................................................................................6
Approach of the Audit.........................................................................................................................7
II. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................8
The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit ..................................................................................8
A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control.....................................................................................8
Standards for the Auditors.....................................................................................................................9
Technical Expertise.............................................................................................................................9
The Principle of Independence.............................................................................................................9
The Principle of Objectivity .................................................................................................................9
The Principle of Consistency ............................................................................................................. 10
The Principle of Materiality ............................................................................................................... 10
The Principle of Full Disclosure ......................................................................................................... 10
Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit.............................................................................. 11
Standards for the Curriculum Audit ...................................................................................................... 11
III. FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................... 13
STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs,
and Personnel. ........................................................................................................................................ 13
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District.................................................... 13
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District ................................................ 13
Finding 1.1: Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Are Inadequate to Promote System-wide
Quality Control. ................................................................................................................................ 14
Finding 1.2: No Strategic Plan or Long-range Plan Exists to Guide District Administrative Decisions
Which Will Connect and Focus Organizational Activities and Tasks. .................................................... 49
Finding 1.3: The Tables of Organization (TO) for the District and the Curriculum and Evaluation
Department Do Not Meet Audit Criteria for the Sound General Management of the School District;
Many Job Descriptions are Under Revision or Do Not Match the TO. The Role of Coordinator Is
Not Defined by a Recent Board-approved Job Description. ................................................................. 51
Finding 1.4: Staff Development is Fragmented, Unfocused on System Priorities, Competitive of
Teacher Time, and Not Provided for All Staff. It Lacks Coherence and Long-range Direction
Necessary to Support Instructional Practices Designed to Improve Student Achievement...................... 61
Finding 1.5: Formal Teacher and Administrative Appraisals Are Aligned with the State Standards, but
Ineffective in Providing Constructive Feedback Promote Professional Growth and Consistent Quality
Instruction Within and Across the District’s Schools............................................................................ 69
i
Table of Contents (continued)
STANDARD 2: A School System Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students........................ 77
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District.................................................... 77
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District ................................................ 77
Finding 2.1: The District Lacks a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan to Establish
Processes, Procedures, and Timelines for Curriculum Review, Development, and Implementation.......... 78
Finding 2.2: Curriculum Guides Are Adequate in Scope For Elementary (70 percent Criterion Met) to
Guide Teachers, But Not For Secondary Schools (70 percent Criterion Not Met).................................. 85
Finding 2.3: Curriculum Guides Are Inadequate in Design Quality to Guide Teaching Effectively and
Inadequate to Promote Deep Alignment. While Connected to the Alaskan Content Standards, There
is Insufficient Specificity to Ensure Consistently High Achievement for All Students. ............................ 94
Finding 2.4: The Instructional Technology Plan Does Not Meet All Audit Criteria and Is Inadequate
to Guide Effective Implementation and Integration of Technology in the Educational Program.............. 101
STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity and Rational Equity
in Its Program Development and Implementation. ................................................................................... 108
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District.................................................. 108
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District .............................................. 108
Finding 3.1: Inequalities Exist Among Schools in Program Participation and Administrative Practices
for Students of Color....................................................................................................................... 109
Finding 3.2: There Are Inequalities in Educational Programs, Facilities, and Access to Technology
within the School System. ................................................................................................................ 141
Finding 3.3: If Classroom Snapshot Data Are Typical of Day-to-Day Instructional Practices, They
Are Not Consistently Congruent with District Goals, Nor Is there Sufficient Variation to be Successful
with All Students............................................................................................................................. 143
STANDARD 4: A School System Uses the Results from System-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments
to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs......................................................... 152
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District.................................................. 152
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District .............................................. 153
Finding 4.1: Anchorage School District Test Scores Are Above State Averages; However, Scores
Have Been Nearly Flat for Five Years. The Scope of Assessment Is Not Adequate. An Analysis of
Achievement Gaps Between Majority/Minority Students Shows Some Progress, But Other Areas
Remain Unchanged or Worsening. Ratios of “Years to Parity” Show that at the Current Rate Some
Gaps Will Take from One to 26 Years to be Closed, and Some Indicate that There Is Little Hope for
Closure. ......................................................................................................................................... 153
Finding 4.2: While Test and Other Demographic Data Have Been Compiled in a Comprehensive
Document, the “Bridges” to Data Use are Neither Systematic Nor Systemic to Inform Decisions
related to Curriculum Development, Staff Development, Budget Development, and Site-level
Instructional Decisions to Improve Student Achievement................................................................... 183
Finding 4.3: There is Inconsistent Use of Test and Other Data within the Schools to Improve Student
Achievement Growth. While Some Principals are Aggressive and “Data-focused,” others Lack
Either Interest and/or Skill in Data Utilization in Constructing Plans or in Pursuing Strategies which are
Likely to Yield Improved Student Achievement on Required Testing Instruments. Data
Disaggregation Does Not Include Ethnicity at the Site-level. .............................................................. 189
ii
Table of Contents (continued)
Finding 4.4: There Have Been Little Systematic Program Evaluation Activities Completed by District
Personnel; Board Members Indicate Frustration with the Lack of Data Regarding Program
Effectiveness, Especially Around Budget Development and Continuing Budget Support for Nonevaluated Programs. ....................................................................................................................... 191
Finding 4.5: There is No Assessment Plan in Place for the Design or Acquisition of Testing
Instruments, the Evaluation of Other than State-required Curricular Areas (no local Criterionreferenced Tests other than in Writing); or for the Stipulation of Goals and Objectives to Guide the
Assessment Process (and Which Fulfill a Locally-adopted Board Policy)............................................ 195
STANDARD 5: A School System Has Improved Productivity. ................................................................ 198
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District.................................................. 198
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District .............................................. 198
Finding 5.1: The District’s Independent Auditors’ Analysis of Past Financial Trends Reveals Fiduciary
Soundness. However, if a Projected Trend of Revenues and Expenditures Is Realized, the District’s
Financial Condition Will Be Compromised......................................................................................... 198
Finding 5.2: The Budget Development Process Is Comprehensive in Nature But Lacks Procedures for
Considering Assessment Data and Curriculum-related Priorities......................................................... 203
Finding 5.3: School Facilities Are in Generally Good Condition, Well-maintained, Clean, and Safe.
There Is a Long-range Facilities Plan. .............................................................................................. 207
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT TEAM
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT. ...................................... 213
Recommendation 1: Develop New and Revised School Board Policies to Establish the Institutional
Framework to Guide the Conduct of the Superintendent and Administrative Staff in Improving System
Accountability for Student Learning via the Creation of a Six-year Educational Plan; Confronting the
Inequalities Among Ethnic and Racial Groups Which Currently Exist in the Schools; and Positioning
the District to Link Its Budgeting Practices with Improvements in System Operations Over Time,
Including the Design and Delivery of Its Curriculum. ......................................................................... 213
Sub-Recommendation 1.1: Develop a six-year educational plan which corresponds to the state and
city’s plans, and which becomes the basis for connecting all central functions to the goals and
objectives of the school system. Such a plan will provide the focus and synergy now absent within the
upper tiers of the Anchorage School District by preparing district personnel to improve the
achievement of all students with special emphasis on erasing the current achievement gaps of minority
children. Link assessment data to the creation of site-level objectives, planning, staff development,
budget priorities, staffing, and administrative evaluation...................................................................... 214
Sub-Recommendation 1.2: Revise the current budgeting development process to incorporate formal
procedures that include a clinical needs assessment based on assessment data, cost-benefit analyses,
and district-wide curriculum priorities. .............................................................................................. 216
Sub-Recommendation 1.3: Focus specifically on upgrading and expanding board policies regarding the
scope of curriculum design and delivery to more sharply define system needs and responses to an
increased system of educational accountability requirements expected from state and federal
initiatives. ....................................................................................................................................... 219
Recommendation 2: Define and Implement a Focused, Sound, and Integrated
Administrative Support Structure Designed to Carry Out the School Board’s Revised and
New Policies to Erase the Achievement Gaps of Minority Children. Take Steps to
iii
Table of Contents (continued)
Adequately Staff the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation Which Is Crucial to Providing the
Linkages from Assessments to System-wide Improvements in Student Learning. Create a Teacher
and Administrator Evaluation System that Provides for Setting Goals and Feedback on Growth
Targets. ......................................................................................................................................... 220
Sub-Recommendation 2.1: Reconfigure and staff the present Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation to provide focused, integrated support for both design and delivery of the district curriculum
that is deeply aligned with state content and performance standards. This will require coordinators to
hold Type B Alaska Certification and become actively involved in assisting building level staff in
monitoring the delivery of curriculum and require the coordination of support programs such as Title I,
Indian Education, Literacy Education, Special Education, and Bilingual/Multicultural. ........................... 221
Sub-Recommendation 2.2: Establish administrative regulations that detail how the Department of
Curriculum and Evaluation should function. ....................................................................................... 223
Sub-Recommendation: 2.3: Revise the teacher, coordinator, and administrator evaluation instrument to
provide feedback for professional growth which promotes student achievement gains.......................... 226
Recommendation 3: Require Top-level Administrators in Curriculum, Assessment, Program
Evaluation, and Staff Development to Create Multi-year Administrative Plans Which Are Tightly
Linked to Erasing the Achievement Gaps and Whic h Are Supportive of Site-level Plans to Do the
Same. Revise the Technology Plan So That It Is Congruent.............................................................. 226
Sub-Recommendation 3.1: Create a comprehensive curriculum management plan to provide for
system direction for the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of the curriculum. Design and
implement aligned curriculum guides that promote effective delivery of the required curriculum via
deep alignment which improves learning for all students..................................................................... 227
Sub-Recommendation 3.2: Develop an assessment plan which is linked to the district’s educational
plan and which provides policy makers, administrators, and teachers with data connected to district
and site- level strategies to improve achievement for all students........................................................ 229
Sub-Recommendation 3.3: Create a procedure which requires that at least every three years all
programs undergo systematic, external or internal program review linked to student achievement data.
Develop RFPs and implement this policy for key programs in the next academic year. ........................ 234
Sub-Recommendation 3.4: Establish a policy framework and procedures to improve the coordination,
monitoring, evaluation, and resourcing of site-based and district-level staff development programs that
are aligned to the Anchorage School District’s priorities and which will provide the coherence and the
long-range direction necessary to support instructional practices designed to improve student
achievement. .................................................................................................................................. 235
Sub-Recommendation 3.5: Revise the instructional technology program to be more inclusive of audit
criteria. .......................................................................................................................................... 238
V. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 240
VI. APPENDICES............................................................................................................................... 242
Appendix A: Auditors’ Biographical Data ......................................................................................... 243
Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed ....................................................................................... 247
iv
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit
Page
Exhibit 0.1 Responses Within the Curriculum Management Audit Corresponding to Questions Contained in
the Anchorage School District RFP............................................................................................................2
Exhibit 0.2 Ethnic and Racial Diversity Number and Percentage of Initial Year Student Membership .............4
Exhibit 1.1.1 Board Policies Reviewed ..................................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 1.1.2 Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed.................................................................. 35
Exhibit 1.1.3 Secondary Administrative Procedures Reviewed................................................................... 39
Exhibit 1.1.4 Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management Policies and Auditors’ Assessment ..................... 42
Exhibit 1.2.1 CMSi Criteria for Rating Educational Plans ........................................................................... 49
Exhibit 1.3.1 Principles for Evaluating the Table of Organization ................................................................ 51
Exhibit 1.3.2 Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart ................................................................... 53
Exhibit 1.3.3 Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................... 54
Exhibit 1.3.4 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions .................................... 55
Exhibit 1.3.5 Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions on the Organizational Chart ................................... 56
Exhibit 1.3.6 Auditors’ Assessment of Draft Coordinator Job Descriptions Anchorage School District
Curriculum and Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 58
Exhibit 1.4.1 Staff Development Documents Reviewed............................................................................. 61
Exhibit 1.4.2 CMSi Staff Development Criteria ......................................................................................... 63
Exhibit 1.4.3 Individual School Profiles ..................................................................................................... 64
Exhibit 1.4.4 Week of September 16-21, 2002 Master Training Calendar .................................................... 67
Exhibit 1.4.5 Leadership Series ................................................................................................................ 68
Exhibit 1.5.1 Documents Examined.......................................................................................................... 70
Exhibit 1.5.2 Standards for Alaska’s Teachers Adopted by the State of Alaska........................................... 71
Exhibit 1.5.3 Checklist of Teacher Compliance With Standards .................................................................. 73
Exhibit 1.5.4 Checklist of Teacher Compliance With Standards as Analyzed in the Spring 2002.................... 74
Exhibit 1.5.5 Principal Evaluation Summary .............................................................................................. 75
Exhibit 2.1.1 ... Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan and Auditors’ Assessments
of District Approach ............................................................................................................................... 79
Exhibit 2.2.1 Key Curriculum Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors.................................................. 85
Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level Elementary Schools
Grade K-6.............................................................................................................................................. 90
Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area, Course, and Grade Level Middle Schools
Grades 7-8 ............................................................................................................................................. 91
Exhibit 2.2.4 Distribution of High School Curriculum Guides by Department High Schools
Grades 9-12............................................................................................................................................ 92
Exhibit 2.3.1 Curriculum Guide Audit Criteria ............................................................................................ 95
Exhibit 2.3.2 Auditors’ Ratings of Available Curriculum Guides.................................................................. 95
Exhibit 2.3.3 Analysis of Relationship Between State and District Standards and Instructional Materials ...... 99
Exhibit 2.3.4 Analysis of Relationship Among Standards and Instructional Materials Sixth Grade
Mathematics – Everyday Math................................................................................................................ 99
Exhibit 2.4.1 Technology Documents Reviewed by the Auditors .............................................................. 103
v
Table of Exhibits (continued)
Exhibit
Page
Exhibit 2.4.2 Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Program and Auditors’ Assessment .................. 103
Exhibit 3.1.1 Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity .............................................. 110
Exhibit 3.1.2 Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity ................................ 114
Exhibit 3.1.3 Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity................................................... 121
Exhibit 3.1.4 Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity ........................................................ 129
Exhibit 3.1.5 Student Drop Outs by School and Percent Ethnicity ............................................................. 134
Exhibit 3.1.6 Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity.......................................... 135
Exhibit 3.2.1 Comparison of Ethnicity of Elementary and Secondary Students vs. Staff (Percent)............... 142
Exhibit 3.3.1 Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices Observed During Audit Team Classroom
Walk-through Visits .............................................................................................................................. 144
Exhibit 3.3.2 Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices Observed During Audit Team Classroom
Walk-through Visits Dominant Behaviors by School Type........................................................................ 150
Exhibit 4.1.1 Descriptions of Alaska-required Assessments (Information derived from: Teacher’s Guide to
the Alaska Benchmark Examination (Grade 3, Grade 6, Grade 8) (2001) and District Test Coordinator’s
Manual Spring 2002) ............................................................................................................................. 157
Exhibit 4.1.2 District Assessments (Information from the Profiles of Performance 2001, p. 4) ................ 158
Exhibit 4.1.3 Scope of Formal Tests Administered by Board-required Elementary Course of Study by
Grade Level......................................................................................................................................... 159
Exhibit 4.1.4 Scope of Formal Tests Administered by Board-required Secondary Course of Study by
Grade Level......................................................................................................................................... 160
Exhibit 4.1.5 Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores CAT Total Reading—Spring 1996 through
Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11......................................................................................................... 162
Exhibit 4.1.6 Five-year History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores CAT Total Reading – Spring 1996
through Spring 2001 –Grades 3 through 11.............................................................................................. 162
Exhibit 4.1.7 Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores CAT Total Language Arts—Spring 1996
through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11............................................................................................. 163
Exhibit 4.1.8 Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores CAT
Total Language Arts – Spring 1996 through Spring 2001 – Grades 3 through 11........................................ 163
Exhibit 4.1.9 Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores CAT Total Mathematics—Spring 1996 through
Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11......................................................................................................... 164
Exhibit 4.1.10 Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores CAT
Total Mathematics—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11 ........................................... 164
Exhibit 4.1.11 Five-year History Percentile Rank Scores CAT Spelling—Spring 1996 through Spring
2001—Grades 3 through 11 ................................................................................................................... 165
Exhibit 4.1.12 Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores CAT
Spelling—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11............................................................ 165
Exhibit 4.1.13 Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores CAT 1996-97 to
2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Reading by Ethnicity........................................................................................ 167
vi
Table of Exhibits (continued)
Exhibit
Page
Exhibit 4.1.14 Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores CAT 1996-97 to
2000-02 in Grade 4 Total Language Arts by Ethnicity.............................................................................. 168
Exhibit 4.1.15 Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores CAT 1996-97 to
2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Mathematics by Ethnicity................................................................................. 169
Exhibit 4.1.16 Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores CAT 1996-97 to
2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Battery by Ethnicity......................................................................................... 170
Exhibit 4.1.17 Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores CAT 1996-97 to
2000-01 in Grade 7 Total Battery by Ethnicity......................................................................................... 171
Exhibit 4.1.18 Percent of Students Meeting Standards in Spring 2001 Grades 3, 6, and 8 Benchmark Tests
Comparison of Selected Cities with the State .......................................................................................... 173
Exhibit 4.1.19 Benchmark Scores by Grade Level and Test ..................................................................... 174
Exhibit 4.1.20 "Passing Rates" on Spring 2000 and 2001 Benchmark Tests and HSGQE Results
Aggregated by Racial-Ethnic Group Taken from Anchorage School District Profiles of Performance
2000-2001, Page 30............................................................................................................................... 175
Exhibit 4.1.21 Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations
in Reading for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years and Years to Parity at Current Rate of
Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*........................................................................... 176
Exhibit 4.1.22 Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations
in Writing for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years and Years to Parity at Current Rate of
Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*........................................................................... 177
Exhibit 4.1.23 Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations
in Mathematics for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years and Years to Parity at Current Rate of
Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*........................................................................... 178
Exhibit 4.1.24 2001 Benchmark Performance by Lunch Status and Benchmark Achievement.................... 179
Exhibit 4.1.25 School Performance by SES and Achievement Category with Trendline All Tests Taken by
Elementary and Middle Schools ............................................................................................................. 180
Exhibit 4.1.26 Overall Performances Variance Vs. Student Free-Reduced Lunch Percentage All Tests
Taken Benchmark Tests ....................................................................................................................... 182
Exhibit 4.2.1 Explicit Bridges for Use of Data ......................................................................................... 187
Exhibit 4.4.1 Overview of Program Documents and Evaluation Description .............................................. 193
Exhibit 4.4.2 Partial List of Programs in the No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project
Application ........................................................................................................................................... 195
Exhibit 5.1.1 Five-year Trend in General Fund Revenue Sources Excluding Fund Balance ......................... 200
Exhibit 5.1.2 Comparison of End of Year, Unreserved, Undesignated Fund Balance to General Fund
Operating Budget.................................................................................................................................. 201
Exhibit 5.1.3 Actual, Revised, Proposed, and Projected Financial Data ..................................................... 201
Exhibit 5.1.4 Annual Payments of Principal and Interest for General Obligation Bonds Outstanding as of
June 30, 2001 (Rounded to the Nearest Thousand) .................................................................................. 202
Exhibit 5.1.5 Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net Bonded Debt Per Student ..... 203
Exhibit 5.2.1 Components of Curriculum-driven Budgeting and Ratings of Adequacy................................. 204
Exhibit 5.3.1 Comparison of District Facility Planning Efforts to Components of a Comprehensive Longrange Facilities Plan.............................................................................................................................. 208
vii
Table of Photographs
Photograph
Page
Photograph 1 Students at Susitna Elementary School engage in a geography lesson about the United
States................................................................................................................................................Cover
Photograph 2 The Anchorage School Board meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
Board meetings are broadcast live on Channel 14...................................................................................... 15
Photograph 3 Effective control of the schools is located within an effective policy framework developed
by the elected School Board. This very scenic vista from the playground of Girdwood Elementary School
does not reveal that it was built on a landfill site (see Finding 5.3)............................................................... 45
Photograph 4 Students at O’Malley Elementary School in the computer lab. ............................................. 101
Photograph 5 A student engaged with a computer at Ocean View Elementary School. .............................. 102
Photograph 6 Third grade Trailside Elementary School students working with computers........................... 105
Photograph 7 Student seatwork at Bowman Elementary School. .............................................................. 147
Photograph 8 A large group presentation at Campbell Elementary School. ................................................ 148
Photograph 9 Small group work in the Spanish Immersion Program at K-Government Hill Elementary
School. ................................................................................................................................................. 148
Photograph 10 Students working in a science lab at West High School. .................................................... 150
Photograph 11 Students work in an eighth grade science class at Mears Middle School. ............................ 151
Photograph 12 Portable classrooms at Wendler Middle School without ADA access................................. 209
Photograph 13 Broken seats in the auditorium at West High School.......................................................... 210
Photograph 14 Teacher conducting a reading assessment in a closet at Wonder Park Elementary School. .. 210
Photograph 15 A school shower used as a storage area at Girdwood Elementary School. .......................... 211
Photograph 16 Shared library between West High School and Romig Middle School. ................................ 211
Photograph 17 Exterior paint peeling at Rabbit Creek Elementary School.................................................. 212
viii
A CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT AUDIT
of the
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
I. INTRODUCTION
This document constitutes the final report of a Curriculum Management Audit of the Anchorage
School District.
The audit was commissioned by the Anchorage School Board of
Education/Governing Authority within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted
during the time period of May 12-17, 2002. Document analysis was performed off site, as was the
detailed analysis of findings and site visit data.
In its request for proposal, the Anchorage School Board desired “a study that examines the extent to
which there is alignment between the delivery of instruction in Anchorage schools and standards,
student benchmarks, curriculum, instructional materials, and student performance measures. The goal
of the study is to discover the degree of alignment that exists and to make recommendations that may
be implemented to improve instruction and student academic performance.”
The award to Phi Delta Kappa International also requested a report that would respond to the
following questions:
1. “To what extent are there clear expectations for teachers and students? To what extent do dayto-day instructional practices align with district goals and expectations? To what extent do daily
practices reflect approved course content, adopted standards, and adopted instructional
materials?”
2. “To what extent do the design and operation of the school district and its individual parts support
productivity and efficiency? To what extent do processes support stated goals?”
3. “To what extent is there alignment between Alaska content standards, student performance
standards, local curriculum frameworks and results shown through the Alaska student assessment
system?”
4. “To what extent and how effectively is assessment used to guide curricular and instructional
decision-making?”
In addition, the Board’s Request for Proposal (RFP) noted:
“In conducting the audit, the successful contractor will be expected to examine the district’s programs,
practices, and results for specified sub-populations as well as the student body as a whole.
Specifically, those programs and practices that lead to success for all students and those programs and
practices that inhibit success of specific groups of students should be identified and highlighted.
Specific groups that might be the basis for examination include gender groups, racial-ethnic groups,
bilingual populations, special education students, gifted students, and socio-economic groupings of
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 1
students. Recommendations should reflect the findings of these analyses related to sub-populations as
well as to the student population as a whole.”
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.
The general location of the findings and recommendations of the audit are shown in Exhibit 0.1 to
assist the reader in identifying where the Anchorage School District audit team responded to the
questions contained in the RFP.
Exhibit 0.1
Responses Within the Curriculum Management Audit
Corresponding to Questions Contained in the Anchorage School District RFP
Anchorage School District
RFP Questions
#1-Clear expectations;
instructional practices
aligned; daily practices?
#2-Design and operation of
the school district; processes
and goals?
#3-Extent of alignment?
#4-Is assessment used to
guide decision-making?
#5-Programs which lead to
success and/or inhibit
success of specific subpopulations?
Findings Corresponding to
RFP Questions within the
Curriculum Audit
1.1; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 2.1; 2.2; 2.3;
3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4;
4.5
1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 2.1; 2.2;
2.3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3;
4.4; 4.5; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3
2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 3.3; 4.1; 4.2
1.1; 2.1; 2.3; 3.1; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3;
4.5; 5.2
1.2; 2.2; 2.3; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 4.1;
4.2; 4.3
Corresponding Recommendations to the
Questions of the RFP
Recommendation 1 (Sub-Recs. 1.1; 1.3)
Recommendation 2 (Sub-Rec. 2.3)
Recommendation 3 (Sub-Rec. 3.4)
Recommendation 1 (Sub-Rec. 1.1; 1.2; 1.3)
Recommendation 2 (Sub-Rec. 2.1; 2.2)
Recommendation 3 (Sub-Rec. 3.1; 3.3; 3.5)
Recommendation 1(Sub-Rec. 1.3)
Recommendation 3 (Sub-Rec. 3.4)
Recommendation 1 (Sub-Rec. 1.3)
Recommendation 3 (Sub-Rec. 3.2)
Recommendation 1 (Sub-Rec. 1.1; 1.3)
Recommendation 3 (Sub-Rec. 3.2)
Background
The Anchorage School District was established in 1915 as a four square-mile area in downtown
Anchorage. Block 52 was designated for the site of a school. The first school was erected in
October of 1915 using funds raised by the Anchorage Women’s Club. The first principal was Ora D.
Clark. The four teachers hired were paid $125.00 per month. The second school was constructed in
1917 and comprised six classrooms as well as indoor heating and plumbing for flushing toilets. The
building had one water fountain.
In 1959 Alaska became a state, and today the Anchorage School District serves a bustling city
spanning 1,955 miles and a diverse population of 270,000, in which the Anchorage School District
website indicates that over 120 languages have been spoken. The 49,000+ students served by the
city’s schools make it one of the nation’s 80 largest entities spread over a political-geographical
landscape that includes the inner city, suburbia, and semi-rural mountainous regions. In the 2001-2002
academic year, the Anchorage School District operated 60 elementary schools; nine middle schools;
one middle school/high school combination; six high schools; one K-12 school; one vocational school;
seven specialized programs and schools; and three charter schools. Anchorage School District
employs 3,113 full-time teachers (also includes counselors, special education, nurses, and school
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 2
psychologists); 151 principals and administrators; 88 supervisors and managers; and 1,800 support
staff. Anchorage School District serves approximately 2.95 million lunches and 273,000 breakfasts
each year, and transports students over 3.3 million miles on school buses. Each day nearly seven
million square feet in the district's facilities are cleaned and swept.
The Alaska native population has doubled within 30 years, and the most striking feature of
Anchorage’s student population is that it is quickly becoming a minority-majority entity where the
English as a Second Language population has grown over 50 percent in five years. In 1996-1997 the
majority-White student population was 69.9 percent. In the 2000-2001 school year that figure dropped
to 62 percent (see Exhibit 0.2). Over 33 percent of the school system’s students live in poverty and
are classified as Anchorage School District Title 1 Free/Reduced Lunch participants. Approximately
20 percent of Anchorage’s school age children move each year. This mobility figure is higher than the
child mobility rate in the United States, which is 17 percent. Education statistics for Alaska show that
Alaska’s high-school students are less likely to graduate than students in the United States as a whole,
and half of Alaska’s tenth graders failed required math and writing tests in 2001. One in five children
in Alaska are residing in families receiving some form of public assistance. In some areas outside of
the cities, the figure is six in ten. Alaska has very high rates of alcohol-instigated problems related to
disease and death. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is four times the state average among Alaska
Natives and ten times the rate in the United States.
The overall fiscal support for education in Alaska is tenuous. The state had budget deficits in six of
the last eight years, despite the fact that Alaskans have paid no personal state taxes since 1980, and
for many Alaskans, payments from the state’s permanent fund exceed what they pay for local taxes.
The state’s general spending per capita has decreased 50 percent since 1985. Alaska continues to
face budgetary deficits, and while the population increases the oil revenues upon which it has
depended for state services has also shrunk. As Alaska’s economy was slowed by falling petroleum
production and lower oil prices, reduced harvests of timber and the consolidation of the seafood
industry, Alaska’s economy was improved by a rise in tourism, which has added more jobs than any
other basic industry since 1990.
From the 1999 Alaskan census, 16 regions showed a positive gain in per capita income. The leading
area was Denali with 64 percent. On this list, Anchorage showed a positive gain in per capita income
of only three percent. The state average per capita income was $28,629 in 1999, compared to
Anchorage’s average per capita income of $33,813. According to the Institute of Social and
Economic Research of the University of Alaska Anchorage, where most of the economic data
reported here were cited, “Alaska was the only state where incomes of the poorest families grew
faster than incomes of the wealthiest in recent times—likely due to Permanent Fund dividend
payments” (October 2002, p. 9).
The fiscal dependency of the Anchorage School District, evident from its earliest beginnings when the
Anchorage Women’s Club had to solicit donations to build a school in the nascent metropolis, remains
a vestige of the past that continues to haunt the School Board in its quest to provide a sound, modern
education to the students it is pledged to serve. This dependency casts a very long shadow over the
efforts to improve the schools as this audit will show.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 3
Exhibit 0.2
Ethnic and Racial Diversity
Number and Percentage of Initial Year Student Membership
Anchorage School District
1996-97 to 2000-01
School Year
2000-01
1900-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
White
49,499
62%
31,759
64%
32,551
65.6%
32,557
66.9%
32,546
69.9%
American
Native
6,177
12%
5,950
12%
5,893
11%
5,644
11.6%
5,392
11.3%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
4,760
10%
4,460
9%
4,299
8.7%
3,819
7.9%
3,558
7.4%
African
American
4,227
9%
4,263
9%
4,334
8.7%
4,234
8.7%
4,182
8.7%
Hispanic
2,754
6%
2,665
5%
2,250
5.1%
2,381
4.9%
2,233
4.7%
Other
695
1%
197
.17%
NA
NA
NA
Total
49,499
100%
49,294
100%
49,597
100%
48,635
100%
47,911
100%
Source: Anchorage School District (2001, September) Profile of Performance and School Report Card to the Public
2000-2001. Part 1 District Overview, p. 6.
Governance of the Anchorage School District
The Anchorage School District is governed by an elected seven-member School Board. Each
member is elected at large and serves for three years. The School Board has eight standing
subcommittees. The School Board meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Board
meetings are broadcast live on Channel 14.
Current Anchorage School Board Members are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jake Metcalfe, President, Seat B through April 2004
Tim Steele, Vice President, Seat A through April 2004
Harriet A. Drummond, Treasurer, Seat F through April 2003
Mary Marks, Clerk, Seat C through April 2005
Rita J. Holthouse, Seat E through April 2003
Debbie Ossiander, Seat G through April 2003
John Steiner, Seat D through April 2005
Superintendent of Schools
The current superintendent of schools is Ms. Carol Comeau, who began her work in the Anchorage
School District as a noon-duty attendant position at Ocean View Elementary School in 1974. She has
served as a teacher aide, elementary school teacher, president of the teacher’s union (Anchorage
Education Association), an elementary school principal, and executive director of elementary
education. In 1993, she became the assistant superintendent for instruction in Anchorage School
District. In September 2000, she became the Acting Superintendent and was named Superintendent in
December of 2000.
Current 2001-02 Anchorage School District Mission: To Educate Students for Success in
Life
The current mission of the Anchorage School District is to:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 4
•
Increase academic excellence by emphasizing student achievement, developing respect for
diversity, maintaining quality staff retention, recruitment and training, and maximizing opportunities
for life-long learning;
• Establish a supportive learning environment by providing safe and caring schools which are
barrier-free, by promoting health and wellness, and by collaborating with other community
agencies where appropriate;
• Ensure public accountability by continued participation in the state-required testing program,
through the continued use of the writing assessment in selected grades, through wise use of
financial resources, through construction and maintenance and facilities, and through effective
communication to internal and external audiences.
Many of Anchorage School District’s students do very well scholastically as evidenced by
performance on national benchmarks.
Anchorage School District’s average SAT score is 37 points above the USA average, and its
California Achievement Test average scores are similarly 14 percentile points above the USA
average. Of those Anchorage School District students who take the Advanced Placement exams, 70
percent scored at the college level. Three Anchorage School District seniors were named as
Presidential Scholars for 2002. Only 141 students from the rest of the U.S. were similarly honored in
2002. One high school senior at Service High School scored a perfect 1600 on her SAT, one of only
587 students to do so nation-wide, and only one of 187 girls in the nation to achieve this distinction. An
Anchorage School District eighth grader was the only Alaskan student to obtain a perfect score in the
American Mathematics Competition. For the Anchorage School District, student statistics show that
the average daily attendance is 93.4 percent; nearly 30 percent of middle and high school students
attained honor roll rank in 1997-98; Anchorage School District graduates more than 91 percent of its
seniors; and students need 22.5 credits to graduate from high school, the most stringent in Alaska.
While Anchorage School District has identified 2,270 students as gifted, 7,538 students are similarly
identified as possessing special needs. Another 2,731 are bilingual. Anchorage School District has
been selected as one of Apple Computer’s founding partners in the Alaska Learning Exchange.
Similarly, some of Anchorage School District’s administrators have enjoyed national honors. For
example, Clark Middle School principal, Sheria Stears is one of three finalists for the National Middle
School Principal of the Year given by the National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Anchorage School District school psychologist, Deborah Ward was also one of three finalists for the
national School Psychologist of the Year award given by the National Association of School
Psychologists. Other awards include citing Dale Kephart as the Best High School Physical Education
Teacher in the United States; Susan Stuart-Kuelper of Hanshew Middle School as the best Middle
School Physical Education Teacher in the Northwest, and Linda Masterson of Goldenview Middle
School as the Best Librarian in Alaska by the Alaska Association of School Librarians.
Anchorage reading and language arts teacher, Rhonda Gardner of Chugiak High School was awarded
a 2001 Milken Family Foundation National Educator award. She was also one of four finalists for
Alaska Teacher of the Year.
Anchorage School District has similarly encouraged Business Partnerships in the larger community.
Currently there are more than 480 such partnerships, involving more than 49,000 students, 900 district
staff, and 1,200 business employees. In the 1997-98 academic year, contributions from these
partnerships totaled $1,750,000 in the form of employee time, services, and direct financial gifts.
Anchorage School District also operates community schools which offer residents of all ages over
3,776 programs and activities at 16 elementary and two secondary schools. These community schools
were served by 9,501 volunteers during the 1997-98 academic year alone.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 5
Background Purpose and Scope of the Work
The Curriculum Management Audit is a process which 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 management audit is an independent examination of three data sources: documents,
interviews, and site visits. These are gathered and triangulated, or corroborated, to reveal the extent
to which a school district is meeting its goals and objectives, whether they are internally or externally
developed or imposed. A public report is issued as the 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 Anchorage 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 Management Audit does not examine any aspect of school system operations unless it
pertains to the design and delivery of curriculum. For example, auditors would not examine the
cafeteria function unless students were going hungry and therefore were not learning. It would not
examine vehicle maintenance charts, unless buses continually broke down and children could not get to
school to engage in the learning process. It would not be concerned with custodial matters, unless
schools were observed to be unclean and unsafe for children to be taught.
The Curriculum Management Audit centers its focus on the main business of schools: teaching,
curriculum, and learning. Its contingency focus is based upon data gathered during the audit which
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 management audit are so interconnected with the
capability of a school system to attain its central objectives, that they become major, interactive forces
which, if not addressed, will severely compromise the ability of the school system to be successful
with its students.
Curriculum management audits have been performed in hundreds of school systems in more than
twenty-five states, the District of Columbia, and several other countries, including Canada, Saudi
Arabia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Bermuda.
The methodology and assumptions of the Curriculum Management Audit have been reported in the
national professional literature in the past 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 Delaware, 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-CMSi
curriculum auditors.
This audit was conducted in accordance with a contract with Anchorage School District and Phi Delta
Kappa International. All members of the team were certified by the International Curriculum
Management Center, Inc.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 6
The names of the curriculum auditors in this audit included the following professional individuals:
• Fenwick W. English, Ph.D., Senior Lead Auditor, R. Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of
Educational Leadership School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Ricki Price-Baugh, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instructional Development,
Houston Independent School District, Texas
• Curtis A. Cain, Ph.D., Director of Curriculum and Professional Development, Park Hill School
District, Kansas City, Missouri
• Ms. Beverly Freedman, Superintendent of Educational Programs, Durham District School Board,
Ontario, Canada
• Joe Gasper, Assistant Superintendent, Newaygo County Intermediate Unit, Michigan
• Kendra Johnson, Ed.D., Associate Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction, and Staff
Development, North Kansas City School District, Kansas
• Penny Kowal, Ed.D., Associate Superintendent for Educational Services, Millard, Nebraska
• Norma Maldonado, Instructional Director, San Antonio Independent School District, Texas
• John Rouse, Superintendent of Schools, Port Aransas Independent School District, Texas
• Socorro Shiels, Coordinator of Curriculum, Grant Union High School District, Sacramento,
California
• Betty Steffy, Ed.D., Senior Lead Auditor, Chapel Hill Associates, North Carolina
• Rosanne Stripling, Ed.D., Professor of Educational Administration, Texas A&M University,
Texarkana, Texas
• Rosalie Gardner, Curriculum Coordinator and Reading Specialist, Columbia Community School
District, Illinois
• Kathryn LeRoy, Leadership Specialist, Region IV Education Service Center, Houston, Texas
• Elizabeth Hammerman, Ed.D., Math/Science Consultant, Seven Counties, North Carolina
• Rebecca Shore, Ed.D., Lecturer, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Biographical information about the auditors is found in the appendix.
Approach of the Audit
The Curriculum Management Audit has established itself as a process of integrity and candor in
assessing public school districts. It has been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation
concerning matters of school finance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school
desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an
important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky.
The curriculum management audit has become recognized internationally as an important, viable, and
valid tool for the improvement of educational institutions and for the improvement of curriculum design
and delivery.
The curriculum management audit represents a “systems” approach to educational improvement, that
is, it considers the system as a whole rather than a collection of separate, discrete parts. The
interrelationships of system components and their impact on overall quality of the organization in
accomplishing its purposes are examined in order to “close the loop” in curriculum and instructional
improvement.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 7
II. METHODOLOGY
The Model for the Curriculum Management Audit
The model for the Curriculum Management Audit is shown in the schematic below. The model has
been published widely in the national professional literature, most recently in the best selling book, The
Curriculum Management Audit: Improving School Quality (1995, Frase, English, Poston).
A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control
General quality control assumes that at least three elements must be present in any organizational and
work-related situation for it to be functional and capable of being improved over time. These are: (1)
a work standard, goal/objective, or operational mission; (2) work directed toward attaining the mission,
standard, goal/objective; and (3) feedback (work measurement), which is related to or aligned with the
standard, goal/objective, or mission.
When activities are repeated, there is a “learning curve,” i.e., more of the work objectives are
achieved within the existing cost parameters. As a result, the organization or a sub-unit of an
organization becomes more “productive” at its essential short- or long-range work tasks.
Within the context of an educational system and its governance and operational structure, curricular
quality control requires: (1) a written curriculum in some clear and translatable form for application by
teachers in classroom or related instructional settings, (2) a taught curriculum which is shaped by and
interactive with the written one, and (3) a tested curriculum which includes the tasks, concepts, and
skills of pupil learning which are linked to both the taught and written curricula. This model is
applicable in any kind of educational work structure typically found in mass public educational systems,
and is suitable for any kind of assessment strategy, from norm-referenced standardized tests to more
authentic approaches.
The Curriculum Management Audit assumes that an educational system, as one kind of human work
organization, must be responsive to the context in which it functions and in which it receives support
for its continuing existence. In the case of public educational systems, the support comes in the form
of tax monies from three levels: local, state, and federal.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 8
In return for such support, mass public educational systems are supposed to exhibit characteristics of
rationality; i.e., being responsive to the public will as it is expressed in legally constituted bodies such
as Congress, state legislatures, and locally elected/appointed Boards of Education.
In the case of emerging national public school reforms, more and more this responsiveness is assuming
a distinctive school-based management focus which includes parents, teachers, and, in some cases,
students. The ability of schools to be responsive to public expectations, as legally expressed in law
and policy, is crucial to their survival as publicly-supported educational organizations in the years
ahead. The Curriculum Management Audit is one method for ascertaining the extent to which a
school system or subunit thereof, has been responsive to these expressed expectations and
requirements in its context.
Standards for the Auditors
While a Curriculum Management Audit is not a financial audit, it is governed by some of the same
principles. These are:
Technical Expertise
PDK-CMSi certified auditors must have actual experience in conducting the affairs of a school
system at all levels audited. They must understand the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum
management.
The Anchorage School District Curriculum Management Audit Team included auditors who have
been school superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals and assistant
principals, as well as elementary and secondary classroom teachers in public educational systems in
several locations: California, Iowa, Texas, North Carolina, Kansas, Illinois, Michigan, and Ontario,
Canada.
The Principle of Independence
None of the Curriculum Management Audit Team members had any vested interest in the findings or
recommendations of the Anchorage School District Curriculum Management Audit. None of the
auditors has any working relationship with the individuals that occupied top or middle management
positions in the Anchorage School District, nor with any of the past or current members of the
Anchorage School District Board of Education.
The Principle of Objectivity
Events and situations which comprise the data base for the curriculum management audit are derived
from documents, interviews, and site visits. Findings must be verifiable and grounded in the data base,
though confidential interview data may not indicate the identity of such sources. Findings must be
factually triangulated with two or more sources of data, except when a document is unusually
authoritative such as a court judgment, a labor contract signed and approved by all parties to the
agreement, approved meeting minutes which connote the accuracy of the content, or any other
document whose verification is self-evident.
Triangulation of documents takes place when the document is requested by the auditor and is
subsequently furnished. Confirmation by a system representative that the document is in fact what
was requested is a form of triangulation. A final form of triangulation occurs when the audit is sent to
the superintendent in draft form. If the superintendent or his/her designee(s) does not provide evidence
that the audit text is inaccurate, or provides documentation that indicates there are omissions or
otherwise factual or content errors, the audit is assumed to be triangulated. The superintendent’s
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 9
review is not only a second source of triangulation, but is considered summative triangulation of the
entirety of audit.
The Principle of Consistency
All PDK-CMSi-certified Curriculum Management Auditors have used the same standards and basic
methods since the initial audit was conducted by Dr. Fenwick English many years ago. Audits are not
normative in the sense that one school system is compared to another. School systems, as the units of
analysis, are compared to a set of standards and positive/negative discrepancies cited.
The Principle of Materiality
PDK-CMSi-certified auditors have broad implied and discretionary power to focus on and select those
findings which they consider most important to describing how the curriculum management system is
functioning in a school district, and how that system must improve, expand, delete, or re-configure
various functions in order to attain an optimum level of performance.
The Principle of Full Disclosure
Auditors must reveal all relevant information to the users of the audit, except in cases where such
disclosure would compromise the identity of employees or patrons of the system. Confidentiality is
respected in audit interviews.
In reporting data derived from site interviews, some descriptive terms are used which lack a precise
quantifiable definition. For example:
“Some school principals said that ... ”
“Many teachers expressed concern that ... ”
“There was widespread comment about ... ”
The basis for these terms is the number of persons in a group or class of persons who were
interviewed, as opposed to the total potential number of persons in a category. This is a particularly
salient point when not all persons within a category are interviewed. “Many teachers said that...,”
represents only those interviewed by the auditors, or who may have responded to a survey, and not
“many” of the total group whose views were not sampled, and therefore could not be disclosed during
an audit.
In general these quantifications may be applied to the principle of full disclosure:
Descriptive Term
Some ... or a few ...
General Quantification Range
Less than a majority of the group interviewed and less than 30
percent.
Many ...
Less than a majority, more than 30 percent of a group or class of
people interviewed.
A majority ...
More than 50 percent, less than 75 percent.
Most ... or widespread
75-89 percent of a group or class of persons interviewed.
Nearly all ...
90-99 percent of those interviewed in a specific class or group of
persons.
All or everyone ...
100 percent of all persons interviewed within a similar group, job, or
class.
It should be noted for purposes of full disclosure that some groups within a school district are almost
always interviewed en toto. The reason is that the audit is focused on management and those people
who have policy and managerial responsibilities for the overall performance of the system as a
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 10
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 Members of the Anchorage School District
Superintendent
School Board Members
All Principals
Teachers’ Organization Officers
K-12 Teachers (voluntary, self-referred)
Parents (voluntary, self-referred)
Students (during site visit)
District Office Staff
Approximately 125 individuals were interviewed during the site visit phase of the audit.
Data Sources of the Curriculum Management Audit
A curriculum audit uses a variety of data sources to determine if each of the three elements of
curricular quality control is in place and connected one to the other. The audit process also inquires as
to whether pupil learning has improved as the result of effective application of curricula r quality
control.
The major sources of data for the Anchorage School District Curriculum Management Audit were:
Documents
These sources consisted of written board policies, administrative regulations, curriculum guides,
memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, and any other source of information
which would reveal elements of the written, taught, and tested curricula and the linkages among these
elements.
Interviews
Interviews are conducted by auditors to explain contextual variables which are operating in the school
system at the time of the audit. Such contextual variables may shed light on the actions of various
persons or parties, reveal interrelationships and explain existing progress, tension, harmony/disharmony
within the school system. Quotations cited in the audit from interviews are used as a source of
triangulation and not as summative averages or means. Some persons because of their position,
knowledge, or credibility, may be quoted more than once in the audit, but they are not counted more
than once because their inclusion is not part of a quantitative/mathematical expression of interview
data.
Site Visits
All building sites were toured by the PDK-CMSi audit team. Site visits reveal the actual context in
which curriculum is designed and delivered in a school system. Contextual references are important
as they indicate discrepancies in documents or unusual working conditions. Auditors attempted to
observe briefly all classrooms, gymnasiums, labs, playgrounds, hallways, rest-rooms, offices, and
maintenance areas to properly grasp accurate perceptions of conditions, activities, safety, instructional
practices, and operational contexts.
Standards for the Curriculum Audit
The PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit used five standards against which to compare, verify,
and comment upon the Anchorage School District’s existing curricular management practices. These
standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices
and have been applied in all previous curriculum management audits.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 11
As a result, the standards reflect an ideal management system, but not an unattainable one. They
describe working characteristics that any complex work organization should possess in being
responsive and responsible to its clients.
A school system that is using its financial and human resources for the greatest benefit of its students
is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement
alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so
that it achieves a greater share of the objectives.
The five standards employed in the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit in Anchorage School
District were:
1. The school district demonstrates its control of resources, programs, and personnel.
2. The school district has established clear and valid objectives for students.
3. The school district has demonstrated internal consistency and rational equity in its program
development and implementation.
4. The school district has used the results from district-designed or -adopted assessments to
adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs.
5. The school district has improved its productivity.
A finding within a Curriculum Management Audit is simply a description of the existing state, negative
or positive, between an observed and triangulated condition or situation at the time of the PDK-CMSi
audit, and its comparison with one or more of the five audit standards.
Findings in the negative represent discrepancies below the standard. Findings in the positive reflect
meeting or exceeding the standard. As such, audit findings are recorded on nominal and ordinal
indices and not ratio or interval scales. As a general rule, audits do not issue commendations, because
it is expected that a school district should be meeting every standard as a way of normally doing its
business. Commendations are not given for good practice. On occasion, exemplary practices may be
cited.
Unlike accreditation methodologies, audits do not have to reach a forced, summative judgment
regarding the status of a school district or sub-unit being analyzed. Audits simply report the
discrepancies and formulate recommendations to ameliorate them.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 12
III. FINDINGS
STANDARD 1: A School System Is Able to Demonstrate Its Control of
Resources, Programs, and Personnel.
Quality control is the fundamental element of a well-managed educational program. It is one of the
major premises of local educational control within any state’s educational system.
The critical premise involved is that, via the will of the electorate, a local Board of Education
establishes local priorities within state laws and regulations. A school district’s accountability rests
with the school board and the public.
Through the development of an effective policy framework, a local school board provides the focus
for management and accountability to be established for administrative and instructional staffs, as well
as for its own responsibility. It also enable s the district to assess meaningfully and use student learning
data as a critical factor in determining its success.
Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components
of a school district, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, a district and its operations rests with
the School Board and top-level administrative staff.
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District
A school system meeting PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit Standard One is able to
demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel. Common indicators are:
• A curriculum that is centrally defined and adopted by the Board of Education,
• A clear set of policies that establish an operational framework for management that permits
accountability,
• A clear set of policies that reflects state requirements and local program goals and the necessity
to use achievement data to improve school system operations,
• A functional administrative structure that facilitates the design and delivery of the district’s
curriculum,
• A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from School Board/superintendent and other central office
officials to principals and classroom teachers,
• Organizational development efforts which are focused to improve system effectiveness,
• Documentation of School Board and central office planning for the attainment of goals, objectives,
and mission over time, and
• A clear mechanism to define and direct change and innovation within the school system to permit
maximization of its resources on priority goals, objectives, and mission.
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District
This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard One. The details follow
within separate findings.
The control standard of the audit frames everything else in it. In American education, the fundamental
control of the public schools is centered in a locally elected or appointed School Board or school
committee. This de-centralized approach to education, placing the responsibility of the schools directly
in the hands of the people, clearly represents the approach of only a handful of nations on the earth.
While presenting great strengths, it is also not without is drawbacks. Chief among them is the
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 13
dependency for sound control to be defined within local board policies. Too often the Board bypasses
this responsibility and moves to dabble in administrative matters directly.
Control of the schools in the United States is fundamentally exercised by the School Board via its
legislative authority grounded in law. The School Board vests its control via policy development and
policy oversight. The auditors found the policies of the Anchorage School Board inadequate and
ineffective to perform this function. Specifically, the auditors closely examined the policies concerning
curriculum design and delivery, assessment and evaluation, staff development, and budget
development. Basic accountability begins and ends with the locally elected School Board. While bits
and pieces of critical actions were found scattered across a number of policies, in the main, the entire
policy framework was not adequate. If specific actions and responses are deemed critical to
operational and organizational effectiveness, the School Board must indicate what these specific
actions and responsibilities are, and then via its oversight responsibilities check to make sure they are
implemented.
The auditors found no strategic nor long-range plan for the school system as a whole, though such
plans did exist for some functional areas of the district. Without a system-wide plan, district leadership
runs the risk of duplicative staffing within units of the system, and such units can “drift” within the
overall structure. The auditors examined the table of organization (TO) for the district and the
Department of Curriculum and Evaluation. The district table of organization had minor problems such
as logical grouping of functions, scalar relationships, and full inclusion. Most job descriptions for
positions in the district table of organization had not been updated for many years. The table of
organization for Curriculum and Evaluation had problems with span of control, logical grouping of
functions, and scalar relationships. No recently Board-approved job descriptions were in place for this
department.
While the district provides for a very wide array of staff development opportunities, the auditors found
it fragmented and unfocused on school system priorities and competitive with teacher time. In short,
the staff development function is splintered within the school district. As that function has come to be
defined, there can be no assurances that expenditures for staff development can be directly linked to
improvements in student achievement.
The auditors also examined the current teacher and administrative appraisal systems. While appraisal
systems were aligned with Alaskan State Standards, they failed to provide constructive feedback to
teachers and administrators which could be used to promote their professional growth. Additionally,
the current system lacks the capability to ensure the Board that there is consistent and focused high
quality instruction among and across the district’s schools. This characteristic is of the utmost
importance as district leadership prepares the school system to meet the challenges of No Child Left
Behind.
Finding 1.1: Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Are Inadequate to Promote
System-wide Quality Control.
Educational policy development is one of the most significant leadership tasks of a School Board.
Clearly defined curriculum management policies provide essential control and focus for the complete
school system. Well-planned policies set up generally understood standards for the written, taught,
and assessed curriculum. This is the main process by which the Board fulfills its responsibility for
quality control of the curriculum. Thoroughly planned policies provide an operational structure for
management of the curriculum by creating the configuration for its design and delivery. An
understandable set of policies also provides an orderly basis for decision-making and consistent
practice across a diversity of sites. Because of this important role, the analysis and evaluation of
curriculum policies is an important part of the curriculum management audit.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 14
In order to serve as a successful guide for decision-making at all levels of the organization, a school
district’s policy framework needs to be specific so that decisions can be made by referencing the
relevant policies. When policies are absent or nonspecific, there is no effective guidance for
administrators and teachers. If policies do not guide practice, direction and control will be lost.
The auditors reviewed all board policies of the Anchorage Public Schools and selected those policies
related to curriculum management for further analysis. Auditors also examined the Elementary
Procedures Manual and the Secondary Procedures Manual. In some cases, the date of last revision
was provided and it is listed on the line corresponding to the policy. In those instances where the date
of last revision was not provided, the notation ‘DK’ denotes that the auditor doesn’t know the date of
last revision. Auditors assessed the quality of the policies and procedures by comparing the content of
the policies to the audit criteria for adequate curriculum management policies. The auditors examined
each relevant policy and procedure to determine whether any of the 22 criteria were present. The
audit team also interviewed board members, administrators, teachers, and community members to
determine their perceptions regarding the relationships between policy statements and curriculum
development, implementation and assessment.
The Anchorage School Board meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
Board meetings are broadcast live on Channel 14.
Overall, the policies and procedures were found to be inadequate with respect to curriculum
management. The current policies provide minimal direction for curricular decision-making. Exhibit
1.1.1 lists the policies that were reviewed by the auditors.
Exhibit 1.1.1
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
100
110
111
112
113
Policy
Board of Education
Designation of District
Definition of Staff
Primacy of Collective Bargaining Agreements
Amendment or Suspension of Policies, Rules and Regulations
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 15
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
November 9, 1987
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
114
114.1
114.2
120
122
122.1
122.2
123
123.1
123.2
130
131
132
133
134
140
143
143.1
143.2
143.3
144
146
146.1
149
150
151
152
154
155
156
158
159
160
161
162
163
163.1
163.2
164
165
165.1
165.12
165.13
165.2
165.3
165.4
165.5
Policy
Nondiscrimination
Display of Prejudice Toward Others
Harassment and Discrimination
General Organization
Term of Office
Filling of Vacancies
Removal from Office
School Board Elections
Election Procedures
Date
Officers and Their Duties
President
Vice President
Clerk
Treasurer
Powers and Duties of the Board
Board Policies
Change in Policy
Policy Dissemination
Revision of Policy
Expectations for Performance
Board of Appeals
Recommendations from the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman
Board Self-Evaluation
Board Members – Role of Individual
Limitation on Responsibilities as Individuals
In-Service of New School Board Member
Remuneration
Benefits
Board Member Travel
Code of Ethics
Limited Liability
Meetings
Place
Meeting Timeline
Notice of Meetings
Board Members
Public Notice
Agenda
Types of Meetings
Organizational
Temporary Chairman
Order of Business
Regular Meetings
Special Meetings
Work Sessions
Continued Meetings
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 16
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
March 19, 1984
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
DK
DK
November 20, 2000
DK
DK
DK
January 22, 1996
DK
November 23, 1998
DK
DK
February 8, 1988
DK
DK
November 23, 1998
DK
DK
September 12, 1983
DK
February 14, 1994
November 23, 1998
DK
November 23, 1998
May 24, 1993
DK
DK
August 8, 1994
October 13, 1986
DK
DK
DK
November 23, 1998
January 27, 1996
DK
June 28, 1993
November 23, 1998
DK
DK
DK
DK
November 23, 1998
November 23, 1998
June 28, 1993
November 23, 1998
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
165.6
166
170
171
171.1
172
173
173.1
173.2
Policy
Executive Sessions
Minutes
Operating Procedures
Rules of Order
Quorum
Order of Business
Committees
Advisory Committees
Student Advisory Board
173.3
Minority Education Concerns Committee
173.4
173.5
174
174.2
174.3
174.5
174.6
174.7
176
176.1
176.2
176.3
200
201
205
210
211
211.1
212
213
213.1
213.2
215
220
240
241
241.1
241.11
241.2
241.21
241.22
241.23
241.24
241.3
242
Military Delegate
Board Subcommittees
Voting
Consent Agenda
Reconsideration
Rescinding
Majority
Two Readings
Presentations to the Board by Individuals or Groups
Subject Matter Presentations
Complaints Regarding Pupils or School Personnel
Recognition from the Floor
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
Functional Principle of Administration
Board-Superintendent Relationship (legislative-executive)
Superintendent of Schools – Chief Administrative Officer
Employ
Qualifications
Executive Officer of the Board
Special Responsibilities to be Performed by the Superintendent
Delegation of Authority
Duties of Superintendent
Evaluation
The Central Administration
School/Program Administrative and Supervisory Personnel
Principals or other Administrative Designee
Appointment
Qualifications
Responsibilities and Duties of Principals
Administration
Job Descriptions
Performance and Evaluation
Policy Implementation
Line of Authority
Assistant Principals/Deans/Interns
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 17
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
November 23, 1998
DK
DK
DK
June 13, 1994
DK
DK
May 8, 1995;
September 13, 1993
May 8, 1995
May 8, 1995
DK
February 13, 1995
DK
DK
November 23, 1998
DK
DK
DK
DK
November 26, 2001
November 23, 1998
Dec 17, 1984
DK
March 8, 1999
September 9, 1996
March 8, 1999
March 8, 1999
DK
March 8, 1999
DK
March 8, 1999
December 14, 1998
September 9, 1996
DK
March 8, 1999
March 8, 1999
March 18, 1996
March 8, 1999
DK
DK
March 8, 1999
March 8, 1999
DK
March 8, 1999
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
242.1
260
261
261.1
261.2
262
262.1
263
263.1
263.2
264
264.1
264.2
264.3
264.4
265
270
300
310
320
321
322
330
331
332
332.1
332.2
332.3
333
333.1
333.2
333.21
333.22
333.23
333.24
333.25
333.3
333.4
333.5
333.6
333.7
333.8
333.9
333.10
333.11
340
341
Policy
Duties
Administrative Operations
Organization for Administrative Purposes
Organizational Chart
Line and Staff Relationships
Councils and Committees
Temporary Councils and Committees
Adoption and Review of Administrative Procedures
Internal Procedures
Administrative Manuals
Communications
Staff
Two-way Relationship
Protection from Reprisal or Discrimination
Posting of Materials in Work Locations
Work Stoppages and Slow-Downs
Citizens Complaint Process
INSTRUCTION
Philosophy of the Instructional Program
Goals and Purposes of the Instructional Program
Goals of the Instructional Program
Purposes of the Instructional Program
General Organizational Plan
Elementary, Middle and High School
Alternative Programs
Definitions
Concept Approval
Lottery Procedures – Open Enrollment
Charter Schools
Establishment of Charter Schools
Application Procedure for Establishing a Charter School
Administrative Meeting
Administrative Review
School Board Work Session
School Board Action and Public Hearing
Modifications to Approved Charter School Application/Contract
Application Form
The Academic Policy Committee
Charter School Contract with the Local School Board
State Notification of a Charter School Application
Annual Review of the Charter School
Organization of a Charter School
Operation of a Charter School
Evaluation of Charter School Personnel
Definitions
Elementary, Middle School, and High School Education
The Curriculum
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 18
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
March 8, 1999
DK
DK
September 9, 1996
DK
DK
March 8, 1999
DK
DK
September 9, 1996
September 9, 1996
September 9, 1996
March 8, 1999
March 8, 1999
December 9, 1996
September 9, 1996
September 9, 1996
DK
DK
DK
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
DK
March 9, 1998
DK
DK
DK
October 30, 1995
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
January 25, 1999
DK
May 18, 1998
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
341.1
341.2
341.21
341.22
341.3
341.4
342
342.1
342.2
342.3
342.31
342.32
342.33
342.4
342.5
342.6
342.7
343
343.1
343.2
343.21
343.22
343.23
343.24
343.25
343.3
343.31
343.32
343.33
343.34
343.35
343.36
343.37
343.38
343.39
343.4
343.41
343.42
344
344.1
344.11
344.12
344.13
344.2
345
346
346.1
Policy
Courses of Studies
Curriculum Development
Curriculum Committees
Pilot Programs
Controversial Issues
Staff Development
Allocation and Use of Instructional Time
School Year
School Calendar
The School Day
Students
Staff
Emergency Closing
Class Schedules
Released Time for Special Instructions or Activities
Special Events and Ceremonies
Safety Drills
Reports and Promotions
Grading System
Reports
Grade Level Advancement
Promotion
Retention
Appeals
High School Graduation
Student Records
Need for Records
Storage – Location of Records
Classifications of Records
Accessibility of Records
Psychological Evaluation
Requests to Amend Records and Rights to Hearing
Legal Names of Students
Annual Notification
Complaint Procedure
Graduation
Graduation Requirements
Early Graduation
Special Services for Exceptional Children
Aims and Scope
Statutory Provision
District Provisions
Definition
Outreach Programs
The School’s Responsibility to Homeless Children
Instructional Materials and Services
Textbooks
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 19
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
June 5, 2000
May 18, 1998
September 28, 1998
May 18, 1998
September 12, 1993
DK
May 18, 1998
DK
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
December 14, 1998
DK
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
DK
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
May 18, 1998
DK
DK
June 22, 1998
DK
June 22, 1998
DK
DK
DK
June 22, 1998
June 22, 1998
DK
June 26, 2000
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
December 9, 1995
August 9, 1999
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
346.2
346.3
346.31
346.4
346.5
346.6
347
347.1
347.2
347.3
348
348.1
348.11
348.2
348.21
348.3
348.31
348.4
348.41
349
350
350.1
400
410
411
420
430
431
431.1
431.11
431.12
431.2
431.21
431.22
431.3
431.31
431.32
431.33
431.34
431.4
432
433
433.1
433.2
440
441
441.1
Policy
Instructional Materials
Library/Media
Mission and Objectives
Student Supplies
Disposal of Textbooks, Library Books and Supplies
Electronic Information Networks (Use of the Internet)
Administrative and Instructional Manuals
Curriculum and Resource Guides
Administrative Manuals
Student and Faculty Handbooks
Extracurricular Activities
School groups
Athletic/Activity Booster Clubs and Alumni Associations
Sports and Athletic Program
Administration of Sports and Athletic Program
Interscholastic Contests
Transportation
Field Trips
Out-of-District Field Trips
Evaluation
Recognition of Religious Beliefs and Customs
Observance of Religious Holidays
STUDENTS AND STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES
Organization of student Personnel Services
Census and Attendance Services
Philosophy and Objectives of Student Personnel
Admission
Entrance Guidelines
Resident Students
Part-time Students
Counting Students
Non-resident Students
Policy Regarding acceptance
Tuition
Physical Examinations
Kindergarten
New-to-District Students
Vision and Hearing Screening Examinations
Tuberculosis Screening examination
Immunizations
Inter-District Agreements
Transfer and Placement
Transfers
Placement
Attendance
Ages for Attendance
Statutory Requirements
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 20
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
May 21, 2001
October 11, 1993
October 11, 1993
October 11, 1993
June 24, 1996
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 28, 1993
December 9, 1996
DK
DK
DK
June 22, 1992
DK
DK
September 12, 1983
DK
June 16, 1986
DK
May 4, 1992
DK
DK
DK
May 4, 1992
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 23, 1986
DK
August 22, 1988
June 23, 1986
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
441.11
441.12
441.2
442
442.1
442.3
442.4
443
443.1
443.2
443.3
443.4
444
444.1
444.2
444.21
444.22
444.221
444.222
444.23
444.231
444.232
445
445.1
445.2
445.3
445.4
450
450.1
450.2
451
451.1
451.2
451.21
451.22
451.3
451.4
451.5
451.6
452
453
453.1
453.2
453.3
454
455
456
Policy
Minimum Age
Maximum Age
Evidence of Age
Parental Responsibility for Compulsory Education
Compulsory Attendance
Report of Violations and Procedures
Policy on Parent Involvement
Irregular Attendance, Truancy, and Tardiness
Intent
Absenteeism and Tardiness
Truancy
State Law
Attendance Zones
Establishment of Boundaries
Attendance Zone Exceptions
Academic Program Need
Change of Residence Within the District
Exception for Extended Periods
Exception for Temporary Periods
Limitations to Attendance Zone Exceptions
Responsibilities of Parents/Guardians
Other Restrictions
Records and Registrars
Attendance Records
Cumulative Records
Records and Students Withdrawing
Student Records Generally
Student Rights and Responsibilities
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
Copy of Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
Suspensions and Expulsions
Suspensions
Expulsion
Programs for Long-term Suspension or Expelled Students
Return from expulsion
Illegal Drug/Alcohol
Suspension or Expulsion of Special Education Students
Assault Upon teachers
Weapons
Student Handbooks
Damage, Loss, and Non-return of School Property
Liability of Parent/Guardian
Liability of Student
Student Use of and Liability for school Equipment and Supplies
Corporal Punishment
Trespassing
Student-Organized Extracurricular Clubs
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 21
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
January 27, 1997
June 12, 1989
DK
January 27, 1997
June 22, 1998
June 22, 1998
January 13, 1997
DK
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
DK
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
March 9, 1998
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 14, 1993
DK
DK
January 12, 1998
June 11, 2001
June 11, 2001
June 11, 2001
June 11, 2001
June 11, 2001
June 11, 2001
September 12, 1983
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 23, 1986
DK
June 5, 2000
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
457
458
458.1
458.2
459
459.1
459.2
459.3
460
460.1
460.2
460.3
460.4
460.5
470
471
471.1
471.2
471.3
471.4
471.5
472
472.1
472.2
472.3
473
474
474.1
474.2
474.3
475
480
481
482
482.1
482.2
482.3
482.4
483
483.1
483.2
483.21
483.22
483.3
484
485
490
Policy
Prohibited Organizations and Groups
Student Government
Student Council
Student Advisory Board
Student Travel
Trip Excursions
Permission to Leave School Grounds
Travel To and From School (including bus conduct)
Out-of-District Travel by Students
Policy Statement
Approval of Out-of-District Travel
Funding of Out-of-District Student Travel
Criteria for Out-of-District Student Travel
Criteria for Out-of-District Student Travel
Health and Welfare Services
Protection of Students
Dismissal of Students
List of Names of Students
Supervision of Students after Regular School Hours
Student Interviews
Student Messengers
The School’s Responsibility to Needy Children
Extent of the School’s Responsibility
Relations with Local, and State Welfare and Service Agencies
School Lunch Aid
School Lunch Program
Child Abuse or Neglect
Reporting
Immunity
Administrative Procedures
Infectious Disease
Safety and Safety Regulations
Responsibility
Emergency Notification
Playground Supervision
Proper Maintenance of Grounds and Equipment
Eye Protective Devices
Administration of Medication
Vehicular Safety
School Buses
Automobiles
Student Use and Parking
Parent and Adult Transportation of Students
Bicycles
Fire Prevention
Civil Defense Activities
Specific Student Matters
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 22
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
June 5, 2000
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 22, 1992
June 22, 1992
June 22, 1992
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 22, 1992
DK
DK
November 26, 2001
DK
DK
DK
June 23, 1986
DK
DK
June 22, 1992
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
490.1
490.11
490.12
490.13
490.14
490.15
490.16
491
491.1
491.2
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
500
510
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
527.1
530
531
532
532.1
532.11
532.12
532.2
532.21
532.22
532.23
532.24
532.241
532.242
532.243
532.25
532.26
532.3
532.31
Policy
Student Publications
Purposes
Rights of Contributors to Student Publications
Responsibilities of Contributors to Student Publications
Prohibited Material
Determination of Appropriateness and Appeal Procedures
Sanctions
Married and/or Pregnant Students
Married Students
Pregnancy
Student Deaths
Student Gifts to School Personnel
Class Gifts to the School
Student Fees
Personal Religious Observations
Fund Raising Programs
School Pictures
CERTIFICATED AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL
POLICIES
The Human Resources Division and its Organization
General Personnel Policy
Purpose and Scope
Personnel Records
Advancement: Basis for Promotion
Nepotism
Resignations
Employee Travel
Equal Employment Opportunity
Sexual Harassment
Certificated and Other Professional Personnel
Minimum Qualifications
Employment Procedures
Qualifications
Credential Requirements
Requirements Regarding Education, Experience and Age
Recruiting and Selection
Seeking Out the Candidate
Application Procedures
Interviewing
Appointment
EEO Policy Statement
EEO Goals
Legal Requirements
Board Approval
Certified Staff Contracts
Duties and Responsibilities of Classroom Teachers
General
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 23
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
May 4, 1992
DK
November 25, 1996
DK
January 12, 1998
DK
DK
February 8, 1988
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
September 10, 1990
August 8, 1994
DK
February 8, 1988
DK
June 23, 1997
DK
DK
June 23, 1997
DK
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
DK
June 23, 1997
June 14, 1999
DK
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
532.32
532.33
532.34
532.35
532.36
532.37
532.38
532.39
532.40
532.41
533
533.1
533.11
533.2
533.21
533.22
533.23
533.24
533.25
533.3
533.4
533.5
533.6
533.7
534
534.1
535
535.1
535.11
535.12
535.13
535.2
535.3
535.4
536
536.1
536.2
536.2
536.3
537
537.1
537.11
537.12
537.13
537.14
537.2
537.3
Policy
Instructional
Extra Class Activities
Committee and Staff Work
Professional Growth
Ethical Conduct
Observance of Rules and Regulations
Learning Environment
Non-Instructional Duties and Responsibilities
Discipline
Duties and Responsibilities of Other Certificated Employees
Employment Conditions
Time Schedule
Work Day
Conditions Related to Work Load
Teaching Load
Extracurricular activities
Student Supervision
Instructional Materials
Teacher Aides
Orientation
Assignment and Transfers
Supervision
Evaluation
Drug Free Workplace
Dismissal of Tenure Teacher
Procedure and Hearing Upon Notice of Dismissal or Non-Retention
Temporary and Part-Time Teachers
Substitute Teachers
List of Approved Substitutes
Substitute Teacher’s Handbook
Compensation for Substitutes
Part-Time Teachers
Student Teachers
Non-Teaching Professional Employees
Benefits
Retirement Benefits
Retirement Benefits
Worker’s Compensation
Tax-Sheltered Annuities
Absences
Sick Leave
Refunds
Summer School Teachers
Doctor’s Certificate
False Statement
Personal Leave
Emergency Leave
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 24
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
September 12, 1983
October 13, 1986
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
September 12, 1983
June 23, 1997
DK
DK
September 11, 1989
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
537.4
537.5
537.6
537.61
537.62
537.63
537.64
538
538.1
538.2
538.21
538.22
538.3
538.31
538.4
538.41
538.42
538.43
538.44
538.441
538.442
538.443
538.444
538.445
538.446
538.447
538.5
538.51
538.6
538.7
538.71
538.72
538.73
538.74
538,75
539
539.1
539.2
539.3
539.4
539.5
540
541
542
600
601
602
Policy
Jury/Witness Duty
Reporting Procedures
General Matters
Unapproved Absences
Loss of Pay
Employment of Substitutes
Absence From Buildings or Meetings
Leaves
Maternity
Military
Temporary
Leave for Extended Military Service
Sabbatical Leave: State Funded
Statutory References
District Career Development Leave
Nature and Purpose
Eligibility and Authority
Leave Period
Administration
Funding
Establishing Needs
Applications
Review and Recommendations
Compensation and Benefits
Return From Leave
Right of Appeal
Professional Leave
Short-Term Leave for Professional Purposes
Extended Leaves of Absence
Return from Leave
Extended Leaves
Sabbatical Leave
Physical Examinations
Early Return
Failure to Return
Professional Staff Members – Role of Individual
Tutoring
Soliciting, Selling or Collective
Non-school Employment
Participation in Community Life
Political Action Privileges
Publications
Conflict of Interest
Right to Criticize
CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL POLICIES
The Human Resources Division and its Organization
General Personnel Policy
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 25
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 22, 1998
DK
October 13, 1986
DK
December 9, 1996
June 22, 1998
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
602.1
603
604
604.1
605
610
610.1
610.2
610.3
610.4
611
611.1
611.2
612
613
613.1
613.2
614
614.1
614.2
614.3
614.31
615
615.1
615.2
615.3
616
616.1
616.2
616.3
616.4
616.5
616.6
617
620
621
622
623
624
625
630
631
631.1
631.11
631.12
631.13
631.14
Policy
Purpose and Scope
Personnel Records
EEO Policy Statement
Sexual Harassment Policy Statements
EEO Goals
Employment Procedures
Recruitment or Promotion
Advancement: Basis for Promotion
Qualifications
Requirements Regarding Education, Experience, and Age
Recruiting and Selection
Publication of Notice of Vacancy
Responsibility
Application Procedures
Interviewing/Appointment
Interviewing
Appointment
Qualifications
Competency in Area of Employment
Required Certificate and/or License
Special Qualifications
Health Examinations
Appointment Procedures
Hiring Approvals Required
Filling Vacancies
Emergency Appointments
Prohibitions
Fraud
Payment of Money or Services
Political Endorsement
Penalty for Violation
Observance of Rules and Regulations
Drug Free Workplace
Nepotism
The Classification Plan – Duties and Responsibilities
Development of the Plan
Composition
Use of the Classification Plan
Position Title
Maintenance of the Classification Plan
Employment Conditions
Time Schedules
Hours of Work and Payroll Periods
Workweek
Hourly Time Reporting
Payroll Cycles
Payroll Dates
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 26
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
November 24, 1986
DK
DK
March 16, 1987
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 14, 1999
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
September 11, 1989
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
631.15
631.2
631.3
631.31
631.32
631.4
631.41
631.5
631.6
631.7
631.8
632
632.1
632.2
632.3
633
633.1
633.2
633.3
633.4
633.5
633.6
634
635
635.1
635.2
635.3
635.4
635.5
636
636.1
636.2
636.3
636.4
637
637.1
637.2
637.21
637.22
637.23
637.3
638
638.1
639
639.1
639.2
639.3
Policy
Date Pay Commences
Pay Status
Holidays
Holidays Worked
Holidays not Worked
Overtime
Premium Pay for Overtime
Rest Periods
Anniversary Date
Full-time Employment
Permanent Part-time Employment
Orientation and Training
Orientation
Inservice and On-the-Job Training
Workshops and Meetings
Permanency of Employment
Probation Status and Probationary Period
Permanent Appointments
Temporary Appointments
Substitute Appointments
Special Project Appointments
Student Employees
Supervision
Assignments
Work Schedules
Reporting Procedures
Unapproved Absences
Loss of Pay
Absence from Buildings or Meetings
Reclassification, Promotion, Demotion, Vocational Transfer
Reclassification
Promotion
Demotion
Vocational Transfer
Evaluation or Performance Ratings
Purpose of Evaluation
Performance Ratings
Standards of Performance
Use of Evaluation and/or Performance Ratings
Performance Records and Reports
Appeal
Grievances and Complaints
Grievance Procedures
Terminations
Resignation
Layoff
Position Abolished
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 27
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
November 9, 1987
DK
September 10, 1990
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
639.4
639.5
639.6
640
641
641.1
641.11
641.12
641.13
641.131
641.132
641.14
641.141
641.142
641.143
641.15
641.151
641.152
641.2
641.3
641.4
641.5
642
642.1
642.11
642.12
642.2
642.21
642.22
642.3
642.4
650
651
651.1
651.11
651.111
651.12
651.121
651.122
651.123
651.2
651.3
651.4
651.41
651.42
651.43
651.44
Policy
Discipline
Suspension
Appeals from Disciplinary Actions
Compensation and Benefits
Compensation
Salary Plan and Salary Schedule
Compensation of the Salary Plan
Development and Maintenance of Salary Ranges
Appointment Rate
Exceptional Qualifications or Scarcity of Eligible Candidates
Rehire
Salary Increases
Meritorious Increases
Eligibility or Non-Eligibility in granting Salary Increases
Recognition for Stability
Special Pay Rates
Temporary Assignments
Call Back to Work
Provisions for Overtime
Compensation for Substitute Employees
Payroll Taxes
Travel and Other Official Expenditures
Benefits
Retirement
Alaska Public Employees’ Retirement System Provisions
Social Security
Employee Benefits
Group Life and Medical Insurance Benefits
Worker’s Compensation
Vacations
Holidays
Leaves and Absences
Leave with Pay
Annual Leave
Annual Leave Accruals
Maximum Accruable Time
Other Annual Leave Charges – Personal Affairs
Doctor’s Statement
Provisions for New Employees
Minimum Service for Annual Leave
Jury Duty or Witness Duty
Professional Leave
District Career Development Leave
Nature and Purpose
Eligibility and Authority
Leave Period
Administration
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 28
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
651.441
651.442
651.443
651.444
651.445
651.446
651.447
651.5
652
652.1
652.11
652.2
652.21
660
661
662
663
670
671
672
673
674
674.1
674.2
674.3
675
700
710
711
720
721
721.1
721.2
721.3
722
722.1
722.2
722.3
722.4
722.5
722.6
722.7
722.71
722.72
722.73
723
Policy
Funding
Establishing Needs
Applications
Review and Recommendations
Compensation and Benefits
Return from Leave
Right of Appeal
Temporary Military Duty
Leave Without Pay
General Provisions
Permanent Full-Time Employees
Types of Leave Without Pay
Extended Military Service
Recognition of Bargaining Groups
Agreements with Labor Unions and Employee Groups
Authorized Representatives
Committees or Councils
Individual Activities
Soliciting, Selling or Collecting
Political or Religious Activity
Political or Religious Activity
Conflict of Interest
Gratuities/Gifts
District Employment/Board Members
Municipal Ethics Code
Right to Criticize
BUSINESS AND NON-INSTRUCTIONAL OPERATIONS POLICIES
Organization of Business and Non-Operational Services
Chief Officers
Finance and Financial Management
Financial Management – Responsibility for
Board
Superintendent
Chief Financial Officer
The Budget and Budgetary Process
The Budget Defined
Budget Contents
Planning and Compilation
Preparation of the Budget Document
Public Hearings
Final Adoption
Budget as a Spending Plan
Responsibility for Administering
Methods and Procedures
Transfer of Funds Between Categories
Revenue
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 29
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
October 13, 1986
DK
December 9, 1996
DK
October 13, 1986
DK
October 13, 1986
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
723.1
723.2
723.21
723.3
723.4
723.5
724
724.1
724.2
724.3
724.31
724.32
724.33
725
725.1
725.11
725.12
725.13
725.131
725.132
725.14
725.141
725.142
725.15
725.16
725.2
725.21
725.211
725.212
725.213
725.22
725.221
725.222
725.23
725.24
725.3
725.31
725.32
Policy
Local
State
Alaska Public School Funding Program
Federal Revenues
Grants
Trust Funds
Management of Funds
Salary and Payroll Management
Payroll Deductions
Investments and Collateralization
Direct Investments
Investment Through Municipality of Anchorage
Investment Reports
Purchasing and Contracting
Acquisition of Personal Property or Services
Acquisition of Personal property or Services Valued at $50,000 and
Above
Acquisition of Personal Property or Services Valued at Less than
$50,000
Exemption from Formal Competitive Procedures and Reporting
Exempt
Reporting
Approval of Contracts for Personal Property and Services
Board Approval Required
Board Approval Not Required
Emergency Contracts
Petty Cash Accounts
Acquisition of Construction Projects and Architectural/Engineering
Design Services
Acquisition of Construction Projects and Architectural/Engineering
Services Valued at $100,000 and Above
Acquisition of Construction Projects Valued at $100,000 and Above
Acquisition of Architectural/Engineering Design Services Valued at
$100,000 and Above
Acquisition of Projects Valued at $100,000 and Above by use of
Alternative Techniques
Acquisition of Construction Projects and Architectural/Engineering
Design Services Valued less than $100,000
Acquisition of Construction Projects Valued less than $100,000
Acquisition of Architectural/Engineering Services Valued less than
$100,000
Emergency Construction Projects and Architectural/Engineering
Design Services
Rehabilitation, Repair and Construction of School Buildings
General Requirements and Conditions for all District Purchases
Non-Discrimination
Vendor Bidder Lists
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 30
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
725.33
Bid Bond/Security
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
725.34
724.341
725.342
725.35
725.351
725.352
725.353
725.354
725.355
725.355.1
725.355.2
725.355.3
725.355.4
725.36
725.361
725.362
725.363
725.364
725.365
725.366
725.367
725.368
725.368.1
725.368.1(a)
725.368.2(b)
725.368.3
725.369
725.37
725.4
725.41
725.42
725.43
725.44
725.45
725.451
725.452
725.46
725.47
725.48
726
726.1
727
727.1
727.2
Policy
Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference and Addenda
Pre-Bid/Pre-Proposal Conference
Addenda to Solicitation Documents
Bids/Proposals Submitted, Withdrawal and Late Bids
Submittal
Withdrawal
Bid/Proposal Opening and Tabulation Procedure
Late Bids/Proposals
Rejection of Bids/Proposals
Reasons for Rejection
Reasons for Rejection by Discretion
Waiver of Irregularities
Negotiation
Aware of All Contracts
Aware to Lowest Responsible Bidder
Award to Other then Low Bidder
Tie Bids
Award to Successful Proposer
Readvertising
Notification of Award to Bidders/Proposers
Recommendations to the Board
Appeal Process for Aggrieved Bidders/Proposers
Appeal Process for Aggrieved Bidders/Proposers for Contracts
under $100,000
Appeal process for Aggrieved Bidders/Proposers for Contract
Awards at $100,000 and Above
Consideration of Aggrieved Bidder’s/Proposed Appeal
Appeals of Emergency Contract Awards
Limitation of Liability
Payment
Conflict of Interest
No Gifts or Gratuities
Prohibited Acts
Disclosure and Waiver of Conflict of Interest
Disclosure
Waiver for Board Members and Employees
Board Members
Employees
Contract Voidable
Complaints Regarding Conduct
Sanctions
Special Fund Expenditures
Local/State/Federal Projects Fund
Accounting and Financial Reporting
Classification of Funds
Financial Reports
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 31
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
727.21
Periodic Reports
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
727.22
727.3
727.31
727.32
727.4
728
728.1
728.2
728.3
729
729.1
729.2
729.3
729.4
729.5
729.51
729.6
730
730.1
731
731.1
731.2
731.3
731.4
732
732.1
732.2
732.3
732.4
740
741
741.1
741.11
741.12
741.13
741.2
741.3
742
742.1
742.2
742.3
743
743.1
743.2
743.21
Policy
Public Inspection
Audits
Internal
Annual Independent Financial Audit
Internal Controls
Student Funds
Restriction on Sales to Students
Responsibility for Handling Student Activity Funds
Fines and Fees
Risk Management
Risk Management Policy Statement
Property and Casualty Insurance
Safety, Health and Loss Control
Liability Protection
Resolution of Claims and Lawsuits
Settlements Less than $50,000
Recovery from Third Parties or Insurance Companies
Buildings, Grounds, and Equipment
Definition of School Property
Safety and Security
Enforcement
Inspections
Security of Buildings and Grounds
Pest Management
Equipment and Real Property
Disposition or Exchange of Property
General Fixed Assets – Equipment
Care of District Property, Assets, and Facilities
Permanent Property Records
Capital Improvement Programs
Long-range Planning
Determination of Needs
Forecasting Growth Patterns
Updating Needs
Funding Sources for Capital Improvement Projects and Site
Acquisitions
Community/Staff Participation
Relations With Other Governmental Agencies
Project Development
Securing Architectural and Engineering Services
Site Selection Procedure
Facility/Site Design and Construction Procedures
Construction Contracts
Construction Scope and Process
Security
Performance and Payment Bonds
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 32
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 25, 2001
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
743.22
Working Conditions at Project
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
743.23
743.3
743.4
743.5
744
745
746
747
748
750
751
751.1
752.2
751.3
752
752.1
752.2
753
753.1
753.2
753.3
754
760
761
762
763
764
765
770
800
810
820
822
823
823.1
823.11
823.2
824
824.1
825
825.1
825.2
825.3
825.4
825.5
Policy
Insurance During Construction
Construction Administration
Payments to Contractors
Dispute Resolution
Acceptance of the Completed Project
Naming of Schools and Facilities, Fields, and Other Areas
Retirement of Facilities
Retirement and Transfer of Sites
Leased Property/Buildings
Transportation
Responsibilities and Duties
Board
Superintendent
Hazardous Walking Routes
Arrangements for the Required Services
Publicly Owned and Maintained Equipment
Other Transportation
School Buses
Standards
Maintenance, Inspections, and Safety
Standby Equipment
Procedures for Emergencies
Food Services
Health Standards
Free/Reduced Price Meals
Cost of School Employee Meals
Cafeteria and Other Food Service Facilities
Vending Machine and Other Food Sales
Environmentally Sound Practices, Conservation, Waste
Minimization
SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS
General Policy
Communication with the Public
Responsibilities of Superintendent and District Staff
Media Relations
The News Media
News Releases
School Meetings and Activities
Board Meetings
Regular and Special Meetings
Public Records
Public Access to District Records
Availability of Records
Exemptions for Particular Records
Other Reasons for Denial of a Record Request
Definitions
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 33
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
June 5, 2000
DK
DK
DK
August 22, 1988
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
825.6
Requests for Records
DK
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
825.7
826
830
831
831.1
831.2
831.21
831.22
831.23
831.3
831.4
833
840
841
841.1
842
843
843.1
843.2
844
845
846
850
850.1
850.2
850.3
850.4
850.5
851
851.1
851.2
851.3
851.4
852
853
853.1
853.2
853.3
853.4
853.5
853.6
853.7
854
855
855.1
855.2
Policy
Appeal Procedure
Investigations and Research by Non-school Agencies
Public Participation in the Schools
The Public In or At the School
Guidelines for Use of Resource Persons
Promotion and Advertising
Commercially Sponsored Programs
Commercial Publications and Materials
Special Promotions
Citizen’s Assistance to School Personnel
Trespassing
Gifts and Donations
Participation of Staff and Students in Community Activities
Political Activities
Political Candidacy and Public Offices
Gifts to School Personnel
Complaints Concerning School Personnel
Citizens Complaint Process
Office of the Municipal Ombudsman
Soliciting Funds and Materials
Endorsement of Commercial Products by School Personnel
Contest, Activities, and Awarding of Prizes
Use of School Facilities
District Keys
Maintenance and Custodial Priorities
Outdoor Areas
Optimum Facilities Use
Food Service
Procedural Information
Application Procedures
Permit Procedures
Cancellation Procedures
Commercial Use (Category V)
Rules and Regulations
Assignment of Group Priorities
Category 1 – District Educational Use
Category 2 – Non Profit Youth Organizations
Category 3 – Non Profit Adult Organizations
Category 4 – Educational Institutions
Category 5 – Commercial Use and Political Use
Joint Agreements
Adoption of Facilities
Facilities Use Fees
Special Provisions
Religious or Partisan Activities
Private Teaching in the Schools
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 34
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
January 31, 1994
DK
January 26, 1998
February 23, 2000
DK
DK
DK
February 14, 1994
DK
DK
DK
February 13, 1995
DK
DK
DK
November 9, 1998
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
March 25, 1996
DK
DK
September 12, 1994
DK
September 12, 1994
August 12, 1996
DK
DK
September 12, 1994
DK
DK
August 12, 1996
Exhibit 1.1.1 (continued)
Board Policies Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Policy
Number
853.3
855.4
860
861
862
870
Policy
Use of District-Owned Equipment and Materials by Non-District
Individuals or groups
Criteria for Waiver of Fees
Relations with Public and Civic Agencies, Associations,
Organizations, and Non-Public Schools
Other Governmental Community Agencies
Investigations and Research by Non-School Agencies
Ethical Conduct of District Officers and Employees
Date of Adoption or
Last Revision
DK
May 21, 2001
DK
DK
DK
October 13, 1986
In addition to the board of education policies, auditors examined the Elementary Administrative
Procedures Manual, compiled in 1974 and revised in 2001. Exhibit 1.1.2 lists the Elementary
Procedures that were reviewed by the auditors.
Exhibit 1.1.2
Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
114.2
201
240
265.2
300
310
331
331
331
332.3
341
341
341
341.1
341.22
341.3
341.3
341.3
341.3
341.31
341.31
341.4
342.31
342.31
342.31
342.31
342.32
342.32
342.33
Name of Procedure
Harassment
Legal Services
Teacher-in-charge
Administrative Procedures (In the Event of a Strike)
Weekly Time Allowance
Title IX
Slingerland (SMSI) Assignment of Students
Kindergarten FTE Allocations
Slingerland (SMSI)
Lottery Procedures – Open Enrollment
Audio Visual Materials
Books and Materials (Adoption, Selection and Evaluation)
Human Growth and Development
Lesson Plans
Pilot Programs
Controversial Issues – Objections to Use of Materials
Controversial Issues – Procedures for Handling Challenged Materials
Controversial Issues – The Committee
Controversial Issues – Use of Controversial Materials
Building Entrance Procedures for Students
Simulation/Role-Playing Activities (Controversial Issues)
Inservice Released Time Days
Controversial Issues – Simulation/Role Playing activities
Length of School Day – Students
School Day – Students
School Day – Weather Conditions
Staff, Duty Day/Office Hours
Work Day
Attendance Rules: Delayed Start Days Only
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 35
Date of
Adoption or
Last Revision
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
Exhibit 1.1.2 (continued)
Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
342.33
342.33
342.33
342.33
342.33
342.33
342.5
342.6
342.6
342.7
342.7
342.7
342.7
343
343
343
343
343.1
343.1
343.1
343.2
343.3
343.32
343.34
343.34
343.34
343.36
343.4
346.1
346.32
346.33
346.33
346.34
346.34
346.341
346.342
346.342
346.343
346.344
346.345
346.35
346.351
346.352
346.36
346.37
Name of Procedure
Attendance Rules: School Closure Days Only
Emergency Closing (Procedures, Notification, Determination, Absences)
Hazardous Travel and Work attendance (Emergency Closing)
Notification (School Closure)
Procedure for Closing Schools and/or Canceling Bus Transportation Due
to Inclement Weather
School Closing – Emergency
Religious Observances by Students/Groups
Parties
Patriotism
Earthquake Drills
Emergency/Safety Drills
Lockdown Drills
Stay Put Drill
Grading Considerations
Honor Roll
Kindergarten Parent-Teacher Conferences and Report Cards
Primary and Intermediate Report of Progress (Report Cards)
Grading, Mandatory
Pupil Progress, Reporting
Report Card Letter Grades
Reports (Report Cards)
Safety Alert
Storage – Location of Records
Student Records
Records (Requests for)
Requests for Student Records
Records (Requests to Amend, Includes Ethnic Identification Change)
Graduation
Textbooks
Library – Audiences
Assessment (Library)
Library – Assessment
Library – Selection
Selection (Library)
Library – Responsibility for Selection
Guidelines (Library)
Library – Guidelines
Library – Acquisitions
Gifts (Library)
Memorials (Library)
Access to Materials (Library)
Library – Physical Access
Intellectual Access (Library)
Withdrawal of Materials (Library)
Library – Reconsideration of Challenged Materials
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 36
Date of
Adoption or
Last Revision
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
Exhibit 1.1.2 (continued)
Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
346.38
346.39
346.5
348
348.2
348.2
348.4
349
349
350.1
420
431.12
431.2
441.2
441.2
443.2
443.3
444.1
444.2
444.2
445.2
450.1
450.1
451.1
451.4
451.4
451.7
459
459
460.5
460.5
470
470
470.4
471
471
471
471
471
471
471
472.3
474.4
475
480.1
Name of Procedure
Cooperation (Library)
Recreational Reading Programs
Disposal of Textbooks, Library Books, and Supplies
Added Duty Addendums
Gym Equipment
Archery Equipment
Field Trips
Evaluation (Research Projects)
Testing
Observance of Religious Holidays
Homework
Part Time Students
Non-resident Students
Early Age Entrance Procedures (Kindergarten)
Entrance Other than Early Age
Attendance (Irregular) Absenteeism and Tardiness
Truancy
Boundaries–Administration Procedures for Proposed
Attendance Zones Exceptions (Procedures/Renewals/Steps to Revoke)
Zone Exceptions – Procedures/Renewal/Revoke
Ethnic Identification (Change of)
Smoking – Admin. Procedures and Guidelines (Tobacco)
Tobacco (Smoking)
Suspensions – Appeal Process
Drugs and Alcohol (Procedures for In-District Suspension/Expulsion)
Suspensions – Drug/Alcohol
Weapons (Suspension/Expulsion)
Hazardous Field Trips
Field Trips (Private Transportation)
Student Travel – Overnight Hazardous (Inside/Outside Municipal
Boundary)
Student – Student Travel Across Water
Division of Family and Youth service (Student Interviews)
Student Interviews
Student Interviews
Bomb Threat Procedures
Fire Alarm Reporting Procedures
Lost/Mis sing Child
Missing Child After School (Protection of students)
Police Contacts
Telephone Threats
Walking Students (Responsibility for)
School Lunch Aid
Child abuse or Neglect (Administrative)
Infectious Disease Control
Animals Prohibited in Schools
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 37
Date of
Adoption or
Last Revision
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
Exhibit 1.1.2 (continued)
Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
481
481
481
481
482.1
482.2
482.2
482.4
483.1
483.22
485
485
496
496
496
532.37
532.37
532.37
532.4
533.25
533.6
534.1
534.1
534.1
538
538
600
722
725.22
728.14
729.4
730.1
730.1
730.1
730.1
730.1
731
731.2
731.3
761
762
762
762
762
Name of Procedure
Accidents and Injuries
Safety (Students)
Safety Committees
School Opening and Closing
Snow Ball Throwing
Hockey Rink Maintenance
Maintenance Work Requests
Medication (Administration)
School Buses (Transportation of Large Items)
Seat Belts
Civil Defense Evacuation Plan
Earthquake Emergency Preparedness
Library Books (Student Fees – Lost or Damaged Books)
Student Fees – Classroom Activities
Student Fees – Supply Fee/Textbooks/Library Books
Computer Software Copyright Procedures
Copyright Law
Procedures for Software Copyright
Discipline (Whistle Blowers Act)
Teacher Aides
Evaluation
Certificated Personnel – Procedure and Hearing Upon Notice of Dismissal
or Non-Retention
Dismissal and Non-Retention of Certificated Personnel
Dismissal of Tenure Teacher
Exchange Teacher (Foreign/National) Administrative Procedures
Leaves (Foreign/National Teacher Exchange Administrative Procedures)
Classified Staff
Budget
Conflict of Interest and Waivers
School Stores
Liability Protection - Personal Vehicles (Use of)
Cleaning of Flags
Display of Flags
Building Repairs
Logos, Lettering and Other Appurtenances
Vandalism/Theft Procedures
Holiday Decorations
Playground Equipment
Security
Health Standards
Households That Fail to Apply (School Lunches)
Lunch – Lunchrooms, Student Access, Charges, sale of Tickets, Holding
of Tickets, Lost/Stolen, Free/Reduced)
Free/Reduced Price Meals
Noon Duty Attendant Responsibilities
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 38
Date of
Adoption or
Last Revision
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
Exhibit 1.1.2 (continued)
Elementary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
762
765
823.1
823.1
823.51
831.11
831.11
831.21
831.3
831.3
831.3
832.1
833
840
842.1
851.4
851.6
852
856.353
856.353
Name of Procedure
Student Lunch/Access for Students
Vending Machines
Media Guidelines – Newspapers, TV, Radio, etc.
Public Relations (The News Media and Guidelines)
Availability of Records
Resource Persons (Scheduling)
Scheduling of Resource Persons
Community Sponsored Activities Guidelines
Student/Adult Visitors
Visitors (Student/Adult)
Volunteers
PTA Funded Projects
Gifts and Donations
Distribution of Materials in Schools
Awards
Roller Blades/Skateboards/Scooters
Food Services – Permissible School Functions
Procedural Information – Building Use Permits
Computer Use During Summer Months
Equipment (District Owned)
Date of
Adoption or
Last Revision
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
In addition to the board of education policies and the Elementary Administrative Procedures Manual,
auditors examined the Secondary Administrative Manual, revised in November, 2001. Exhibit 1.1.3
lists the Secondary Procedures that were reviewed by the auditors.
Exhibit 1.1.3
Secondary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
173.2
241.21
262.1
264.4
300
300.1
341.1
341.13
341.3
341.4
341.5
341.6
342.33
342.41
342.5
342.6
342.7
Name of Procedure
Student Advisory Board
Responsibilities and Duties of Principals
Boundary Changes
Procedures for School Employees
Instruction of Students
Lesson Plans
Program of Studies
High School Program – Grades 9-12
Controversial Issues
Political Candidates
Guest Lecturers
Simulation/Role Playing activities
Procedures for Closing
Student Scheduling and Alternatives
Credit by Choice Program
Patriotism (Pledge of Allegiance)
Safety Drills
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 39
Date of Adoption
or Last Revision
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
Exhibit 1.1.3 (continued)
Secondary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
342.8
343.1
343.34
343.39
343.41
343.42
345.32
345.33
345.34
345.341
345.342
345.343
345.344
345.345
345.35
345.351
345.352
345.36
345.37
345.38
345.381
345.5
346
347
347.21
347.31
347.32
347.34
347.36
347.38
347.41
347.42
347.5
347.51
430
430.1
431
431.11
431.32
431.4
442.1
443.2
443.3
443.4
443.5
444.2
445.2
Name of Procedure
Fire Safety
Grading System
Directory Information (Dissemination)
Student Transcripts
Graduation Credit Requirement Alternatives/Waivers
Early Graduation
Audiences
Assessment
Selection
Responsibility for Selection
Guidelines
Acquisitions
Gifts
Memorials
Access to Materials
Physical Access
Intellectual Access
Withdrawal of Materials
Reconsideration of Challenged Materials
Cooperation
Library Materials Selection
Procedure for Handling Disposal of Confidential Materials
Regulations Governing Selection of Instructional Materials
Extracurricular Activities – High School
Administrative Procedures Athletic/Activity Booster Club
Sports and Athletic Programs – Administration of
Eligibility – High School Activities
Awards and Letters
Athletic Schedules – Senior High School
Additional or Voluntary Coaches Procedures
Transportation, Travel and Housing – Senior High School
Parent and Adult Transportation of Pupils
Field Trip Procedures
Field Trip – Private Transportation
Eligibility of Students to Attend School
Non-Immigrant Students
Physical Examination of Students
Part-Time Students
New to District Students
Immunizations
Compulsory Attendance
Absenteeism and Tardiness
Truancy
Homework Make-up Procedures
Student Decorum
Change of Residence Within the District Procedure
Ethnic Identification
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 40
Date of Adoption
or Last Revision
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
Novemb er, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
Exhibit 1.1.3 (continued)
Secondary Administrative Procedures Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Procedure
Number
450.2.12
450.2.13
451.1
451.21
451.4
451.41
451.5
451.51
451.6
452.1
452.4
453.4
455
471.11
471.3
471.4
480
480.1
482.4
482.5
483.2
483.2
483.211
490.13
490.15
492.1
496
498
526
537.2
537.5
722.73
728.12
728.13
728.14
823.1
823.51
831.22
831.25
841.3
842.1
851.6
856.3
Name of Procedure
Student Search Procedures
Consent to Search Form
Suspensions
Students Returning from Expulsion
Illegal Drugs/Alcohol
Students Returning From Expulsion for Drugs/Alcohol
Suspension or Expulsion of Special Education Students
Emergency Suspension Procedures for Special Ed. Students
Assault Upon Teachers
Student Dress
Sportsmanlike Attitudes in or at Contests
Property Lost, Damaged, or Stolen
Trespassing
Custody Issue – Outline of Procedures
Supervision of Students During Regular School Hours
Police Investigations at Schools
Accident Prevention and Safety Program
Safety Reports
Manual of Procedure for Administering Medication
Fireworks and Bonfires
Automobiles
Open Campus
Student Parking Fees
Responsibilities of Contributors to Student Publications
Determination of appropriateness and Appeal Procedures
Suicide Procedures
Student Fees
Fund Raising Programs
Professional Travel Leave Requests
Personal Leave
Reporting Procedures
Transfer of Funds
Responsibility for Handling Student Activity Funds
Resale Account
School Stores
News Media
Public Distribution of Documents, Charges and Copying Fees
Commercially Sponsored Programs
Distributing Information Using Students
Procedures for Processing Complaints against Employee Practices of
the District
Guidelines for Community sponsored activities in ASD Schools
Good Service
Self-Insured Supplies, Equipment, Funds, and Property Damage
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 41
Date of Adoption
or Last Revision
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
November, 2001
Policy Design
The auditors assessed the quality of district policies by comparing the content to expected audit criteria
for good curriculum management policies. Twenty-two criteria are organized into five categories:
control, direction, connectivity and equity, feedback, and productivity.
Relevant policies and procedures were selected from the total listing for further study and review.
The auditors examined each relevant policy to determine if the audit criteria were present in the
policy. If a policy was adequate in providing specific guidance, the policy was judged to have met the
criterion. The symbol “X” was placed under the “Adequate” column. If a policy was considered too
weak to meet the criterion or there was no policy regarding the criterion, a rating of “Inadequate” was
made. If no policies were available that related to the criterion, the word “Missing” is used.
A final step in determining adequacy was to total the number of criteria that had been met. In order
for policies to be characterized as adequate, 70 percent or more of the criteria need to be met. This
translates to 16 or more of the criteria.
Overall, the policies and procedures were found to be inadequate with respect to curriculum
management. Nine of the possible 22 criteria are met, therefore, the policies are considered
inadequate to provide for quality control for curriculum management. Exhibit 1.1.4 presents the 22
criteria and the auditors’ ratings.
Criteria
1. Provides for Control – requires:
A. Aligned written, tested, and taught
curriculum.
B. Philosophical statement of
curriculum approach (e.g.,
performance-based, etc.).
C. Board adoption of the curriculum.
D. Accountability through roles and
responsibilities.
E. Long-range planning in curriculum.
2. Provides for Direction – requires:
A. Written curriculum for all subject
areas.
B. Periodic review of the curriculum.
Policies
Procedures
Secondary
Missing
Quality
Inadequate
Procedures
Elementary
Quality
Adequate
Exhibit 1.1.4
Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management
Policies and Auditors’ Assessment
Anchorage School District
X
310; 320; 321; 322
332
X
341; 341.2
201; 213.2; 220;
240; 241; 241.24;
242; 242.1; 261;
261.1; 261.2; 330;
331; 341.21; 341.3;
532.32; 533.21;
533.5; 621; 622
144; 341.21
310; 320; 321; 322;
330; 331; 340;
341.21
340; 341; 341.2;
341.21
240;
533.6; 534.1;
420; 533.25;
831.3; 832
332
241.21;
264.4; 300;
341.3; 341.5;
347; 347.31;
347.32; 841.3
X
X
X
330; 331;
348.2; 341.1;
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 42
341.1;
341.13;
342.5;
X
X
D. Allocation of time for learning.
3. Provides for Connectivity and Equity –
requires:
A. Articulation and coordination of
curriculum.
B. Predictability of the written
curriculum from one level to
another.
C. Training staff in delivery of the
curriculum.
D. Delivery of the curriculum.
E. Monitoring of the delivery of
curriculum.
F. Equitable access to the curriculum.
4. Provides for Feedback – requires:
A. An assessment program.
B. Use of assessment data to
determine program/curriculum
effectiveness and efficiency.
C. Report to Board on program
effectiveness.
5. Provides for Productivity – requires:
A. Curriculum-driven budget.
B. Resource allocation tied to
curriculum priorities.
Policies
341; 341.2; 342.2,
346; 346.1, 346.2;
533.24
342; 342.1; 342.2;
342.3; 342.31;
342.32; 342.33;
342.4; 342.5; 342.6;
533.11
Procedures
Elementary
Procedures
Secondary
331; 341;
341.3;
341.31;
346.1; 346.5;
348.2; 840;
856.353
300; 342.31;
342.32
346
Quality
Inadequate
Criteria
C. Textbooks/resources adoption by
the Board
Quality
Adequate
Exhibit 1.1.4 (continued)
Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management
Policies and Auditors’ Assessment
Anchorage School District
X
X
Missing
X
Missing
X
341.4; 532.35
341.4
321; 532.32; 533.5
342.32;
342.33
X
341.6
X
Missing
X
114; 114.1; 114.2;
173.3; 173.4; 321
332.3
215; 343; 343.1;
343.2; 343.21;
343.22; 343.23;
343.25; 343.4;
343.41
343; 343.1;
343.2; 343.4;
348; 349
349
349; 533.6;
341.22
349
341.22; 349
722.3
722
Missing
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 43
X
343.1;
343.39;
343.41;
343.42
347.34
X
X
X
X
X
Criteria
C. Environment to support curriculum
delivery.
D. Data-driven decisions for the
purpose of increasing student
learning.
Policies
532.38; 730; 730.1;
731; 731.1; 731.2;
731.3; 731.4; 732;
732.1; 732.2; 732.3;
732.4
144; 341.22; 343.1;
343.2; 343.22;
343.23; 343.25; 349
Procedures
Secondary
722.73;
730.1; 731;
761; 762;
765; 856.353
241.21; 856.3
Quality
Inadequate
Procedures
Elementary
Quality
Adequate
Exhibit 1.1.4 (continued)
Quality Criteria for Curriculum Management
Policies and Auditors’ Assessment
Anchorage School District
X
X
The current policies and procedures provide minimal direction for curricular decision-making. As can
be noted, the policies and procedures are inadequate in relationship to the characteristics for quality
curriculum management. Nine out of the 22 characteristics, or 41 percent, were rated as adequate.
Thirteen out of the 22 characteristics, or 59 percent, were rated as inadequate. Policies for five out of
the 22 characteristics, or 23 percent, were missing. The policies and procedures governing control
were the strongest.
The auditors’ general analysis of the school district’s policies and procedures indicate that some of the
policies and procedures address issues of curriculum management. A summary of the contents of
each series follows:
Policy Series 100 – Board of Education
The auditors found one policy in this series to scrutinize further in relation to curriculum management.
In Policy 144, the Board is charged with periodically providing “expectations for performance of the
instructional program of the district, including statements of instructional goals, priorities among
instructional goals, expectations for student achievement, and short- and long-range goals for
instructional improvement.”
Policy Series 200 – School Administration
The auditors found some references to curriculum management in this series. Most prevalent were
those related to functions of the superintendent and building principals. The superintendent is charged
with overall responsibility for curriculum planning and development as well as instructional
management. Building principals are referred to as the instructional leader of the school/program.
Policy Series 300 – Instruction
The framework for the overall curricular program is set forth in the 300 series, including the grading
system. Philosophic al and goal statements were found relating to the importance of the spiritual
heritage and the responsibility of:
• “Providing an education for all children of public school age;”
• “The separate but complementary roles performed by the family…by the church and other
community organizations where moral, spiritual, and ethical values are developed;” and
• The necessity for a “strong and active partnership between schools, parents, and the community.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 44
Effective control of the schools is located within an effective policy framework
developed by the elected School Board. This very scenic vista from the playground
of Girdwood Elementary School does not reveal that it was built on a landfill site (see Finding 5.3).
Policy Series 400 – Students and Student Personnel Services
The framework for managing the K-12 student body is outlined in this policy series. Issues such as
admissions, attendance, student discipline, health, and safety are included.
Policy Series 500 – Certificated and Other Professional Personnel
The policies in this section provide the guidelines for personnel management. In this section, teachers
are directed to “follow the course of study and use the books and other instructional material
prescribed by the Superintendent and approved by the Board.” The emphasis for principals is placed
on “the improvement of classroom instruction.”
Policy Series 600 – Classified Personnel Policies
The policies in this section provide guidelines for the district in the area of classified personnel
management. Areas addressed include employment procedures, classification, compensation, leaves,
and bargaining.
Policy Series 700 – Business and Non-Instructional Operations Policies
The policies in the Business and Non-Instructional Operations section deal with financial management,
buildings, grounds, equipment, financial planning, transportation, food services, and environmentally
sound practices regarding conservation and waste minimization.
Policy Series 800 – School Community Relations
The School Community Rela tions section of the policy book defines how the district will communicate
with the public. Included here are public participation in the schools, use of facilities and relations with
public and civic agencies, and non-public schools.
The following general observations are noteworthy:
• Of the 22 criteria, 13 (59 percent) were not satisfied.
• Policies for five (23 percent) of the criteria were missing.
• Nine (41 percent) of the audit criteria were satisfied.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 45
As can be noted, the policies are inadequate in relationship to the characteristics for quality curriculum
management. Nine of the 22 characteristics were rated as adequate. Policies for five of the 22
characteristics were absent. The following is the auditors’ analysis of specific policies by category.
1. Control
A. Aligned written, taught, and tested curriculum
This criterion is not met.
Specific policy direction for alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum does not
exist.
B. Philosophical statement of curriculum approach (e.g. performance-based, etc.)
This criterion is not met.
Statements of philosophy contained in board policy and building procedures do not address the
philosophical stance necessary to guide the district in the design and delivery of an overall
curriculum program.
C. Board adoption of the curriculum
This criterion is met.
Policy 341 states, “The Board shall approve the curriculum and the major instructional
materials.”
D. Accountability through roles and responsibilities
This criterion is met.
The assignment of accountability for various aspects of curriculum management is covered in
several district policies as cited below:
• In Policy 213.2, the superintendent is charged with overall responsibility for curriculum
planning and development as well as instructional management.
• In Policy 241, building principals are responsible to be the instructional leader of the
school/program. Principals are also charged with the responsibility to “develop the
curriculum” to maximize achievement.
• Policy 341.21 charges curriculum committees with the responsibility to develop
recommendations for course content and performance standards as well as to develop
frameworks and recommend textbooks and instructional materials.
E. Long-range planning in curriculum
This criterion is met.
Policy 144 provides that “The Board shall adopt and periodically review expectations for
performance of the instructional program of the district, including statements of instructional
goals, priorities among instructional goals, expectations for student achievement, and shortand long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
2. Direction
A. Written curriculum for all subject areas
This criterion is not met.
Policies 310, 320, 321, 322, 330, 331, and 341.21 do not state that written curriculum
guides are a requirement in guiding classroom teaching. References to frameworks are made
in Policy 341.21, but no mention is made of curriculum guides.
B. Periodic review of the curriculum
This criterion is met.
Policy 341.2 provides that “The district's curriculum is regularly reviewed and developed to
enhance student achievement.”
C. Textbooks/resources adoption by the Board
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 46
This criterion is met.
Policy 341 states, “The Board shall approve the curriculum and the major instructional
materials.”
D. Allocation of time for learning
This criterion is not met.
Policies 342, 342.1, and 342.2 relate to the use of time through the calendar and the school
year. However no specific minutes of instruction per day are specified.
3. Connectivity and Equity
A. Articulation and coordination of the curriculum
This criterion is not met.
There is no policy or procedure calling for the articulation and coordination of the curriculum.
B. Predictability of the written curriculum from one level to another.
This criterion is not met.
There is no policy or procedure calling for predictability of the written curriculum from one
level to another.
C. Training staff in delivery of the curriculum.
This criterion is not met.
Staff development is mentioned in Policy 341.4, “priority will be given to activities that
prepare staff to use effective management and instructional practices and provide instructional
programs in priority areas as established by the Board.” Further reference is made to
professional development in Policy 533.5, “consideration will be given to m
i proving skills
needed to utilize effective instructional and management practices and increase abilities to
deliver instruction in priority goal areas.” However, there is no policy or procedure calling for
training of staff in the delivery of the curriculum.
D. Delivery of the curriculum.
This criterion is not met.
Auditors found no policy or procedure that specifically references the delivery of the
curriculum. References are made to instruction in Policy 532.32, “Teachers shall follow the
courses of study and use the books and other instructional material prescribed by the
Superintendent and approved by the Board.” However, guidance for the delivery of
curriculum is not highlighted and the policy lacks specificity.
E. Monitoring of the delivery of curriculum.
This criterion is not met.
Policy related to this criterion is missing.
F. Equitable access to the curriculum.
This criterion is met.
Policy 114 states, “No person shall be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits
of educational opportunities and services, academic or extracurricular, offered by the district.”
4. Feedback
A. An assessment program.
This criterion is not met.
Policy 343.1 provides that “The Superintendent shall be responsible for a student evaluation
system.” Policy 213.2 provides that the Superintendent will, “use valid and reliable
performance indicators and testing procedures to measure performance outcomes.” Neither
of these is complete or offers specific components related to student or program assessment.
B. Use of assessment data to determine program/curriculum effectiveness and efficiency
This criterion is met.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 47
Policy 349 provides “Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall
be conducted annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and
the public.”
C. Report to Board on program effectiveness
This criterion is met.
Policy 349 provides “Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall
be conducted annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and
the public.”
5. Productivity
A. Curriculum-driven budget
This criterion is not met.
No policy calls for the district’s curriculum to be the driving force behind the district’s budget.
B. Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities
This criterion is not met.
A policy or procedure calling for resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities is missing.
C. Environment to support curriculum delivery.
This criterion is met.
References are made to facility standards, safety, and updating needs.
D. Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning
This criterion is not met.
Policy 349 states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional improvement.
Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be conducted annually
in priority goal areas.” However, no mention is made of increasing student learning as an
outcome of the evaluation. Further, no mention is made of data-driven decisions for the
purpose of increasing student learning.
Policy Use
After auditors determined the quality of policy design, they turned to the examination of policy use.
Auditors interviewed board members, district administrators, and principals concerning the use of
policies and procedures. Some stated that there is no specific way to demonstrate that the policies are
being followed and that they are not examined often. Most building staff indicated that the procedures
and board policy are mostly used for discipline, and other student service areas.
• “We don’t review policies all the time.”
• “The policies are more short-ranged and functional.”
• “I am not sure we have a specific mechanism to show that policies are being followed.”
• “The bare bones are there.”
• “The attorney should advise us regarding policies.”
• “I haven’t looked at the policies in a while.”
• “There’s no evidence that the administration is following board policy. There’s a trust level that
the policies are supposed to be followed.”
• “I use board policy as a guide, more for discipline than anything else.”
• “I use board policy in discipline, grading, student placement, promotion/retention, attendance.”
• “The policies are evolving. They are not at the level they will be in four to five years. We are
really starting the process. We’ve had to be reactive instead of pro-active. I would personally
like to put more attention in these areas.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 48
•
“These are the policies that are supposed to be followed. We know very well that with over 5,000
teachers not everyone is following board policy. There’re some things I wish were not in policy
because they were not good policies.”
• “Policies are somewhat functional. We do have a standing committee. They have evolved into
what works.”
In summary, the district’s policies are inadequate for providing the direction and quality control needed
for sound curriculum management. Some policies are lacking and others lack specificity to provide
direction and consistency to the district’s curriculum management efforts.
Finding 1.2: No Strategic Plan or Long-range Plan Exists to Guide District Administrative
Decisions Which Will Connect and Focus Organizational Activities and Tasks.
The needs of society and students are fluid. The changing nature of society requires new and
different responses. For example, according to data gathered by the Institute of Social and Economic
Research at the University of Alaska-Anchorage, the percentage of married couples in Alaska
dropped from 76 percent in 1970 to 52 percent in 2000. The number of single mothers was five
percent in 1970 and was 11 percent in 2000. In 1970, 14 percent of all persons lived alone. In 2000,
24 percent of all persons lived alone. Alaska’s Native population doubled between 1970 and 2000.
Effectively managed school districts use multi-year planning to build the management of change into
their structure. Comprehensive planning creates a vision of the organization’s future, identifies the
standards it values, and provides a framework for systemic action toward achievement of that vision.
A well-defined multi-year plan with related goals and objectives provides direction for determining
priorities and allocating resources. To determine the status of planning and the nature of the district’s
planning processes, auditors examined policies, planning documents, and reports; and conducted
interviews with board members, staff, and parents. Auditors determined that a comprehensive district
plan does not exist. Elements of a district plan; i.e., mission and goals, exist within the district;
however, no strategic, multi-year or long-range plan exists.
Auditors reviewed board policies related to planning.
• Policy 144 directs the Board to set “priorities among instructional goals, expectations for student
achievement and short- and long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
No comprehensive district-wide strategic plan was presented to the auditors for review. The criteria
used by the auditors for planning documents consist of the criteria shown in Exhibit 1.2.1.
Exhibit 1.2.1
CMSi Criteria for Rating Educational Plans
Criteria
Mission
Critical Analysis
Assumptions
Definition
General-purpose beliefs and educational goals of a school organization. The mission is
the foundation upon which all education program and services are built. It describes the
reason a district exists. Research shows that highly successful organizations (private
and public) have a clearly defined and communicated mission.
Collection and analysis of vital data about all facets of the internal and external
environments of the school organization. It defines the status of a school organization
and describes the future by combining forecasting results with status-check results.
A prediction of the events and conditions that are likely to influence the performance of a
school organization, division, or key individuals. Preparing planning assumptions is a
form of forecasting. Assumptions are concerned with what the future will look like and
help bridge the gap between needs and action goals in the planning process.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 49
Exhibit 1.2.1 (continued)
CMSi Criteria for Rating Educational Plans
Criteria
Components
Objectives
Evaluation
Action Plan
Monitoring
Stakeholders
Involvement
Linkage
Documents
Definition
Means of grouping goals for the purposes of communication and management. All goals
will be assigned to a component and each component will consist of one or more goals.
Statement of results that are measurable and that have time limitations. They describe
the condition(s) a school organization wants to improve. The desired improvements are
then translated into goals. Objectives are written for each goal. As objectives are met,
goals are accomplished.
Statements of conditions that show evidence that an objective is satisfactorily achieved
and procedures developed for completing the evaluation. Each objective should be
evaluated and the evaluation procedures should be developed at the time the objective is
written.
Actions to be taken that will help achieve the objectives. Each objective will have one or
more activities. A due date, responsible person(s), and cost are significant parts of each
activity.
System for assessing the status of activities, analyzing the results, and reporting
outcomes.
All stakeholders in a system (community, board, administrators, staff, and possibly
students) are represented in the plan development.
All documents in a system are aligned to the plan.
During interviews and on school visits, many comments were made about the planning process in the
Anchorage Public Schools. The following are samples of those comments.
• “Planning is not one of our long suits. We have goals. They give us the same ones each year.”
• “People are often unable to see the big picture.”
• “We have a tendency to miss the big picture. We need a more clear impetus. It is easy to get
lost in the minutiae.”
• “With a new superintendent, it is time for a long-term plan for the district, and this is a place to get
that going.”
• “We had a bad experience with Bill Cook in early 1990s.”
• “To my knowledge, there is no strategic plan.”
• “We never got around to long-range planning.”
• “The district does not have a current long-range or strategic plan.”
• “We spent some time on a five-year plan; we have internal frustration with setting a vision when
revenues were uncertain and turnover in School Board and assembly. We have chosen to
articulate specific goals and put energy toward those.”
• “I am cynical about the Bill Cook approach to strategic planning because of the manpower
investment, and the follow-through can be challenging.”
• “We don’t have a long-range plan.”
In summary, the auditors found that there is no system-focused long-range plan for the Anchorage
Public Schools, although there are function plans for facilities, finances, and technology.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 50
Finding 1.3: The Tables of Organization (TO) for the District and the Curriculum and
Evaluation Department Do Not Meet Audit Criteria for the Sound General Management of
the School District; Many Job Descriptions are Under Revision or Do Not Match the TO.
The Role of Coordinator Is Not Defined by a Recent Board-approved Job Description.
Administrative role relationships are important to an educational organization in the productive
grouping and management of its tasks and functions. Without such grouping there can be no economy
of scale in administrative deployment. A functional, accurate, and timely delineation of administrative
relationships are generally depicted in graphic form and called a table of organization or TO.
The auditors reviewed board policies, the table of organization, the ACE Study (May 13, 2002), and
job descriptions provided by the Anchorage School District. The auditors also interviewed board
members, central office administrators, and building principals regarding the table of organization and
job descriptions.
The appropriate depiction of administrative relationships in graphic form should follow generally
accepted management principles. These principles are depicted in Exhibit 1.3.1. The auditors used
these principles to examine the Anchorage School District Organization Chart, August 2001, shown in
Exhibit 1.3.2, and the Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation Organization Chart
2001/2002, dated 10/01/01, shown in Exhibit 1.3.3.
Exhibit 1.3.1
Principles for Evaluating the Table of Organization
Anchorage School District
2001
Principles
1. Span of Control
2.
Chain of Command
3.
Logical Grouping of
Functions
Separation of Line
and Staff Functions
4.
5.
Scalar Relationships
6.
Full Inclusion
Description
The range of superiors to subordinates, which should be 7-12 as a maximum
number who are supervised on a daily and face-to-face basis.
The principle that a person should have only one boss (superior) to avoid
being placed in a compromised decision-making situation.
The principle of clustering similar duties/tasks in order to keep supervisory
needs to a minimum (ensuring economy of scale).
The principle that those administrators carrying out the primary mission of the
district are not confused with those who are supporting it. Line administrators
only report to other line administrators, never to staff administrators. This
keeps the line of accountability for the primary mission of the district
uncompromised.
The principle that roles of the same title and remuneration should be
graphically on the same general horizontal plane.
The principle that all persons working within the district carrying out its
essential line and staff functions should be depicted in the table of
organization.
The auditors’ analysis of the tables of organization based on these principles is provided below.
1. Span of Control: The span of control as shown on the Anchorage School District Organization
Chart does not exceed the recommend range of 7-12. However, the Anchorage School District
Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart shows that 15 supervisors and coordinators report
to the Executive Director of Curriculum and Evaluation.
2. Chain of Command: The Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart shows art teachers
reporting to the art supervisor. Auditors were told that principals evaluate the art teachers. This
organizational chart also shows music teachers reporting to the music supervisor. The auditors
were told that the music supervisor evaluates itinerate music teachers, but the building principal
evaluates music teachers assigned to a single building.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 51
3. Logical Grouping of Functions: Through document review and interviews with administrative
staff, the auditors were made aware of numerous violations of the logical grouping of functions.
The Title I Coordinator reports to the Executive Director of Elementary Education, as does the
person responsible for the Reading Initiative. The Literacy Coordinator reports to the Executive
Director of Curriculum and Evaluation. The Executive Director of Special Education reports to
the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction. Math and science teacher experts appear on the
Curriculum and Evaluation organizational chart but reading teacher experts do not. A number of
positions in the district carry the title of Coordinator. To deal with this problem the Board engaged
the services of Nash and Company, Inc. to conduct a pay and classification study for the
Anchorage Council of Education (ACE). The study addressed nine major issues, including the
same job given a new title to achieve higher grade, the same job posted in different grades, and
source of funds influencing job grades (source: ACE Study–Final Report to School Board, May
13, 2002). This study noted that “Coordinator is a title that is currently overused and misused in
Anchorage School District.” Further, the study stated, “our recommendations restrict the use of
coordinator to those jobs requiring credentials or acting as the head of a major district-wide
function. Our recommendations do not make allowance for multiple levels of coordinator, with
one level of coordinator reporting to another….”
4. Separation of Line and Staff: The assignment of Title I and the Reading Initiative responsibilities
to the Executive Director of Elementary Education is a violation of the separation of line and staff.
The auditors’ were told that these positions were previously part of the Department of Curriculum
and Evaluation. Their offices are in the same general area as the rest of the curriculum and
evaluation staff but their reporting responsibility has changed.
5. Scalar Relationships: The Anchorage School District Organization Chart lists Charter Schools
on the same line as the Assistant Superintendents. A person does not fill this job. The
Superintendent oversees the charter schools in the district. The Chief Information Officer is on
the same line with the Assistant Superintendents and the Chief Financial Officer. Two Executive
Director Positions are also on this same line. Five other Executive Director positions report to the
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction. On the Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart
some Coordinators report directly to the Executive Director of Curriculum and Evaluation and
some report to Supervisors. For example, the Music Coordinator reports to the music supervisor.
6. Full Inclusion: The Anchorage School District Organization Chart does not include building
principals, assistant principals, or classroom teachers.
The reporting relationships depicted in Exhibit 1.3.2 and Exhibit 1.3.3 do not meet the principles of
sound organizational management.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 52
Exhibit 1.3.2
Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart
Anchorage School District
2001-2002
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 53
Exhibit 1.3.3
Organizational Chart
Anchorage School District
August 2001
Job Descriptions
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 54
Job descriptions are written resumes of the duties of persons employed by the school district. They
are essential for the purposes of establishing sound clustering of duties and for the establishment of
economy of scale. Clear descriptions of duties and qualifications enable accurate assignment in the
superior/subordinate chain of command and for the creation of arenas of similar group of functions.
Because the auditors were examining an educational organization whose purpose is instructional,
nearly all functions should have some connection to the design and/or delivery of curriculum, even
supporting roles that are close to line officers (including teachers) in the organization. Only if the
purpose of such roles is purely logistically supportive in nature, would this requirement be void. Job
descriptions must not only be accurate, but current.
In the Anchorage School District auditors reviewed job descriptions for a match with titles in the two
tables of organization appearing in Exhibit 1.3.2 and Exhibit 1.3.3. The auditors requested job
descriptions for all positions that appeared on the Anchorage School District Organization Chart
(August, 2001) and the Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart
(October, 2001). Twenty-five job descriptions were provided for the District Organization Chart and
fourteen job descriptions were provided for the role of coordinator. The coordinator job descriptions
were part of the Nash ACE study and have not been officially adopted by the Board. In addition, the
auditors reviewed a generic job description for the role of coordinator developed by the Executive
Director of Curriculum and Evaluation.
The auditors rated each job description on four criteria:
• Qualifications;
• Immediate links in the chain of command;
• Functions, duties, and responsibilities; and
• Relationship to curriculum (where relevant).
There were five possible ratings on the four criteria. They are listed in Exhibit 1.3.4.
Exhibit 1.3.4
Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions
Anchorage School District
2002
Rating
Missing
Inadequate
Adequate
Strong
Exemplary
Explanation
No statement made.
A statement is made but it is insufficient and missing details.
The statement is more or less complete, usually missing curricular linkages or sufficient
detail regarding curricular linkages/alignment.
A clear and complete statement including linkages to curriculum where appropriate or if not
appropriate, otherwise quite complete.
A clear, complete statement with inclusive linkages to curriculum indicated in excellent
scope and depth.
The results of the Anchorage School District Organizational Chart review are shown in Exhibit 1.3.5.
It should be noted that the designations of the chain of command in Exhibit 1.3.5 were derived from
the job descriptions and do not match those portrayed in Exhibits 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. The reason is that
job descriptions are handled separately from the organization charts by district personnel. The results
of the Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation Organizational Chart are shown in Exhibit
1.3.6.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 55
Exhibit 1.3.5
Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions
on the Organizational Chart
Anchorage School District
August 2001
Title
Superintendent
Date Qualifications
No date Adequate
Responsibilities
Curricular
Linkage
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
Inadequate
Strong
Adequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
(Exe. Dir., Curr. and
Instructional Services)
Adequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Adequate
NA
Chain of Command
Adequate
(Board of Ed.)
Assistant Superintendent for
Instruction
Chief Financial Officer
1992
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
1992
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
Assistant Superintendent for
Support Services
Chief Information Officer
1999
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
1999
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
Director of EEO/AA (Equal
1993
Adequate
Employment Opport./ Affirmative
Action)
Director, Community Ed.
Adequate
(Superintendent)
1999
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
Director, Gov’t. Relations/
Legislative Liaison
Director of Public Affairs
1993
Adequate
Adequate
(Superintendent)
1994
Adequate
Adequate
(Deputy Supt.)
Executive Director of Special
Education
Director of Budget
1989
Adequate
Adequate
(Assistant Supt.)
1992
Adequate
Adequate
(Chief Financial Officer)
Controller
No date
Adequate
Adequate
(Chief Financial Officer)
Coordinator, Instructional
Technology
Executive Director of
Elementary Education
1992
Executive Director of Middle
Level Education
1994
Executive Director of
Secondary Education
Executive Director of Labor
Relations
Director of Contract
Administration
1989
Director of Facilities
1993
Adequate
Adequate
(Chief Info. Officer)
1999
Adequate
Adequate
(Asst. Supt. for
Instruction)
Adequate
Adequate
(Asst. Supt. for
Instruction)
Adequate
Adequate
(Assistant Supt.)
1989
Adequate
Adequate
(Deputy Supt.)
1991
Adequate
Adequate
(Exe. Dir. of Labor
Relations)
Adequate
Adequate
(Dir. of Facilities/Maint.)
Director of Staff Development
Director of Maintenance
1989
1993
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 56
(Dir. of Facilities/Maint.)
Exhibit 1.3.5 (continued)
Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions
Organizational Chart
Anchorage School District
August 2001
Title
Director of Operations
Director of Purchasing
Date
1989
1989
Qualifications
Adequate
Adequate
Chain of Command
Adequate
Responsibilities
Curricular
Linkage
(Asst. Supt. of
Admin. Svc.)
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
NA
Adequate
(Chief Financial Officer)
Director of Student Nutrition
1989
Adequate
Adequate
(Assistant Supt. of
Admin. Services)
Director of Transportation
Services
1992
Adequate
Adequate
(Assistant Supt. of
Admin. Services)
Note: NA means not applicable
The following points can be made from reviewing these data:
•
Of the 28 positions listed on the organization chart, job descriptions were made available to the
auditors for 21 of the positions.
•
No job descriptions were given to the auditors for seven positions. These included: Executive
Director Curriculum/Evaluation, Director Payroll, Director Risk Management, Director Human
Resources, Director of Staffing/Recruitment, Executive Director Public Affairs, and Director of
Public Relations.
•
Job descriptions were provided for the following positions that do not appear on the organization
chart: Director, Government Relations/Legislative Liaison, Coordinator, Instructional Technology,
and Director of Staff Development.
•
The Executive Director of Labor Relations position is listed on the table of organization as The
Executive Director of Employee Relations.
•
The Director of Purchasing position is listed on the table of organization as the Director of
Purchasing/Maintenance.
•
Of the 25 job descriptions presented to the auditors, two had no date, seven were dated 1989,
twelve were dated 1991-1994, and four were dated 1999.
•
One job description, Executive Director Elementary Education, was rated as having an adequate
curricular linkage. This job description was developed in 1999 and was rated as strong for the
delineation of responsibilities.
Role of Coordinator
The auditors requested current job descriptions for coordinators from several offices and from
individual coordinators. While a few coordinators could produce job descriptions, there was no central
repository of coordinator job descriptions or evaluations in the office of Human Resources. The job
descriptions reviewed in Exhibit 1.3.6 are drafts developed by the coordinators currently serving in
those roles. These were presented to the auditors as job descriptions included in the Nash ACE
Study.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 57
Exhibit 1.3.6
Auditors’ Assessment of Draft Coordinator Job Descriptions
Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation
Anchorage School District
August 2001
Title
Coordinator, Art
Coordinator, World Lang.
Coordinator, Assessment
and Evaluation
Coordinator, Testing
Coordinator, Soc. Studies
Coordinator, Science
Coordinator, Music
Curriculum and Activities
Coordinator, Migrant Ed.
Coordinator, Mathematics
Coordinator, Literacy
Coordinator, Indian Ed.
Coordinator, Health and
Physical Education
Coordinator, Discretionary
Grants
Coordinator, Careers and
Technology Education
Coordinator, Bilingual
Education/Multicultural
Date
Qualifications
Chain of
Command
Responsibilities
Curricular
Linkage
2002
2002
Adequate*
Adequate*
Missing
Missing
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
2002
2002
2002
2002
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
NA
NA
Adequate*
Inadequate
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate*
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
2002
Adequate*
Missing
Adequate*
Inadequate
2002
Adequate*
Missing
Adequate*
NA
2002
Adequate*
Missing
Adequate*
Inadequate
2002
Adequate*
Missing
Adequate*
Inadequate
Adequate* = While the proposed job descriptions meet the basic requirements to be ranked as adequate in many
respects, they do not include the functions and qualifications required to address the curriculum alignment needs of the
Anchorage School District in the foreseeable future.
Exhibit 1.3.6 demonstrates:
• Chain of command was missing from all of the job descriptions.
• The curricular linkage, meaning the relationship to curriculum alignment (relationship among the
written, taught, and tested curriculum) and other delivery responsibilities, was weak or missing
from most of the job descriptions.
• All of these job descriptions were written by coordinators. The present organization chart for
Curriculum and Evaluation lists five supervisor positions. The Nash ACE Study recommended
that the supervisor positions for Art, Indian Education, and Bilingual/Multicultural Education be
changed to coordinator.
• Many of the job descriptions included identical language such as:
• Conducts long- and short-term planning
• Develops budget
• Provides inservice
• Chairs committees
• Directs curriculum renewal cycle
• Manages grants
• Qualifications for most of these coordinator roles included a Master’s Degree, Type A
certificate with a Type B certificate preferred.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 58
The auditors were provided with a copy of the ACE Supervisor Job Description Appeal Form used to
request consideration for a generic job description for the role of coordinator for the following content
areas: Art, Career & Technology Education, Literacy, Mathematics, Music Curriculum, Science,
Social Studies, and World Languages. This form showed all coordinators reporting to the Executive
Director, Curriculum and Evaluation. The suggested Job Description Summary was stated as follows,
“Facilitates the development and implementation of generic curriculum for K-12 including review,
adoption, implementation, and assessment of programs.” Changes recommended in Duties and
Responsibilities included, “Provides for widespread distribution, understanding, and use of district
curriculum frameworks, and state and districts standards,” and “assists principals and teachers to
understand and use student assessment and program evaluation data to improve education.”
Requested changes to the Education/Experience are included in the required Type B certification.
The auditors were told that the present coordinators created the proposed job descriptions without any
direct, central administrative review or involvement. This took place as part of the development of the
Nash ACE Study presented to the Board on May 13, 2002.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the present, past, and proposed responsibilities for
curriculum coordinators, all coordinators were interviewed. A variety of related documents were
reviewed including the Curriculum and Instruction Procedures Handbook (1986-87), Curriculum
Change Process (2002), Curriculum Coordinators/Supervisors Professional Leave Days (5/10/02),
Curriculum Department Qualifications/Experience/Compensation Summary (5/10/2002), Proposed
Curriculum Review Cycle (September 2001), and board policy and regulations.
School Board Policies 341 and 341.1 were referenced in the January 2002 Curriculum Change
Process manual. School Board Policy 341 deals with the curriculum and states, “The program of
instruction in the schools shall be based on locally adopted standards and shall meet or exceed the
requirements set forth by the State Department of Education. The Board shall approve the curriculum
and major instructional materials.
The standard curriculum is intended to challenge and stimulate students. Academic programs to meet
the needs of advanced students shall be established within the Anchorage School District.
Acceleration, enhancement, and/or differentiation of the regular curriculum, including Honors,
Advanced Placement, Special Education, and ESL classes, will be incorporated into the curriculum.”
Policy 341.2 states, “The district’s curriculum is regularly reviewed and developed to enhance
student achievement. The superintendent, or his/her designee, shall be responsible for developing
procedures for planning, implementing, and evaluating curriculum. The Board shall have opportunities
to provide comments and direction on the specific curriculum under review at the beginning of the
process.”
Two processes have been established for effecting changes in curriculum. One is the Curriculum
Renewal Cycle and the second is the Curriculum Change Process. The Curriculum Renewal Cycle
(Proposed Curriculum/Materials Review Cycle) is a six-year process. Ten curriculum content areas
are included in the cycle. These include art, career technology, health, literacy, mathematics, music,
physical education, science, social studies, and world languages. The current proposed cycle goes
from 2001-02 to 2006-07. The only area that reviews the entire K-12 program in one year is health.
Most of the other areas have divided the review of a single content area into six pieces. For example
in the area of mathematics, during the 2001-02 school year math 7-8 will be reviewed. During the
2002-03 school year pre-algebra, pre-calculus and trigonometry, statistics, and advanced algebra will
be reviewed. During the 2003-04 school year, K-6 mathematics will be reviewed. In science, during
2001-02 high school electives other than advanced placement and grades 4-6 will be reviewed. The
next year, K-3 science kits and grades 7-8 integrated science will be reviewed.
This segmented review cycle is typical for most of the content areas and results in most of the content
area coordinators seeking grants, attending conferences, and planning inservice sessions that may
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 59
compete with one another (see Finding 1.4 Staff Development). In individual interviews with
curriculum coordinators, each demonstrated a knowledge base in the content or program area for
which they were responsible. Most mentioned conference attendance as a mechanism they use for
keeping abreast of their area of responsibility and many funded these trips with grants. To determine
the frequency of conference attendance, the auditors requested a tabulation of these data for the
2001-2002 school year. Fifteen coordinators/supervisors used 132 professional leave days during the
2001-02 school years. The range of days used by a coordinator/supervisor was from a low of zero (0)
days to a high of 18 days. Auditors were informed that the district has no procedures for linking the
use of professional leave dates to the curriculum review cycle.
In addition,
coordinators/supervisors/expert teachers/specialists receive addenda to their salaries for additional
work beyond the contracted day and year. Over a three-year period these addenda ranged from a
low of no salary addenda in a single year to a high of over $14,000 for a single year. No long- or
short-range plan for the Curriculum and Evaluation department was available.
Auditors did review the 1986-87 Curriculum and Instruction Procedures Handbook that included
sections on Statement of Purpose, Change Process, Program Renewal Cycle, Scope and Sequence
Overview, Supplemental Material Guidelines, Curriculum Committee Handbook, Approved Textbooks,
and others. The auditors were told that this manual is currently under review, but a new Handbook to
replace the 16-year old edition had not been completed at the time of the visit. The auditors were
provided with the mission of the Curriculum and Evaluation department that appeared in a 2002
description of the Curriculum Change Process. It reads, “To provide leadership and accountability
for the development and implementation of a district-wide curriculum for grades K-12. In addition, the
department works to provide instructional support: establish and maintain partnerships with the
community; and to collaborate with school management to ensure excellence in instruction for all
children in the Anchorage School District.”
The following quotes are representative of the feelings and perceptions expressed to the auditors by
educational personnel interviewed in Anchorage School District regarding the present role of
curriculum coordinators:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Curriculum coordinators are very talented in their curriculum area, but there is a lot of turf. They
only work with certain schools. Principals don’t feel they are getting the help they need.”
“Coordinators were told, ‘The way you are operating now is not meeting our needs.’”
“There are problems holding them accountable.”
“The curriculum department is not carrying its weight.”
“The Board is frustrated about how textbook adoptions have gone and they are not getting an
objective evaluation of the situation.”
“There is a lot of resistance to chance by the coordinators.”
“We need an organization that makes sense and then deal with the personality issues.”
“We need some direction with an overall goal in mind.”
“There is no long-range plan for the curriculum and assessment area.”
“Everyone wants to go in a different direction.”
“Coordinators, I don’t see them working as a web. The strands should reach out to all of us in the
district. The strands should be touching us all the time. Now, we get directives. We never see
them (the coordinators). I have the impression that they are highly qualified, but I do not have
personal knowledge of this. We are unable to develop the curriculum rapport we need because
they are here (in their offices) and we are there (in the schools).”
Summary
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 60
In summary, job descriptions for positions reflected on the district organizational chart (TO) are not
aligned with the positions on the chart and no current, board-approved job descriptions exist for
coordinators. Job descriptions for coordinators, included as part of the Nash ACE Study, have been
developed by individual coordinators and do not include a strong emphasis on serving the needs of
school administrators for teacher accountability in designing instructional strategies that lead to student
mastery of state and district content and performance standards. Coordinators’ responsibility for
ensuring that teachers use state and local district content and performance standards to plan
instruction was not clear. Rather, there was an overall concern among board members, and central
office and building administrators about the role of the Curriculum and Evaluation Department, their
duties and responsibilities and reporting procedures. Current, board-approved, district documents do
not adequately define roles and expectations for this department. No current long- or short-range plan
guides the integration of department activities. Consequently, many coordinators work independently
without consideration for how actions in one area impact the overall effectiveness of the school district
in improving student achievement.
Finding 1.4: Staff Development is Fragmented, Unfocused on System Priorities,
Competitive of Teacher Time, and Not Provided for All Staff. It Lacks Coherence and
Long-range Direction Necessary to Support Instructional Practices Designed to Improve
Student Achievement.
Staff development and training are the means by which all staff working within the district acquire
and/or expand the knowledge, skills, and values needed to create quality systems of education for all
learners. District leadership that maintains a focused approach to improving student achievement
requires a strong staff development program. In the context of improving student achievement, a
focused approach acknowledges that resources are finite, and that a commitment of energy and
resources are required to address a small number of staff development priorities. Effective staff
development programs rely on an ability to assess the needs of all staff in order to determine what
skills and supports are necessary to align and to integrate with the district’s policy, and/or strategic or
long-range plan. High-quality programs provide for systemic, coordinated, and varied activities to
organize all staff into learning communities.
Staff development that is directed towards improved student achievement, demands leadership, both
central and site-based, that guides ongoing instructional improvement. Leaders of school districts need
to structure ways of learning and working together on system goals that produce learning
communities. Effective organizations are marked by highly focused team efforts. Indeed, complex
organizations cannot be responsive without multiple leaders working towards commonly desired ends.
High-quality programs are based on data analysis that is obtained from multiple sources. Systemic
change requires detailed, focused staff development. District’s staff development needs to be
coordinated and adequately funded to be sustainable and affect change. It should use current
research to guide improvement and demonstrate its impact. Effective staff development requires
evaluation, monitoring, and adequate resource funding. High-quality staff development policy and
planning includes provision for assessing the effectiveness of programs and monitoring their impact on
student achievement.
To assess staff development in the Anchorage School District, auditors reviewed policies, school
action plans, professional development schedules, and other pertinent documents. These are contained
in the following Exhibit 1.4.1:
Exhibit 1.4.1
Staff Development Documents Reviewed
Anchorage School District
Documents Reviewed
Date of
Documents Reviewed
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 61
Date of
Committee and Staff Work 532.34
Curriculum Committees 341.21
Curriculum Development 341.2
Duties and Responsibilities of
Principals 241
Goals of the Instructional Program 321
Curriculum 341
Orientation and Training 632
Pilot Programs 341.3
Professional Growth 532.35
Professional Growth 532.3
Professional Leave 538.5
Purposes of Instructional Prog. 322
School Calendar 342.2
Staff Development 341.4
ASD Standards-based Instr. Survey
ASD Board Monthly Agenda (for
5/13/02
ASD Comprehen. Fin. Audit Report
Philos. of the Instructional Prog. 310
ASD Classrm Connection Newspaper
The Academic Policy Committee
(Charter) 333.4
Documents
1983
Alaska Native Education Study
1998
ASD School Action Guide
1998
Alaska Quality Schools Initiatives
Alaska Standard for Culturally
1999
Responsive Schools
1998
Training and Professional Dev.
1998
ASD Profile of Performance
ASD Profile of Performance
1998
ASD Profile of Performance Slides
1983
Board Policy/Regulations:
1983
Class Crier
Competitive Grant Proc. Flow Chart
1998
New Teacher News
1998
Newspaper Clippings provided by ASD
1998
Newspaper Clippings provided by ASD
1999-2000 Slingerland Program Booklet
Reviewed State-released Time Inservice
5/13/2002 Plans
2001
Standards for Alaska’s Administrators
1998
Standards for Alaska’s Schools
9/2/01
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
Viewed the Master Calendar for Staff
1999
development
Documents
11/2001
2001-2002
6/2001
2/3/1998
1999-2000
1999-2000
2000-2001
2000-2001
5/2002
9/05/01
10/2001
2000-2001
2001-2002
1997
1997
2002
Auditors interviewed board members, teachers, district and site administrators, and central office staff
to look for evidence of an effective staff development program. Anchorage School District Policy
341.4 states that staff development should be “consistent with the district’s mission and
goals…priority will be given to activities that prepare staff to use effective management and
instructional practices.” Although no comprehensive staff development plan was found, there was
evidence of some long-range planning. The Training and Professional Development Department
currently resides within Staffing and Recruitment. This department produced a seven-year plan on the
implementation of a standards-based approach to education. The auditors, however, did not find any
evidence of a district strategic or long-range plan that provided coherent, focused direction.
According to the Anchorage School District’s report on a seven-year plan on a standards-based
approach to education, the mission of Training and Professional Development is:
• Facilitating opportunities for learning;
• Ensuring that learning is inclusive;
• Creating leadership development programs;
• Devoting resources to high quality, cost-effective learning opportunities that are meaningful,
relevant, and fulfill the district’s mission; and
• Continually improving service by keeping in touch with the evolving learning needs of staff.
Auditors found a plethora of staff development was being offered across a multitude of departments
at both the district and school levels. This ranged from programs available for certificated staff,
including staff development that is related to: curriculum, assessment, technology, safe and drug free
schools, teacher and principal recruitment, and training. Also available were staff development
programs related to migrant children, homeless children and children at-risk, language acquisition and
enhancement, special education, bilingual education, and Indian Education. In addition, there was
limited staff development available for classified and professional staff that was mainly functionrelated.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 62
Provision of funding for staff development in the Anchorage School Board has declined. Allocated
funding for the Training and Professional Development department has declined from a revised budget
of $596,044 in 2000-2001 to a proposed budget for 2002-2003 of $348,988. As indicated by the
submission of grants such as No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Projects
Application, the district has been relying on grants to provide resources for the provision of staff
development.
Exhibit 1.4.2 reflects the auditors’ assessment using the Curriculum Management Systems’
Incorporated (CMSi) characteristics of staff development.
Exhibit 1.4.2
CMSi Staff Development Criteria
Anchorage School District
Auditors’ Rating
Characteristic
The School System’s Staff Development:
1. Has policy that directs staff development activities and actions to be aligned
to and an integral part of the district strategic and/or long-range plan and its
implementation.
2. Fosters a norm of improvement and development of a learning community.
3. Provides for organizational, unit, and individual development in a systemic
manner.
4. Is for all employees.
5. Expects each principal/supervisor to be a staff developer of those supervised.
6. Is based on a careful analysis of data and is data-driven. Utilizes
disaggregated student achievement data to determine adult learning priorities,
monitors progress and helps sustain improvement of each person carrying out
his/her work.
7. Focuses on proven research-based approaches that have been shown to
increase productivity.
8. Provides for the following: initiation, implementation, institutionalization, and
renewal.
9. Is based on adult human learning and development theory and directs staff
development efforts congruent with system priorities as reflected in the
district plan.
10. Uses a variety of staff development approaches
11. Provides the follow-up and requires on-the-job application necessary to
ensure improvement.
12. Requires an evaluation process that includes multiple sources of information,
focuses on all levels of the organization and is based on actual changed
behavior and increased student achievement.
13. Provides for system-wide management oversight of staff development efforts.
14. Provides the necessary funding and resources to deliver staff development
called for in the district-wide strategic and/or long-range plan and is reflected
in the district budget allocations.
Adequate
Inadequat
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Audit criteria to determine adequacy of staff development is that at least 70 percent of the criteria
cited above must be met. Auditors found that only three of the 14 characteristics were present for a
percentage of 21 percent of audit characteristics met. The auditors consider the school district’s staff
development to be inadequate. In addition, auditors found that while staff development efforts in the
Anchorage School District are extensive, they are also fragmented and unfocused.
Auditors reviewed all staff development activities held at both the site and district levels. Exhibit 1.4.3
presents those trainings offered at the individual school sites. Auditors looked at staff development
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 63
activities held at the school level. The list was developed using the data gathered from the 2000-2001
Individual School Profiles as well as the school visits conducted by auditors. Schools are listed that
specifically indicated a description of staff training that has/will occur in their plan. There is not one
comprehensive plan that consolidates all of the school-level training as indicated in the School-based
Staff Development Plans or that specifically links the school-level training to the district’s goals. The
auditors used the elementary schools and middle schools to indicate the wide variety of training
planned by schools in the Anchorage School District.
Exhibit 1.4.3
Individual School Profiles
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School Name
Elementary Schools
Abbott Loop
Airport Heights
Alpenglow
Aurora
Baxter
Bayshore
Strategies Requiring Staff
Development
6 Traits Writing
First Steps Writing
Kagan Structures
6 Traits Writing
Integration of Technology
University upgrades for staff
Idt-a-Read
Accelerated Reading
Kagan Structures
Independent reading Plan K-3
Slingerland
IGNITE
Instructional technology
Identify struggling readers
School Name
Mt. Spurr
Mountain View
Muldoon
North Star
Northwood
Nunaka Valley
Bear Valley
Willard Bowman
Campbell
Chester Valley
Chinook
Chugach Optional
Chugiak
College Gate
Improve Spelling, Reading
and Mathematics
Kagan Structures
First Step Writing
Leveled Readers
Arts focus
RCCP and student mediators
RCCP and student mentors
Focus on Math, Language
Arts, Science, Social Studies
Leadership and mentoring
6 Traits Writing
Literature Circles
ASD Reading methodologies
6 Traits Writing
At-risk learners
Align instruction with
Standards
Ocean View
O’Malley
Orion
Ptarmigan
Rabbit Creek
Ravenwood
Rogers Park
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 64
Strategies Requiring
Staff Development
Reading
SRA
Reading Recovery
School climate
RCCP
Compass
At-risk learners
Project Achieve
RCCP
CIT-H
6 Traits Writing
At-risk learners
Partnerships with
community agencies
Kagan Structures
NWREL
Reading
Mathematics
6 Traits Writing
First Steps Reading
Leveled books
Kagan Structures
6 Traits Writing
Accelerated Reading
Instructional technology
Reading, spelling
Reading, writing,
mathematics
Slingerland
Character Counts
4 Asset Student Groups
6 Traits Writing
First Steps Writing
Exhibit 1.4.3 (continued)
Individual School Profiles
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Strategies Requiring Staff
School Name
Development
Elementary Schools (continued)
Creekside
Spelling
Technology instruction
Partnership with university for
master teachers
Denali
Montessori program
First Steps Reading and
Writing
6 Traits of Writing
Eagle River
Creating Successful Futures
First Steps Writing
6 Traits
Fairview
At-risk learners
Fire Lake
6 Traits Writing
Leveled Books
Tutoring programs
Government Hill
Spanish immersion
Cooperative Learning
ESL strategies
Computer integration
Effective Reading strategies
Homestead
Wellness
Instructional technology
Math and Science Fairs
Huffman
Accelerated Readers
6 Traits Writing
Inlet View
Tutoring on test taking
At-risk learners
Kasuun
Reading Renaissance
Early Success
Soar to Success
Kincaid
Cooperative Learning
Instructional technology
Klatt
Peaceful resolutions
Lake Hood
Bilingual programs
Middle Schools
Central
Science
Instructional technology
Geometry/Algebra
Clark
Literacy across the curriculum
Goldenview
Instructional technology
Pre-Algebra and Algebra
Gruening
Curriculum Mapping
School Name
Russian Jack
Sand Lake
Scenic Park
Susitana
Taku
Trailside
Tutor
Turnagain
William Tyson
Ursa Major
Ursa Minor
Williwaw
Willow Crest
Wonder Park
Wood Gladys
Lake Otis
Hanshew
Mears
Romig
Wendler
Strategies Requiring
Staff Development
Staff development
partnerships
Soar to Success
Reading Mastery Program
Houghton Mifflin program
Accelerated Reader
Japanese
6 Traits Writing
6 Traits Writing
Slingerland
Instructional technology
Spanish
Respect programs
Arts
Success for All
Reading programs
6 Traits Writing
Reading, spelling
Literacy programs
Indian Education
RCCP
First Steps Writing
Cooperative education
Accelerated Reading
Alaska Zoo program
First Steps
Kagan structures
STAR
RCCP
Add an Asset
Reading, spelling
Instructional technology
Standards
Improved discipline and
truancy
Instructional technology
Use of Data
Reading
The 2001-2002 Goals of the Anchorage School District are very specific regarding targeted
improvements in mathematics, reading, writing, and spelling. Yet, as Exhibit 1.4.3 indicates, the goals
designated by schools are often non-specific and are not linked in a focused way to ensure quality
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 65
control in the delivery of the district’s stated system goals. Auditors found little evidence of efforts to
assess the effectiveness of staff development programs delivered by the Anchorage School District as
measured by changes in teachers’ and students’ attitudes and beliefs. In certain instances, training,
such as: teaching in a standards-based classroom, practices for effective teaching survey information,
and rubrics were available. There was no evidence, however, of consistency in assessing and
monitoring all staff development offered by the district.
Staff development is not purposefully coordinated in the Anchorage School District. Some staff
development is offered through external organizations such as the Alaska Staff Development
Network. The Staff Development Department offers training in a variety of topics, including: new
teacher recruitment and retention substitute teacher training, administrator training, mentorship, and
drug and alcohol related issues. They describe their training as “more cross-curricular.” The
Collective Bargaining Agreements negotiated between the district and its employee groups provide for
staff development to staff who do not meet district standards. The Curriculum and Evaluation
Department offers content-specific training as well as limited assessment training. The Executive
Directors for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools offer staff development. The Technology
Department does information and technology training. The Safe Schools do their own training. The
Bilingual and the Indian Education Departments offer different training related to their own specific
interests, including links to the TREE program. Special Education delivers training specific to
accommodations and modifications for students with special needs. Schools can create a Schoolbased Staff Development Plan. Training can also be grant-driven, both at a district and a school level.
Grant-driven training would be applicable to the parameters of the grant. However, the auditors found
little evidence to indicate the linkage between the multitude of staff development programs and
targeted academic district goals and students’ needs. The following comments were made to auditors:
• “If you need a program, you write a grant.”
• “Grants are a one-person office.”
• “Staff training is all over the place.”
• “There is constant staff development.”
• “The request (for a grant) requires so much training. We could not fulfill the grant. We don’t
have enough subs.”
• “The operating budget in staff development is for salary dollars and mandatory programs.
Everything else is based on grant funding.”
• “Staff development is overcrowded.”
• “Training is so autonomous, so it’s hard to coordinate.”
• “The worst problem is that we compete for the same audience.”
• “We are jumping from pillar to post.”
Anchorage School District Policy 341.4 states that “efforts shall be made to minimize the impact to
the instructional day.” In addition to optional workshop offerings, the Anchorage School District has
specified training for certificated teaching staff during the contract school day, which requires the use
of substitute teachers. The district has approximately 60 substitute teachers available on any given
day. These substitute teachers must also be available for field trips and other types of coverage.
All of the training requiring substitute teachers, according to the Training and Professional
Development Department, should be recorded on the Master Training Calendar. Exhibit 1.4.4 reflects
one week, in September 2002, selected at random from the Master Training Calendar. Auditors have
included the following: topic, date, and number of certificated staff required for training.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 66
Exhibit 1.4.4
Week of September 16-21, 2002
Master Training Calendar
Anchorage School District
September 2002
Monday 16
Monday 16
Monday 16
Monday 16
Tuesday 17
Tuesday 17
Tuesday 17
Tuesday 17
Wednesday 18
Wednesday 18
Wednesday 18
Wednesday 18
Wednesday 18
Thursday 19
Thursday 19
Thursday 19
Friday 20
Friday 20
Friday 20
Friday 20
Saturday 21
Saturday 21
Event
Literacy Training
Autism Overview
Reading Mastery Training
New Teacher Everyday Math Training
Peer Mediation Staff gathering
Literacy Training
Reading Mastery Training
Curriculum/Standards Training
Secondary Special Education
Literacy Training
New Teacher Everyday Math
Curriculum/Standards Training
Science Curriculum Meeting
Slingerland
Literacy Training
Secondary Special Education
DI Training of Trainers
Slingerland
Literacy Training
New Teacher Everyday Math
K-6 Drug and Alcohol
Mandatory TA Training
Number of
Certificated Staff
40
40
0
30
20
40
0
10
50
40
30
10
0
15
40
50
10
15
40
30
0
0
The staff development for the week of September 16th required 560 teacher days of training.
Monday, September 16, 2002 lists demands for 120 substitute teachers, which is double the availability
in the system on any given day. Auditors reviewed the staff development listed on the master
calendar for the entire month of September 2002 and found that 60 days of training for classified staff
were listed in areas such as Asperger, Autism, and Reading Mastery training. There was no
indication on the calendar of any training for principals for the month of September 2002. Due to the
heavy demands of teacher time, all staff development involving certificated and classified staff had to
be indicated on the calendar. Comments indicated that this is not always done, and sometimes
teachers must be called back from training. Several staff who were interviewed related an incident
when all of the substitute teachers had been used up, and “at least 40 teachers were called back from
training.” The Master Training Calendar provided a mechanism for recording events, but not for
monitoring or evaluating them. Auditors did not find evidence of prioritization by district goals listed on
the Master Training Calendar.
In addition to the district-level and state-level training, schools can create their own School-based Staff
Development Plans, which can place additional demands on certificated staff. These site-based
calendar plans allowed schools to respond to their own priorities.
Auditors did not find that staff development within the Anchorage School District is provided for all
employee groups, professional and paraprofessional. A review of the Master Training Calendar
indicated a preponderance of teacher training available as opposed to principal training. There is an
induction program for site-based administrators. Exhibit 1.4.5 lists the training offered by the district in
their leadership programs.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 67
Exhibit 1.4.5
Leadership Series
Anchorage School District
2001-2002
Topic
Media Literacy
Intercultural Coaching
Coaching and Mentoring
ASD Harassment Policy
Coaching and Mentoring
Coaching and Mentoring
Follow-up on ASD Harassment Policy
Cross-Cultural Communication
Principals role in creating an Asset Rich School
Date
September 24
October 4, 5
October 11, 25
October 26
November 8, 9
December 6
January 18
February 20
April 16
The mission of the Training and Professional Development Department as stated on the seven-year
plan supported the creation of leadership development programs. Research literature supports the role
of the principal in determining the success of site-based school improvement initiatives. The
administrators’ manuals state that “the principal shall be responsible for the developing of inservice
programs that provide opportunities for certified and classified staff to improve professionally.”
Auditors did not find evidence of a corresponding leadership programs available for experie nced site
administrators. This was corroborated during interviews. Auditors heard such comments as:
• “As a principal, we get a half-day of training but teachers get four days.”
• “District professional development for principals is limited and “one size fits all,” without
consideration of developmental levels of principals.”
• “The district does not provide resources for principal professional development. If I go to a
conference, I must pay for it myself.”
• “Principal training? Once you get the job, there’s not that much.”
Non-certificated staff development is limited. There is some technical training, but staff development
for paraprofessionals does not seem to be linked to the system goals. The May Class Crier indicated
First Aid and CPR training for teaching assistants and clerical staff who are required to have First Aid
training. The following comments were made to auditors:
• “No one trains the classified staff.”
• “You don’t do anything (in staff development) that will cost anything because the money will have
to come from your own pocket” (Principal).
Summary
The auditors found that staff development in the Anchorage School District was not coordinated and
was not linked specifically to the district’s goals. Staff development, although extensive, is fragmented
and lacks a focus. Much of the funding for programs is grant-related. The auditors did not find
evidence of cohesive long-term staff development, which is needed to effect and sustain systemic
change and improve student achievement. Staff development activities are not coordinated or offered
by a single department; the diverse staff development offerings resulting from the various departments
and sites are ineffective at improving teaching practices district-wide. The lack of focus prevents any
one goal being attained by all. The Anchorage Principals Association received $30,000 for
professional growth and travel. The Association determines how $15,000 is allocated. The other
$15,000 is planned jointly with the Coordinator of Staff Development to benefit all Anchorage School
District administrators. Since so many departments, in addition to Training and Professional
Development, deliver staff development, its impact is too diffuse to institutionalize effective
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 68
instructional teaching and learning practices. Auditors found that much of the staff development
directed towards certificated staff was offered during the contract school day, and therefore competes
with instructional time. In addition, staff development is not offered in an equitable nor adequate
manner to all employee groups. Board policy is silent on the coordination and monitoring of staff
development. The auditors found little documentation of expectations of staff development at a board
level.
Finding 1.5: Formal Teacher and Administrative Appraisals Are Aligned with the State
Standards, but Ineffective in Providing Constructive Feedback Promote Professional
Growth and Consistent Quality Instruction Within and Across the District’s Schools.
Effective personnel appraisal systems serve to reinforce quality practices to improve student
achievement. A well-designed appraisal system supports the delivery of teaching, that will maximize
student performance. An effective system allows administrators to provide detailed and constructive
feedback to teaching staff that improves teaching and learning in the classroom. Utilizing the
feedback on specific strengths and weaknesses, teachers and administrators are able to adjust their
teaching and with that, student learning. A well-designed and appropriately-utilized appraisal process
enables a school system to follow and meet its system plan and/or long-range goals.
Administrators are essential to the appraisal process. The supervisory aspects of this role include
ongoing informal classroom observations, pre-observation visits, analyzing the observations to
maximize student learning, and delivering constructive feedback to teachers to enable growth.
Administrators’ focus is to ensure the alignment of the district/state written, taught, and tested
curriculum.
Current appraisal systems rely heavily on the documentation of a limited number of observable
behaviors. However, goals for student achievement are becoming more complex and layered,
involving brain theory research, the synthesis of knowledge and authentic problem solving. The
evaluation of staff should evolve to match the new understandings of, and expectations for teaching
and learning. Often there is not common understanding on what terms such as “meets standards”
really mean.
Effective appraisal systems should integrate quality assurance and professional learning. An effective
appraisal system should include the following:
• A comprehensive definition of the domain of teaching and administration;
• A coherent, clear, and unambiguous definition of the standard for teaching and administration;
• Categorization and description of the levels of teaching and administration such as of competency,
exemplary, and less than acceptable teaching or administration in the specific categories assessed;
• Specific techniques and procedures of assessing teaching and administration;
• Mechanisms for evaluation that include constructive feedback and reflection that will encourage
professional learning, and will ensure the quality of teaching and administration; and
• Training to ensure evaluators make consistent judgments based on multiple sources of evidence.
To determine the extent of the effectiveness of the district’s teacher appraisal system in promoting
professional development, auditors reviewed documents related to Anchorage School District’s
certificated employee evaluations. In addition, auditors interviewed staff at all levels of the district.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 69
Exhibit 1.5.1
Documents Examined
Anchorage School District
Documents Reviewed
Evaluation 533.6
Evaluation of Performance ratings 637
Primacy of Collective Bargaining Agreements 112
Purpose of Evaluation 637.1
Responsibilities and Duties of Principals 241.2
Standards of Performance 637.21
Supervision 533.5
Agreement Between the Anchorage Education Association and the
Anchorage School District
Anchorage School District Certified Employee Evaluation Document
Anchorage School District Teacher and Administrative Rubrics
ASD Certificated Employee Evaluation Document
ASD Classified Employee Evaluation System - Totem Performance
Appraisal – Non Instructional/Administrative
ASD Counselor Evaluation Rubrics
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and the Totem Association Support Personnel
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and Public Employees Local 71 AFL-CIO
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and Anchorage Food Service Bargaining Unit
District Policies
Other Documents
Standards for Alaska’s Administrators
Standards for Alaska’s Schools
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
Date
No revision date listed
No revision date listed
No revision date listed
No revision date listed
1996-99
No revision date listed
1989
2000
2000
2000
1991
July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2004
July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2004
July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2003
1997
1997
1997
The State of Alaska established its Standards for Alaska’s Teachers as illustrated by Exhibit 1.5.2.
These state standards form the basis of the Anchorage School District’s standards for certificated
employees.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 70
Exhibit 1.5.2
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
Adopted by the State of Alaska
Anchorage School District
1997
Global Standards
A teacher can describe the
teacher’s philosophy of education
and demonstrate its relationship to
the teacher’s practice.
A teacher understands how
students learn and develop, and
applies the knowledge in the
teacher's practice.
A teacher teaches students with
respect for their individual and
cultural characteristics.
A teacher knows the teacher’s
content area and how to teach it.
A teacher facilitates, monitors, and
assesses student learning.
Specific Standards
1. Engaging in thoughtful and critical examination of the teacher’s
practice with others, including describing the relationship of
beliefs about learning, teaching, and assessment practices to
current trends, strategies, and resources in the teaching
profession; and
2. Demonstrating consistency between a teacher’s beliefs and the
teacher’s practice.
1. Accurately identifying and teaching to the developmental
abilities of students; and
2. Applying learning theory in practice to accommodate differences
in how students learn, including accommodating differences in
student intelligence, perception, and cognitive style.
1. Incorporating characteristics of the student’s and local
community’s culture into instructional strategies that support
student learning;
2. Identifying instructional strategies and resources that are
appropriate to the individual and special needs of students; and
3. Applying knowledge of Alaska history, geography, economics,
governance, language, traditional life cycles. and current issues
to the selection of instructional strategies, materials, and
resources.
1. Demonstrating knowledge of the academic structure of the
teacher’s content area, its tool of inquiry, central concepts, and
connections to the other domains of knowledge;
2. Identifying the developmental stages by which learners gain the
mastery of the content area, applying appropriate strategies,
including collaborating with others, to facilitate students’
development;
3. Drawing from a wide repertoire of strategies, including, where
appropriate, instructional applications of technology, and
adapting and applying these strategies within the instructional
context;
4. Connecting the content area to other content areas and to
practice situations encountered outside the school; and
5. Staying current in the teacher’s content area and demonstrating
its relationship with application to classroom activities, life, work,
and community.
1. Organizing and delivering instruction based on the
characteristics of the students and the goals of the curriculum;
2. Creating, selecting, adapting, and using a variety of instructional
resources to facilitate curricular goals and student attainment of
performance standards;
3. Creating, selecting, adapting, and using a variety of strategies
that provide information about and reinforce student learning,
and that assist students in reflecting on their own progress;
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 71
Exhibit 1.5.2 (continued)
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
Adopted by the State of Alaska
Anchorage School District
1997
Global Standards
A teacher creates and maintains a
learning environment in which all
students are actively engaged and
contributing members.
A teacher works with parents,
families and the community.
A teacher participates in and
contributes to the teaching
profession.
Specific Standards
4. Organizing and maintaining records of students’ learning and
using a variety of methods to communicate student progress to
students, parents, administration, and other appropriate
audiences; and
5. Reflecting on information gained from assessment and adjusting
teacher practice, as appropriate, to facilitate student progress
toward learning and curricular gains.
1. Creating and maintaining a stimulating, inclusive, and safe
learning community in which students take intellectual risks and
work independently and collaboratively;
2. Communicating high standards for student performance and clear
expectations of what students will learn;
3. Planning and using a variety of classroom management
techniques to establish and maintain an environment in which all
students are able to learn; and
4. Assisting students in understanding their role in sharing
responsibility for their learning.
1. Promoting and maintaining regular and meaningful
communication between the classroom and students’ families;
2. Working with parents and families to support and promote
student learning;
3. Participating in school-wide efforts to communicate with the
broader community and to involve parents and families in student
learning;
4. Connecting, through instructional strategies, the school and
classroom activities with student homes and cultures, work
places, and the community; and
5. Involving parents and families in setting and monitoring student
learning gains.
1. Maintaining a high standard of professional ethics;
2. Maintaining and updating both knowledge of the teacher’s
content area or areas and the best teaching practice;
3. Engaging in instructional, developmental activities to improve or
update classroom, school, or district programs; and
4. Communicating, working cooperatively, and developing
professional relationships with colleagues.
According to the Certificated Employee Evaluation Documents: “The mission of the Anchorage
School District is to educate students for success in life. The importance of a competent and
professional staff in achieving this mission is obvious.” According to the district’s Elementary and
Secondary Administrators’ Manuals, the principal is “the instructional leader.” Exhibit 1.5.3 illustrates
the Checklist of Teacher Compliance with Standards, also known as the Proficiency Short Form,
which is used as a starting point for all of the Anchorage School District’s certificated teachers. If
compliant with the standards and tenured, the certificated and employed teacher has the option of
moving to an alternate evaluation for years two and three. If the certificated teacher employee is not
tenured, then the Proficiency Short Form is used until tenure is granted.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 72
Exhibit 1.5.3
Checklist of Teacher Compliance With Standards
Anchorage School District
1.
Articulation/Application of Personal Teacher
Philosophy.
2.
Knowledge/Application of how students learn
and develop.
3.
Respect for individual and cultural
characteristics.
4.
Knowledge of Content Area and How to Teach
it.
5.
Facilitate, monitor, and assess student learning.
6.
Create and maintain a learning environment for
student engagement and contribution.
7.
Partnership with parents, families and with the
community.
8.
Participation in/Contribution to the teaching
profession.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exceeds Standard
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Professional Support Needed
Plan of Improvement Required
Teacher Appraisal System
Auditors analyzed 90 randomly-selected teacher appraisals, completed in the 2001-2002 school year.
Of those selected, 14 were high school teachers, seven were middle school teachers, one was a
charter school teacher, and 86 were elementary teachers. Appraisals were analyzed to assess
congruence between the stated process and the evaluation goals of the Anchorage School District,
and to assess the actual application to the teacher appraisal process. The Anchorage School District’s
teacher appraisal instrument that is used by most staff is the Short Form. This form is used for
teachers who “are presumed to possess sufficient skill to meet standards adopted by the School
Board.” The Short Form includes the eight global categories indicated in the Alaska Standards.
Teachers are evaluated based on four assessment ratings, required by policy. The district has
provided Teacher Evaluation Rubrics to assist consistency in evaluation. These rubrics are provided
to all certificated staff and are designed to assist coherency in applying of the standards.
Four Assessment Ratings
1. Exceeds Standard
2. Meets Standard
3. Professional Support Needed
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 73
4. Plan of Improvement Required
An appraisal summary for comments by the administrator is included as part of the instrument as well
as an evaluatee response section. Included on the form are the dates of the two observations.
Auditors found that the Checklist of Teacher Compliance with Standards form, as designed and
implemented, does not provide teachers with specific feedback to assist good teachers to become
better teachers. The district’s classroom Observation Feedback forms are useful for assessing what
is observed in the classroom and campus, but not conducive to directing professional growth. Yet, one
of the stated purposes of the Anchorage School District’s educator performance evaluation system is
the “promotion of professional growth of teachers.” The Anchorage School District states that “the
goal of the evaluation process is the improvement of teaching and increased student performance.”
Auditors did not find evidence in the Checklist of Teacher Compliance with Standards, of feedback
and/or reflective practice, which would enable the promotion of professional growth or the
improvement of teaching.
Exhibit 1.5.4 presents the eight global indicators and the ratings received by the 90 teachers. As noted
in Exhibit 1.5.4, the analysis of the 90 teacher appraisals indicated that the percentage of teachers that
satisfied “Exceeds Standards” or “Meets Standards” criteria varied between 97 percent and 98
percent. Of the 90 staff appraisals reviewed by auditors, one indicated “Professional Support
Needed” and one indicated “Plan of Improvement Required.” Of the remaining 88 reports, only four
included comments designed for professional growth.
Exhibit 1.5.4
Checklist of Teacher Compliance With Standards
As Analyzed in the Spring 2002
Anchorage School District
Standard
Articulation/Application of Personal Teacher
Philosophy
Knowledge/Application of how students learn and
develop
Respect for individual and cultural characteristics
Knowledge of Content Area and How to Teach it
Facilitate, monitor and assess student learning
Create and maintain a learning environment for
student engagement and contribution
Partnership with parents, families and with the
community
Participation in/Contribution to the teaching
profession
Exceeds
Standards
Meets
Standards
Professional
Support
Needed
Plan of
Improvement
Required
15
74
1
0
20
22
21
19
69
67
67
70
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
33
56
0
1
17
73
0
0
19
69
1
1
Samples of Comments on Teachers’ Evaluations
A review of all of the narrative comments included on the teacher appraisal documents revealed
supportive but non-constructive comments, which could lead to professional growth:
• Hands-on
• Demonstrates flexibility
• Developed thoughtful lessons
• Effective classroom
• Talented and caring
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 74
• Has a warm and caring environment
• Outstanding job of delivering instruction
• A fine ambassador for the school
In compliance with district policy regarding teachers’ appraisals, teachers who did not meet the
standard were given specified direction and support. There was compliance with the proper
procedures as outlined by district. In addition to the global set of indicators, for teachers whose
appraisals indicated either “Professional Support Needed” or a “Plan of Improvement Required,” the
global standards were subdivided into criteria aligned to the Specific Standards, as indicated in Exhibit
1.5.2. For teachers requiring a Plan of Support, the feedback for these teachers is specific. The
Plan of Improvement form includes categories such as expectations, timelines, evaluation, and
recommended activities.
Administrator Appraisal System
As part of the Alaska Quality Schools initiative, the State Board of Education and Early Development
adopted standards for administrators in 1997. Prior to this time standards for administrators had never
been defined in Alaska’s history. The intent of these standards is to create a framework for providing
ongoing professional development for educational staff.
The auditors were provided with a sample of 20 administrative evaluations of principals: 16 elementary
evaluations, one middle school evaluation, and four evaluations of secondary principals. Nineteen
evaluations followed the Short Form and one evaluation used the Project-based Learning Model.
Consistent with the format used for teachers, principals were rated in the following manner: Exceeds
Standard, Meets Standard, Professional Support Needed, and Plan for Improvement Required. The
auditors tabulated the ratings for each principal in the sample who was evaluated using the Short
Form. Exhibit 1.5.5 lists the ten standards and the ratings received. In addition to the ratings, a
narrative was written for each principal.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Exceeds
Standard
Meets
Standard
11
8
10
9
5
14
5
14
5
14
5
14
4
15
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 75
Plan for
Improvement
Required
Standards for Alaska’s Administrators
An administrator provides leadership for an educational
organization.
An administrator guides instruction and supports an
effective learning environment.
An administrator oversees the implementation of the
curriculum.
An administrator coordinates services that support student
growth and development.
An administrator provides for staffing and professional
development.
An administrator uses assessment and evaluation
information about students, staff, and the community in
making decisions.
An administrator communicates with diverse groups and
individuals with clarity and sensitivity.
Professional
Support
Needed
Exhibit 1.5.5
Principal Evaluation Summary
Anchorage School District
Exceeds
Standard
Meets
Standard
3
16
2
17
1
18
Plan for
Improvement
Required
Standards for Alaska’s Administrators
8. An administrator acts in accordance with established laws,
policies, procedures, and good business practices.
9. An administrator understands the influence of social,
cultural, political, and economic forces on the educational
environment and uses this knowledge to serve the needs of
children, families, and communities.
10. An administrator facilitates the participation of parents and
families as partners in the education of children.
Professional
Support
Needed
Exhibit 1.5.5 (continued)
Principal Evaluation Summary
Anchorage School District
•
•
•
No administrator was rated as needing professional support.
No administrator was rated as needing a plan for improvement.
Standard 1, provides instructional leadership, had the highest number of principals at the “exceeds
standard” level.
• Standard 10, facilitates participation of parents and families, had the least number of principals at
the “exceeds standard” level.
The narrative attached to each evaluation was reviewed. In each of these narratives the evaluator
identified specific areas where the principal had made a contribution to the school. None of the
narratives reviewed included any comments about how principals could improve.
Board policy indicated that the professional evaluation system should be utilized to improve the
performance of teachers and principals, and to increase student performance. Interview data
indicated that the appraisal instruments are not meaningful in terms of feedback and/or reflection to
promote professional growth. Additionally, auditors did not see evidence of consistency in the
evaluation of teachers. The following are examples of comments made to auditors:
• “The last three years I got a ‘Meets Standards.’ No one came to see me. I can write in why I
think I ‘Exceed Standards,’ but who cares?”
• “The process for getting a teacher removed for cause is impossible.”
• “You get the word when someone is floundering.”
• “Evaluation is only as good as the principal.”
• “(Marginal teachers) I provide them training and feedback.”
Summary
A district appraisal system should focus on excellence and professional growth. It should enhance
teaching, administration, and student learning. Quality assurance should be based on a coherent, clear,
and unambiguous set of teaching/administrative standards nested in an environment that promotes and
sustains professional growth. While the procedures included state standards, they did not provide for
specific feedback to educational personnel to promote growth or meaningful reflection.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 76
STANDARD 2: A School System Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives
for Students.
A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid, and measurable set of pupil
standards for learning and has set the objectives into a workable framework for their attainment.
Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be a cohesive effort to improve pupil
achievement in the dimensions in which measurement occurs. The lack of clarity and focus denies to
a school system’s educators, the ability to concentrate scarce resources on priority targets. Instead,
resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are, therefore,
essential to attaining local quality control via the school board.
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District
Common indicators the PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find are:
• A clearly established, system-wide set of goals and objectives adopted by the board of education
that addresses all programs and courses,
• Demonstration that the system is contextual and responsive to national, state, and other
expectations as evidenced in local initiatives,
• Operations set within a framework that carries out the system’s goals and objectives,
• Evidence of comprehensive, detailed, short- and long-range curriculum management planning,
• Knowledge, local validation, and use of current best practices and emerging curriculum trends,
• Written curriculum that addresses both current and future needs of students,
• Major programmatic initiatives designed to be cohesive,
• Provision of explicit direction for the superintendent and professional staff, and
• A framework that exists for systemic curricular change.
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District
This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Two. The details follow
within separate findings.
Various documents were presented to the auditors describing the goals and plans for processes and
procedures to provide direction for curriculum design and delivery. However, a single, comprehensive
curriculum management plan which would provide a focused and cohesive educational program was
not presented to the auditors.
The auditors found district staff making strides toward aligning district curriculum with the Alaska
Content and Performance Standards. However, all curriculum areas in the Anchorage School
District have not yet been fully aligned in design to increase student achievement. Work is in progress
in math, social studies, and art towards developing greater specificity between local content and
performance standards and the Alaskan content standards to guide classroom teaching. Online
curriculum is being developed as well as a curriculum change process that, when completed, will
contain most of the elements of a quality curriculum. All teachers have received the state-mandated
curriculum, the Alaska Content and Performance Standards. However, staff development on the
understanding and implementation of these standards has been sporadic and inconsistent (see Finding
1.4). A variety of staff development opportunities relating to curriculum are available within the
district from various content specialists and Curriculum Coordinators throughout the school year and
summer.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 77
The audit review team found the scope of the written curriculum to be adequate at the elementary
level, inadequate at the secondary level (middle school and high school). All grade levels, kindergarten
through grade twelve, had written curriculum documents. However, at the secondary level, auditors
were not provided with content curricula for many of the courses offered. None of the available
curriculum guides contain enough information to provide teachers with comprehensive work plans.
The curriculum documents did not detail what skills would be assessed and by what means.
Suggestions for instructional materials to be utilized when teaching specific objectives were not
included in most guides. Teaching strategies were not linked to the objectives. There was minimal
evidence that the Alaska State Performance Standards had been correlated with the written
objectives, with the exception of the mathematics curriculum. The mathematics cross-reference of
the Alaska Performance Standards with the Anchorage School District Performance Standards
was provided to the auditors on-site. Curriculum documents were provided indicating Alaska
Performance Standards alignment efforts were being conducted in the areas of art and social
studies.
A written curriculum is available for most subjects and courses taught. District curriculum guides
reviewed by the auditors lack many of the elements defined by audit criteria for quality curriculum
guides. Most curriculum guides found in the Anchorage School District are not adequate to direct
teaching from classroom to classroom, across grade levels and among schools. This minimal direction
provided by the curriculum guides contributes to inconsistency in the delivery of the curriculum. The
auditors found that curriculum delivery in many classrooms is not congruent with district expectations
in regard to differentiation of instruction, problem solving, and critical thinking strategies for students.
Many opportunities for staff development exist and are often selected to support the district
expectations for instruction; however, most are not aligned specifically to district curriculum
objectives.
The auditors also found that the delivery of the curriculum was inconsistently coordinated across the
Anchorage School District. The curriculum coordination varied among grade levels and schools.
Little articulation between grade levels took place at the building level. Auditors found that what was
taught in the classrooms came from a variety of sources: Anchorage School District Content and
Performance Standards, Alaskan Content and Performance Standards, various reading programs
driven by textbooks or leveled supplemental reading books, and unofficial curriculum documents
generated at campus sites.
Finding 2.1: The District Lacks a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan to
Establish Processes, Procedures, and Timelines for Curriculum Review, Development, and
Implementation.
A school district with strong curriculum management has a comprehensive plan that establishes
guidelines and procedures for the design and delivery of curriculum. The plan delineates the
procedural intent of the district leadership and provides direction for curriculum development, adoption,
implementation, evaluation, and revision. Such a plan is designed to function in coordination with other
major plans (e.g., the technology plan, budgeting process, and textbook adoption procedures).
The auditors examined four documents presented to them as planning documents for curriculum.
• The Alaskan State Standards – These standards are divided into two categories: Content
Standards and Performance Standards. Content Standards are broad statements of what students
should know and be able to do as a result of their public school experience. Performance
Standards are measurable statements of what students should know and be able to do. The State
Board of Education and Early Development adopted performance standards in reading, writing,
and mathematics in January 1999. Performance Standards, unlike Content Standards, can be
measured with a variety of testing instruments. They are presented at four benchmark levels, for
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 78
ages 5-7, to be assessed in third grade; ages 8-10, to be assessed at sixth grade; ages 11-14, to be
assessed in eighth grade; and ages 15-18, to be assessed on the High School Qualifying Exam.
• Cultural Standards for Alaska Students – The standards were developed by the Alaska Native
Knowledge Network, in 1998. That same year they were adopted by the State Board of
Education and Early Child Development. These standards were meant to enrich the Content
Standards. Cultural standards are broad statements of what students should know and be able to
do as a result of their experience in a school that is aware of and sensitive to the surrounding
physical and cultural environment.
• The Anchorage School District Mission, Goals, Commitment, and Focus statements, adopted
September 2001. These statements are found on the district web page. They also precede the
Superintendent’s Message in the kindergarten to grade 6 Curriculum Overview document
provided on-site to the auditors and available via the district web page.
• The Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation, Curriculum Change Process,
January 2002 (cover page), the remainder of the document is dated December 4, 2001. This
document was provided to auditors during the on-site visit. It details the Anchorage School
District curriculum change process for district-wide curriculum.
In addition, the auditors examined board policies, regulations, memoranda from central office
administrators, as well as the curriculum, evaluation, and instructional support site on the district web
page. The auditors also interviewed board members, district-level and campus-based administrators,
and parents about curriculum planning.
The auditors found the district had policies which included direction for curriculum management
efforts, strategies, and actions; however, a single, comprehensive curriculum management plan to
convey the procedural intent of the district leadership and provide adequate direction for curriculum
development, alignment with national and state content and performance standards, adoption,
implementation, evaluation, and revision was not presented to the auditors.
The auditors have identified 11 characteristics of a comprehensive curriculum management plan.
These components are described in Exhibit 2.1.1. In the absence of an integrated planning document,
the auditors assessed the Anchorage School District board policies; the Anchorage School District
Curriculum and Evaluation, Curriculum Change Process, January 2002, document; action plans; and
other curriculum documents relative to the characteristics. The auditors’ rating of these documents is
also depicted in Exhibit 2.1.1.
Exhibit 2.1.1
Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan
and Auditors’ Assessments of District Approach
Anchorage School District
2002
Auditors’ Rating
Characteristics
1. Describe the philosophical framework for the design of the curriculum
(standards-based, results-based, competency-based).
2. Identifies a periodic cycle of curriculum review of all subject areas at all grade
levels.
3. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the Board, central office staff
members, and school-based staff members.
4. Describes the timing, scope, and procedures for curriculum guides.
5. Presents the format and components of aligned curriculum guides.
6. Directs how state and national standards will be included in the curriculum.
7. Specifies overall assessment procedures to determine curriculum
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 79
Adequate Inadequate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
effectiveness.
Exhibit 2.1.1 (continued)
Characteristics of a Comprehensive Curriculum Management Plan
and Auditors’ Assessments of District Approach
Anchorage School District
2002
Auditors’ Rating
Characteristics
8. Describes the approaches by which tests and assessment data will be used to
strengthen curriculum and instruction.
9. Identifies the design of a comprehensive staff development program linked to
curriculum design and delivery.
10. Presents procedures for monitoring curriculum delivery.
11. Establishes a communication plan for the process of curriculum design and
delivery as well as celebration of progress and quality
Adequate Inadequate
X
X
X
X
Exhibit 2.1.1 shows that the district’s policies and curriculum-related documents meet two of the audit
criteria (18 percent). Seventy percent of the criteria must be met for a system to be considered
adequate; therefore, the Anchorage School District’s curriculum management documents were
inadequate.
Each of the characteristics is detailed below.
Characteristic 1 - Philosophical Framework for the Design of the Curriculum
This characteristic was met by the Anchorage School District curriculum-related documents.
• The Anchorage School District Mission Statement states, “The mission of the Anchorage
School District is to educate students for success in life.”
• The Anchorage School District Goals Statement states, “Increase academic excellence by
emphasizing student achievement, developing respect for diversity, maintaining quality staff
retention, recruitment and training, and maximizing opportunities for life-long learning.”
• The Anchorage School District Commitment Statements state, “Students will demonstrate
academic excellence as indicated by performance on state and district measures of academic
performance. All students will make progress toward meeting Anchorage and State Benchmarks
for reading, writing, and math.”
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “The standard curriculum is intended to challenge and
stimulate students.”
• The mission statement of the Curriculum, Evaluation, and Instructional Support Department found
on the district web page states, “The mission of Curriculum, Evaluation, and Instructional Support
is to research and guide the selection and implementation of exceptional district-wide instructional
materials; to support the use of best teaching practices through ongoing training and professional
development; to work in partnership with the community; and to collaborate with instructional
leaders to ensure success for all students in the Anchorage School District.”
• The mission statement found in the Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation,
Curriculum Change Process, January 2002, document states, “The Mission of the Curriculum
and Evaluation Department is to provide le adership and accountability for the development and
implementation of a district-wide curriculum for grades K-12. In addition, the Department works
to provide instructional support; establish and maintain partnerships within the community; and to
collaborate with school management to ensure excellence in instruction for all children in the
Anchorage School District.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 80
Characteristic 2 - Periodic Cycle of Curriculum Review
• Board Policy 341.2 Curriculum Development states, “The district’s curriculum is regularly
reviewed and developed to enhance student achievement.”
• Board Policy 341.21 Curriculum Committees states, “Curriculum committees shall be scheduled
to meet at least quarterly, and may meet more frequently if necessary.”
No schedule as per board polic y of curriculum committee meetings was presented to the auditors.
Auditors were invited and did attend advisory committee meetings while on-site. Curriculum review
and/or development, however, were not topics under consideration.
Characteristic 3 - Roles and Responsibilities for Curriculum Management
The assignment of specific roles and responsibilities for curriculum management is provided in various
board policies and informal documents (see Finding 1.2). Responsibilities of the Board of Education,
the superintendent, and all certificated personnel related to curriculum management are outlined in the
following policies:
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “The Board shall approve the curriculum and the
major instructional materials.”
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies states, “Additional electives in the middle schools may be
offered, pending approval of the Middle School Executive Director.”
• Board Policy 341.21 Curriculum Development, requires “The Superintendent, or his/her
designee, shall be responsible for developing procedures for planning, implementing, and evaluating
curriculum. The Board shall have opportunities to provide comments and direction on the specific
curriculum under review at the beginning of the process.
A flow chart found in the Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation, Curriculum
Change Process, January 2002, titled “Anchorage School District Curriculum Change Process”
contradicts Board Policy 341.21. The flow chart indicates the School Board does not have
opportunity for input until the culmination of the process at the time the item is brought to the Board
for consideration.
•
Board Policy 341.21 Curriculum Committees requires, “The Superintendent shall be responsible
for the establishment of curriculum committees composed of parents, business and community
representatives, students, and professional staff, with overlapping terms. The functions of the
curriculum committees shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Develop recommendations for content and performance standards for respective areas.
b. Develop recommendations for curriculum frameworks, course descriptions, and titles.
c. Develop recommendations for the adoption of instructional materials and textbooks to support
the adopted content and performance standards.
d. Assist central administration staff in review, evaluation, and recommendations for changes in
curriculum implementation and design.
e. Develop recommendations to address training needs in curriculum areas.
During curriculum renewal and materials adoption processes, a ‘Curriculum/Adoption Review
Committee’ may be appointed to work under the direction of, and make recommendations to, the
Curriculum Committee in the appropriate area. These recommendations will then be reviewed by the
Instructional Division, the Anchorage Council of PTAs, the MECC, and the Student Advisory Board
prior to forwarding to the Superintendent for final recommendation to the School Board.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 81
Due to the community concerns regarding representation of various viewpoints on the Health
curriculum Committee, the Board will participate in and approve selection of parents and citizen
members to this committee.”
Characteristic 4 – Timing, Scope, and Procedures for Curricular Review
A single page document outlining a proposed curriculum review cycle was presented to auditors onsite. The title of this paper was, “Anchorage School District, Proposed Curriculum/Materials Review
Cycle, Six-year Cycle, September 2001, revised 2/13/02, 9:00 a.m.” This document can also be found
on the district web page without the revision date under “Curriculum Documents” on the Curriculum,
Evaluation, and Instructional Support web page. For each year beginning 2001-2002 and continuing
through 2006-2007, the disciplines or curricular areas and grade levels up for review are listed.
Formal directions and/or explanations as to the purpose, intent or use of this document were not
provided.
• An overview of the curriculum change process is outlined in the Anchorage School District
Curriculum and Evaluation, Curriculum Change Process, January 2002, document. The
process reiterates Board Policy 341.21. In the section titled Curriculum Renewal Cycle, an
appointed “Review Committee” is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and recommending
instructional programs and/or instructional materials changes. Procedures are also provided in this
document for the curriculum change process.
Characteristic 5 – Format and Components of Curriculum Guides
Board policy presents general specifications for the components of curriculum guides:
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “Academic programs to meet the needs of advanced
students shall be established within the Anchorage School District. Acceleration, enhancement,
and/or differentiation of the regular curriculum, including Honors, Advanced Placement, Special
Education, and ESL classes, will be incorporated into the curriculum.”
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies requires, “The secondary courses will include language
arts, social studies, mathematics, science, world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical
education, and health.
The elementary curriculum shall include language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, art,
health, music, physical education, and library skills.”
Board policy for curriculum management lacks specifics for curriculum format and components (see
Finding 1.1). An analysis of district curriculum guides as compared to Curriculum Audit Criteria found
most guides inadequate (see Finding 2.3).
Characteristic 6 – Direction for How State and National Standards will be Included in the
Curriculum
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “The program of instruction in the schools shall be
based on locally adopted standards and shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth by the
State Department of Education.”
• The Anchorage School District Curriculum and Evaluation, Curriculum Change Process,
January 2002, document provides a Curriculum Change Proposal Template and samples.
Section II. Rationale (Identify the Need for Change), item E and section III. Course Description
(Describe the following), item D require the inclusion of the Alaska State Content and
Performance Standards in proposed curriculum change documents.
Though some district-created curriculum guides presented to the auditors were found to incorporate
Alaska State Content Standards, most did not. Auditors were not presented with documents that
describe specifically how state and national standards were to be included in current curriculum
guides.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 82
Characteristic 7 – Assessment Procedures to Determine Curriculum Effectiveness and Use
of Data
The need for assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness is referenced in board
policy:
• Board Policy 349 Evaluation, states “Evaluation of the school program is an administrative
function and shall be conducted annually in priority goal areas. To effectively appraise educational
progress the superintendent shall report orally and in writing to the Board as circumstances dictate
and may require such periodic reports from staff members.”
• Anchorage School District School Action Guides include an assessment area for each school
goal. “Include the specific measures to be used for Goal #__.” There follows a menu listing of
15 campus-based assessments from which campuses may choose. No specificity as to timeline
and/or procedures for formative evaluations is called for or provided.
• The mission statement of the Assessment and Evaluation Department found via the Curriculum,
Evaluation, and Instructional Support on the district web page states, “As a public entity, the
district has an obligation to assess the results of its efforts and to publicly report the degree to
which it meets the goal of providing a good education to every student.”
Currently, the district has no distric t-wide formative assessments in place for determining curriculum
effectiveness (see Findings 4.2 and 4.3).
Characteristic 8 – Approaches to Using Test Results to Plan Instruction and Intervention
The 2002-2003 Goal Statements found on the district web page list as a goal, to “Ensure public
accountability by continued participation in the state-required testing program, through the continued
use of the writing assessment in selected grades.…”
The Anchorage School District Commitment statements also lists the various assessments
administered in the district:
• Alaska Benchmark Exams (grades 3-6-8)
• Terra Nova Basic Skills Exams (grades 4, 5, 7, and 9)
• Anchorage Writing Assessment (grades 5-7-9)
• Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
These various assessments will provide information on the status of student group performance at
grade levels 3-10. Additional assessment information was obtained from the Assessment and
Evaluation site via the district web page. In addition to the aforementioned assessments, the Student
Assessment/Testing Schedule and Information lists included the following:
• Anchorage Developmental Kindergarten Profile
• NAEP
• Math Placement for sixth graders for seventh grade placement.
With the exception of the math placement assessment, no information was provided to the auditors as
to how the results of these assessments are used or what types of interventions are used as a result of
the assessment findings. The auditors were not provided information pertaining to specific program
interventions used systematically to evaluate long-term effectiveness (see Findings 4.4 and 4.5).
Characteristic 9 – Staff Development Program Linked to Curriculum Design and Delivery
School and district office staff provided numerous staff development offerings for teachers, but the
auditors found the staff development to lack long-range follow-through to guide the institutionalization
of effective instruction, curricular initiatives, new programs, and instructional resources (see Finding
1.4).
Characteristic 10 – Procedures for Monitoring Curriculum Delivery
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 83
Curriculum monitoring is inefficient for determining whether approved curriculum is implemented
consistently in classrooms and staff development is applied as intended (see Finding 4.6).
When administrators were asked how they monitored curriculum, their answers included classroom
observation, checklists for classroom visits, lesson plans, assessment results and curriculum meetings.
Examples of statements indicating concerns about monitoring and its level of effectiveness taken from
district-level and campus site visits follow:
• “Other than the data, we don’t know the level of implementation; for actual – no. Indirectly, we
get information when we go in and see a lot of stuff.”
• “Monitoring of the curriculum is up to the principal.”
• “Teachers teach what they want to teach.”
• “We have too much curriculum to teach.”
• “I do a lot of reading about what is going on out there and what the expectations should be.”
• “I know the curriculum and the standards, so I look for things around the room that reflect those
things. When I sit in the classroom, I try to clear my mind and see if I can follow the lesson. The
books and the textbooks are selected through the curriculum committees and I assume that they
pick the right resources.”
Characteristic 11 – Communication Plan for the Process of Curriculum Design and Delivery
A comprehensive communication plan for the process of curriculum design and delivery and
celebration of progress was not presented to the auditors.
Interviews with board members, district-level administrators, campus-based administrators, teachers,
and parents, revealed some concerns about curriculum management in the school district. A sample
of comments includes:
• “Principals have to ask for them (ref. curriculum standards); the teachers are pretty good and
aware.”
• “We have not had a lot of feedback from the curriculum department.”
• “No one is looking at the big picture in curriculum.”
• “We need to have a curriculum map; there is no uniform application.”
• “We need to have a better handle on curriculum. We need to be aligned with State Performance
Standards. It has to be clear to the system.”
When asked whether there was articulation across grade levels and between schools, administrators
commented:
• “We hold monthly curriculum meetings to identify and solve problems and promote program
articulation.”
• “The curriculum is what the district folks say it is.”
• “[There is] a real lack of understanding about the curriculum coordinators, when what we need is
curriculum coordination.”
• “Alignment of the curriculum is a big issue for us.”
• “There’s not enough continuity in terms of our third grade curriculum in what is happening from
one school to another. Before we can provide that continuity, we need to come to a common
understanding in terms of essential learning or essential questions. When you look at what
students are reading at different schools, it’s all over the board.”
Summary
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 84
The auditors found that the Anchorage School district lacks a comprehensive curriculum management
plan that provides direction for the design and delivery of curriculum. Various documents were
presented to auditors that contain components to provide direction for curriculum, but no single
comprehensive plan provides a cohesive approach to curriculum management (see Recommendation
3).
Finding 2.2: Curriculum Guides Are Adequate in Scope For Elementary (70 percent
Criterion Met) to Guide Teachers, But Not For Secondary Schools (70 percent Criterion
Not Met).
Clear, comprehensive, and current curriculum guides give direction for teachers concerning objectives,
assessment methods, prerequisite skills, instructional materials and resources, and classroom
strategies. A complete set of curriculum documents includes guides for all grade levels and courses
taught in a district. This is known as the scope of the written curriculum. The lack of a curriculum
guide for a subject or course causes teachers to rely on other resources in planning and delivering
instruction. These other resources may not be in alignment with the instructional goals of the district
and/or state. In addition, they may not provide for consistency and focus across grades, courses, and
schools. Focus and connectivity by the administration and Board is greatly reduced when decisions
involving content and delivery are left to school sites and classrooms functioning in isolation.
Fragmentation of the taught curriculum and poor student achievement are often the results.
The auditors examined 24 documents presented by the Anchorage School District personnel as
curriculum guides. Documents included district-created guides as well as Alaska State Standards.
Information on the district website and in Program of Studies booklets (course selection booklets for
middle and high schools), provided by district personnel, were used to determine elementary and
secondary school subject areas taught and courses offered. The Anchorage School District uses a
“framework model” for curriculum documents. A definition was provided in the World Languages
curriculum: “framework -- A guide to assist members of the educational community at the local school
district-level in the design and implementation of a well-articulated, district-wide curriculum. It is also
a guide to assist teachers with student instruction and assessment at the classroom level.”
Exhibit 2.2.1 is a sample listing of guides received by the auditors either by mail or on-site.
Documents provided on-site are denoted with an asterisk.
Exhibit 2.2.1
Key Curriculum Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors
Anchorage School District
2002
Title
Language Arts – Student Performance Standards
Kindergarten through Grade 8, and English 9 and English 10………………………..
Student Performance Standards Mathematics Kindergarten through Grade 8, and
Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II..…………………………………..
Kindergarten-Algebra 2 Math Program Content Standards……………..………….…..
*Cross-reference of ASD Student Performance Standards: Mathematics: Kindergarten
through Grade 8, and Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II With State
of Alaska Performance Standards at Four Benchmark Levels………………………...
K-6 Science Frameworks - Expanded Version (document marked draft)
(Board approved date and Expanded draft date)………………………………………
Earth Systems Elementary Science Curriculum
Overview………………………………………………………………………………
Remainder of document – pages 3-13…………………………………………………
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 85
Date Published
May 24, 1999
April 21, 1999
4/21/99
April 21, 1999
February, 1995
November, 2001
Adopted Feb. 1995
Sept. 17, 1997
September, 1996
Exhibit 2.2.1 (continued)
Key Curriculum Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors
Anchorage School District
2002
Title
Science Frameworks – Grades 7-9 Integrated Sciences: Biology I, Chemistry I,
Geology I, Physics I, Biological Sciences, Earth Sciences, Conceptual Chemistry,
Conceptual Physics, Biology II, AP Biology, Chemistry II, AP Chemistry, AP
Physics B, AP Physics C
Guiding Principles………………………………………………….………………….
Science As A Process…………………………………………………..……………...
7th Grade Life Science…………………………………………………..……………..
7th Grade Earth Science………………………………………………....……………..
7th Grade Chemistry…………………………………………………….……………..
7th Grade Physics………………………………………………………..……………..
8th Grade Life Science.………………………………………………….…….……….
8th Grade Earth Science………………………………………………....……………..
8th Grade Chemistry…………………………………………………….……………..
8th Grade Physics………………………………………………………..……………..
9th Grade Life Science…………………………………………………..……………..
9th Grade Earth Science………………………………………………....……………..
9th Grade Chemistry…………………………………………………….……………..
9th Grade Physics………………………………………………………..……………..
Biology I Content Frameworks………………………………………....……………..
Geology I Content Frameworks………………………………………....……………..
Physics I Content Frameworks………………………………………....……………...
Biological Sciences Frameworks……………………………………….……………..
Earth Sciences Frameworks…………………………………………….……………..
Conceptual Chemistry Frameworks…………………………………….……………..
Conceptual Physics Frameworks……………………………………….……………..
Biology II Frameworks………………………………………………....……………..
AP Biology Frameworks………………………………………………..……………..
Chemistry II Frameworks……………………………………………....……………..
AP Chemistry Frameworks……………………………………………..……………..
AP Physics B Frameworks……………………………………………...……………..
AP Physics C Frameworks…………………………………………………………….
K-12 Social Studies Frameworks (presented as one document)………………….…….
Elementary Social Studies Program…………………………………………………...
Elementary K-6 Literature……...………………………………………………….….
Middle School Social Studies Frameworks…………...………………………………
Seventh Grade Social Studies Framework…………………………………………..
*Eighth Grade Social Studies Frameworks……...………………………………….
High School Social Studies Frameworks………….………..…………………………
Economics Course Frameworks………………………………………………….…..
United States Government…………………………………………………………...
High School Social Studies Elective Requirements
*Geography/Area Studies (Category A)
History/Social Sciences (Category B)………………………………………………..
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 86
Date Published
February 8, 1999
February 8, 1999
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
February 8, 1999
February 8, 1999
February 8, 1999
May 22, 2000
May 22, 2000
May 22, 2000
May 22, 2000
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
May, 1994
May 1994
May, 1994
May 1999
May, 1996
Fall, 1996-97
February, 1998
April, 1997
January, 1999
Exhibit 2.2.1 (continued)
Key Curriculum Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors
Anchorage School District
2002
Title
Music documents provided with the following items:
Kindergarten (K1-6)
First Grade (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7A, 7B)
Second Grade (1-8)
Third Grade (1, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Fourth Grade (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6)
Fifth Grade (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Sixth Grade (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)………………………………………………….
Scope for Instrumental (2 documents)
Woodwind, Brass, Percussion/Band…………………………………………………..
Strings/Orchestra………………………………………………………………………
Art Department Curriculum Frameworks
Elementary Art Curriculum – K-3……………………………………………….……
…………………………………………………………………………………..……..
………………………………………………………………………………...…….…
Elementary Art /Curriculum 4-6………………………………………………………
Middle School Art Syllabus 6-8..……………………………………………………...
Senior High School Art Syllabus……………………………………………………...
*Content Standards, K-12……………………………………………………………..
Physical Education Curriculum Framework K-12……………………………………...
Health Curriculum Frameworks and Sexuality Education – Guidelines for Instruction
K-6, 7-8 and 9-12 (3 documents)……………………………………………………...
World Languages Curriculum Framework……………………………………………..
*Performance Standards – Oral Language for K-12 Grade ESL Students……………..
Date Published
No date provided
1982
1982
Draft June, 1993
Draft 9-10/93
Revised 6/98
Draft June, 1993
Revised 9/98
9/89
11-5-01 Final Draft
4/97
Last revision date
1/15/97
1998-1999
No date
* = Documents provided on-site
Auditors noted differences between curriculum documents mailed; those provided on-site, both at the
district-level and campus-level and those available via the district web page.
For example, in the socia l studies curriculum binder provided on-site, the following sections not found
in the mailed documents were included:
1. Section: eighth grade -- two courses: Introduction to Social Studies 8 #3007; Social Studies 8Enriched #3008 and course descriptions.
2. Section: eighth grade -- Social Studies Course Frameworks -- Introduction to the Social Sciences
8, Course Number 3007 and Social Studies 8-Enriched, Course Number 3008
3. Section: high school -- In the mailed social studies curriculum the area titled “History: An
Integrated World/US Course” is identified differently in the on-site version. On-site it was titled
“ESL History: An Integrated World/US Course.” The general course descriptions vary only with
the addition of a phrase found at the end of the first sentence of the ESL on-site version,
“designed for the bilingual student who is developing English language skills as well as expanding
social studies conceptual skills.” History 9-1 and 9-2 course descriptions are the same for both
versions. However, the on-site descriptions for History 10-1 and History 10-2 include the phrase,
“for limited English proficient students.” They also include course numbers, 302135 and 302235,
respectively. The mailed version was annotated at the bottom of each page, “Adopted
1996/1997.” The on-site version was not. However, there was a section introduction page in the
on-site version that stated, “May 1996 or May 1997.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 87
4. Included in the on-site version were matrices for History 9-1, 9-2, 10-,1 and 10-2. Textbook,
Videodisc/Software, Lab Programs, ESL, and other recommended instructional materials were
also provided.
5. The entire section labeled Area Studies Courses, Framework -- Working Draft Edition, January
1998 was not included in the mailed curriculum. On the back of this section page was a memo
dated February 1998. There follows a section dealing with courses which include the following
areas for each course: Person(s) working on this Course Worksheet, phone number and School;
Course Title; Course Description; Course Goals, Course Objectives; and Course Outline. The
following is a list of the courses detailed in this section:
African Studies
Alaska Studies
Asian Studies
Comparative Government and Economics
Contemporary Problems
Environmental Studies
ESL Area Studies
European Studies
Global Geography
International Relations: The Role of the United States in a Changing World
Islamic Nations Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle East and Northern Africa
Model United Nations
North America Studies
Pacific Rim
U.S. Regional Studies
6. The section dealing with Geography/Area Studies (Category A) and History/Social Sciences
(Category B) was provided in the mailed version but was not in the same section of information as
the on-site version.
A listing of Materials Recommended for Adoption for Geography/Area Studies was not included in the
mailed curriculum version.
The Performance Standards – Oral Language for K-12 grade ESL students, were not received by
mail nor are they available online. They were part of a larger document requested on-site by the
auditors, ASD Memorandum #219, Subject: Bilingual Education Plan of Service, Appendix C.
Various curriculum documents for the elementary level, kindergarten through 6 grades, are available
on the district web page. The curriculum overview and curriculum standards documents in the content
areas of literacy (reading/language arts) and science are available on the district web page as
presented on-site and mailed. Mathematics curriculum documents are also online with the exception
of the Cross-referenced Student Performance Standards document. The Health/PE online documents
do not include all of the information provided to the auditors in hard copy. The content curriculum
standards areas of social studies, music, and world languages are not available online. The art
curriculum overview is online while its curriculum standards are not.
At the middle school level, grades 7 and 8, the standards/frameworks documents available online are
literacy (reading/language arts), science, and math (Cross-referenced Student Performance Standards
not included). Social studies, art, and music are not accessible online. No reference is made to world
languages or elective courses in this area. However, they are included in the Program of Studies
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 88
booklet, which describes all the courses offered at the middle schools. A booklet dated 2002 was
provided on-site to the auditors. The online version is dated 2001.
The standards/frameworks documents for the high schools, grades nine through twelve, are provided
online for the content areas of literacy, math, and science. Social studies high school curriculum is not
accessible online. The Program of Studies booklet for high school courses dated 2001 was available
online and a hard copy was provided during the site visit.
The curriculum areas of Special Education and the Gifted Program are coordinated under the Special
Education Department in the Anchorage School District. The auditors were not provided with
curriculum documents for these two areas. General program descriptions are offered and program
emphasis is stated on the Special Education web page via the Departments section of the district web
page.
Two elementary schools provided auditors with their Integrated Curriculum versions during the
campus site visits. These campus-based curriculum documents were staff developed with facilitation
by the principals. One campus offered a monthly compilation of topics/activities for K-5 under the
following areas: cultural and cooperative learning strategies, special activities songs, math, social
studies, science, health, and whole group reading/language arts. The other campus used a
timeline/sequence approach to define when curriculum topics would be taught.
The auditors reviewed district policies to determine if the courses required by state statue, State Board
of Education, and local board policy are being taught. The following policies (see Finding 1.1) define
the program of instruction:
•
Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “The program of instruction in the schools shall be
based on locally adopted standards and shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth by the
State Department of Education. The Board shall approve the curriculum and the major
instructional materials.”
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies states, “A program of studies book for each level will be
published annually and describe the curricular offerings.”
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies also requires, “The elementary curriculum shall include
language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, art, health, music, physical education, and
library skills.”
In the Anchorage School District booklet, “Anchorage School District Curriculum Overview,
kindergarten to grade 6, adopted September 2001,” the following curricular offerings are cited:
reading, language arts, math, science, social studies, health, music, art, and physical education.
As can be ascertained, there exists an inconsistency between what is stated in board policy regarding
the required elementary curriculum and the elementary curriculum offerings published in the Boardrequired annual curricular offerings publication.
In addition, board policy requires differentiated curriculum for special needs populations.
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “Acceleration, enhancement and/or differentiation of
the regular curriculum, including Honors, Advanced Placement, Special Education, and ESL
classes, will be incorporated into the curriculum.”
Curriculum guides were requested from the Anchorage School District for each course or subject
offered. Auditors expect to find guides for all subjects and courses. Auditors determine that if 70
percent or more of the courses offered have curriculum documents, the scope of the written
curriculum is considered adequate. This finding deals only with the scope or coverage of the written
curriculum. The quality of the curriculum guides is addressed in Finding 2.3.
Exhibit 2.2.2 indicates whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas and grade levels
for kindergarten through grade 6 as per board policy.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 89
Exhibit 2.2.2
Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area and by Grade Level
Elementary Schools Grade K-6
Anchorage School District
2002
Curriculum Area
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
Art
Health
Music
Physical Education
Library Skills
Total
Percentage
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
Courses
Offered
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
63
Curriculum
Guides
Presented
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
56
88%
Key: X = Guide Available; O = Guide Not Provided/Available
Exhibit 2.2.2 indicates eight of the nine elementary subjects approved by the Anchorage School
District School Board, at grades k-6, have curriculum guides, or 88 percent. Auditors concluded the
scope of the elementary curriculum is adequate. However, differentiated curriculum for bilingual,
ESL, special education, and gifted students were not provided (see Finding 3.2 and 4.1).
The following board policies cite the subjects and expectations at the middle and high school levels:
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies requires, “The secondary courses will include language
arts, social studies, mathematics, science, world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical
education, and health. Additional electives in the middle schools may be offered, pending approval
of Middle School Executive Director.
The most recent publication of the Anchorage School District booklet Middle School Education,
Middle School Program of Studies presented to the auditors on-site was adopted in June 2000. The
auditors used the online version of this publication dated 2001 for audit review. The following core
subjects are cited: language arts, math, physical education/health, science, and social studies. In
addition electives are offered. The Anchorage School District distinguishes between two types of
electives: standard and alternative. Standard elective courses are approved curriculum in the specialty
area. They have curricula written and approved by the district. These courses are more traditional in
nature and generally have instructors that are specialists in that particular elective area. Alternative
elective courses are those offered by individual schools. The curriculum is designed and implemented
by the school and teaching staff at each school site. These courses meet student, parent, and
community needs. Their availability coincides with staffing. These courses vary from year to year,
program to program, and school to school. Standard and alternative elective courses include the
following subjects: art, career technology, language arts, leadership, math, miscellaneous topics, music,
physical education, science, social studies, and world languages. For the purposes of this review only
standard elective courses were examined.
Exhibit 2.2.3 indicates whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas, course offerings,
and grade levels for middle school grades 7 and 8.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 90
Exhibit 2.2.3
Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area, Course, and Grade Level
Middle Schools Grades 7-8
Anchorage School District
2002
Course
Core Subjects
Language Arts
Language Arts Gifted
Language Arts ESL Beginning
Language Arts ESL Intermediate
Language Arts ESL Advanced
Language Arts Special Education
Math
Pre-Algebra
Algebra I
Geometry
Math 6/7/8 ESL
Math Special Education
Physical Education
P.E. Special Education
Health
Integrated Science
Integrated Science Gifted
Integrated Science Spanish Immersion
Integrated Science Special Education
Social Studies
Social Studies Japanese Immersion
Social Studies Spanish Immersion
Social Studies ESL
Social Studies Special Education
Standard Electives
Art Exploratory
Art Expanded
Career Technology
Applied Technology
Business Technology
Family and Consumer Science
Music
Beginning Chorus
Intermediate Chorus
Advanced Chorus
Beginning Band
Intermediate Band Level I
Intermediate Band Level II
Advanced Band
Jazz Band
Intermediate Orchestra Level I
Intermediate Orchestra Level II
Intermediate Orchestra Level III
Concert Orchestra
Courses
Offered
Curriculum
Guides Presented
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
X
1
1
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
2
2
0
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 91
Exhibit 2.2.3 (continued)
Scope of Written Curriculum by Subject Area, Course, and Grade Level
Middle Schools Grades 7-8
Anchorage School District
2002
Course
Core Subjects
World Languages
French IA
French IB
German IA
German IB
Japanese IA
Japanese IB
Japanese Immersion 7
Japanese Immersion 8
Russian IA 7,8
Russian IB 7,8
Spanish IA
Spanish IB
Spanish Immersion 8
Total
Percentage
7
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Courses
Offered
Curriculum
Guides Presented
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
102
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
48
47%
Key: X = Guide Available
O = Guide Not Provided/Available
Blank Space = Course not offered at grade level
As can be noted in Exhibit 2.2.3, 48 of the 102 middle school course offerings at grades 7 and 8, have
curriculum guides, or 47 percent. Auditors concluded the scope of the middle school curriculum does
not meet the minimum audit standard of 70 percent and is inadequate to provide direction for
instructional planning.
Exhibit 2.2.4 shows whether guides are available for each of the curriculum areas, as defined by
departments, and course offerings at the high school level.
Exhibit 2.2.4
Distribution of High School Curriculum Guides by Department
High Schools Grades 9-12
Anchorage School District
2002
Departments
Art
Business/Marketing Education
Computers
English As A Second Language
Family and Consumer Sciences
Industrial Technology
JROTC
Language Arts
Mathematics
Music
Physical Education/Health
Number of Courses
13
18
6
46
10
15
24
62
46
30
41
Number with Guides
13
15
0
16
10
9
0
7
20
0
1
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 92
Percent
100
83
0
35
100
60
0
11
44
0
.02
Exhibit 2.2.4 (continued)
Distribution of High School Curriculum Guides by Department
High Schools Grades 9-12
Anchorage School District
2002
Departments
Science
Social Studies
World Languages
Total
Percentage
Number of Courses
64
67
75
517
Number with Guides
42
47
75
255
Percent
66
70
100
49%
Key: X = Guide Available
O = Guide Not Provided/Available
E = Elective Courses, Guides Not Provided/Available
Blank Space = Course not offered at grade level
As evidenced in Exhibit 2.2.3, there were inconsistencies in the courses offered and the curriculum
guides made available to the auditors for grades 9-12. Of the high school courses, 255 of the 517 have
curriculum guides, or 49 percent. This is well below the 70 percent minimum audit standard.
During the interviews, several Anchorage School District administrative staff, campus-based
administrators and teachers commented on the lack of written curriculum guides, the over-abundance
of information in some guides, and the inconsistent use of curriculum guides. Their representative
comments follow:
• “We don’t have a unified district course catalog so that schools don’t enter courses that haven’t
been approved by the School Board.”
• “Nobody helps me know what has to give when there is too much in the curriculum.”
• “We have been focusing on standards. Standards drive instruction.”
• “Teachers may have them available (curriculum guides), it depends on the campus. All the math
department chairs and middle school and high school teachers have them. It’s totally up to the
campus site how guides are used.”
• “As a whole, the district needs to do more work in all areas of the curriculum. They especially
have to be more aware of the Cultural Standards.”
• “The Performance Standards made a big difference; one campus redid the curriculum for extra
support to students below level.”
• “Teachers are teaching what they want to teach right now.”
• “If it’s not part of the state standards and not tested, it isn’t important.”
• “Teachers have their copies of curriculum guides. They mainly use the manuals that go with the
guides.”
• “The teacher has virtually total freedom on what they cover at the middle school level.”
Summary
In summary, without a written curriculum to guide teachers, inconsistency in the taught curriculum
hinders student achievement. Curriculum guides for all subjects and at all grade levels serve as work
plans for teachers to use in their classrooms. They provide objectives, alignment to state and national
standards, activities, lists of materials, ties to technology software and other instructional tools, and
assessments of student learning. Overall, the scope of the written curriculum in the Anchorage School
District is adequate for grades kindergarten through six, but inadequate for grades 7-12 to enable the
Board to establish local control (see Recommendations 1 and 3, and Finding 3.1).
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 93
Finding 2.3: Curriculum Guides Are Inadequate in Design Quality to Guide Teaching
Effectively and Inadequate to Promote Deep Alignment. While Connected to the Alaskan
Content Standards, There is Insufficient Specificity to Ensure Consistently High
Achievement for All Students.
Quality curriculum guides connect the written, taught, and tested curriculum. They focus instruction
on essential learnings so that the efforts of all teachers are coordinated in achieving the educational
priorities of the system. The documents provide purpose and direction, communicate instructional
objectives, align objectives to the tested curriculum, specify necessary prerequisite skills, list
instructional materials, and provide strategies for teaching (see Finding 4.3). They connect the
curriculum vertically and horizontally within the school organization. The written curriculum should be
user-friendly, providing strong support for daily lessons. When guides are incomplete or nonexistent
(see Finding 2.2), teachers must make many instructional decisions without the benefit of the
previously established consensus as to intentions, priorities, techniques, materials, evaluations, and
other issues. In such circumstances, instruction is likely to be inconsistent among teachers and
schools, inefficient, and confusing for students and other stakeholders. Complete curriculum guides
also include suggestions for approaching instruction of key concepts.
The auditors found board policies describing in general what the content of the curriculum document
should be (see Finding 1.1).
• Board Policy 341 The Curriculum states, “The program of instruction in the schools shall be
based on locally adopted standards and shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth by the
State Department of Education. The Board shall approve the curriculum and the major
instructional materials. The standard curriculum is intended to challenge and stimulate students.
Academic programs to meet the needs of advanced students shall be established within the
Anchorage School District. Acceleration, enhancement, and/or differentiation of the regular
curriculum, including Honors, Advanced Placement, Special Education, and ESL classes, will be
incorporated into the curriculum.”
• Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies requires, “The secondary courses will include language
arts, social studies, mathematics, science, world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical
education, and health. Additional electives in the middle schools may be offered, pending approval
of Middle School Executive Director. The elementary curriculum shall include language arts,
mathematics, social studies, science, art, health, music, physical education, and library skills.”
The auditors examined 15 elementary and secondary documents presented as curriculum guides by
the Anchorage School District personnel. These guides included district-developed guides, State
Content and Performance Standards, Cultural Standards, and draft curriculum documents. In
addition, separate curriculum documents were reviewed by the auditors as extensions to the guides.
Curriculum guides and these extensions were reviewed and rated on whether they contained the
elements of each of five audit criteria that support effective delivery of the curriculum. Those criteria
and their elements are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 94
Exhibit 2.3.1
Curriculum Guide Audit Criteria
Anchorage School District
2002
Criteria
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Description
Clarity and Validity of Objectives
0. No goals/objectives present
1. Vague delineation of goals/learner outcomes
2. States tasks to be performed or skills/concepts 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
Congruity of the Curriculum to Testing/Evaluations
0. No evaluation approach
1. Some approach of evaluation stated
2. State skills, knowledge, concepts which will be assessed
3. Each objective is keyed to district and/or state performance evaluation
Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes
0. No mention of required skill
1. States prior general experience needed
2. States prior general experience needed in specified grade level
3. States specific documented prerequisite or description of discrete skills/concepts required
prior tot his learning
Delineation of the Major Instructional Tools
0. No mention of textbook or instructional tools
1. 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
curriculum objective
Clear Linkages (Strategies) for Classroom Use
0. No linkages cited for classroom use
1. Overall, vague statement on linkage for approaching the subject
2. Provides general suggestions on approach
3. Provides specific examples on how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom
The curriculum guides were assigned values of zero to three (low to high) on each of the five criteria.
A maximum of 15 points is possible. Guides receiving a rating of 12 or more points are considered
strong or adequate for meeting Standard Two criteria. The mean ratings for each criterion and the
mean for the total guide ratings were then calculated.
Exhibit 2.3.2 shows the auditors’ ratings of grades K-12 curriculum guides examined.
Exhibit 2.3.2
Auditors’ Ratings of Available Curriculum Guides
Anchorage School District
2002
1
Audit Criteria
2
3
4
(most recent)
Grade
Obj.
Assess.
Prereq.
Skills
Res.
5
Clssrm
.
Apps.
05-24-99
No date
04-21-99
K-8, 9,10
K-12
K-12
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
11-2001
K-6
0
0
0
3
1
4
Date
Curriculum Guide
Language Arts
Oral Language – ESL
Math (3 documents)
Science
K-6 Science Frameworks
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 95
Guide
Rating
Earth Systems
09-1997
K-6
1
0
2
1
1
5
Guide
Rating
1
3
5
1
2
11
1
6
6
5
58
3.9
Exhibit 2.3.2 (continued)
Auditors’ Ratings of Available Curriculum Guides
Anchorage School District
2002
1
Audit Criteria
2
3
4
(most recent)
Grade
Obj.
Assess.
Prereq.
Skills
Res.
5
Clssrm
.
Apps.
06-2001
01-1999
1998-99
01-15-97
04-1997
11-05-01
1982
03-1998
1997
1995
7-12
K-12
7-12
K-12
K-12
K-12
K-8
9-12
9-12
9-12
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
18
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
9
.6
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
9
.6
0
2
2
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
14
.9
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
7
.5
Date
Curriculum Guide
Science Frameworks
Social Studies (binder)
World Languages
Health (3 documents)
Physical Education
Art (binder)
Music
Business/Marketing Ed.
Family and Consumer Sci
Industrial Technology
Total
Guides Mean Ratings
Overall, the currently adopted Anchorage School District curriculum guides do not contain enough
information to effectively guide teaching. Exhibit 2.3.2 reveals the following:
• None of the 15 curriculum guides received a rating of 12 points or higher; therefore, each of the
currently adopted guides is inadequate.
• The mean rating for a curriculum guide is 3.9 of a possible 15.
• The range of curriculum quality varies from a low of one to a high of 11.
• The art curriculum received the overall highest audit rating of 11, with three areas scoring a three:
Objectives, Resources, and Classroom strategies.
• Language arts, science frameworks (7-12), health, and music received an audit rating of one.
• Criterion 1, Clarity and Validity of Objectives (Objectives) had the highest overall rating of 1.2.
• The lowest mean rating was for Criterion 5, Clear Linkages (Strategies) for Classroom Use, .5.
Criterion 1: Clarity and Validity of Objectives
To obtain a “3” under “Clarity and specificity of objectives,” the curriculum guide must specify the
amount of time necessary to teach the objectives, skills, and/or concepts; i.e., hour, period, day, or
fractional part of a week.
• Most guides consisted of lists of the student learning objectives.
• Reading and writing are assessed on the Alaska State Benchmark Examinations. The auditors
noted in the language arts curriculum the Student Performance Standards for grades K-8, 9, and
10 are local performance standards and are not yet aligned with the Alaska Content Standards nor
with the grade le vel-appropriate Alaska Performance Standards.
• Guides did not indicate time to be spent on each objective.
• The mean rating for this criterion was 1.2
Criterion 2: Congruity of the Curriculum to Testing (Evaluation)
To receive a “3” mark on “congruence of the curriculum to the assessment process,” objectives which
will be tested must be identified by test. Teachers should know prior to commencing teaching, what
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 96
objectives will be tested by what testing instrument so that teachers can align the content, context, and
cognitive level of instruction with the content, context, and cognitive level of sample deeply aligned test
items.
• Three of the guides made general suggestions for evaluation: the business/marketing education
curriculum, the family and consumer sciences curriculum, and the industrial technology curriculum.
• The mathematics curriculum was fully aligned with the Alaska State Content and Performance
Standards. However, it should be noted the numerical representations of the standards do not lend
itself to a user-friendly document.
• The auditors did note the food science course in the Family and Consumer Sciences curriculum
did align that course content with the Alaska Content Standards as well as the Alaska
Performance Standards.
• The Health Curriculum Frameworks K-6 also made connections to the Alaska State Content
Standards in the areas of social studies and science. However, the format lacked specificity in
terms of instructional intent and assessment usage.
• The mean rating for this criterion was .6.
Criterion 3: Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes
The “3” rating for “delineation of prerequisite essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes” requires some
specification of prior learnings or teachings. For example, providing a scope and sequence chart in the
guide itself will usually obtain a rating of “3.”
• Forty-seven percent of the guides (seven of 15) indicated some general prior experience for
curriculum content.
• Two of the guides, earth systems and art, had a scope and sequence, though both required greater
specificity grades and courses.
• The mean rating for this criterion was .6.
Criterion 4: Delineation of Major Instructional Tools
To earn a “3” under “delineation of the major instructional resources” requires matching the textbook
pages or other materials by page or section to specific objectives or teaching content.
• Two of the guides provided, for each objective stated, the basic text and/or instructional resources
to be used, the K-6 science frameworks and the art curriculum.
• Fifty-three percent of the guides at least named the basic text and/or instructional resources to be
used.
• The mean rating for this criterion was .9.
Criterion 5: Clear Linkages for Classroom Use
To receive a “3” in the category “clear approaches for classroom use,” the guide must provide
specific “cues” for teachers as to how to approach key components of the guide. These key
components could be methods, content selection or subject matter, use of materials or manipulatives,
classroom environment directive or suggestive, etc. Teachers should have some specific ideas about
how to set up the learning environment.
• Only the art curriculum provided examples on how to approach key concepts and/or skills in the
classroom.
• Ten of the 15 curriculum guides made no reference to classroom strategies.
• The mean rating for this criterion was .5.
Current curriculum development efforts in the Anchorage School District in the content areas of
mathematics, social studies, art, health, and family and consumer sciences are an initial step toward
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 97
ensuring alignment of the written, taught, and tested curricula in those content areas. However,
overall, the curriculum guides and standards give little information to show the linkage of skills with
various assessments either topically or for deep alignment. Continued curriculum development in all
content areas and courses, aligned with the state content and performance standards, is necessary to
provide teachers with quality curriculum documents to guide their teaching and positively impact
student performance.
Curriculum Guide Analysis of State Standards, District Standards, and Instructional
Materials
In order for curriculum guides to be of sufficient quality to enable classroom teachers to plan for deep
alignment (matching and going beyond the current state accountability assessment in content, context,
and cognitive level), the guides must receive a rating of 12-15. No curriculum guide presented to the
auditors received this rating. However, the auditors were able to use the sixth grade mathematics
guide to conduct an analysis of the extent to which state content and performance standards are linked
to district content and performance standards and analyze the degree of alignment among the state
and district standards to currently used instructional materials. This type of analysis is critical for
informing teachers about how instructional materials must be modified to ensure alignment among the
written, taught, and tested curriculum.
Development of state standards started in 1993. This effort has resulted in a listing of state content
standards and performance standards. Content standards are listings by content areas of the
expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the time they graduate.
Performance standards are measurable statements of the content standards and are used as the basis
for the benchmark assessments. Performance standards were released in January 1999. The
performance standards are a more specific subset of the content standards and do not cover all of the
content standards, but neither the content standards nor the performance standards are written at the
level of specificity necessary to produce a high level of alignment among the written, taught, and
tested curriculum at the classroom level. For example one of the state content standards in
mathematics is, “A student should understand mathematical facts, concepts, principles, and theories.”
These content standards are written in such general terms that almost all of the teachers and
administrators interviewed indicated that they were teaching to state standards. An example of a
performance standard in the area of numeration for students aged eight to ten is, “model and explain
the processes of multiplication and division. Describe the relationships among the four basic
operations.” This performance standard is assessed in sixth grade. From this example one can see
that the level of specificity of the performance standard is greater than the content standard.
Performance standards have been released in only three areas: reading, writing, and mathematics.
Under the direction of curriculum coordinators, work is in progress in all content areas to develop
curriculum guides with the necessary specificity to be useful tools for instructional planning at the
classroom level. These documents were reviewed by the auditors. An in-depth analysis of the
relationship among the state content and performance standards, the district content and performance
standards, and district instructional materials was made in the area of sixth grade mathematics.
Exhibit 2.3.3 shows the steps in the process used by the auditors.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 98
Exhibit 2.3.3
Analysis of Relationship Between State
and District Standards and Instructional Materials
Anchorage School District
Steps in Process
1. Identify state content standard
2. Identify performance standard at a specific level
3. Review district curriculum for the assessed grade level to determine how the content standard is
reflected in that document.
4. Review district curriculum for the assessed grade level to determine how the performance standard is
reflected in that document.
5. Review the major text used by teachers to determine if the performance standard content is included in
the text materials. This is a two-step process. First, one reviews the scope and sequence provided by
the publisher to look for a match, and second, one reviews the actual textbook materials to see if there is
a match.
6. Analyze the type of activities included in the instructional materials to determine if there is a match
between the instructional materials and the content, cognitive level, and context (format) of the
benchmark assessment.
Exhibit 2.2.4 is an example of the results of that analysis. If curriculum guides are of sufficient quality
(rating 12-15), many other types of analyses can be done to help teachers deliver instruction to assure
mastery of state content and performance standards and assuring alignment among the written, taught,
and tested curriculum.
Exhibit 2.3.4
Analysis of Relationship Among Standards and Instructional Materials
Sixth Grade Mathematics – Everyday Math
Anchorage School District
Process Implemented
1. State Content Standard: “A student should understand mathematical facts, concepts, principles, and
theories.”
2. State Performance Standard: “Describe and use a variety of estimation strategies including rounding to
the appropriate place value, multiplying by powers of 10, and using front-end estimation to check for
reasonableness of solutions;” (M:A:3)
3. District Content Standard: “Use appropriate estimation strategies”
4. District Performance Standard:
“6:1 Estimation
.1 Explain to what place it is reasonable to round given data
.2 Estimate lengths, weights, areas, and volumes
.3 Estimate products and quotients
.4 Estimate the fractional part or percent of a whole
.5 Estimate the measure of angles
.6 Round numbers to estimate answers to word problems
.7 Use estimation to check reasonableness of results of operations”
5. Review of Text Scope and Sequence Chart:
Estimate sums and fractions (lesson number 15, 16)
Estimate products and whole numbers and decimals (lesson number 17, 18)
Estimate percent and fractions of a circle (lesson number 20)
Estimate products of decimals (lesson number 49)
Estimation Squeeze (estimate square roots) (lesson 52)
Estimate percent equivalent fractions (lesson 62)
Estimate a fraction and percent of a whole (lesson 84)
Estimate products and quotients of fractions (lesson 91)
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 99
Exhibit 2.3.4 (continued)
Analysis of Relationship Among Standards and Instructional Materials
Sixth Grade Mathematics – Everyday Math
Anchorage School District
Steps in Process
Review of Lessons – Examples of activities from the teacher’s manual
Students orally explain strategies including estimation
Students orally estimate answers
Students explain how to use estimation (orally and short response)
6. The current state benchmark test utilizes three types of test items: multiple choice, short response, and
extended response. All responses are written. The lessons in the text called for students to give both
oral and written responses, however most of the responses were oral.
From this analysis the auditors determined the following:
• There is a relationship between the state content and performance standards and the district
content and performance standards.
• The district performance standards are much more specific than the state standards and can
provide teachers with a better understanding of exactly what content knowledge students must
have to meet the state standard.
• The instructional materials included a number of lessons directed toward the content. These
lessons were distributed throughout the text so that students had a number of opportunities to
practice the skills to reach mastery (distributed practice).
• There was a lack of congruence between the format of the test and the format of the instruction.
The state test uses three types of questions: multiple choice, short response, and extended
response. Most of the lessons in the text asked students to estimate using a classroom oral
response. Depending on the teacher’s questioning technique, this could have been done by asking
students how they estimate something and calling on students who raised their hands (This is the
most common practice used by classroom teachers). This procedure would not enable the
teacher to know whether all students in the class had mastered the skill. The test might ask
students to write out the steps in the process of estimation or explain why they use those steps.
Unless the teacher includes these types of activities to supplement instruction, students may not be
prepared to demonstrate what they know on the state accountability test.
This type of analysis is at a very sophisticated level, but it is necessary in order to ensure that all
students are at the mastery level of the content, context, and cognitive level of the state content and
performance standards and the context of the state accountability assessment. The quality of current
curriculum guides is not sufficient to produce these results.
The lack of quality written curricula is evident in the Anchorage School District and is noted at all
levels as evidenced by the following comments from staff, teachers, board members, and parents:
• “Nobody uses the whole curriculum, it’s pretty sporadic.”
• “Curriculum guides may be well written but are not utilized.”
• “Teachers don’t use guides. They are aware of state standards.”
• “Our curriculum guides are outdated. They’ve been supplanted by the state standards.”
• “I’ve been here for 20 years and frankly, I wouldn’t be able to tell you how curriculum works.”
• “It’s a mixed bag as to how we formalize standards. I’m okay as long as I can see us meeting
some.”
• “The curriculum is fragmented, we need help in this area.”
• “We don’t have anything that says, ‘page 41, standard 2.’”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 100
•
“There’s a lot of academic freedom in this school district.”
Summary
The Anchorage School district does not yet provide teachers with clear direction for instruction.
Current board policy lacks specificity in defining quality components for curriculum guides. The
curriculum guides do not contain enough information to provide teachers with complete and
comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching and therefore are not strong guides for directing
instruction. All guides reviewed were rated as inadequate when compared topically to the audit
criteria. While most guides list student-learning objectives, they do no indicate how the objectives are
to be performed or the amount of time allocated to learning an objective. Most guides did not tie the
curriculum objectives to state tests or to any district assessments. Few guides showed recommended
instructional materials or strategies. Even fewer guides included a scope and sequence or showed
prerequisite skills needed. Overall, the Anchorage School District curriculum guides do not contain
enough information to effectively promote deep alignment of the written, taught, and tested curricula
(see Recommendation 3).
Finding 2.4: The Instructional Technology Plan Does Not Meet All Audit Criteria and Is
Inadequate to Guide Effective Implementation and Integration of Technology in the
Educational Program.
Technology is a key element in education that plays an important role in student learning. The
potential of technology in the learning process is maximized through sound planning and effective
implementation. Board policy that communicates clear expectations and a philosophy that includes a
comprehensive view of technology are necessary to effectively direct, monitor, and guide technology
efforts.
Students at O’Malley Elementary School in the computer lab.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 101
A student engaged with a computer at Ocean View Elementary School.
Technology plans of high quality include elements that are linked to other district plans and are based
on a comprehensive assessment of needs. Implementation effectiveness is ultimately determined by
student achievement through measurable student goals and ongoing student and program assessment.
Other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the technology effort include the allocation of
adequate resources necessary for implementation and maintenance, as well as sustained staff training
in the use and integration of technology in the learning process.
Effective implementation at the school level is also enhanced through district software and hardware
standards, use policies; i.e. the Internet, and the requirement of school level technology plans that are
coordinated with the district plan to include the integration of school resources such as libraries and
media centers.
In examining technology in the Anchorage School District, the auditors reviewed board policies, district
plans, and other documents related to technology. They interviewed board members, central office
and building administrators, parents, and other community members. In addition, the auditors also
conducted site visits at all school buildings.
The auditors found the Anchorage School District instructional technology program inadequate on nine
of the 14 technology audit criteria. A three-year Instructional Technology Plan 2002-2005 was
approved by the Anchorage School District Board in April 2002. However, in the absence of a fully
implemented plan the auditors observed the availability and use of technology to vary greatly among
schools. This situation is exacerbated by a lack of control in the form of board policy or administrative
regulation which provides direction to school personnel on such basic issues as common software and
hardware specifications.
Exhibit 2.4.1 lists the documents presented by district officials to the auditors for review.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 102
Exhibit 2.4.1
Technology Documents Reviewed by the Auditors
Anchorage School District
2002
Document
Anchorage School District Board Policy 346.6 Electronic Information
Networks (Use of Internet)
Anchorage School District Board Policy 346.3 Library/Media, 346.31
Mission and Objectives
Anchorage School District Instructional Technology Plan
Anchorage School District Memo #262.
2000-01 School Technology Funding Application (Building)
Date of Documents
June 1996
May 2001
April 2002
April 29 2002
October 2000
Anchorage School District board policy relating to technology is limited in scope. Board Policy 346.6
Electronic Information Networks (Use of Internet) states, “This district is committed to teach
students to become proficient and frequent users of the technology necessary for the acquisition of
knowledge, their future world of work and communications.” The policy continues by stating, “The
Anchorage School Board recognizes that one way to enhance the educational mission is to allow
students and staff use of the Internet or other electronic information networks in order for students
and staff to participate in distance learning activities, to communicate with others, and to locate
material to meet educational development needs. District administrators, classroom teachers,
technology specialists, and media specialists/librarians have a professional responsibility to work
together to identify information appropriate to age and developmental levels of the students they serve
and to instruct students in the appropriate use of this information.”
The only other reference to technology is found in Board Policy 346.3 Library/Media, 346.31
Mission and Objectives in which library/media personnel roles are partially directed by language of
the fourth objective: “to provide leadership and instruction in the use of information technology.”
Interviews with district technology staff indicate the language in Board Policy 346.3 is outdated in
light of Board approval of the Instructional Technology Plan in April 2002.
The goal of the Anchorage School District Instructional Technology Plan is “to support students’
attempts to meet the performance standards in the content areas of reading, writing, and
mathematics.” The plan was developed by the Instructional Technology Plan Committee with
guidance and direction from an advisory committee. The committees included broad-based
representation within the district and the Anchorage community. The auditors reviewed the plan and
other technology documents using audit criteria. Exhibit 2.4.2 presents the criteria and results of the
review.
Exhibit 2.4.2
Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Program and Auditors’ Assessment
Anchorage School District
May 2002
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Program Component
Board policy or administrative regulation for instructional technology
Clear statement of program philosophy/vision
Comprehensive view of technology
Needs assessment
Measurable student goals and objectives
Ongoing student assessment
Ongoing program assessment
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 103
Adequate
Inadequate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exhibit 2.4.2 (continued)
Quality Criteria for Instructional Technology Program and Auditors’ Assessment
Anchorage School District
May 2002
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Program Component
Comprehensive staff training with measurable standards
• Equipment
• Application
• Integration
School site equipment standards
Internet access standards
Role of school library
Implementation budget
Maintenance budget
Site plans aligned with district plan
Adequate
Inadequate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Data Source: Anchorage School District Instructional Technology Plan approved by ASD Board of Education April 29,
2002.
The auditors found the technology program to be adequate on five characteristics and inadequate on
nine characteristics. The following were noted:
• Board policies presented to the auditors regarding technology were limited in scope. One
addressed Internet usage and the other pertained to the role of library/media. The auditors were
not presented with board of education policy or administrative regulations that provided direction,
control or guidance to instructional technology.
• The Instructional Technology Plan includes a clear vision statement, “…facilitating and managing
the learning environment and fostering lifelong learning,” which links to the 2001-02 district
mission, “…to educate students for success in life.”
• The vision statement also includes a comprehensive view of technology, “…students and staff will
use technology to develop critical thinking skills, to communicate ideas, and to access information
and to solve problems.”
• The plan calls for an ongoing needs assessment in the areas of student technology skills, staff
technology skills, electrical and network connectivity, and hardware inventory and use. However,
the methodology, timeline, and responsibility for conducting the needs assessment are not included
in the plan. The result is a lack of specificity as to how the needs assessment will be conducted
as well as a clear plan for the analysis and use of the data.
• The plan includes a Performance Matrix that illustrates the integration and relationship between
the Alaska State Performance Standards, Technology-based Performance Products/Projects and
Technology Frameworks (Appendix B), Software/Resources, and related Internet Sites. The
National Education Technology Standards (NETS) (Appendix E) and Alaska Technology
Standards for Students (Appendix F) are also integrated into the plan. However, the plan lacks
measurable student goals and a specific mechanism for measuring and tracking the student
acquisition of specific technology skills. The plan does include a reference to measuring the
success of technology through increased academic achievement as measured by the Alaska
Benchmark Exams (grades 3, 6, 8), Terra Nova Basic Skills Exams (grades 4, 5, 7, 9), Anchorage
Writing Assessment (grades, 5, 7, 9) and the Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam.
However, the linkage between the acquisition of technology skills and basic academic skills is not
clearly defined or documented to substantiate the existence of such a relationship.
• In the plan, program assessment is addressed through the development of “assessments created
by a cadre of trainers, using the District’s Learning Through Performance Tasks.” Provisions for
the ongoing assessment of the goals and objectives of the plan are included in the Activity
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 104
•
•
Plan/Timeline section of the plan (Appendix A). Although the plan calls for the identification of an
assessment process, the omission of a specific mechanism and criteria again impedes efforts to
measure the effectiveness of the technology initiatives. In the absence of such specificity the
effectiveness of the technology effort cannot be assessed adequately and accurately.
A variety of approaches for staff training are included in the plan: credit classes, web-based
support and self-directed learning activities, small and large group training, conferences, and
school-based tech support. There is an ongoing activity plan and timeline for the staff training that
is linked to a set of teacher competencies. The scope of the training is comprehensive covering
the use of equipment, application, and integration of technology into the classroom. Although staff
training is an integral part of the plan, there is a lack of a clear evaluation of the effectiveness of
the training. There are no measurable standards to determine whether the training will result in
staff acquiring the skills specified in the plan.
School site equipment and software standards are included in the Minimal Hardware and
Software Standards for Interoperability (Appendices N and O). These standards describe
minimal allocations of resources for buildings and classrooms with hardware specifications where
appropriate. Netscape and Explorer are the common telecommunications software packages.
Exchange is the standard e-mail application for Macintosh and Windows platforms. Although
there is a movement toward common hardware and software standards, there is a lack of board
policy regarding the types of software and hardware that may be placed in schools through the
donation process. Auditor site visit observations and interviews with Anchorage School District
staff indicate there is a lack of site adherence to common school site equipment standards.
District officials report that schools may receive donations of computers that are not compatible
with these standards.
Third grade Trailside Elementary School students working with computers.
•
Internet use standards are extensively delineated in Appendix K – Internet Guidelines. An
Internet filtering system resides on the district network and filters at the district-level. The
Internet Policy Committee guides Internet use within the Anchorage School District. Board
Policy 346.6 Electronic Information Networks (Use of Internet) further provides direction to
the use of the Internet.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 105
•
Anchorage School District Board Policy 346.3 Library/Media, 346.31 Mission and
Objectives directs library/media personnel, “To provide leadership and instruction in the use of
information technology.” However, there is an inconsistent response to this policy by
library/media personnel, who reported various le vels of involvement in the technology effort to the
auditors. The role of library/media personnel are not included in the recently approved plan.
• Initially the technology effort within the district focused on making technology available to
students. Staff use of technology is a current priority supported by the Instructional Technology
Plan and central office. District administrators report, supported by data included in the
technology plan, that approximately 50 percent of the computers in schools “will not support
current applications such as Outlook 2001 and the district intranet.” A three year 2002-2005 cost
implementation budget is included in the plan. The Board has approved the 2002-2003 budget.
Each year the plan includes tech support and a computer service contract to cover maintenance.
The plan also includes the purchase of additional computers and a provision for staff development.
In their application for Title IID Enhancing Education Through Technology Grant for 2003-2003,
district personnel have proposed a spending plan that provides the funds for a comprehensive staff
technology training program.
• Site plans for technology presented to the auditors consisted of 2000-01 Instructional Technology
TLC Funds Application. These documents were essentially staff development spending plans.
They do not link to the district plan, nor is there a provision in the district plan for the development
of site plans. District officials reported to the auditors that school site plans were outdated due to
the lack of funding of the previous technology plan.
The following comments were made to the auditors by central office staff, building administrators,
teachers, and community members during interviews and on-site visitations:
• “Three years ago a technology plan was approved by the Board of Education, only the first year
of that plan was funded. The first year of the new plan has been funded with further financial
support for the various components.”
• “You are always tapping into your PTA to update your technology.”
• “I now have computers that are good, but in a few years there is no plan for how I will be able to
replace them. You can see how quickly they get outdated.”
• “Technology is a huge issue. Right now we have one teacher who is sort of the head of each
school. The time it takes from the teacher’s time to do this support is a drain.”
• “Our librarian helps with technology even though it’s not in the job description. We have a fiveyear tech plan that’s mostly spending.”
• “In the past we had mini-grants for tech staff development, this year there are no classes other
than what the district offers.”
• “We made a big mistake by putting it in the hands of students before teachers.”
• “It’s not being used the way it should be.”
• “If a school had construction, [they] could get new computers, others couldn’t.”
• “It’s important that the district start to fund technology; there is a positive energy from the Board
and superintendent.”
• “The last plan was about equity, but it was not funded after the first year.”
• “We’ve come a long way. We have a tech list but if people buy outside we can’t support it.”
• “We haven’t given teachers the skills.”
• “School tech plans are outdated. A lot of them haven’t been changed since we offered money a
couple of years ago.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 106
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“The new e-mail system is a mess we have teachers who can’t access it because they don’t have
the right computer.”
“The tech coordinators are supposed to be in schools but they’re fixing equipment all the time.”
“We converted to new e-mail – it’s a disaster.”
“We get tech support from the central office. When they are here they end up fixing computers,
which is not their job.”
“The data management system was developed in the 80’s – we’re looking for a new one.”
“We have teachers doing grades on student computers, whic h the students can see.”
“We need to bring this into reality – how many, how much and what can we do with the dollars
we have.”
“Hardware is just the down payment on technology. Haven’t really stepped up to the challenges.”
“The district has a tendency to buy equipment with construction funds. Works great until funding
runs out.”
“Technology and its coordination in the classroom needs to be examined. A lot of times the lab is
sitting there and isn’t being used. I think that the resource is there and it should be consistent.”
“Computers are not equal. That’s why they have gone to leases to bring in equity.”
“I worry we aren’t using technology in classrooms enough.”
Summary
The auditors noted a number of concerns regarding the technology effort within the Anchorage School
District. There is a lack of board policy to provide direction and control of the technology effort within
the district. Various components of the recently approved instructional technology plan lack the
specificity necessary to adequately assess needs, measure student achievement, and evaluate program
effectiveness. Staff development also lacks a clear evaluation component; teacher participation rather
than teacher performance is used as the measure of success. Software and hardware compatibility is
lacking, library/media personnel roles are unclear, and site planning does not link with the district plan.
Overall, the instructional technology plan does not meet all audit criteria and is particularly deficient in
an evaluation mechanism that would measure overall effectiveness.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 107
STANDARD 3: A School System Demonstrates Internal Connectivity and
Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation.
A school system meeting this Curriculum Management Audit standard is able to show how its
program has been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the
achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of pupil learning.
In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused
and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that, as a whole, it is more effective than the
sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combinations of programs or schools do not equate to the larger
school system entity.
The purpose of having a school system is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a
coordinated and focused program for students, both to enhance learning which is complex and multiyear in its dimensions, and to employ economies of scale where applicable.
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District
The PDK-CMSi auditors expected to find a highly-developed, articulated, and coordinated curriculum
in the school system that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs at the
central and site-levels. Common indicators are:
•
Documents/sources that reveal internal connections at different levels in the system,
•
Predictable consistency through a coherent rationale for content delineation within the curriculum,
•
Equity of curriculum/course access and opportunity,
•
Allocation of resource flow to areas of greatest need,
•
A curriculum that is clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building-level
administrators and other supervisory personnel,
•
Specific professional development programs to enhance curricular design and delivery,
•
A curriculum that is monitored by central office and site supervisory personnel, and
•
Teacher and administrator responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time.
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District
This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Three. The details
follow within separate findings.
One of the major questions posed by the Anchorage School District’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for
the audit pertained to the examination of the success of the district’s programs in improving the
achievement of all students, as well as specific sub-populations within the larger student body. The
RFP called for the specific examination of groups based on race and ethnic identity. This set of
findings deals directly with this requirement of the Anchorage School District RFP.
The auditors found inequalities among the schools in program participation by ethnic identity and race.
Of some 85 schools examined by the auditors, 65 schools exceeded the expected participation
percentages of Alaskan Natives in special education. Alaskan Natives, Asians, Hispanics, and
African Americans were all under-represented in the gifted education program. With suspension data,
the largest inequality reported were that African Americans exceeded the expected number of school
suspensions. To a lesser extent so did Asians. Alaskan Natives/American Indians exceeded their
expected percentages of retention by 16 percent. In the area of school dropouts, the highest rate is
among Alaskan Natives/American Indians, who drop out of school at a rate of 22 percent within the
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 108
Anchorage School District. Alaskan Natives have the largest gap in terms of unequal access and
unfair representation in relationship to program placement and administrative practices.
School snapshot data are reported in this standard as well. The auditors visited all schools and briefly
observed 2,139 cla ssrooms. Of these, 1,498 were categorized according to the dominant type of
instructional practice being used at the time. “Direct instruction” was the dominant teacher
instructional behavior observed at the elementary schools. “Assisting” was the dominant teacher
behavior at the middle school. At the high school the dominant teacher behavior was “at desk.” The
dominant student behavior observed at all three levels was “seat work.” Generalizations from these
data should be very carefully drawn. Caveats concerning such generalizations are included in the
finding section.
Finding 3.1: Inequalities Exist Among Schools in Program Participation and Administrative
Practices for Students of Color.
School districts should be able to provide a quality educational program for all students. Access to
programs should not be dependent upon a student’s ethnicity or other social factors. In school districts
where students have equal access to programs, all students are afforded opportunities for success.
Equality of student access to the district’s curriculum and educational opportunities are important
considerations when planning and administering programs, services, and practices. Efforts in
educational programming should reflect high regard for diverse cultural backgrounds, beliefs, attitudes,
and abilities of students.
The auditors reviewed documents and conducted interviews with board members, administrators, staff
members, parents, and community members. Auditors also conducted site observations to determine
the extent to which educational programs were delivered equally to all students. Board policies and
other applicable documents were also reviewed. Policies pertinent to program access are listed
below:
•
Board Policy 310 Philosophy of the Instructional Program states “the Anchorage School
District accepts the responsibility of providing an education for all children of public school age.”
•
Board Policy 321 Goals of the Instructional Program states, “we strive to challenge all
students, regardless of their levels and abilities, to achieve at the maximum extent possible. As a
district, we provide remedial, resource, enrichment, accelerated, and other special services and
programs to help increase students’ achievement.”
•
Board Policy 343.22 Promotion states that “the promotion of elementary and middle school
students shall be based upon the student’s satisfactorily completing the required work according to
his/her ability and the teacher’s evaluation as to his/her preparedness for the next higher grade.
Consideration shall be given to the academic, physical, mental, and emotional development of the
student.”
•
Board Policy 343.23 Retention states that “recommendations for retention will be based upon
the student’s age, achievement, social, physical, and mental development.”
•
Board Policy 343.25 High School Graduation states, “high school students must complete the
district’s required coursework and pass state-required examinations to graduate and receive a
diploma. Students who complete the district’s graduation requirements but do not pass the staterequired High School Graduation Qualifying Examination or special education students who exit
the public school system at or before their twenty-second birthday without successfully completing
the above, will receive a Certificate of Attendance.”
•
The Anchorage School District Native Advisory Committee By-laws state an objective to
“substantially increase educational opportunities of Native children, utilizing the best available
talents and resources including persons from the Native community.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 109
•
The Minority Education Concern Committee’s (MECC) mission statement states “the mission
of the MECC is to serve as the voice for families in the Anchorage School District and to promote
educational success for minority students. The MECC works to ensure equity for all students.”
The auditors found that inequalities exist in accessibility to programs and services, particularly for
Alaskan Native and African American students. There are no policies that effectively and adequately
address equity and program accessibility in the district. The auditors found disparity among ethnic
student population groups when comparing student participation in gifted education and special
education with the total population of students in the ethnic categories. While we expect differences
to exist, no student group should be disproportionately represented in program participation rates.
Similarly, ethnic groups should not be disproportionately represented in retention, suspension, and
dropout rates. The auditors found that board policies and committee by-laws or mission statements
stipulate that efforts are in place to challenge all students by requiring that all students be successful.
To assess participation rates by ethnicity, auditors reviewed total enrollment data for the Anchorage
School System. Exhibit 3.1.1 presents these data.
Exhibit 3.1.1
Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School
District Total
School
Total
49,499
Abbott
455
Airport Heights
286
Alpenglow
569
Aurora
413
Baxter
441
Bayshore
535
Bear Va lley
468
Willard Bowman
590
Campbell
459
Chester Valley
316
Chinook
545
Chugach
254
AK Native
Am Indian
6,177
12%
68
15%
61
21%
22
4%
0
0%
66
15%
37
6%
25
5%
56
9%
73
15%
67
21%
83
14%
28
11%
Asian
4,760
10%
33
7%
19
7%
13
2%
22
5%
25
6%
65
11%
8
2%
75
13%
47
9%
17
5%
94
16%
19
7%
Hispanic
2,754
6%
31
7%
26
9%
20
4%
13
3%
24
5%
26
4%
15
3%
15
3%
28
6%
12
3%
26
4%
2
0%
Afr.
Am.
4,227
9%
50
11%
31
11%
21
4%
72
17%
61
14%
13
2%
5
1%
24
4%
32
6%
34
10%
40
7%
7
3%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 110
White
30,886
62%
261
57%
145
51%
485
85%
291
71%
258
58%
389
72%
415
89%
416
71%
276
60%
166
52%
297
54%
198
79%
Other
695
1%
12
3%
4
1%
8
1%
15
4%
7
2%
5
0%
0
0%
4
0%
3
0%
20
6%
5
0%
0
0%
Total
Minority
18,613
38%
194
43%
141
49%
84
15%
122
30%
183
41%
146
27%
53
11%
174
29%
183
39%
150
47%
248
45%
56
22%
Exhibit 3.1.1 (continued)
Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School
Chugiak
School
Total
505
College Gate
451
Creekside
420
Denali
450
Eagle River
421
Fairview
467
Fire Lake
308
Govt. Hill
459
Homestead
429
Huffman
494
Inlet View
260
Kasuun
524
Kincaid
505
Klatt
391
Lake Hood
481
Lake Otis
487
Mt. Spurr
252
Mt. View
421
Muldoon
509
North Star
541
Northwood
356
Nunaka
366
Ocean View
532
AK Native
Am Indian
53
10%
69
15%
81
19%
99
22%
35
8%
103
21%
29
9%
41
8%
34
8%
20
4%
31
12%
76
15%
47
9%
59
15%
67
14%
78
15%
4
1%
108
26%
100
20%
147
27%
79
22%
95
27%
52
10%
Asian
8
2%
29
6%
14
3%
29
6%
26
5%
83
17%
7
2%
35
7%
6
1%
20
4%
26
10%
53
10%
28
6%
50
13%
111
23%
45
8%
6
2%
122
29%
93
18%
63
12%
34
10%
19
5%
27
5%
Hispanic
26
5%
13
3%
29
7%
22
5%
20
4%
90
19%
7
2%
157
34%
2
0%
11
2%
20
8%
36
7%
11
2%
30
8%
30
6%
47
9%
13
5%
51
12%
22
4%
74
14%
17
5%
20
6%
21
4%
Afr.
Am.
10
2%
52
12%
54
13%
70
16%
24
5%
107
22%
9
3%
37
8%
9
2%
12
3%
6
2%
40
8%
15
3%
14
4%
27
6%
48
9%
33
13%
74
18%
97
19%
61
11%
25
7%
42
11%
15
3%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 111
White
391
78%
260
58%
218
52%
227
50%
313
74%
58
12%
251
82%
174
37%
376
89%
431
87%
174
67%
316
60%
400
79%
235
60%
229
47%
264
54%
195
78%
55
12%
176
35%
195
36%
195
54%
181
49%
416
78%
Other
17
3%
28
6%
24
6%
3
1%
3
0%
26
5%
5
2%
15
3%
2
0%
0
0%
3
1%
3
0%
4
1%
3
0%
17
4%
5
1%
1
0%
11
3%
21
4%
1
0%
6
2%
9
2%
1
0%
Total
Minority
114
23%
191
42%
202
48%
223
50%
108
25%
409
87%
57
19%
285
62%
53
12%
63
13%
86
33%
208
40%
105
21%
156
40%
252
52%
223
45%
57
23%
366
87%
333
65%
346
64%
161
45%
185
51%
116
22%
Exhibit 3.1.1 (continued)
Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School
O’Malley
School
Total
383
Orion
393
Ptarmigan
461
Rabbit Creek
385
Ravenwood
387
Rogers Park
511
Russian Jack
374
Sand Lake
613
Scenic Park
527
Spring Hill
371
Susitna
563
Taku
402
Trailside
436
Tudor
534
Turnagain
385
William Tyson
462
Ursa Major
420
Ursa Minor
252
Williwaw
522
Willow Crest
494
Wonder Park
444
Gladys Wood
513
Central
781
AK Native
Am Indian
19
4%
5
1%
109
24%
36
9%
14
4%
38
7%
86
23%
62
10%
73
14%
84
23%
132
23%
50
11%
51
12%
72
13%
52
14%
102
22%
3
0%
3
1%
172
33%
110
22%
103
23%
67
13%
71
9%
Asian
10
2%
11
3%
31
7%
12
3%
5
1%
65
13%
39
10%
98
16%
40
8%
45
12%
30
4%
30
8%
40
9%
51
10%
68
18%
169
36%
13
2%
10
4%
104
20%
117
24%
52
12%
39
8%
65
8%
Hispanic
6
1%
25
6%
35
8%
15
4%
5
1%
24
5%
22
6%
9
1%
24
5%
29
8%
23
4%
35
9%
18
4%
60
11%
20
5%
31
7%
22
5%
21
8%
38
7%
46
9%
43
10%
22
4%
73
9%
Afr.
Am.
10
2%
59
15%
90
20%
5
1%
5
1%
28
5%
75
20%
32
5%
70
13%
31
8%
65
11%
46
12%
16
4%
74
14%
25
6%
60
13%
117
27%
42
17%
71
14%
24
5%
74
17%
27
5%
137
18%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 112
White
338
88%
292
75%
186
41%
317
83%
349
91%
351
69%
144
39%
412
68%
318
60%
178
48%
313
55%
233
58%
287
65%
264
50%
214
55%
86
19%
215
51%
170
68%
136
26%
194
39%
169
38%
338
64%
425
55%
Other
0
0%
1
0%
10
22%
0
0%
9
2%
5
1%
8
2%
0
0%
2
0%
4
1%
0
0%
8
2%
24
6%
13
2%
6
2%
14
3%
50
11%
6
2%
1
0%
3
1%
3
1%
20
4%
10
1%
Total
Minority
45
11%
101
26%
275
60%
68
18%
38
10%
160
31%
230
61%
201
33%
209
40%
193
52%
250
44%
169
42%
149
34%
270
51%
171
44%
376
81%
205
48%
82
33%
386
74%
300
61%
275
62%
175
34%
356
46%
Exhibit 3.1.1 (continued)
Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School
Clark
School
Total
830
Goldenview
880
Gruening
600
Hanskew
900
Mears
1019
Romig
868
Wendler
942
Bartlett
1993
Chugiak HS
2037
Dimond HS
2147
East HS
2060
Service
2377
West
1722
Aquarian
241
Search
78
Benson
198
Birchwood
407
Family Partner, Elem
528
Family Partner, Sec.
243
Girdwood
158
McLaughlin
167
Mirror Lake
642
Northern Lights
613
AK Native
Am Indian
203
24%
54
6%
31
4%
131
15%
116
11%
141
16%
107
11%
211
11%
114
6%
176
8%
292
14%
147
6%
212
12%
19
8%
31
40%
37
19%
44
11%
35
7%
19
7%
4
3%
63
38%
47
7%
35
6%
Asian
177
21%
41
5%
18
2%
96
11%
124
12%
147
17%
81
9%
173
9%
49
2%
260
12%
364
18%
145
6%
321
19%
15
6%
1
1%
14
7%
5
1%
15
3%
4
2%
2
1%
7
4%
12
2%
99
16%
Hispanic
64
8%
23
3%
26
4%
44
5%
45
4%
70
8%
43
5%
110
6%
47
2%
88
4%
141
7%
64
3%
121
7%
25
10%
2
3%
12
6%
11
3%
21
4%
9
4%
11
7%
9
5%
16
2%
15
2%
Afr.
Am.
128
15%
20
2%
17
2%
79
8%
39
4%
78
9%
136
14%
355
18%
49
2%
83
4%
246
12%
61
3%
140
8%
18
7%
6
8%
33
17%
9
2%
12
2%
9
4%
4
3%
17
10%
19
3%
50
8%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 113
White
250
30%
742
84%
504
84%
553
60%
688
87%
422
49%
564
60%
1119
55%
1767
87%
1536
72%
999
48%
1954
82%
900
52%
162
67%
37
47%
97
48%
335
82%
430
81%
200
82%
136
86%
69
42%
544
85%
405
67%
Other
8
1%
0
0%
4
0%
5
1%
7
1%
10
1%
11
1%
25
1%
11
1%
4
0%
18
1%
6
0%
28
2%
2
1%
1
1%
5
3%
3
1%
15
3%
2
1%
1
1%
2
1%
4
1%
9
1%
Total
Minority
580
70%
138
16%
96
16%
355
39%
331
32%
446
51%
378
40%
874
44%
270
13%
611
28%
1061
52%
423
18%
822
48%
79
33%
41
53%
101
51%
72
18%
98
19%
43
18%
22
14%
98
59%
98
15%
208
34%
Exhibit 3.1.1 (continued)
Total Enrollment and Percentages Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
School
Polaris Elementary
School
Total
226
Polaris Secondary
223
SAVE
274
Steller
289
Village
113
Whaley Elementary
79
Whaley Secondary
120
AK Native
Am Indian
20
9%
13
6%
42
15%
25
8%
19
17%
18
23%
46
38%
Asian
10
4%
1
0%
31
11%
17
5%
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Hispanic
4
2%
7
3%
12
4%
9
3%
10
9%
1
1%
1
1%
Afr.
Am.
8
4%
14
6%
18
7%
18
6%
10
9%
16
20%
16
13%
White
184
81%
188
85%
171
63%
218
75%
73
64%
44
56%
56
47%
Other
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Total
Minority
42
19%
35
16%
103
38%
71
24%
40
35%
35
44%
64
53%
Disaggregated ethnicity data were extracted from the School Report Card for 2000-2001. In many
cases, disaggregated numbers did not add up to the total number of students indicated in the public
report. For this reason, the school totals above have been changed to reflect the total of the
disaggregated numbers reported.
Special Education Participation
To determine if specific student groups are unfairly represented in program participation rates, auditors
established an “expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity.” It is important to
note that the expected percentage reflects the disaggregated student enrollment percentage for the
district as well as for each school. Auditors utilized this percentage to determine disparity in program
participation among student groups when comparing the expected percentage of participation with the
actual percentage of participation. Exhibit 3.1.2 contains total enrollment, the total number and
percentage of students participating in special education, and disaggregated data by ethnicity.
Exhibit 3.1.2
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
District Total
49,499
4425
9
870
176
12
10
20
4
Abbott, PK-6
455
36
8
5
1
15
7
14
3
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 114
Hispanic
227
6
5
3
7
8
Afr.
Am.
507
9
11
6
11
17
White
2645
62
60
21
57
58
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Airport Hts., PK-6
286
30
11
8
0
21
7
27
0
Alpenglow, PK-6
569
34
6
1
2
4
2
3
6
Aurora, PK-6
413
8
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
Baxter, PK-6
441
41
9
7
0
15
6
20
7
Bayshore, PK-6
535
46
9
9
3
6
11
20
7
Bear Valley, PK-6
464
29
6
3
0
5
2
10
0
W. Bowman, PK-6
590
59
10
14
0
9
13
24
0
Campbell, PK-6
459
54
12
11
3
15
9
20
6
Chester Valley, PK-6
316
42
13
20
1
21
5
48
2
Chinook, PK-6
545
37
7
5
2
14
16
14
5
Chugach, PK-6
254
8
3
2
0
11
7
25
0
Chugiak, PK-6
505
33
7
6
1
10
2
18
3
College Gate, PK-6
451
47
10
16
1
15
6
34
2
Creekside, PK-6
420
27
6
10
1
19
3
37
4
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 115
Hispanic
1
9
3
3
4
9
0
3
0
2
5
4
2
4
4
0
3
0
3
3
5
5
6
9
1
3
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
5
3
1
3
2
1
7
4
Afr.
Am.
6
11
20
2
4
6
0
17
0
4
14
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
2
4
3
2
6
4
5
10
12
3
7
8
0
3
0
2
2
6
5
12
11
2
13
8
White
15
51
50
26
85
76
8
71
100
28
58
69
32
72
69
26
89
90
40
71
68
31
60
61
15
52
36
27
54
77
6
79
75
23
78
70
24
58
51
13
52
46
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Denali, PK-6
450
23
5
7
0
22
6
30
0
Eagle River, PK-6
421
50
12
7
1
8
5
14
2
Fairview, PK-6
467
36
8
8
3
21
17
22
8
Fire Lake, PK-5
308
36
12
5
0
9
2
14
0
Gov. Hill, PK-6
459
8
2
1
0
8
7
13
0
Homestead, PK-6
429
24
6
3
0
8
1
13
0
Huffman, PK-6
494
47
10
3
1
4
4
9
9
Inlet View, PK-6
260
27
10
4
1
12
10
15
4
Kasuun, PK-6
524
37
18
7
4
15
10
18
11
Kincaid, PK-6
505
27
5
3
0
9
6
11
0
Klatt, PK-6
391
31
8
8
2
15
13
26
6
Lake Hood, PK-6
481
31
6
5
2
14
23
16
6
Lake Otis, PK-6
487
56
11
13
3
15
8
23
5
Mt. Spurr, PK-6
252
6
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 116
Hispanic
2
5
9
2
4
4
12
19
33
1
2
3
4
34
50
1
0
4
2
2
4
2
8
30
1
7
3
1
2
4
0
8
0
2
6
6
5
9
9
1
5
17
Afr.
Am.
4
16
17
2
5
2
11
22
31
2
3
6
1
8
13
0
2
0
4
3
6
0
2
7
5
8
14
1
3
4
1
4
3
5
6
16
5
9
9
0
13
0
White
10
50
44
38
74
78
2
12
6
28
82
77
2
37
24
20
89
83
37
87
72
20
67
44
20
60
54
22
79
81
20
60
65
17
47
58
30
54
54
5
78
83
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Mt. View, PK-6
421
49
12
14
7
26
29
29
14
Muldoon, PK-6
509
45
9
13
5
20
18
29
11
North Star, PK-6
541
45
8
20
2
27
12
44
4
Northwood, PK-6
356
44
12
11
1
22
10
25
2
Nunaka, PK-6
366
36
10
10
1
27
5
28
3
Ocean View, PK-6
532
40
8
2
0
10
5
5
0
O’Malley, PK-6
383
45
12
3
0
4
2
7
0
Orion, PK-6
393
20
5
1
0
1
3
5
0
Ptarmigan, PK-6
461
41
9
11
1
24
7
27
2
Rabbit Creek, PK-6
385
29
8
7
0
9
3
24
0
Ravenwood, PK-6
387
28
7
3
2
4
1
11
7
Rogers Park, PK-6
511
52
10
6
1
7
13
12
2
Russian Jack, PK-6
374
32
9
4
5
23
10
13
16
Sand Lake, PK-6
613
29
5
5
1
10
16
17
3
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 117
Hispanic
9
12
24
1
4
2
2
14
4
2
5
5
1
6
3
2
4
5
1
1
2
3
6
5
2
8
5
0
4
0
1
1
4
3
5
6
0
6
0
1
1
3
Afr.
Am.
10
18
20
6
19
13
8
11
18
8
7
18
8
11
22
1
3
3
1
2
2
5
15
3
7
20
17
0
1
0
0
1
0
6
5
10
8
20
25
2
5
7
White
9
12
13
20
35
44
13
36
30
22
54
30
16
49
44
35
78
87
40
88
89
11
75
87
20
41
49
22
83
76
22
91
78
36
69
70
15
39
46
20
68
69
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Scenic Park, PK-6
527
33
6
7
1
14
8
21
3
Spring Hill, PK-6
371
47
13
10
1
23
12
21
2
Susitna, PK-6
563
47
8
18
0
23
4
38
0
Taku, PK-6
402
29
1
6
0
11
8
21
0
Trailside
436
35
8
6
1
12
9
17
3
Tudor, PK-6
534
67
13
11
4
13
10
16
6
Turnagain, PK-6
385
26
7
4
3
14
18
15
12
William Tyson, PK-6
462
34
7
10
2
22
36
29
6
Ursa Major, PK-6
420
25
6
0
0
0
2
0
16
Ursa Minor, PK-6
252
16
6
0
0
1
4
0
0
Williwaw, PK-6
522
58
11
24
2
33
20
41
3
Willow Crest, PK-6
494
36
7
5
4
22
24
14
11
Wonder Park, PK-6
444
57
13
21
3
23
12
37
5
Gladys Wood, PK-6
513
45
9
10
1
13
8
22
2
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 118
Hispanic
1
5
3
2
8
4
2
4
4
3
9
10
0
4
0
5
11
7
0
5
0
3
7
9
1
5
4
1
8
6
4
7
7
1
9
3
6
10
11
3
4
9
Afr.
Am.
3
13
9
8
8
17
6
11
13
4
12
14
1
4
3
11
14
16
4
6
15
8
13
24
3
27
12
3
17
19
10
14
17
2
5
6
9
17
16
1
5
11
White
21
60
64
26
48
46
21
55
55
16
58
65
27
65
77
36
50
55
15
55
58
11
19
32
12
51
48
12
68
75
18
26
30
24
39
66
18
38
31
30
64
56
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Central, 7-8
781
68
9
10
5
9
8
15
7
Clark, 7-8
830
111
13
32
9
24
21
29
8
Goldenview, 7-8
880
82
9
10
2
6
5
12
2
Gruening, 7-8
600
68
11
9
0
4
2
13
0
Hanskew, 7-8
900
129
14
25
3
15
11
19
2
Mears, 7-8
1019
100
10
13
5
11
12
13
5
Romig, 7-8
868
107
12
29
11
16
17
27
10
Wendler, 7-8
942
124
13
23
7
11
9
19
6
Bartlett, 9-12
1993
178
9
20
10
11
9
11
6
Chugiak, 9-12
2037
187
9
27
2
6
2
14
1
Dimond, 9-12
2147
158
1
21
4
8
12
13
3
East, 9-12
2060
185
9
36
12
14
18
20
6
Service, 9-12
2377
142
6
19
3
6
6
13
2
West, 9-12
1722
160
9
33
11
12
19
21
7
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 119
Hispanic
4
9
6
13
8
12
0
3
0
3
4
4
7
5
5
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
5
4
10
6
6
6
2
3
7
4
4
9
7
5
6
3
4
6
7
4
Afr.
Am.
13
18
19
20
15
18
4
2
5
1
2
1
21
8
16
6
4
6
16
9
0
23
14
11
33
18
19
8
2
3
17
4
4
32
12
17
13
3
4
22
8
5
White
36
55
53
37
30
33
66
84
81
55
84
82
73
60
58
69
87
69
47
49
59
64
60
59
105
55
59
144
87
79
109
72
76
96
48
52
101
82
76
88
52
55
Exhibit 3.1.2 (continued)
Number of Special Education Students by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1:
Row 2:
Row 3:
NOTE:
Number of special education students at the school by ethnicity
Expected percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Actual percentage of special education students by ethnicity
Rows are in italics
%
AK
School
Students
# SPED
SPED
AI
Asian
Aquarian, K-6
241
17
7
1
1
8
6
6
6
Benson Search, 7-12
276
44
16
12
2
24
5
27
5
Birchwood, PK-6
407
55
14
11
0
11
1
20
0
Family Partner., K-12
771
8
<1
0
0
7
25
0
0
Girdwood, PK-8
158
16
10
0
0
3
1
0
0
McLaughlin, K-12
167
48
29
21
2
38
4
43
4
Mirror Lake
642
92
14
11
1
7
2
13
1
North. Lights, PK-8
613
17
3
1
0
6
16
6
0
Polaris, K-6
226
30
13
3
0
9
4
10
0
SAVE, 9-12
274
23
8
4
1
15
11
17
4
Steller, 7-12
289
27
9
2
3
8
5
7
11
Village Charter, K-8
113
4
4
1
0
17
1
25
0
Whaley, K-12
199
171
86
57
1
32
1
47
1
Hispanic
1
10
6
3
5
7
1
3
2
0
4
0
0
7
0
2
5
4
5
2
5
1
2
6
0
2
0
2
4
4
3
3
11
0
9
0
1
1
1
Afr.
Am.
2
7
12
4
14
9
0
2
0
0
3
0
2
3
0
4
10
9
3
3
4
3
8
18
1
4
3
3
7
13
1
6
22
2
9
50
25
16
15
White
12
67
70
24
35
52
43
82
78
8
82
100
14
86
100
19
42
40
70
85
77
12
67
70
26
81
67
13
63
57
18
75
49
1
64
25
87
50
62
Data extracted from the district’s OCR report and includes only the special education data for emotionally disturbed
and learning disabled.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 120
Exhibit 3.1.2 indicates the following:
• Of the 85 schools represented, 65 schools exceeded the expected participation percentages of
Alaskan Natives in special education programs. Twenty percent of all special education students
are Alaskan Natives, and this group represents only 12 percent of the total district population. The
percentage of Alaskan Natives/American Indians in special education exceeded the expected
percentage by eight percent.
• Forty-five schools exceeded the expected participation percentages of African American students
when compared to the total percentages of African Americans in each school. District-wide,
African American students in special education exceeded the expected percentage by two
percent.
• District-wide, White students represent 62 percent of the total district population; White students
represent 60 percent of all students enrolled in special education.
• District-wide, the percentage of Asian students in special education programs did not meet the
expected percentage by six percent or approximately 267 students.
• District-wide, Hispanic students represent six percent of the special education population and an
overall district percentage of five percent.
• Thirty-one schools had a special education population of over 10 percent.
• In schools in which the specia l education population was over ten percent, 94 percent of the
schools exceeded the expected population of Alaskan/American Indian students in special
education programs.
• In schools in which the special education population was over ten percent, the African
American percentage of students enrolled in special education exceeded the expected
percentage in 45 percent of the schools.
• In schools in which the special education population was over ten percent, 68 percent of the
schools did not meet the expected population of White population in special education
programs.
Gifted Education Participation
The enrollment of students by ethnicity for 2000-2001 was compared with the enrollment by ethnicity
in the gifted education programs. Exhibit 3.1.3 presents this comparison.
Exhibit 3.1.3
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
District Total
49,499
2430
5
Abbott, PK-6
455
9
5
Airport Hts., PK-6
286
6
2
AK
AI
88
12
4
1
15
11
0
21
0
Asian
212
10
9
2
7
22
2
7
33
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 121
Hispanic
62
6
3
0
7
0
0
9
0
Afr.
Am.
63
9
3
0
11
0
0
11
0
White
2005
62
81
6
57
67
4
51
67
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Alpenglow, PK-6
569
51
9
Aurora, PK-6
413
5
1
Baxter, PK-6
441
11
2
Bayshore, PK-6
535
17
3
Bear Valley, PK-6
464
69
15
W. Bowman, PK-6
590
42
7
Campbell, PK-6
459
6
1
Chester Valley, PK-6
316
6
2
Chinook, PK-6
545
13
2
Chugach, PK-6
254
34
13
Chugiak, PK-6
505
14
3
College Gate, PK-6
451
10
2
Creekside, PK-6
420
18
4
Denali, PK-6
450
45
10
AK
AI
2
4
4
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
6
0
2
5
3
2
9
5
0
15
0
0
21
0
1
14
8
2
11
6
0
10
0
2
15
20
1
19
6
2
22
4
Asian
2
2
4
0
5
0
3
6
27
1
11
6
0
2
0
14
13
33
0
9
0
1
5
17
2
16
15
1
7
5
0
2
0
0
6
0
1
3
6
2
6
4
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 122
Hispanic
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
2
3
3
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
3
10
0
7
0
1
5
2
Afr.
Am.
0
4
0
0
17
0
0
14
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
10
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
12
0
1
13
6
5
16
11
White
49
85
96
5
71
100
8
58
73
16
72
94
65
89
94
36
71
62
6
60
100
5
52
83
19
54
77
31
79
91
14
78
100
7
58
70
15
52
82
35
50
79
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Eagle River, PK-6
421
32
8
Fairview, PK-6
467
5
1
Fire Lake, PK-5
308
7
2
Gov. Hill, PK-6
459
32
7
Homestead, PK-6
429
62
14
Huffman, PK-6
494
42
9
Inlet View, PK-6
260
21
8
Kasuun, PK-6
524
28
5
Kincaid, PK-6
505
43
9
Klatt, PK-6
391
22
6
Lake Hood, PK-6
481
18
4
Lake Otis, PK-6
487
6
1
Mt. Spurr, PK-6
252
13
5
Mt. View, PK-6
421
2
.5
AK
AI
0
8
0
3
21
60
0
9
0
1
8
3
0
8
0
0
4
0
1
12
5
2
15
7
2
9
5
0
15
0
1
14
6
0
15
0
0
2
0
2
26
100
Asian
5
5
16
1
17
20
0
2
0
2
7
6
2
1
3
1
4
2
1
10
5
4
10
14
4
6
9
3
13
14
1
23
6
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
29
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 123
Hispanic
0
4
0
0
19
0
0
2
0
7
34
22
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
8
5
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
6
0
1
9
17
1
5
8
0
12
0
Afr.
Am.
6
5
19
0
22
0
0
3
0
2
8
6
1
2
2
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
8
4
0
3
0
2
4
9
1
6
6
0
9
0
2
13
15
0
18
0
White
25
74
78
1
12
20
7
82
100
20
37
63
59
89
95
41
87
98
18
67
85
21
60
75
37
79
86
17
60
77
15
48
82
5
54
83
10
78
77
0
12
0
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Muldoon, PK-6
509
2
.3
North Star, PK-6
541
22
4
Northwood, PK-6
356
14
3
Nunaka, PK-6
366
8
2
Ocean View, PK-6
532
61
11
O’Malley, PK-6
383
51
13
Orion, PK-6
393
6
2
Ptarmigan, PK-6
461
19
5
Rabbit Creek, PK-6
385
19
5
Ravenwood, PK-6
387
19
5
Rogers Park, PK-6
511
133
6
Russian Jack, PK-6
374
8
2
Sand Lake, PK-6
613
39
6
Scenic Park, PK-6
527
9
2
AK
AI
1
20
50
8
27
36
0
22
0
2
27
25
2
10
3
1
4
2
0
1
0
0
23
0
0
9
5
0
4
0
5
7
4
0
23
0
1
10
3
0
14
0
Asian
0
18
0
2
12
9
6
10
43
0
5
0
4
5
7
4
2
8
0
3
0
1
6
11
1
3
5
1
1
5
20
13
15
3
10
37
7
16
18
1
8
15
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 124
Hispanic
0
4
0
2
14
9
0
5
0
0
6
0
2
4
3
0
1
0
1
6
17
0
7
11
0
4
0
0
1
0
4
5
3
0
6
0
0
1
0
1
5
0
Afr.
Am.
1
19
50
1
11
5
0
7
0
1
11
13
0
3
0
1
2
2
2
15
33
0
19
26
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
5
2
1
20
13
0
5
0
1
13
7
White
0
35
0
9
36
41
8
54
57
5
49
62
53
78
87
45
88
88
3
75
50
18
40
52
18
83
88
18
91
95
102
69
77
4
39
50
31
68
79
6
60
78
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Spring Hill, PK-6
371
9
2
Susitna, PK-6
563
14
2
Taku, PK-6
402
14
3
Trailside
436
19
4
Tudor, PK-6
534
17
3
Turnagain, PK-6
385
36
9
William Tyson, PK-6
462
9
2
Ursa Major, PK-6
420
20
5
Ursa Minor, PK-6
252
17
7
Williwaw, PK-6
522
16
3
Willow Crest, PK-6
494
15
3
Wonder Park, PK-6
444
13
3
Gladys Wood, PK-6
513
32
8
Central, 7-8
781
83
11
AK
AI
0
23
0
0
23
0
0
11
0
2
12
11
0
13
0
2
14
6
4
22
44
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
33
6
0
22
0
2
23
15
1
13
3
1
9
1
Asian
1
12
11
1
4
7
2
8
14
1
9
5
1
10
6
0
18
0
2
36
22
4
2
20
2
4
12
3
20
19
3
24
20
0
12
0
3
8
9
19
8
12
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 125
Hispanic
1
8
11
0
4
0
0
9
0
2
4
11
0
11
0
0
5
0
1
7
11
2
5
10
2
8
12
1
7
6
2
9
13
0
10
0
0
4
0
3
9
4
Afr.
Am.
1
8
11
0
11
0
2
12
14
1
4
5
1
14
6
1
6
3
0
13
0
3
27
15
1
17
6
1
14
6
0
5
0
0
17
0
1
5
3
5
18
6
White
6
48
67
13
55
93
10
58
72
13
65
68
15
50
88
29
56
91
2
19
22
11
51
55
12
68
70
10
26
63
10
39
67
11
38
85
27
66
85
64
55
77
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Clark, 7-8
830
26
3
Goldenview, 7-8
880
208
24
Gruening, 7-8
600
80
13
Hanskew, 7-8
900
74
8
Mears, 7-8
1019
149
15
Romig, 7-8
868
106
12
Wendler, 7-8
942
71
8
Bartlett, 9-12
1993
7
.3
Chugiak, 9-12
2037
11
.5
Dimond, 9-12
2147
21
.1
East, 9-12
2060
11
1
Service, 9-12
2377
26
1
West, 9-12
1722
53
3
Aquarian, K-6
241
11
5
AK
AI
1
24
4
5
6
2
0
4
0
3
15
4
5
11
3
3
16
3
2
11
3
0
11
0
0
10
0
2
8
10
2
14
18
0
6
0
2
12
4
0
8
0
Asian
4
21
15
9
5
4
0
2
0
6
11
8
20
12
13
11
17
10
7
9
10
0
9
0
0
2
0
4
12
20
4
18
36
1
6
4
5
19
9
2
6
18
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 126
Hispanic
2
8
8
4
3
2
2
4
3
1
5
1
3
4
2
4
8
1
1
5
1
1
6
14
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
2
10
18
Afr.
Am.
3
15
12
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
9
0
2
4
1
3
9
1
1
14
1
0
18
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
12
9
1
3
4
1
8
2
0
7
0
White
16
30
62
192
84
92
78
84
97
64
60
87
119
68
81
85
47
85
60
60
85
6
55
86
11
78
100
15
72
70
4
48
37
24
82
92
45
52
85
7
67
64
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Benson Search, 7-8
78
*
*
Benson Search, 9-12
198
*
*
Birchwood, PK-6
407
23
6
Family Partner., K-12
771
16
2
Girdwood, PK-8
158
19
12
McLaughlin,
167
*
*
Mirror Lake
642
64
10
Northern Lights, PK-8
613
*
*
Polaris, K-6
449
9
2
SAVE, 9-12
274
*
*
Steller, 7-12
289
7
2
Village
113
*
*
Whaley Elem.
79
*
*
AK
AI
*
40
*
*
19
*
2
11
9
0
7
0
0
3
0
*
38
*
1
7
2
*
6
*
0
7
0
*
15
*
0
8
0
*
17
*
*
23
*
Asian
*
1
*
*
7
*
0
1
0
1
25
1
0
1
0
*
4
*
1
2
2
*
16
*
1
2
1
*
11
*
0
5
0
*
1
*
*
0
*
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 127
Hispanic
*
3
*
*
6
*
0
3
0
1
4
1
0
7
0
*
5
*
0
2
0
*
2
*
1
2
1
*
4
*
0
3
0
*
9
*
*
1
*
Afr.
Am.
*
8
*
*
17
*
0
2
0
1
3
1
0
3
0
*
10
*
0
3
0
*
8
*
1
5
1
*
7
*
0
6
0
*
9
*
*
20
*
White
*
47
*
*
48
*
21
82
91
13
82
81
19
86
100
*
42
*
62
85
96
*
67
*
6
83
67
*
63
*
7
75
100
*
64
*
*
56
*
Exhibit 3.1.3 (continued)
Gifted Student Enrollment by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of gifted at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of gifted students by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students
Gifted
Gifted
Whaley Sec.
120
*
*
AK
AI
*
38
*
Asian
*
1
*
Hispanic
*
1
*
Afr.
Am.
*
13
*
White
*
47
*
*No data submitted.
Enrollment data was extracted from the school profiles reports; gifted education participant data was recorded from the
OCR report provided to auditors.
The comparison in Exhibit 3.1.2 shows the following:
• Alaskan Natives, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans are all under-represented in the
gifted education program when compared to the total percentage enrolled in each ethnic group.
• White students represent 81 percent of all students in gifted education. White students represent
62 percent of the total district population. District-wide, the percentage of White students in gifted
programs exceeded the expected percentage by 19 percent.
• District-wide, the percentage of Asian students in gifted programs met the expected percentage.
• Seventeen schools have no Alaskan Native/American Indians, Hispanic, or African American
students in gifted education. These schools are Airport Heights, Aurora, Baxter, Campbell,
Chester Valley, Chugiak, Fire Lake, Huffman, Northwood, Ptarmigan, Rabbit Creek, Ravenwood,
Susitna, Chugiak High School, Girdwood, and Steller.
• Only 35 schools had identified African American students for participation in the gifted program.
Of these, 22 schools were under expected participation percentages when compared to the total
African American population at the school.
• District-wide, the percentage of African American and Hispanic students in the gifted program did
not meet the expected percentage by an average of 4.5 percent.
• Of the 6,177 (12 percent) Alaskan Natives/American Indians enrolled in the Anchorage School
District, only 88 (four percent) participate in the gifted education program. District-wide, the
percentage of Alaskan Natives/American Indian students in gifted programs did not meet the
expected percentage by eight percent. Alaskan Natives/American Indians have the greatest gap
between expected and actual participation rates when compared to other ethnic groups.
• Twelve schools had a gifted population of over 10 percent.
• In schools in which the gifted population was over ten percent (12 schools), 100 percent of the
schools did not meet the expected population of Alaskan/American Indian students in gifted
programs.
• In schools in which the gifted population was over ten percent, the percentage of African
American students enrolled in gifted education did not meet the expected percentage in 67
percent of the schools.
• In schools in which the gifted population was over ten percent, the percentage of White
students enrolled in gifted education exceeded the expected percentage in 100 percent of the
schools.
Disparity exists in the under-enrollment of Alaskan Natives/American Indians, Hispanics, and African
Americans in the gifted program with an over-enrollment in the special education program for White
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 128
students. Based upon interviews with staff members, auditors found that key factors in determining
eligibility are scores from a norm-referenced test and a teacher checklist. The auditors found that the
screening instruments and selection process creates inequalities in terms of access to the district’s
gifted program.
Retention
Auditors reviewed retention rates by school and ethnic breakdown to determine disparity between the
expected rate of retention and the actual rate of retention. Exhibit 3.1.4 presents information
regarding the retention of students from 1998-1999 through 2000-2001 by ethnicity and gender.
Exhibit 3.1.4
Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of retentions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of students retained by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of students retained by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
AK
School
Students Retained Retained
AI
District Total
28,084
577
2
159
12
28
Abbott, PK-6
455
3
.6
0
15
0
Airport Hts., PK-6
286
4
1
1
21
25
Alpenglow, PK-6
569
9
2
0
4
0
Aurora, PK-6
413
3
.7
0
0
0
Baxter, PK-6
441
3
.6
2
15
67
Bear Valley, PK-6
464
6
1
0
5
0
W. Bowman, PK-6
590
6
1
0
9
0
Campbell, PK-6
459
3
.6
1
15
33
Chester Valley, PK-6
316
5
2
5
21
100
Chinook, PK-6
545
6
1
0
14
0
Asian
24
10
4
0
7
0
1
7
25
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
13
0
0
9
0
0
5
0
1
16
17
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 129
Hispanic
53
6
9
0
7
0
1
9
25
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
1
3
17
0
3
0
1
6
33
0
3
0
2
4
33
Afr.
Am.
68
9
12
1
11
33
1
11
25
0
4
0
0
17
0
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
10
0
0
7
0
White
241
62
42
2
57
67
0
51
0
9
85
100
3
71
100
1
58
33
5
89
83
6
71
100
1
60
34
0
52
0
1
54
17
Exhibit 3.1.4 (continued)
Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of retentions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of students retained by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of students retained by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
AK
School
Students Retained Retained
AI
Chugiak, PK-6
505
7
1
2
10
29
College Gate, PK-6
451
2
.4
0
15
0
Creekside, PK-6
420
1
.2
0
19
0
Eagle River, PK-6
421
7
2
0
8
0
Fairview, PK-6
467
7
1
1
21
14
Fire Lake, PK-5
308
3
1
0
9
0
Gov. Hill, PK-6
459
6
1
3
8
50
Homestead, PK-6
429
1
.2
0
8
0
Huffman, PK-6
494
4
.8
0
4
0
Inlet View, PK-6
260
5
2
2
12
40
Kasuun, PK-6
524
7
1
3
15
43
Kincaid, PK-6
505
5
1
0
9
0
Klatt, PK-6
391
3
.8
0
15
0
Lake Otis, PK-6
487
25
5
12
15
48
Asian
0
2
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
17
0
1
2
33
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
1
10
14
0
6
0
1
13
33
1
8
4
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 130
Hispanic
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
4
0
2
19
29
1
2
33
1
34
17
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
Afr.
Am.
1
2
14
1
12
50
0
13
0
0
5
0
0
22
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
8
14
0
3
0
0
4
0
5
9
20
White
4
78
57
1
58
59
1
52
100
7
74
100
1
12
14
1
82
34
2
37
33
1
89
100
4
87
100
3
67
60
2
60
29
5
79
100
2
60
67
7
54
28
Exhibit 3.1.4 (continued)
Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of retentions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of students retained by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of students retained by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
AK
School
Students Retained Retained
AI
Mt. Spurr, PK-6
252
1
.3
0
1
0
Mt. View, PK-6
421
1
.2
1
26
100
Muldoon, PK-6
509
4
1
1
20
25
Northwood, PK-6
356
10
3
4
22
40
Ocean View, PK-6
532
12
2
1
10
8
O’Malley, PK-6
383
2
.5
0
4
0
Orion, PK-6
393
5
1
0
1
0
Ptarmigan, PK-6
461
10
2
4
24
40
Rabbit Creek, PK-6
385
1
.2
0
9
0
Ravenwood, PK-6
387
3
.7
0
4
0
Rogers Park, PK-6
511
5
.9
3
7
60
Russian Jack, PK-6
374
2
.5
1
23
50
Sand Lake, PK-6
613
4
.6
1
10
25
Spring Hill, PK-6
371
5
1
2
23
40
Asian
0
2
0
0
29
0
1
18
25
0
10
0
0
5
0
1
2
50
0
3
0
2
7
20
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
13
0
0
10
0
1
16
25
1
12
20
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 131
Hispanic
1
5
100
0
12
0
0
4
0
1
5
10
1
4
8
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
8
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
1
8
20
Afr.
Am.
0
13
0
0
18
0
0
19
0
1
7
10
0
3
0
0
2
0
2
15
40
2
20
20
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
20
50
1
5
25
0
8
0
White
0
78
0
0
12
0
2
35
50
4
54
40
10
78
84
1
88
50
3
75
60
2
41
20
1
83
100
3
91
100
2
69
40
0
39
0
1
68
25
1
48
20
Exhibit 3.1.4 (continued)
Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of retentions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of students retained by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of students retained by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
AK
School
Students Retained Retained
AI
Susitna, PK-6
563
2
.3
0
23
0
Taku, PK-6
402
5
1
3
11
60
Trailside
436
3
.6
1
12
33
Tudor, PK-6
534
9
2
2
13
22
Turnagain, PK-6
385
1
.2
1
14
100
William Tyson, PK-6
462
4
.8
1
22
25
Ursa Major, PK-6
420
11
3
0
0
0
Willow Crest, PK-6
494
12
2
2
22
17
Wonder Park, PK-6
444
3
.6
0
23
0
Gladys Wood, PK-6
513
5
.9
2
13
40
Central, 7-8
781
22
3
7
9
32
Clark, 7-8
830
144
17
53
24
37
Gruening, 7-8
600
12
2
0
4
0
Hanshew, 7-8
900
46
5
10
15
22
Asian
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
10
0
0
18
0
0
36
0
1
2
9
1
24
8
0
12
0
0
8
0
2
8
9
18
21
13
1
2
8
1
11
2
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 132
Hispanic
1
4
50
0
9
0
0
4
0
0
11
0
0
5
0
0
7
0
2
5
18
2
9
17
0
10
0
0
4
0
4
9
18
11
8
8
1
4
8
5
5
11
Afr.
Am.
0
11
0
0
12
0
0
4
0
0
14
0
0
6
0
0
13
0
1
27
9
1
5
8
2
17
67
0
5
0
2
18
9
30
15
21
1
2
8
5
8
11
White
1
55
50
2
58
40
2
65
64
6
50
66
0
55
0
2
19
50
6
51
55
6
39
50
1
38
33
3
64
60
6
55
27
29
30
20
9
84
76
25
60
54
Exhibit 3.1.4 (continued)
Number of Retentions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of retentions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of students retained by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of students retained by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
AK
School
Students Retained Retained
AI
Romig, 7-8
868
82
9
21
16
26
Birchwood, PK-6
407
5
1
3
11
60
Family Partner., K-6
528
3
.5
0
7
0
Mirror Lake
642
1
.1
0
7
0
North. Lights, PK-8
613
2
.3
0
6
0
Whaley Sec.
120
9
8
3
38
35
Asian
7
17
9
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
16
0
0
1
0
Hispanic
14
8
17
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
Afr.
Am.
6
9
7
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
8
50
2
13
22
White
33
49
40
2
82
40
3
81
100
1
85
100
1
67
50
4
47
43
Retention - The retention report was provided to auditors from Informational Technology , May 15, 2002. In some
cases, the total retention number does not equal the sum of all ethnic groups, as the “other” ethnic category has not been
included.
As noted in Exhibit 3.1.4:
• No retention data were reported for Bayshore, Denali, Lake Hood, Chugach, Northstar, Nunaka,
Scenic Park, Ursa Minor, Williwaw, Goldenview, Mears, Wendler, Bartlett, Chugiak Secondary,
Dimond, East, Service, West, Aquarian, Benson Search, Family Partnership 7-12, Girdwood,
McLaughlin, Polaris K-12, SAVE, Stellar, Village, or Whaley Elementary.
• District-wide, Alaskan Natives/American Indians exceeded expected percentages of retention by
16 percent. Alaskan Natives/American Indians represent 12 percent of the district’s total
population. They represent 28 percent of the district’s retentions.
• District-wide, the Asian population met the expected percentage of retentions. Only four percent
of Asians are retained.
• Hispanic and African American students exceeded the expected percentages of retention by three
percent for each group.
• District-wide, White students represent 62 percent of the total population. White students
represent only 42 percent of the total retentions in the district.
Drop-Outs
The comparison of the number of secondary school dropouts by gender and ethnicity for 2000-2001 is
presented in Exhibit 3.1.5.
[
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 133
Exhibit 3.1.5
Student Drop Outs by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of drop outs at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of drop outs by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage drop outs by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Drop Outs Drop Outs
District Total
13,053
1284
9.8
Bartlett, 9-12
1993
195
3.2
Chugiak, 9-12
2037
65
3.2
Dimond, 9-12
2147
165
7.7
East, 9-12
2060
201
9.7
Service, 9-12
2377
55
2.3
West, 9-12
1722
264
15.3
Benson Search, 7-12
276
89
32.2
McLaughlin
167
80
47.9
SAVE, 9-12
274
170
62
AK
AI
286
12
22
44
11
23
8
6
12
34
8
21
46
14
23
6
6
11
66
12
25
31
24
35
28
38
35
23
15
14
Asian
172
10
13
17
9
9
2
2
3
20
12
12
32
18
16
3
6
5
62
19
23
9
5
10
7
4
9
20
11
12
Hispanic
82
6
6
14
6
7
0
2
0
9
4
5
17
7
8
3
3
5
19
7
7
7
5
8
4
5
5
9
4
5
Afr.
Am.
56
9
4
35
18
18
2
2
3
6
4
4
33
12
16
2
3
4
23
8
9
5
14
6
10
10
13
16
7
9
White
596
62
46
83
55
43
53
87
82
95
72
58
67
48
33
41
82
75
90
52
34
36
35
40
29
42
36
102
63
60
Drop out data were provided to auditors through the school profile reports. In some cases, the total number of
dropouts does not equal the sum of the ethnic categories as the “other” category has been left out of this report.
The following information is shown in Exhibit 3.1.5:
• District-wide, Alaskan Natives/American Indians represent 22 percent of the total dropouts in the
district, exceeding the expected percentage of 12 percent by 10 percent. This discrepancy is
greatest among Alaskan Natives/American Indians.
• District-wide, Asian students exceeded the expected drop out percentages by three percent.
• District-wide, Hispanic and African American students met the expected drop out percentages.
Hispanics reflect six percent of the total population and six percent of the total dropouts. African
American students represent four percent of the dropouts while their total enrollment percentage
is nine percent.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 134
•
•
White students represent 62 percent of the total student population. Of all dropouts, White
students represent 46 percent.
The highest number of dropouts are from SAVE and McLaughlin Schools. Sixty-two percent of
the students dropped out of SAVE, and almost forty-eight percent of the students enrolled in
McLaughlin drop out of school.
Suspensions
Auditors review suspension rates by school and by ethnicity. Exhibit 3.1.6 reflects this data.
Exhibit 3.1.6
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
District Total
49,499
2087
4
Airport Hts., PK-6
286
12
4
Alpenglow, PK-6
569
4
.7
Aurora, PK-6
413
4
.2
Baxter, PK-6
441
8
2
Bayshore, PK-6
535
1
.1
Bear Valley, PK-6
464
2
.4
W. Bowman, PK-6
590
3
.2
Campbell, PK-6
459
2
.4
Chester Val., PK-6
316
12
4
Chinook, PK-6
545
18
3
AK
AI
298
12
14
0
21
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
15
13
0
6
0
1
5
50
0
9
0
0
15
0
0
21
0
2
14
11
Asian
237
10
11
1
7
8
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
11
0
0
2
0
0
13
0
0
9
0
1
5
8
5
16
28
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 135
Hispanic
107
6
5
2
9
16
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
1
3
8
1
4
6
Afr.
Am.
258
9
12
3
11
25
0
4
0
0
17
0
0
14
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
3
10
25
0
7
0
White
1187
62
57
6
51
50
4
85
100
4
71
100
7
58
87
1
72
100
1
89
50
3
71
100
2
60
100
7
52
59
10
54
55
Exhibit 3.1.6 (continued)
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
Chugach, PK-6
254
2
.8
Chugiak, PK-6
505
5
1
College Gate, PK-6
451
2
.4
Creekside, PK-6
420
6
1
Denali, PK-6
450
1
.2
Eagle River, PK-6
421
4
1
Homestead, PK-6
429
12
3
Huffman, PK-6
494
0
0
Inlet View, PK-6
260
0
0
Kasuun, PK-6
524
12
2
Klatt, PK-6
391
13
3
Lake Hood, PK-6
481
8
17
Lake Otis, PK-6
487
0
0
Mt. Spurr, PK-6
252
3
1
AK
AI
0
11
0
1
10
20
0
15
0
1
19
17
1
22
100
0
8
0
1
8
8
0
4
0
0
12
0
3
15
25
1
15
8
1
14
13
0
15
0
0
1
0
Asian
0
7
0
0
2
0
1
6
50
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
13
0
2
23
24
0
8
0
0
2
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 136
Hispanic
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
1
7
17
0
5
0
1
4
25
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
0
1
7
8
0
8
0
0
6
0
0
9
0
0
5
0
Afr.
Am.
1
3
50
0
2
0
0
12
0
0
13
0
0
16
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
8
8
0
4
0
1
6
13
0
9
0
1
13
33
White
1
79
50
4
78
80
1
58
50
4
52
66
0
50
0
3
74
75
11
89
92
0
87
0
0
67
0
7
60
59
12
60
92
4
47
50
0
54
0
2
78
67
Exhibit 3.1.6 (continued)
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
Mt. View, PK-6
421
2
.5
Muldoon, PK-6
509
7
1
North Star, PK-6
541
2
.4
Northwood, PK-6
356
17
5
Nunaka, PK-6
366
9
2
O’Malley, PK-6
383
2
.5
Orion, PK-6
393
4
1
Ptarmigan, PK-6
461
27
6
Rabbit Creek, PK-6
385
6
2
Russian Jack, PK-6
374
19
5
Sand Lake, PK-6
613
8
1
Scenic Park, PK-6
527
6
1
Spring Hill, PK-6
371
13
4
Susitna, PK-6
563
9
2
AK
AI
1
26
50
3
20
43
0
27
0
5
22
29
2
27
22
0
4
0
0
1
0
5
24
19
0
9
0
5
23
26
0
10
0
0
14
0
1
23
8
1
23
11
Asian
0
29
0
0
18
0
1
12
50
2
10
11
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
7
11
0
3
0
0
10
0
1
16
13
1
8
17
0
12
0
0
4
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 137
Hispanic
0
12
0
1
4
14
0
14
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
1
6
25
0
8
0
1
4
17
1
6
5
0
1
0
0
5
0
3
8
22
0
4
0
Afr.
Am.
0
18
0
1
19
14
1
11
50
0
7
0
4
11
45
0
2
0
1
15
25
6
20
22
0
1
0
6
20
32
0
5
0
0
13
0
0
8
0
0
11
0
White
1
12
50
2
35
29
0
36
0
10
54
60
3
49
33
2
88
100
2
75
50
13
41
48
5
83
83
7
39
37
7
68
87
5
60
83
9
48
70
8
55
89
Exhibit 3.1.6 (continued)
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
Taku, PK-6
402
1
.2
Tudor, PK-6
534
28
5
Turnagain, PK-6
385
6
2
Wm. Tyson, PK-6
462
14
3
Ursa Minor, PK-6
252
5
2
Williwaw, PK-6
522
43
12
Willow Crest, PK-6
494
13
3
Wonder Park, PK-6
444
0
0
Gladys Wood, PK-6
513
9
2
Central, 7-8
781
80
10
Clark, 7-8
830
174
21
Goldenview, 7-8
880
65
7
Gruening, 7-8
600
35
6
Hanskew, 7-8
900
86
10
AK
AI
0
11
0
4
13
14
0
14
0
2
22
14
0
1
0
8
33
19
2
22
15
0
23
0
1
13
11
10
9
13
47
24
27
7
6
10
2
4
6
12
15
14
Asian
0
8
0
2
10
7
1
18
17
3
36
21
0
4
0
8
20
19
3
24
23
0
12
0
0
8
0
3
8
4
32
21
18
2
5
3
0
2
0
3
11
3
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 138
Hispanic
0
9
0
1
11
4
0
5
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
6
7
14
1
9
8
0
10
0
0
4
0
10
9
13
10
8
6
0
3
0
0
4
0
6
5
7
Afr.
Am.
0
12
0
2
14
7
0
6
0
6
13
44
3
17
60
7
14
16
1
5
8
0
17
0
2
5
22
17
18
20
35
15
20
3
2
5
2
2
6
8
8
9
White
1
58
100
19
50
68
5
55
83
3
19
21
2
68
40
14
26
32
6
39
46
0
38
0
6
64
67
40
55
50
50
30
29
53
84
82
31
84
88
57
60
67
Exhibit 3.1.6 (continued)
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
Mears, 7-8
1019
162
16
Romig, 7-8
868
104
12
Wendler, 7-8
942
127
13
Dimond, 9-12
2147
212
10
East, 9-12
2060
230
11
Service, 9-12
2377
206
9
West, 9-12
1722
182
11
Aquarian, K-6
241
4
2
Benson Search, 7-12
276
77
28
Birchwood, PK-6
407
2
.5
Fam. Partner., K-12
771
2
.3
Mirror Lake
642
58
9
North. Lights, PK-8
613
3
.5
Polaris, K-12
449
28
6
AK
AI
25
11
15
25
16
24
14
11
11
28
8
13
32
14
14
15
6
7
22
12
12
0
8
0
21
24
27
1
11
50
2
7
100
2
7
3
1
6
33
1
7
4
Asian
20
12
12
18
17
17
10
9
8
20
12
9
52
18
23
11
6
5
36
19
20
1
6
25
2
5
3
0
1
0
0
25
0
1
2
2
1
16
33
0
2
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 139
Hispanic
5
4
3
3
8
3
10
5
8
8
4
4
14
7
6
5
3
2
15
7
8
0
10
0
2
5
3
0
3
0
0
4
0
2
2
3
0
2
0
1
2
4
Afr.
Am.
9
4
6
8
9
8
27
14
21
14
4
7
47
12
20
6
3
3
27
8
15
1
7
25
12
14
16
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
3
5
1
8
34
1
5
4
White
103
87
64
50
49
48
66
60
52
142
72
67
85
48
37
169
82
82
82
52
45
2
67
50
40
35
51
1
82
50
0
82
0
50
85
87
0
67
0
25
83
88
Exhibit 3.1.6 (continued)
Number of Student Suspensions by School and Percent Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
2000-2001
Row 1: Number of suspensions at the school by ethnicity
Row 2: Expected percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
Row 3: Actual percentage of suspensions by ethnicity
NOTE: Rows are in italics
#
%
School
Students Suspensions Suspensions
SAVE, 9-12
274
32
12
Steller, 7-12
289
1
.3
Whaley K-12
199
0
0
AK
AI
4
15
13
1
8
100
0
32
0
Asian
2
11
6
0
5
0
0
1
0
Hispanic
2
4
6
0
3
0
0
1
0
Afr.
Am.
8
7
25
0
6
0
0
16
0
White
16
63
50
0
75
0
0
50
0
Data extracted from the district’s OCR Report for 2000-2001, dated February 21, 2001.
As reflected in Exhibit 3.1.6:
• No suspension data were reported for Abbott, Fairview, Fire Lake, Government Hill, Kincaid,
Ocean View, Ravenwood, Rogers Park, Trailside, Ursa Major, Bartlett, Chugiak 9-12, Girdwood,
McLaughlin, and Village.
• District-wide, Alaskan Natives/American Indians exceeded the expected percentage for
suspensions by two percent.
• District-wide, Asian students exceeded the expected percentage for suspensions by one percent.
• District-wide, African American students demonstrated the biggest discrepancy between
expected and actual percentages of suspension. African American students represent only nine
percent of the total district population, but represent 12 percent of the total suspensions. This
group exceeded the expected percentage by three percent.
• The highest percentage of suspensions occurred at Benson-Search with a 28 percent suspension
rate, and Clark Middle School with a 21 percent suspension rate.
• Zero suspensions were reported at Huffman, Inlet View, Lake Otis, Wonder Park, and Whaley.
Auditors conducted interviews with board members, administrators, staff members, parents, and
community members. Samples of comments from the interview process regarding ethnicity and
equality are cited below.
• “Racism is a community issue that has filtered into the school system.”
• “Alaskan Natives and African Americans have said that the district does not do very well for
minority groups.”
• “We keep the ethnicity data for students in gifted education but we don’t give this data to anyone
else.”
• “There is a sense of hopelessness for the Alaskan Native population.”
• “Minorities don’t get as much as others.”
• “Our district doesn’t do enough for minority students.”
• “We have a highly multicultural school, and we honor their being here, but we could do a better job
at cultural awareness.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 140
•
“We have a lot of different cultural groups. We need to figure out better…how to reach them.”
Summary
Disparity exists among ethnic student groups in the Anchorage School System in the enrollment of
students in special and gifted education. Disparity among ethnic groups is also present in retention,
suspension, and dropouts. Ethnic groups are unfairly represented when compared to the total
percentage of students within an ethnic group. Specifically, Alaskan Natives have the largest gap in
terms of unequal access and unfair representation in relationship to program placement and
administrative practices.
Finding 3.2: There Are Inequalities in Educational Programs, Facilities, and Access to
Technology within the School System.
In an effective school organization, all students have equal access to the programs and services
provided by the district. Access to these programs and services should not be dependent upon where
their student’s family resides or any other social or cultural factors. The auditors sought to determine
if the services, programs and opportunities were comparable for every student throughout the district.
The ethnic diversity of the Anchorage School District is in a state of change. Forty percent of the
students are minorities and by 2006, White students are projected to make up only 50 percent of the
student population.
As a result of this shifting of the population, some of the schools are experiencing overcrowding while
others are losing population. The auditors found some inequalities in programs and services that were
localized to specific campuses and others that were apparent across the district.
Curriculum documents, policy statements, and annual campus evaluation reports were reviewed by the
audit team. Interviews were conducted with district-level instructional and administrative personnel,
community members, parents, and school board members. The purpose of the interviews was to
determine the perception of equality and equity throughout the district. The auditors found that there is
a disparity between the perceptions of the district staff and those of the parents and community
members. The fact that the district has a Minority Education Concerns Committee (MECC)
demonstrates an awareness of the issues related to diversity. The auditors made site visits to every
campus and collected observational data for most instructional spaces in the district.
The auditors reviewed the district’s policies and found references to equity in the district’s written
policies and regulations:
527 Equal Employment Opportunity
The district shall meet all federal, state, and local criteria required to be an equal opportunity
employer.
The distric t shall provide equal opportunity for employment, prohibiting
discrimination in employment practices because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
physical handicap, political affiliation, marital status, change in marital status, pregnancy, and
age. The district shall also promote the full realization of equal employment practices through
non-discrimination in hiring, placement, promotion, transfer, demotion, recruitment,
advertisement, solicitation for training, layoff, termination, and all other conditions of
employment.
532.241 EEO Policy Statement
It shall be the policy of the district to provide equal opportunity for employment, prohibiting
discrimination in employment practices because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,
physical handicap, marital status, change in marital status, pregnancy, and age. The district
shall also promote the full realization of equal employment practices through nondiscrimination in hiring, placement, upgrading, transfer, demotion, recruitment, advertisement,
solicitation for training, layoff, termination, and all other conditions of employment.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 141
532.242 EEO Goals
The staff ratio on all departments and school levels shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate
balance based upon the relevant labor market of the local and/or regional area labor market,
as appropriate. The EEO staff shall biennially review and recommend a Diversity
Recruitment Plan with timetables which shall be incorporated into a district plan by the
Superintendent and recommended to the Board.
Overall, the auditors found that inequalities exist in curriculum and in accessibility of programs and
services. The auditors found that the district was lacking policies in the areas of equity and equal
access to progress to programs. This absence of direction from the Board and district administration
has resulted in a lack of focus in the district’s staff development efforts and a general perception that
there are few equity concerns in the system, at least among those interviewed with the exception of
some school board members. The exhibits that follow were prepared from data provided to the
auditors by the staff. In most cases, the data are from the current school year. However, some data
were taken from an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) report and other district archival sources.
In an effective school system, the diversity of the staff reflects the diversity of the community. Being
located in the largest city in the State of Alaska provides Anchorage School District with an
opportunity to recruit its staff from a diverse pool of applicants. Exhibit 3.2.1 shows a comparison of
the ethnic breakdown of the student population for the Anchorage Public Schools to the ethnicity of
the teachers employed by the school system.
Exhibit 3.2.1
Comparison of Ethnicity of Elementary and Secondary Students vs. Staff (Percent)
Anchorage School District
Ethnic Group
Alaskan Native
American Indian
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
Unknown/Other
Elementary Staff
38
20
39
46
37
1,225
10
Elementary Students
3,691
402
2,794
2,601
1,805
17,393
639
Ethnic Group
Alaskan Native
American Indian
Asian American
African American
Hispanic
White
Unknown/Other
Secondary Staff
14
13
25
42
24
966
8
Secondary Students
2,385
301
2,335
1,886
1,145
14,986
211
Elementary
Student/Teacher Ratio
97.13:1
20.1:1
71.64:1
56.54:1
48.78:1
14.19:1
63.9:1
Secondary
Student/Teacher Ratio
170:1
23.15:1
93.4:1
44.9:1
47.7:1
15.51:1
26.37:1
Counts only include Elementary, middle school and high school student and staff numbers which were provided by
Anchorage School District’s Curriculum and Evaluation Department on 5/15/2. Filipino students were included
with the Asian America student count.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the data in Exhibit 3.2.1:
• The percentage of Alaskan Native teaching personnel, when compared to the percentage of
students, indicated that the Alaskan Native teaching staff members are under-represented in the
district.
• The percentage of Asian American teaching personnel, when compared to the percentage of
students, indicated that the Asian American staff members are under-represented in the district.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 142
•
The percentage of African American teaching personnel, when compared to the percentage of
students, indicated that the Afric an American staff members are under-represented in the district.
• The percentage of Hispanic teaching personnel, when compared to the percentage of students,
indicated that the Hispanic teaching members are underrepresented in the district.
• The percentage of Unknown/Other teaching personnel, when compared to the percentage of
students, indicated that the Unknown/Other teaching staff members are underrepresented in the
district.
• The student-to-teacher ratio (48.78:1 at the elementary level and 170:1 at secondary level) for the
Alaskan Native students and teachers indicates that there are not enough same-ethnicity teachers
to provide role models.
• The student-to-teacher ratio (71.64:1 at the elementary level and 93.4:1 at secondary level) for the
Asian American students and teachers indicates that there are not enough same-ethnicity teachers
to provide role models.
• The student-to-teacher ratio (56.54:1 at the elementary level and 44.9:1 at secondary level) for the
African American students and teachers indicates that there are not enough same-ethnicity
teachers to provide role models.
• The student-to-teacher ratio (48.78:1 at the elementary level and 47.7:1 at secondary level) for the
Hispanic students and teachers indicates that there are not enough same-ethnicity teachers to
provide role models.
• The student-to-teacher ratio (63.9:1) for the Unknown/Other elementary students indicates that
there are not enough elementary staff to provide role models.
The following comments were made to auditors about…
• “We have exceptionally good educators, we just don’t have enough of them.”
• “I know very few classrooms that don’t have an Alaska Native child in them.”
• “We have a long way to go. Our minority kids need to see role models.”
• “We’ve got a lot of different cultural groups, we need to figure it out better…how to reach them.”
• “We’ve tried to reach out more to the different cultural groups, we need to see if we can replicate
what’s working.”
• “(In hiring teachers), our priority is to try to match the teacher ethnicity to student population
ethnicity.”
• “[There is a] lack in a lot of areas in minority staff. We are working hard to overcome that.”
An effective school system provides equitable access to all instructional programs for every student in
the district. The auditors reviewed data concerning several district programs.
Finding 3.3: If Classroom Snapshot Data Are Typical of Day-to-Day Instructional Practices,
They Are Not Consistently Congruent with District Goals, Nor Is there Sufficient Variation
to be Successful with All Students.
In effective schools, especially those serving the range of diversity present in Anchorage School
District, classroom instructional practices must be varied to meet the different learning needs of the
students. Those practices range from la rge/whole group activities to small group and individual
instruction. The “one size fits all” approach is not adequate to meet the different learning styles and
cultural backgrounds found in such a culturally diverse student body, especially one in which over 120
different languages are spoken in the home other than English.
The auditors reviewed the school district’s board policies to determine local expectations. They also
interviewed board members, administrators, and teachers regarding expectations and approaches to
classroom instruction. Teams of auditors visited all the schools in the district and all of the classrooms
in which instruction was occurring during the site visits.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 143
The auditors found that the district’s board policies set out expectations for instructional practices that
were different from the practices the auditors observed. According to Board Policy 321 Goals of
the Instructional Program, “The staff of the school district utilizes appropriate research-based
effective instructional and supervisory practices to educate students for success in life.” Board
Policy 321 also states, “We strive to challenge all students, regardless of levels and abilities, to
achieve at the maximum extent possible.”
Board Policy 321 Goals of the Instructional Program provides further definition and expectations
in the statement, “We provide and encourage a range of educational philosophies and techniques in our
instructional program. This range allows closer alignment between the instruction and the needs and
desires of the students and parents in our neighborhood schools and our variety of options.”
The audit teams visited every campus in the district and made observations in nearly every classroom
in which instruction was taking place. Each classroom was visited for approximately three minutes or
longer. During this time, team members were observing the teacher behaviors, the student behaviors,
and the overall learning environment. The auditors are aware these structured visitations may also
capture transitions, and that many types of instructional situations may occur during a period or the
day. The purpose is not to present an in-depth portrait of every instructional situation or practice, but
to capture broad bands of normal pedagogical patterns at a point in time. The data collected do reflect
a slice of that time in the schools of the Anchorage School District. Conclusions must be carefully
drawn and couched within a number of caveats, not the least of which is that the broad swath of
activities are “typical” of activities going on the schools daily or weekly. This premise could be tested
in a time-series observational design, but would fall out of the scope of work of the audit as it would
require more than one site visitation. If district or site-leadership is interested, the snapshot
observational protocol could be easily replicated by using a time-series observational design.
The audit teams discerned that as would be expected, Anchorage School District classroom
instructional practices varied across the schools, but noted a high incidence of student seatwork,
particularly at the middle school and high school levels. The snapshot data for all of the schools in the
Anchorage School District are shown in Exhibit 3.3.1. A discussion of the categorization process and
description of both the teachers’ instructional strategies and the dominant student learning activities
follows this exhibit.
School
Elementary Schools
Abbott Loop ES
Airport Heights ES
Alpenglow ES
Aurora ES
Baxter ES
22
20
32
18
23
Time
Visited
Classrooms
AM
AM
PM
AM
AM
Classrooms
Categorized
Exhibit 3.3.1
Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices
Observed During Audit Team Classroom Walk-through Visits
Anchorage School District
May 2002
20
14
27
18
20
Dominant Instructional Strategy/Learning Behaviors
Teacher
Direct instruction
Small group
Direct Instruction
Direct instruction
Direct instruction
%
65%
29%
44%
50%
30%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 144
Student
Large group active
Seatwork
Small group work
Seatwork
Small group work
%
45%
43%
26%
67%
35%
Bear Valley ES
Birchwood ABC ES
Bowman ES
Campbell ES
Chester Valley ES
Chinook ES
Chugach Optional ES
Chugiak ES
College Gate ES
Creekside Park ES
Denali K-8 ES
Eagle River ES
Fairview ES
Fire Lake ES
Girdwood ES
Government Hill ES
Homestead ES
Huffman ES
Inlet View ES
Kasuun ES
Kincaid ES
Klatt ES
Lake Hood ES
Lake Otis ES
Mt. Illiamna Pre-S
Mt. Spurr ES
Mt. View ES
Muldoon ES
North Star
Northern Lights ABC
Northwood ES
Nunaka Valley ES
Ocean View ES
O’Malley ES
Orion ES
Polaris K-12
Ptarmigan ES
Time
School
Bayshore ES
Visited
Classrooms
28
AM
24
18
32
28
17
27
11
25
21
24
33
26
33
11
16
13
24
15
18
31
28
22
22
20
N/A
19
23
35
31
24
17
8
32
11
15
19
24
Classrooms
Categorized
Exhibit 3.3.1 (continued)
Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices
Observed During Audit Team Classroom Walk-through Visits
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Dominant Instructional Strategy/Learning Behaviors
%
Student
%
PM
AM
AM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
PM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
PM
AM
PM
PM
AM
AM
PM
AM
AM
23 Assisting/Direct
Instruction/ Monitoring
Tied
9 Direct Instruction
16 Direct Instruction
20 Direct Instruction
12 Direct Instruction
15 Direct Instruction
6 At desk
4 At desk/Assisting Tied
14 Assisting
17 Small group
14 At desk
13 Assisting
18 At desk
22 Direct Instruction
8 Monitoring
8 Assisting
12 Direct Instruction
17 At desk
11 Direct Instruction
8 Assisting/Monitoring Tied
20 Assisting
18 Direct Ins./Assisting Tied
18 Monitoring
19 Direct instruction
18 Direct Instruction
Teacher
26%
44%
44%
65%
42%
47%
50%
50%
57%
41%
36%
62%
33%
27%
38%
63%
66%
47%
45%
38%
70%
50%
33%
42%
78%
Seatwork
Small group work
Seatwork
Large group active
Seatwork
Large group passive
Small group work
Seatwork
Small group work
Small group work
Large group active
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwk/Lg. gr. Pass. tied
Seatwork
Small group work
Small group work
Sm. gr./Lg. gr. active tied
Seatwork
Seatwork
Large group
Large group active
Small group work
Seatwork
Seatwork
48%
33%
69%
60%
58%
33%
50%
75%
57%
24%
43%
54%
83%
36%
38%
63%
50%
41%
64%
50%
25%
33%
44%
53%
72%
AM
AM
AM
AM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
10
17
17
22
17
16
5
7
7
15
8
14
50%
35%
53%
41%
53%
44%
40%
71%
43%
53%
38%
29%
Seatwork
Seatwork
Large group active
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwk/Lg. gr. Pass. tied
Large group passive
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
50%
29%
47%
45%
35%
63%
40%
57%
86%
53%
50%
36%
Monitoring
Monitoring
Direct Instruction
Assisting
Direct Instruction
Direct Instruction
Assisting/Monitoring Tied
At desk
Assisting
Direct Instruction
At desk
Monitoring
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 145
Rabbit Creek ES
26
AM
19 Assisting
63% Small group work
53%
Time
School
Ravenwood ES
Rogers Park ES
Russian Jack ES
Sand Lake ES
Scenic Park ES
Spring Hill ES
Susitna ES
Taku ES
Trailside ES
Tudor ES
Turnagain ES
Tyson ES
Ursa Major ES
Ursa Minor ES
Whaley ES
Williwaw ES
Willow Crest ES
Wonder Park ES
Wood ES
Middle Schools
Central MS of Science
Clark MS
Goldenview MS
Gruening MS
Hanshew MS
Mears MS
Mirror Lake MS
Romig MS
Wendler MS
High Schools
AVAIL
Bartlett HS
Benny Benson SS
Chugiak HS
Dimond HS
East High School
King Career Center
Mc Laughlin SS
SAVE HS
Dominant Instructional Strategy/Learning Behaviors
Visited
Classrooms
Classrooms
Categorized
Exhibit 3.3.1 (continued)
Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices
Observed During Audit Team Classroom Walk-through Visits
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Teacher
%
24
20
31
29
28
25
30
22
19
28
16
34
29
17
20
30
31
23
16
PM
PM
AM
AM
AM
PM
AM
AM
AM
PM
AM
PM
PM
PM
AM
PM
AM
AM
PM
15
12
20
19
21
19
19
17
16
5
14
26
11
8
15
18
13
23
14
Assisting
Direct Instruction
Small group
Assisting
Direct Instruction
Assisting
Direct Instruction
Assisting
Monitoring
Assisting
At desk/Monitoring Tied
Assisting/Monitoring Tied
Assisting
Monitoring
Small group
Assisting
At desk/ Assisting Tied
Direct Instruction
At desk
40%
50%
50%
53%
43%
58%
32%
41%
44%
60%
36%
33%
55%
38%
67%
33%
31%
43%
50%
Small group work
Seatwork
Small group work
Seatwork
Seatwork
Small group work
Small group work
Large group active
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
Large group passive
Seatwork
Seatwork
Small group work
Small group work
Small group work
Seatwork
Seatwork
73%
50%
70%
42%
38%
32%
32%
41%
75%
80%
79%
42%
55%
50%
67%
44%
46%
35%
64%
35
34
40
27
44
40
45
44
34
AM
PM
AM
PM
PM
AM
AM
AM
AM
25
26
27
20
18
27
18
33
32
Assisting
At desk
Assisting
Direct Instruction
Assisting
AV Presentations
Monitoring
Assisting
Direct Instruction
36%
50%
37%
55%
39%
33%
44%
27%
56%
Seatwork
Seatwork
Lg. gr. passive/Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
Large group passive
Large group active
Lg. gr. passive/Seatwork
Seatwork
56%
54%
48%
70%
67%
44%
33%
45%
84%
3
60
14
54
51
60
20
14
9
AM
AM
AM
AM
PM
PM
PM
PM
AM
3
37
12
48
47
50
19
13
9
At desk
Direct Instruction
Assisting
Direct instruction
Assisting
At desk
Monitoring
Direct Instruction
At desk
100%
46%
58%
50%
43%
20%
42%
38%
56%
Seatwork
100%
Large group passive
32%
Seatwork
83%
Seatwork
60%
Seatwork
40%
Lg. gr. passive/Seatwork 46%
Seatwork
58%
Seatwork
62%
Seatwork
89%
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 146
Student
%
Service HS
50
AM
47 At desk
34% Seatwork
81%
School
Stellar SS
West HS
TOTALS
Time
Visited
Classrooms
Classrooms
Categorized
Exhibit 3.3.1 (continued)
Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices
Observed During Audit Team Classroom Walk-through Visits
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Dominant Instructional Strategy/Learning Behaviors
15 PM 12 At desk
52 AM 37 At desk
2139
1498
Teacher
%
Student
58% Large group passive
49% Lg. gr. passive/Seatwork
%
33%
65%
The auditors conducted walk-through visits in 63 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and 12 high
schools and alternative schools. They visited a total of 2,139 classrooms. Of those, 1,498 classrooms
were categorized according to the dominant type of instructional practice observed, as well as the
dominant student learning behavior. For a student behavior to be considered “dominant,” the audit had
to observe at least half of the students in the room demonstrating that behavior.
[
Student seatwork at Bowman Elementary School.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 147
A large group presentation at Campbell Elementary School.
Small group work in the Spanish Immersion Program
at K-Government Hill Elementary School.
The following definitions were used by the auditors when categorizing:
Teacher Instructional Behaviors:
At Desk refers to a teacher sitting in a chair at his or her desk and not assisting students.
Small Group refers to a teacher working with a group of students that is less than approximately one
third of the number of students in the classroom. Examples include: reading groups, centers where the
teacher is assisting in one or more, or tutoring a small group.
Assisting refers to a teacher working one-on-one with a student.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 148
Direct Instruction is when the teacher is verbally leading the entire class through a learning activity
(without the use of audio visual aids). Examples include: lecturing, modeling a skill, explaining a
sample problem, or reading to the class.
Monitoring refers to the teacher circulating about the classroom visually monitoring the students as
they work.
A-V Presentation is when the teacher is using some type of audio/video aid while instructing the
class. Examples include: using an overhead projection, a computer with a projection monitor, a
projection microscope, or a slide projector.
Student Learning Behaviors:
Seatwork refers to students working at their desks doing some type of paper and pencil exercise or
worksheet.
Large Group Passive is when at least two-thirds of the students are sitting and listening without any
active participation while the teacher or another student addresses the class.
Silent Reading is when at least two-thirds of the students in the class are reading silently. Quite
often the teacher is also reading silently during this activity.
Large Group Active is when at least two-thirds of the students are actively involved in the
instructional activity. Examples include: laboratory experiments, demonstrations, or role -playing.
Exhibit 3.3.1 indicates the dominant teacher behavior as well as the dominant student behavior
observed during the walk-through observations. The chart shows for each school the number of
classrooms visited by the audit team and the time of day that the walk-through was conducted. The
time of day is noted because some schools purposely provide most of the passive learning activities in
the morning hours and reserve the more active learning activities for after lunch. The auditors did not
classify all of the classrooms observed during the walk-throughs. Those classrooms in which there
were no students were excluded as well as classrooms where students moving from one activity to the
next. Although the auditors visited the campus libraries, these were excluded from the analysis.
The percentage of the dominant behavior was calculated by taking the number of classrooms
categorized at a particular campus and divided that number into the number of classrooms observed
that exhibited a teacher behavior and a student behavior most frequently at that school. For example,
from Exhibit 3.3.1, the audit team visited 22 classrooms at Abbott Loop Elementary in the morning.
Of the rooms visited, 20 were classified according to the dominant teacher and student behaviors
observed during the walk-through. In 13 of the classrooms that were classified, the teacher behavior
observed was direct instruction. Since 13 is 65 percent of 20, 65 percent was recorded as the
percentage of the dominant teaching behavior. Likewise, since the auditors observed large group
active as the student learning behavior in nine of the categorized rooms and since no other dominant
student behavior was observed in more than nine rooms, “large group active” was selected as the
dominant student learning behavior for Abbott Elementary School. Since nine is 45 percent of 20, 45
percent was recorded as the percentage of the dominant student learning behavior.
Exhibit 3.3.2 shows a comparison of the dominant teacher behaviors and student learning behaviors by
school type. The auditors visited 63 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and 12 high schools. For
the purposes of this comparison, campuses that housed grades kindergarten through five or six were
included in the elementary school count. The high school count included two secondary schools that
housed grades other than 9 through 12.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 149
Exhibit 3.3.2
Classroom Snapshot Data: Instructional Practices
Observed During Audit Team Classroom Walk-through Visits
Dominant Behaviors by School Type
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Type of School
Elementary Schools (n=63)
Middle Schools (n=9)
High Schools (n=12)
Dominant Teacher
Behavior
Direct Instruction
Assisting
At Desk
Percentage
37%
44%
50%
Dominant Student
Behavior
Seatwork
Seatwork
Seatwork
Percentage
54%
78%
75%
Although “Direct Instruction” was the dominant teacher instructional behavior for the elementary
schools, it was dominant in just 37 percent of the elementary schools. The second most predominant
teacher behavior in the elementary schools was “Assisting” at 28 percent. Among the middle schools,
“Assisting” was the dominant teacher instructional behavior observed during the walk-throughs, at 44
percent. The second most predominant teacher behavior was “Direct Instruction,” at 22 percent. At
the high school level, the auditors found “At Desk” to be most predominant teacher behavior observed
during the walk-throughs. At 50 percent, it was clearly dominant, while “Direct Instruction” was the
second most common behavior at 25 percent.
During the classroom walk-throughs, the audit teams also noted the presence of computers in the
classroom. If the computers were in use, the auditors noted whether they were being used by the
teacher or the students.
Students working in a science lab at West High School.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 150
Students work in an eighth grade science class at Mears Middle School.
Summary
The auditors found inequalities within educational programs, facilities, and access to technology. The
teaching staff is not representative of the student body it is hired to instruct. Minorities are underrepresented in the faculty ranks. The auditors gathered classroom snapshot data for 1,498 classrooms
briefly visited during the week of the on-site visit. The data show a lack of diversity within the
dominant modes of instruction and student behaviors. While caution has to be observed in considering
the data “typical,” there was nothing to suggest that the schools and classrooms observed were not to
be regarded as “typical.” The data represent a form of “organizational mirroring,” and can be
replicated by the use of the same protocols by district principals and other administrators to verify the
patterns identified in this audit section.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 151
STANDARD 4: A School System Uses the Results from System-Designed
and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective
Practices or Programs.
A school system meeting this audit standard has designed a comprehensive system of
assessment/testing and uses valid measurement tools that indicate how well its students are achieving
designated priority learning goals and objectives. Common indicators are:
•
A formative and summative assessment system linked to a clear rationale in board policy,
•
Knowledge, local validation, and use of current curricular and program assessment best practices,
•
Use of a student and program assessment plan which provides for diverse assessment strategies
for varied purposes at all levels -- district, school, and classroom,
•
A way to provide feedback to the teaching and administrative staffs regarding how classroom
instruction may be evaluated and subsequently improved,
•
A timely and relevant data base upon which to analyze important trends in student achievement,
•
A vehicle to examine how well specific programs are actually producing desired learner outcomes
or results,
•
A database to compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program
alternatives, as well as to engage in equity analysis,
•
A database to modify or terminate ineffective educational programs,
•
A method/means to relate to a programmatic budget and enable the school system to engage in
cost-benefit analysis, and
• Organizational data gathered and used to continually improve system functions.
A school system meeting this audit standard has a full range of formal and informal assessment tools
that provide program information relevant to decision-making at classroom, building (principals and
school-site councils), system, and Board levels.
A school system meeting this audit standard has taken steps to ensure that the full range of its
programs is systematically and regularly examined. Assessment data have been matched to program
objectives and are used in decision-making.
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District
The auditors expected to find a comprehensive assessment program for all aspects of the curriculum,
pre-K through the twelfth grade, which:
•
Was keyed to a valid, officially adopted, and comprehensive set of goals/objectives of the school
district,
•
Was used extensively at the site-level to engage in program review, analysis, evaluation, and
improvement,
•
Was used by the policy-making groups in the system and the community to engage in specific
policy review for validity and accuracy,
•
Became the foci and basis of formulating short- and long-range plans for continual improvement,
•
Was used to establish cost and select needed curriculum alternatives, and
•
Was publicly reported on a regular basis in terms that were understood by the key stakeholders in
the community.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 152
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District
This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Four. The details follow
within separate findings.
The auditors found in the Anchorage School District evidence of personnel capacity for sophisticated
data analysis. Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 provides extensive data tables and analysis
organized to provide district-wide and individual school student achievement data and survey results.
The Student Management System (SMS) provides reports for principals by student, classroom, or
school-wide regarding achievement and other data.
Board members, some central office, and school administrators were actively seeking data regarding
student achievement and program evaluation. This is particularly so in the area of early literacy.
Board policy requires the assessment of student achievement. However, data results were not
explicitly linked to a comprehensive set of objectives of the school district. There was a lack of
evidence of a systematic, systemic use of data. Schools also were not systematically provided with
some key data and training on how to use that data in evaluating student achievement to determine
how well each school was meeting the needs of each of its student subpopulations. Data were not
always provided in a timely manner, and at least one department outside of the Assessment and
Evaluation Department is becoming a source for data gathering and dissemination, which creates the
potential for the introduction of errors and confusion in data reporting.
While there is evidence of some pockets of units within Anchorage School District where data are
used to adjust instructional programs and teaching, there was not a common understanding or use of
terminology by personnel interviewed. For example, different speakers referring to the use of
“disaggregated data” gave the term a wide variance of meaning.
Many district staff members are proud of Anchorage School District achievement data, but others
acknowledge that there is a need to move to the next level to meet the needs of all children. While
test scores exceed state averages, there is a consistent group of students that is not sharing that
success. Performance gaps will persist unless the district takes new action. Some staff members
interviewed minimized flat test scores by pointing out the changing demographics of the district.
However, the district has the capacity and opportunity to reshape its practices to meet the needs of all
of its student sub-populations and to change the achievement scores to a positive trend line for all
while narrowing and eventually eliminating the achievement gap.
While board policy requires evaluation of pilot programs, there is no systematic, comprehensive plan
for assessing whether a program or approach is worth the expenditure of budget and staff resources
in terms of student growth. No formal plan was presented to the auditors to indicate that Anchorage
School District has a strategy in place to examine, modify, replicate, or eliminate a program based on
data. Lack of staffing makes it impossible to conduct cost-benefit analysis of programs.
Finding 4.1: Anchorage School District Test Scores Are Above State Averages; However,
Scores Have Been Nearly Flat for Five Years. The Scope of Assessment Is Not Adequate.
An Analysis of Achievement Gaps Between Majority/Minority Students Shows Some
Progress, But Other Areas Remain Unchanged or Worsening. Ratios of “Years to Parity”
Show that at the Current Rate Some Gaps Will Take from One to 26 Years to be Closed,
and Some Indicate that There Is Little Hope for Closure.
Student assessment data allow district personnel and stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of the
curriculum and classroom instructional methodologies in terms of academic achievement. Data also
provide valuable feedback to decision-makers regarding the need for a change in focus or other
modifications that need to be made in curriculum content or classroom practice to maximize academic
achievement for individual students and groups of students. Where large gaps in achievement scores
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 153
exist, central office and school staff members need to use the data to examine existing programs and
make systematic, focused changes to close the gap within a reasonable amount of time.
Meaningful decisions about curriculum and instructional processes can only be made when a
comprehensive set of student achievement data is available in each subject area that comprises the
curriculum. An effective assessment program requires that the major objectives in each subject area
be assessed at each grade level. Without this information, the Board, district decision-makers,
teachers, students, and the community cannot be adequately apprised of the status of the educational
programs provided by the district.
The auditors examined district policy, assessment procedures, Anchorage School District student
achievement data, and other documents furnished for our review regarding requirements for student
assessment, the scope of curriculum to be assessed, and student achievement on district-wide
assessments. The following excerpts express performance expectations found in policy, as well as
expectations for student learning and assessment.
Board Policy 144 Expectations for Performance states, “The Board shall adopt and periodically
review expectations for performance of the instructional program of the district, including statements
of instructional goals, priorities among instructional goals, expectations for student achievement, and
short- and long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
Board Policy 349 Evaluation states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional
improvement. Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be conducted
annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and the public. To
effectively appraise educational progress the Superintendent shall report orally and in writing to the
Board as circumstances dictate and may require such periodic reports from state members.”
Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies states, “The secondary courses will include language arts,
social studies, mathematics, science, world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical education,
and health. Additional electives in the middle schools may be offered, pending approval of the Middle
School Executive Director. A Program of Studies book for each level will be published annually and
describe the curricular offerings.
“The elementary curriculum shall include language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, art,
health, music, physical education, and library skills.”
Board Policy 343.1 Grading System states, “The Superintendent shall be responsible for a student
evaluation system. Schools may request waivers from the Superintendent to allow use of alternative
evaluation systems. The teacher has the responsibility to determine grades within the approved
system. An appeal of a grade may be made to the principal.”
Board Policy 343.2 Reports states, “A progress report to students and parents is required on a
quarterly basis. This requirement may be satisfied with either a written report or a parental
conference. Results from standardized tests for grades 3 through 11 shall be provided on an annual
basis to parents. An attempt shall be made to notify parents and students of their academic progress
and/or failing grades at each mid-quarter of the school year.”
Board Policy 343.23 Retention states, “Recommendations for retention will be based upon the
student’s age, achievement, social, physical, and mental development. The recommendation may be
initiated by the teacher or parent. Parents will be informed by the end of the first semester of a
possible retention through a parent conference. The principal must consult with the parent before
making the final determination.”
Board Policy 343.25 High School Graduation states, “High school students must complete the
district’s required coursework and pass state required examinations to graduate and receive a diploma.
Students who complete the district’s graduation requirements but do not pass the state-required High
School Graduation Qualifying Examination or special education students who exit the public school
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 154
system at or before their twenty-second birthday without successfully completing the above, will
receive a Certificate of Attendance.”
Board Policy 343.41 (6) (e) states, “Students who graduate in 2002 and beyond must pass all three
sections of the Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) prior to receiving a
diploma; failure to pass all three sections will lead to a certificate of attendance (AS 14.03.075).”
In addition to the board policy statements cited above, the Anchorage School District has goal
statements that appear in both published materials and on the district website. Among these are the
following statements relating to assessment:
District website Mission and the Anchorage School District 2002-02 Preliminary Financial Plan p. I-5
states, “We, the Anchorage School Board, Superintendent, and district staff commit that:
1. “Students will demonstrate academic excellence as indicated by performance on state and district
measures of academic performance. All students will make progress toward meeting Anchorage
and State Benchmarks for reading, writing, and math. Performance will be assessed on:
a. Alaska Benchmark Exams (grades 3-6-8)
b. Terra Nova Basic Skills Exams (grades 4, 5, 7, and 9)
c. Anchorage Writing Assessment (grades 5-7-9)
d. Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
These various assessments will provide information on the status of student group performance at
grade levels 3-10.”
2. “A higher percentage of students will acquire basic skills and strategies to read independently by
the end of third grade as indicated by:
• Meeting the Alaska standard for performance on the grade three Alaska Benchmark Reading
Exam.
• Teacher Assessment. Teacher pre- and post-assessment using a variety of measures as well
as teacher observation and judgment will be used.”
3. “A higher percentage of students will demonstrate a high level of math skills at the end of each
grade level in grades 3 through 10. Performance will be assessed based on:
• The percentage of students meeting state standards in mathematics as indicated on Alaska
Benchmark Examinations, Terra Nova, and the Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying
Exam will increase.
• The percentage of students who have been successful in completing Algebra 1 in grade 8,
geometry in grade 9, and Algebra 2 in grade 10 will increase. Grades earned in each class
will also be reported. Student grades and credits earned by students in algebra classes for
each middle and high school will be reported by student grade level.
• The district will continue to develop and implement training in math content and teaching
strategies for elementary and middle school teachers.
• The district will work with student, parents, teachers, counselors, administrators, and
community representatives to increase expectations for elementary, middle, and high school
math.”
4. “All students will demonstrate a high level of spelling skills or growth in spelling at the end of each
grade level in grades 2 through 10.
• The number of students achieving proficiency in the conventions of writing (spelling,
punctuation, capitalization usage) will increase as measured by the Alaska Student
Assessment system in grades 3-10 and the Anchorage School District Writing Assessment in
grades 5, 7, and 9….”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 155
The Anchorage School District’s No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project
Application for School Year 2002-2003 sets a goal for two percent of LEP students to improve their
performance on the Benchmarks from “not/below proficient” to “proficient/above proficient.”
The cited documents reveal that there is policy requiring the Board to review performance
expectations for the instructional program of the district and to set expectations for student
achievement. Policy sets instructional improvement as the purpose of evaluation and requires periodic
reports on evaluation of school programs. Required course offerings are listed in board policy. Policy
assigns responsibility for the student evaluation systems and alternate systems to the superintendent,
and requires progress reports to parents. Policy requires students to complete required coursework
and pass all three sections of the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination to receive a diploma.
The goals set for improvement, while specific in content areas, are not specific in expectations for
improvement. The Anchorage School District’s No Child Left Behind Federal Programs
Integrated Project Application sets a specific, but low goal of two percent of LEP students to
improve their performance on the Benchmark tests.
In interviews with board members, central office, school staff, and parents, the following
representative comments regarding the scope of assessment and level of achievement were shared:
• “I think we’re over tested.”
• “We don’t do nearly as much ‘results based’ assessment as we should.”
• “It’s hard to measure what progress we are making. We haven’t had a clear benchmark.”
• “It’s always bothered me that when a curriculum is brought to us the assessments haven’t been
thought through. So often that gets put aside. That’s not an integral component of it.”
• “Despite the growth in free and reduced (lunch) and mobility, our scores stay steady, so that is
progress.”
• “Absolute performance at the lower grades has improved.”
• “We have kids in every school who are not achieving.”
• “Our scores need to improve. That is one of our weaknesses.”
Comments from board members, central office, school staff, and parents indicate awareness of
student achievement as an area needing improvement; however, there is concern about the amount of
testing and whether the data generated by testing are providing users clear information.
The auditors sought to determine the extent to which the curriculum areas being taught were being
tested. Board policy confirms the administration of state required tests of the Alaska Benchmark
Exams in grades 3, 6, and 8; the Terra Nova Basic Skills Exams in grades 4, 5, 7, and 9, and the
Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE). Additionally, it requires an Anchorage
Writing Assessment in the years prior to the Alaska Benchmark Exams (grades 5, 7, and 9). The
auditors examined the following documents for information about the testing program required by the
district and the state:
• Anchorage School District Profiles of Performance 2000-2001.
• Teacher’s Guide to the Alaska Benchmark Examination (grade 3 pages 7-8 and 135-136,
grade 6 pages 7-8, grade 8 pages 7-8) (2001) published by the Alaska’s Department of
Education and Early Development.
• District Test Coordinator’s Manual Spring 2002, pages 1- 3, published for the State of
Alaska by CTB McGraw-Hill.
• Anchorage School District Title I Program document dated 5/17/2002 presenting descriptions
of optional Title I assessments and example s of data use by several schools. In the examples
presented, data disaggregation was by gender and LEP status only.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 156
Exhibit 4.1.1 lists the tests administered in the Anchorage School District required by the State of
Alaska as part of the Alaska Comprehensive System of Student Assessments. According to the State
of Alaska, this program is to provide ongoing information about performance on the Alaska reading,
writing, and mathematics performance standards.
Exhibit 4.1.1
Descriptions of Alaska-required Assessments
(Information derived from: Teacher’s Guide to the Alaska Benchmark Examination (Grade 3,
Grade 6, Grade 8) (2001) and District Test Coordinator’s Manual Spring 2002)
Anchorage School District
•
•
•
•
Student
Assessment
Developmental
Profile
Grade(s) Administered
Description
Kindergarten and
entering Grade 1
Benchmark
Assessment
Grade 3 (Benchmark 1)
Grade 6 (Benchmark 2)
Grade 8 (Benchmark 3)
Terra Nova, The
Second Edition,
CAT Complete
Battery Plus
Grades 4, 5, 7, and 9
High School
Graduation
Qualifying
Examination
First offered to students
in spring of grade 10.
Students can continue
taking until they pass all
three parts. Offered
again twice a year in
grades 11 and 12, and
twice a year for up to 3
years after completion
of high school.
Teachers record students’ developmental readiness using
11 indicators and record background characteristics in three
areas.
Untimed, proficiency-based, criterion-referenced test
developed specifically for Alaska to measure whether
students are achieving state-wide academic standards in
reading, writing, and math. There are three types of
questions: multiple choice, constructed response, and
extended constructed response. Students demonstrate one
of four different levels of performance on each subject area
test: advanced, proficient, below proficient, and not
proficient. Individual API performance scores that show
placement within the categories are also provided by the
state.
Norm-referenced test to provide information about how well
students in Alaska compare with students nationally. Each
district is required to test reading and language arts,
vocabulary, language mechanics, mathematics computation,
and mathematics. Anchorage also has chosen to administer
the optional remaining subtests of spelling, science, and
social studies.
Untimed, proficiency-based, criterion-referenced test
developed specifically for Alaska to measure whether
students are achieving state-wide academic performance
standards in reading, writing, and mathematics. There are
three types of questions: multiple choice, constructed
response, and extended constructed response. Each
student demonstrates one of four different levels of
performance on each subject area test: advanced,
proficient, below proficient, and not proficient.
There is a state-level assessment when students first enter the system in kindergarten or grade 1.
There is state-level required testing in reading, writing, and mathematics in grades 3 through 10.
State-level required testing in grades 3, 6, 8, and the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
(HSGQE) are criterion-referenced to state-determined performance benchmarks in reading,
writing, and mathematics.
Data are available from the state to show how well a student scored on a benchmark test as well
as which one of four category rankings is merited by that score.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 157
•
State-level required testing in grades 4, 5, 7, and 9 is norm-referenced and concentrates on
reading, language arts, and mathematics. Auditors did not receive documents that indicated if or
how the state or district explicitly connects the norm-referenced test to its content standards.
• Anchorage School District has chosen to include the science and social studies portion of the
norm-referenced test.
• High school students have five opportunities to pass all sections of the HSGQE to graduate with
their class.
• Students must be able to answer multiple choice, constructed response, and extended constructed
response competently.
In addition to the required state testing program, Exhibit 4.1.2 Anchorage School District
Assessments, describes tests not required by the State of Alaska, but used by the Anchorage School
District to make instructional and placement decisions.
Exhibit 4.1.2
District Assessments
(Information from the Profiles of Performance 2001, p. 4)
Anchorage School District
Student Assessment
Anchorage Writing
Assessment
Pre-Algebra
Qualification Test
Grade(s)
Administered
Grades 5, 7,
and 9
Grade 6
Description
The Anchorage Writing Assessment provides information on how
well students are meeting district expectations on six traits of good
writing. The assessment takes place at mid-year so that students
who are not meeting district expectations may be identified prior to
the year when they must take Alaska Benchmark exams or the
Alaska High School Graduation Qualifying Examination. Schools
and teachers have a chance to use results of this assessment to
identify students who need extra help to meet state standards in
writing.
All grade 6 students take a local pre-algebra qualification test to
help with grade 7 placement. The test is designed by district
teachers to identify students who are ready for pre-algebra
placement in grade 7. The test is keyed to the Anchorage School
District math curriculum and provides a measure of the attainment
of advanced math skills across the district. The Assessment and
Evaluation Department has undertaken a study to determine if the
information from the grade 6 Benchmark Mathematics Test could
be as predictive as this Anchorage School District-written test.
Exhibits 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 show that district-wide testing is mainly focused on reading, writing, and
mathematics, and highly driven by state requirements.
• Anchorage School District has created writing and math assessments in addition to the state
testing requirements.
• The Anchorage Writing Assessment is designed to identify students who need additional support if
they are to attain proficiency on the State Benchmark Writing Test the following school year.
• The Pre-Algebra Qualification Test was written by district teachers to identify students who are
likely to be ready for a more accelerated sequence of mathematics instruction (pre-algebra in
grade 7).
• There are no district-wide tests written by the district to measure attainment of major objectives in
any courses outside of language arts and mathematics, and many major objectives in language arts
and mathematics are not tested.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 158
Exhibits 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 display the scope of formal tests administered district-wide for the courses of
study required in Anchorage School District board policy for elementary and secondary education
offerings.
Exhibit 4.1.3
Scope of Formal Tests Administered by Board-required
Elementary Course of Study by Grade Level
Anchorage School District
Course of Study
(from Board Policy 341.1)
K
1
2
3
4
Language Arts
D
*
*
B
C
Mathematics
B
C
Social Studies
Science
Art
Health
Music
Physical Education
Library Skills
Total Learning Areas Tested
1
*
*
2
2
Total Percent Tested
11
0
0
22 22
Key:
D = Anchorage Developmental Kindergarten Profile
5
C, W
C
C
C
6
B
B, M
4
44
2
22
No. of
Grades Tested
5
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
% Tested
71
57
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
B = State Benchmark Test
C = Terra Nova The Second Edition CAT/6 Complete Battery Plus
H = High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
W = Anchorage Writing Assessment (Six Trait Writing Assessment)
M = Anchorage Grade 6 Mathematics Placement Test
* = Reading and mathematics tests administered by school choice from central list of options recommended
Title I, but not required in all schools. Data are in the process of being collected by Title I rather than the
Assessment and Evaluation Department.
17
by
Examination of Exhibit 4.1.3 indicates that:
• Only 17 percent of the elementary curriculum required by board policy is formally assessed.
• District-wide testing at the elementary school level occurs only in language arts, mathematics,
social studies, and science.
• District-wide testing concentrates on the areas of required state testing: reading, writing, language
arts, and mathematics.
• Elementary schools only test science and social studies progress at grade 5.
It should also be noted that while Anchorage School District does use the science and social studies
subtests, according to staff in Assessment and Evaluation, the tests each have 20 questions. This is a
limited means of determining how students are achieving in those content areas.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 159
Exhibit 4.1.4
Scope of Formal Tests Administered by Board-required
Secondary Course of Study by Grade Level
Anchorage School District
Course of Study
(from Board Policy 341.1)
Language Arts
Social Studies
Mathematics
Science
World Languages
Career Technology
Fine Arts
Physical Education
Health
Courses of Study Tested
Percentage of Courses Tested
7
C, W
8
B
C
B
2
22
2
22
9
C, W
C
C
C
10
H
4
44
2
22
11
12
0
0
0
0
H
No. of Grades
Tested
4
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
%
Tested
67
17
67
17
0%
0%
0
0
0
19
Key:
B = State Benchmark Test
C = TerraNova CAT/6 (new for grades 5 and 9 in 2001-02)
H = High School Graduation Qualifying Exam
W = Anchorage Writing Assessment (Six Trait Writing Assessment)
Examination of Exhibit 4.1.4 indicates that:
• Only 19 percent of the areas of secondary curriculum required by board policy are formally
assessed.
• There is no secondary school testing in grades 11 and 12, with the exception of students who need
to retest sections of the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam.
• There is no assessment of student progress in science or social studies in high school.
• There is no assessment of world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical education, or
health.
The scope of assessment is inadequate to inform the district on the progress of its students. Leaders,
school administrators, and teachers lack information to determine how well the major objectives of the
district’s curriculum are being taught and learned. Auditors were not presented information on the
correlation of the Terra Nova with Alaska Performance Standards, and the Anchorage School District
connections to Alaskan content standards provide insufficient specificity to ensure consistently high
achievement for all students (see Finding 4.2). The Profile of Performance 2000-2001 on pages
78-82 does present data on student grades and high school credits, but there is no indication of how
those teacher grades relate to student performance on district-wide tests. While the district staff can
make national comparisons regarding student performance, district leaders cannot determine how well
students are mastering the district’s major objectives because there is no explicit link of the student’s
performance to the district’s curriculum (see Findings 2.3 and Finding 2.4) and there are no districtwide, district-developed tests explicitly linked to major objectives.
The State of Alaska has administered the 1995 edition of the California Achievement Tests (CAT/5)
since the 1995-96 school year. In the 2000-01 school year, the CAT/5 was only administered in
grades 4 and 7. The CAT/5 tests students in vocabulary, reading comprehension, spelling, language
mechanics, language expression, mathematics computation, mathematics concepts and applications,
and study skills, as well as a brief test in science and in social studies. In the 2001-02 school year, the
state changed from the CAT/5 to Terra Nova, The Second Edition, CAT/6 Complete Battery Plus.
The Terra Nova is now used in grades 4, 5, 7, and 9. According to the Profiles of Performance
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 160
2000-2001 page 42, it is expected that these scores will be linked to Benchmark test scores at grades
3, 6, and 8 and the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam first administered in grade 10.
The state’s Benchmark Exams have been administered since the 1999-2000 school year. Beginning in
February 2003, student growth will be reported by the State of Alaska in reading, writing, and
mathematics for State School and District Report cards.
Auditors examined data in Anchorage School District’s Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 and
other electronic data provided by the Assessment and Evaluation Unit to determine trends in student
performance on tests administered to all students. Test data for the 2001-2002 school year were not
yet available to the district at the time of the audit. Therefore, the data analysis will not include scores
of the 2002 test administrations. However, in analyzing the results from tests that have been used for
several years, we can see trends in Anchorage School District student achievement.
The Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 pages 22-25 provided a five-year history of California
Achievement Test (CAT/5) performance data for all students and by some ethnic groups at the
district-wide level. According to interviews with staff in the Assessment and Evaluation Unit, central
reporting of subpopulations’ five-year data history by individual schools is not done due to relatively
small numbers of students of specific ethnicity in some schools. While the Profiles of Performance
2000-2001 provides 2000-01 district-wide performance data based on socio-economic subgroups, it
did not provide a five-year history of those subpopulations.
The auditors had access to the percentile rank data derived from mean NCE scores. The auditors
first graphed the five-year history of percentile rank scores on the CAT for all students in total reading
(see Exhibit 4.1.5), total language arts (see Exhibit 4.1.7), and total mathematics (see Exhibit 4.1.9).
Spelling (see Exhibit 4.1.11) was also included due to its being one of the Board’s priorities. Following
each graph is a table of data (see Exhibits 4.1.6, 4.1.8, 4.1.10, and 4.1.12) listing the percentile rank
scores furnished in the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 pages 22-25, adding an indicator
showing the change in percentile rank from the 1996-97 administration to the latest administration of
the CAT/5 for that grade level. While the charts indicate a change, the auditors recognize that
percentile ranks are not interval data where gains and losses can be accurately analyzed. However,
the percentile rank data can still be used to make cautious observations. The addition of Benchmark
testing at the state level, and the change in grade levels assessed with CAT/5 are noted in the exhibits.
By 2000-01, only grades 4 and 7 have a complete five-year history.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 161
Exhibit 4.1.5
Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Reading—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gr3
Gr4
Gr5
1996-97
Gr6
1997-98
Gr7
1998-99
Gr8
1999-00
Gr9
Gr10
Gr11
2000-01
Exhibit 4.1.6
Five-year History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Reading – Spring 1996 through Spring 2001 –Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
Year
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Change from 1996-97 to
most recent available score
Gr3
63
61
61
62
-
Gr4
64
63
58
61
62
Gr5
62
62
60
59
-
Gr6
61
60
63
57
-
Gr7
64
64
64
64
61
Gr8
63
64
64
63
-
Gr9
62
60
63
61
-
Gr10
62
64
63
63
-
Gr11
58
58
60
-
-1
-2
-3
-4
-3
0
-1
1
2
Examination of the data in Exhibits 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 indicates:
• Beginning in school year 1999-2000, changes were made in grade levels assessed with the CAT,
resulting in only grades 4 and 7 having a complete five-year history.
• CAT total reading percentile ranks are above national averages, with the lowest score being for
grade 6 in 1999-200 and the highest being 64 for grade 10 in 1997-98.
• CAT total reading percentile ranks have declined slightly since 1996-97 in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and
9.
• CAT total reading percentile ranks have remained flat in grade 8.
• CAT total reading percentile ranks have improved from slightly in grades 10 and 11.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 162
•
While there is minor change observed, percentile ranks have remained essentially flat in CAT total
reading for five years.
100
90
80
Percentile Rank
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gr3
Gr4
Gr5
Gr6
Gr7
Gr8
Gr9
Gr10
Gr11
Grade Levels
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Exhibit 4.1.7
Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Language Arts—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
Exhibit 4.1.8
Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Language Arts – Spring 1996 through Spring 2001 –Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
Year
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Change from 1996-97 to most
recent
•
Gr3
55
52
53
54
-
Gr4
63
63
59
60
60
Gr5
67
70
68
67
-
Gr6
66
65
66
65
-
Gr7
60
62
60
62
61
Gr8
57
59
59
59
-
Gr9
58
59
59
60
-
Gr10
55
58
56
60
-
Gr11
51
53
53
-
-1
-3
0
-1
2
2
2
5
2
Beginning in school year 1999-2000, changes were made in grade levels assessed with the CAT,
resulting in only grades 4 and 7 having a complete five-year history.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 163
•
•
•
•
Scores are basically flat over the five-year period, with the lowest percentile ranks being 51 and
the highest 70.
CAT total language arts percentile ranks have declined slightly since 1996-97 in grades 3, 4,
and 6.
CAT total language arts percentile ranks have remained flat in grade 5, consistently the highest
scoring grade level.
CAT Total Language Arts percentile ranks have improved in all secondary school grades from
two to five points.
While there is minor change observed, percentile ranks have remained essentially flat in CAT total
language arts.
Exhibit 4.1.9
Five-year History of Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Mathematics—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
100
90
80
70
Percentile Rank
•
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gr3
Gr4
Gr5
Gr6
Gr7
Gr8
Gr9
Gr10
Gr11
Grade Levels
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Exhibit 4.1.10
Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Total Mathematics—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
Year
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Change from 1996-97 to most
recent
Gr3
63
61
60
63
-
Gr4
69
67
65
68
66
Gr5
63
65
64
64
-
Gr6
68
67
68
69
-
Gr7
66
65
64
65
68
Gr8
64
63
64
62
-
Gr9
67
68
68
68
-
Gr10
65
67
65
67
-
Gr11
63
64
65
-
0
-3
1
1
-1
-2
1
2
2
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 164
•
•
•
•
•
Beginning in school year 1999-2000, changes were made in grade levels assessed with the CAT,
resulting in only grades 4 and 7 having a complete five-year history.
Scores are basically flat over the five-year period, with the lowest percentile ranks being 60 and
the highest 69.
CAT total mathematics percentile ranks have declined by one to three points since 1996-97 in
grades 4, 7, and 8.
CAT total mathematics percentile ranks have remained flat in grade 3, which has been the lowest
ranking grade level with the exception of 1999-2000.
CAT total mathematics percentile ranks have improved from one to two points in grade 5, 6, 9, 10,
and 11.
While minor change is observed, percentile ranks have remained essentially flat in CAT total
mathematics.
Exhibit 4.1.11
Five-year History Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Spelling—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
100
90
80
Percentile Rank
•
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gr3
Gr4
Gr5
Gr6
Gr7
Gr8
Gr9
Gr10
Gr11
Grade Level
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Exhibit 4.1.12
Five-year Anchorage School District History and Change in Percentile Rank Scores
CAT Spelling—Spring 1996 through Spring 2001—Grades 3 through 11
Anchorage School District
Year
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Change from 1996-97 to most
recent
Gr3
52
50
51
51
-
Gr4
59
57
54
57
52
Gr5
54
54
52
52
-
Gr6
51
52
50
50
--
Gr7
50
50
50
50
48
Gr8
49
47
49
47
-
Gr9
52
51
52
52
-
Gr10
50
52
49
51
-
Gr11
46
47
46
-
-1
-7
-2
-1
-2
-2
0
1
0
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 165
•
Beginning in school year 1999-2000, changes were made in grade levels assessed with the CAT,
resulting in only grades 4 and 7 having a complete five-year history.
• Spelling scores are basically flat over the five-year period, with the lowest percentile rank being 46
and the highest 59.
• CAT spelling performance has declined by one to seven percentile ranks since 1996-97 in grades
3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
• CAT spelling percentile ranks have remained flat in grades 9 and 11.
• CAT spelling percentile ranks have improved only in grade 10 and only by one percentile rank.
• CAT spelling percentile ranks are at or below national average in the last year tested in grades 6,
7, and 8.
Student performance on the CAT/5, while above national averages, has remained relatively flat.
While spelling improvement is a Board goal for the district, spelling performance has only increased in
one grade level.
Total CAT reading and language arts scores are above national averages; however, Anchorage
School District leadership is aware of a gap in performance for students on free and reduced lunch as
noted on page 61 in Profiles of Performance 2000-2001.
“Average scores for students eligible for free lunch range from the 31st to the 42nd percentile
depending on grade and test area. Average scores for students eligible for reduced-price
lunches range from the 44th to the 55th percentile. Average scores for students not eligible for
free and reduced lunch range from the 64th to the 72nd percentile. While individual students on
free or reduced lunch may score at any level, the relation of low family income and lower
achievement is persistent and obvious.
While the gap in performance between students qualified for assistance is obvious in all of the
tested areas, it is greatest in reading and language arts. The gap in mathematics has closed
somewhat in the past few years reflecting gains made in mathematics in the Title 1 schools
where there are substantial numbers of students getting assistance.”
Grades 4 and 7 have percentile rank scores available for the five-year period from 1996-97 through
2000-01. The Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 provide data on performance on the CAT in
separate tables for the following ethnic groups: American Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, African
American, Hispanic, and White (pages 92-114). The auditors prepared charts to graph the
performance by major ethnic groups using the percentile rank scores corresponding to average (mean)
NCE scores on the CAT during the five-year period from 1996-97 through 2000-01. Compared to
performance by White students in Grade 4, there is a persistent and sometimes increasing gap in
student performance in total reading (see Exhibit 4.1.13), in total language arts (see Exhibit 4.1.14), in
total mathematics (see Exhibit 4.1.15), and in the total battery (see Exhibit 4.1.16).
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 166
Exhibit 4.1.13
Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores
CAT 1996-97 to 2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Reading by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
80
70
70
71
70
71
68
60
57
50
51
50
49
48
47
49
47
39
39
41
39
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
Am Native
Asian/Pac
45
51
49
48
c
43
40
43
41
41
30
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
African American
2000-01
Hispanic
White
Grade 4 American Natives consistently score below all other ethnic groups in total reading.
Hispanic students have increased performance at a faster rate than American Natives and
African Americans in grade 4 total reading.
Grade 4 African American students dropped to their lowest percentile rank in 1999-2000, but have
returned to their high of 49th percentile, somewhat closing the over 20-point gap with White
students.
Grade 4 Asian/Pacific Islander student percentile ranks trend downward over the five-year period,
widening the performance gap.
Grade 4 White students consistently outperform all other ethnic groups in total reading.
White percentile ranks based on Mean NCE scores have remained flatter than all other groups,
with a range from 68-71 in grade 4 total reading.
There is not a parallel rise and fall of all ethnic groups in grade 4 total reading percentile ranks.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 167
Exhibit 4.1.14
Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores
CAT 1996-97 to 2000-02 in Grade 4 Total Language Arts by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
70
68
68
67
68
66
63
60
60
57
57
53
52
50
48
47
45
43
42
49
48
43
42
43
41
40
39
38
36
30
1996-97
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1997-98
1998-99
American Native
Asian Pacific
Hispanic
White
1999-00
2000-01
African American
American Natives consistently score below all other ethnic groups in grade 4 total language arts.
Grade 4 Hispanic students’ percentile rank scores have gained only two percentile ranks after
falling five percentile ranks in 1997-98.
African American students dropped to their lowest percentile rank in 1999-2000, but have
returned to their 1998-99 level in grade 4 total language arts.
All grade 4 ethnic subgroups consistently perform in bands that do not cross each other in total
language arts, so that in every administration of the CAT/5 from 1996-97 to 2000-01 the percentile
rank corresponding to mean NCE from greatest to least follows the same order: Whites,
Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, African Americans, and American Natives.
There is no ethnic group with performance that consistently trends upward in grade 4 total
language arts.
American Native percentile rank corresponding to mean NCE scores range from 36 to 41;
African American students from 39 to 45, Hispanic students from 47 to 52, Asian/Pacific Islander
students from 53 to 63, and White students from 66 to 68 in grade 4 total language arts.
Asian/Pacific Islander students have the greatest variation in percentile ranks. White students
have the least variation in percentile ranks in total language arts.
Grade 4 White students consistently outperform all other ethnic groups in total language arts, with
the gaps ranging from least to greatest in the following order: Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics,
African Americans, and American Natives.
Asian/Pacific Islander student percentile ranks trend downward for the first four years of the fiveyear period, with the 2000-01 rank returning to the 1998-99 level.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 168
•
•
•
White percentile ranks based on mean NCE scores have remained flatter than all other groups,
with a range from 66-68 grade 4 total language arts.
Both African American students and White students have the same percentile rank in 2000-01 as
they did in 1996-97. All other ethnic groups have lower percentile ranks in 2000-01 than they did
in 1996-97 in grade 4 total language arts.
While grade 4 White students maintained their percentile rank in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01, all
other ethnic groups’ percentile rank corresponding to mean NCE was higher in 2000-01 than in
1999-2000.
Exhibit 4.1.15
Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores
CAT 1996-97 to 2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Mathematics by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
80
76
70
73
71
72
73
72
67
64
64
65
60
57
50
49
48
51
50
49
56
50
47
46
46
47
43
40
30
1996-97
Am Native
•
•
•
•
•
1997-98
Asian/Pac
1998-99
1999-2000
African American
Hispanic
2000-01
White
There is a tight clustering of grade 4 total mathematics percentile rank corresponding to mean
NCE among American Natives, African Americans, and Hispanics for the first three years (199697 through 1998-99), with Hispanic students then making noticeable gains in 1999-2000 and
American Native percentile rank trending downward.
CAT/5 grade 4 total mathematics percentile ranks derived from mean NCE scores by ethnic
group in 2000-01 range from a low of 43 to a high of 73.
Asian/Pacific Islander student percentile ranks trend downward over four of the five-year period,
widening the performance gap in grade 4 total mathematics.
White students consistently outperform all other ethnic groups in grade 4 total mathematics, with
the gap growing for American Natives and African American students.
White and Hispanic student performance percentile ranks spiked upward in 1999-2000, and moved
slightly lower the following year.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 169
•
There is not a parallel rise and fall of all ethnic groups in grade 4 total mathematics percentile
ranks.
Exhibit 4.1.16
Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores
CAT 1996-97 to 2000-01 in Grade 4 Total Battery by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
80
74
70
71
72
70
70
64
60
59
57
57
54
51
50
47
40
48
44
44
41
41
1996-97
1997-98
47
45
52
47
43
41
39
40
30
Am Native
Asian/Pac
1998-99
African American
1999-2000
Hispanic
•
2000-01
White
Grade 4 CAT/5 total battery percentile rankings derived from mean NCE scores by ethnic group
in 2000-01 range from a low of 43 to a high of 72.
• American Natives consistently score below all other ethnic groups on the grade 4 total battery.
• Hispanic students’ percentile rank scores have gained more consistently than other reported
subpopulations on the grade 4 total battery.
• Grade 4 African American students dropped to their lowest percentile rank in 1999-2000, but have
surpassed their previous high to reach the 47th percentile in 2000-01.
• All subgroups consistently perform in percentile rank bands that do not cross each other on the
grade 4 total battery. American Natives rank from 39-43, African Americans from 44 to 47,
Hispanics from 47-52, Asian/Pacific Islanders from 54 to 64, and Whites from 70-74.
• Whites consistently outperform all groups on the total battery, with the gaps ranging from le ast to
greatest in the following order: Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, African Americans, and
American Natives.
• Asian/Pacific Islander student percentile ranks trend downward for the first four years of the fiveyear period, with the 2000-01 rank returning to the 1998-99 level.
The high percentile rank scores of the Anchorage School District result despite a large gap in
performance for minority students. While some gains were noted for some ethnic groups, there is not
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 170
a consistent pattern to close the achievement gap. Additionally, the scores for White students are
either flat or slightly decreasing in the 2001 school year.
These same performance trends by ethnicity occur in grade 7 data. The performance of grade 7 in
the CAT/5 total battery is illustrative of the performance of students over the five-year period in that
grade, as shown in Exhibit 4.1.17.
[
Exhibit 4.1.17
Percentile Rank Scores Corresponding to Average (Mean) NCE Scores
CAT 1996-97 to 2000-01 in Grade 7 Total Battery by Ethnicity
Anchorage School District
80
74
74
72
70
69
68
60
60
56
52
52
52
.
47
52
50
47
45
46
45
43
41
38
36
36
1996-97
1997-98
41
40
42
40
39
30
•
•
•
•
•
1998-99
American Native
Asian/Pacific Islanders
Hispanic
White
1999-2000
2000-01
African American
Grade 7 American Natives begin with the lowest percentile rank score of all ethnic subgroups, but
surpass the African American subgroup for the next four years and maintain a positive trend line
on the CAT/5 total battery.
Grade 7 Hispanic subgroup percentile ranks corresponding to mean NCE scores reached a high of
52 in 1999-2000, but have declined to their 1997-98 percentile rank.
The grade 7 African American student subgroup dropped to their lowest percentile rank
corresponding to mean NCE scores in 1997-98, and while making recent gains, continue as the
lowest performing subgroup ranking at the 42nd percentile while the White subgroup ranks at the
74th percentile.
All grade 7 subgroups consistently perform in percentile rank bands that do not cross each other
on the Total Battery. American Native students rank from 39-43, African American students
from 44 to 47, Hispanic students from 47-52, Asian/Pacific Islander students from 54 to 64, and
White students from 70-74.
Grade 7 White students consistently outperform all groups on the total battery, with the gaps
ranging from least to greatest in the following order: Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, African
Americans, and American Natives.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 171
•
Grade 7 Asian/Pacific Islander student percentile ranks trend downward for the first four years of
the five-year period, with the 2000-01 rank returning to the 1998-99 level.
Exhibits 4.1.13, 4.1.14, 4.1.15, 4.1.16, and 4.1.17 clearly reveal a persistent and sometimes growing
gap in student performance. Though it is true that some schools have very small numbers of students
of a particular ethnic group, the groups as a whole are important members of the Anchorage School
District community, and many schools do have larger populations of ethnic subpopulations. While
student performance should be increasing for all subpopulations, it must increase faster for those
performing at lower levels if the gap is ever to be closed.
The CAT is a norm-referenced test, making clear connections to Anchorage School District
curriculum and Alaska performance standards more difficult to correlate. However, the Alaska
Benchmark Exams were specifically written to measure the performance standards for the state that
are required of all Alaskan students. Auditors only had data for the first two administrations of the
benchmarks, and acknowledge that there is controversy at the state level on the proficiency rating
standards set for some of the examinations. Still, all students are being measured by the same
standards on these tests, so looking at how students are doing relative to others can reveal issues
worth investigating. While state benchmark tests will continue to evolve, it is important to note that
they are being created to measure Alaska performance standards for what is expected of students.
This has the potential to be a significant, stabilizing target for curriculum, professional development,
and classroom instruction over time.
Tables 20-22 in the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 indicate the percentage of students meeting
the Alaska Standards by grade. “Meeting Standards” is defined as having a score meriting
“Advanced” or “Proficient.” In the school year 2000-01, Anchorage School District student
performance equaled the average percent of students meeting the reading in grades 3 (73 percent)
and 10 (66 percent) and performed higher than the state average in two grades (grade 6: 75 percent
versus 69 percent and grade 8: 87 percent versus 83 percent). On the state’s writing assessment,
Anchorage School District students performed higher than state average in three of the four grades
tested (grade 3: 57 percent versus 54 percent; grade 6: 78 percent versus 73 percent and grade 8: 71
versus 68 percent) while not meeting the state average in grade 10 (45 percent versus 47 percent). In
mathematics, Anchorage School District students exceeded state averages of students meeting the
standards in every grade.
The Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 did not indicate where Anchorage student performance
stood in comparison to other large districts in the state. The auditors selected Fairbanks and Juneau’s
data reported by the State of Alaska on its website to compare with Anchorage School District in
Exhibit 4.1.18. Between 95.5 percent and 98 percent of all students in Fairbanks and Juneau were
tested, according to website data. Since the data in the Profiles was reported in whole numbers,
auditors rounded all performance figures to whole numbers.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 172
Exhibit 4.1.18
Percent of Students Meeting Standards in Spring 2001
Grades 3, 6, and 8 Benchmark Tests
Comparison of Selected Cities with the State
Anchorage School District
Writing
Math
Reading
Writing
Math
State
Reading
Juneau
Math
Fairbanks
Met Stand.
# Tested
Met Stand.
# Tested
Met Stand.
# Tested
Met Stand.
# Tested
Grade 8
Writing
Anchorage
Grade 6
Reading
Grade 3
73%
3,857
81%
1,217
78%
416
73%
9,920
57%
3,858
65%
1212
60%
416
54%
9,919
68%
3,842
73%
1207
81%
417
66%
9,931
75%
3,712
78%
1,208
76%
397
69%
9,955
78%
3,715
82%
1204
81%
399
73%
9,952
67%
3,686
70%
1207
76%
397
63%
9,922
87%
3,523
88%
1,142
89%
413
83%
9,606
71%
3,515
74%
1135
78%
416
68%
9,460
44%
3,459
38%
1135
55%
414
40%
9,531
•
Anchorage has the largest school population. The three comparison school districts have more
than half of the state’s tested population at each grade, thereby driving state scores.
• Fairbanks exceeds state averages on all benchmark tests except grade 8 mathematics.
• Fairbanks exceeds all Anchorage benchmark test averages except grade 8 mathematics.
• Juneau exceeds state averages on all benchmark tests.
• Juneau exceeds all Anchorage benchmark test averages.
While Anchorage School District leaders can take pride when district student performance exceeds
state average scores on benchmark tests since the volume of their scores drive state averages, it must
also be noted that other urban cities in Alaska exceed Anchorage School District’s student
performance. These data, however, do not reflect a more important measure of performance. It is
good to meet the proficiency standards, but better to have high numbers of students attain the
“Advanced” rating.
Exhibit 4.1.19, Anchorage School District Achievement is taken from page 146 of the Profiles of
Performance 2000-2001. It examines in greater detail how students performed relative to state
standards in reading, writing, and mathematics. It indicates that in many areas, high percentages of
students are scoring at the advanced level in spring 2001.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 173
Exhibit 4.1.19
Benchmark Scores by Grade Level and Test
Anchorage School District
March 2001
100%
90%
80%
10%
13%
8%
12%
3%
6%
18%
27%
17%
20%
18%
15%
34%
70%
15%
7%
19%
14%
2%
41%
60%
29%
50%
53%
37%
33%
47%
57%
40%
68%
51%
30%
32%
45%
20%
34%
31%
25%
24%
16%
11%
Advanced
Proficient
Below Proficient
M
ath
Gr
8
W
riti
ng
Gr
8
Re
ad
ing
Gr
8
M
ath
Gr
6
Gr
6R
ea
din
g
Gr
6W
riti
ng
Gr
3R
ea
din
g
Gr
3W
ritin
g
M
ath
6%
0%
Gr
3
10%
Not Proficient
•
On every benchmark test in March 2001, Anchorage School District students met proficiency
(advanced plus proficient) for over 50 percent of its students, except in grade 8 mathematics.
• There is no single area of reading, writing, or math where the number of advanced ratings is
consistently higher than in other areas.
• Grade 8 reading benchmark for March 2001 is not only the highest meeting the standards, it does
so with 68 percent of the Anchorage School District students achieving at the advanced level.
• Students achieving the advanced rating on benchmark tests in grades 3, 6, and 8 range from six
percent (grade 3 writing) to 68 percent (grade 8 reading) in March 2001.
• Students achieving at the proficient rating on benchmark tests in grades 3, 6, and 8 range from 18
percent (grade 8 reading) to 57 percent (grade 3 reading) in March 2001.
• Students achieving at the below proficient rating on benchmark tests in grades 3, 6, and 8 range
from seven percent (grade 8 reading) to 41 percent (grade 8 math).
• Students achieving at the not proficient rating on benchmark tests in grades 3, 6, and 8 range from
two percent (grade 8 writing) to 18 percent (grade 6 math).
• Twelve to 18 percent of Anchorage School District students score not proficient in mathematics
benchmarks.
Page 30 of the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 also provides valuable data on student
performance on the Benchmark tests disaggregated by ethnicity. Exhibit 4.1.20 shows the number
tested and passing rate (advanced and proficient) for students of Alaskan Native Heritage, American
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 174
Indian Heritage, Combined Native Heritage, Asian/Pacific Islander Heritage, African Heritage,
Hispanic Heritage, Caucasian Heritage, Other Heritages, and All Heritages.
Exhibit 4.1.20
“Passing Rates” on Spring 2000 and 2001 Benchmark Tests and HSGQE
Results Aggregated by Racial-Ethnic Group
Taken from Anchorage School District Profiles of Performance 2000-2001, Page 30
Anchorage School District
Reading
# Tested
Pass Rate
# Tested
Pass Rate
All Heritages
Pass Rate
Other
Heritage
# Tested
Caucasian
Heritage
Pass Rate
Hispanic
Heritage
# Tested
African
Heritage
Pass Rate
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Heritage
# Tested
Combined
Native
Heritage
Mathematics
2000
2001
2001
Pass Rate
American
Indian
Heritage
2000
# Tested
Students of
Heritage…
Alaskan
Native
Heritage
Writing
2001
Grade
2000
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
3
6
8
10
466
414
326
249
47
46
36
40
513
460
362
289
348
358
333
291
343
352
300
252
216
186
167
162
2379
2499
2372
2041
7
8
5
12
3806
2863
3539
3047
56%
56%
78%
59%
66%
65%
89%
83%
57%
57%
79%
62%
64%
65%
77%
61%
63%
56%
77%
59%
63%
59%
79%
63%
84%
83%
93%
87%
43%
50%
80%
42%
75%
74%
88%
78%
467
440
348
237
50
37
45
34
517
477
393
271
384
378
371
326
343
334
299
207
217
208
180
133
2436
2280
2245
2060
56
34
30
26
3857
3712
3523
3023
54%
54%
73%
47%
78%
81%
84%
56%
56%
56%
74%
48%
64%
66%
80%
48%
65%
66%
76%
41%
58%
66%
82%
50%
82%
82%
92%
76%
62%
70%
83%
54%
73%
75%
87%
66%
467
414
328
248
48
46
36
42
515
460
364
290
349
358
332
288
345
351
298
248
214
187
170
162
2378
2499
2373
2032
7
8
5
11
3808
3863
3542
3031
29%
56%
52%
33%
40%
59%
72%
36%
30%
56%
54%
33%
50%
71%
64%
39%
40%
60%
61%
26%
44%
64%
61%
34%
62%
84%
82%
59%
43%
50%
80%
18%
53%
77%
74%
51%
466
445
349
243
49
36
44
37
515
481
393
280
382
373
368
337
345
334
299
216
218
210
180
142
2339
2282
2239
2186
55
34
30
27
3858
3715
3515
3188
36%
60%
50%
26%
61%
83%
61%
46%
38%
62%
51%
29%
53%
74%
67%
38%
44%
68%
54%
26%
39%
70%
62%
28%
64%
84%
87%
53%
49%
76%
70%
22%
57%
78%
71%
46%
464
414
322
246
48
46
36
40
512
460
358
286
352
357
332
280
344
354
298
246
217
186
167
160
2380
2497
2371
2025
7
8
5
9
3812
3862
3531
3006
48%
49%
26%
18%
60%
52%
31%
28%
49%
49%
27%
19%
58%
59%
35%
25%
51%
42%
17%
13%
58%
49%
25%
21%
75%
77%
51%
44%
43%
38%
20%
11%
67%
67%
43%
36%
466
439
343
254
52
36
44
38
518
475
387
29
385
375
365
320
344
333
297
216
212
210
176
142
2323
2259
2200
2213
55
33
29
25
3842
3686
3459
3228
52%
48%
22%
32%
65%
61%
22%
47%
53%
49%
22%
34%
57%
59%
39%
41%
48%
50%
21%
17%
49%
51%
26%
26%
77%
76%
52%
53%
56%
58%
28%
28%
68%
67%
44%
46%
The auditors used the data provided in the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 to examine the gap
by the ethnic subpopulations where data were provided: Alaska Native, American Indian, Combined
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 175
Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, African, Hispanic, and Caucasian. The auditors are aware that these
are different labels than furnished for CAT scores, but will use the labels as furnished within the table
prepared in the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001, page 30.
Grouping the percentage of those achieving proficient or advanced status as “passing,” the auditors
examined achievement across sub-populations or ethnic groups. There was a clear gap in
performance, with the subgroup of Caucasians having the highest achievement in terms of percent
classified as Proficient or Advanced. Using the data from Exhibit 4.1.20, the auditors subtracted the
passing rate of the selected group from the passing rate of the Caucasian group. This yielded a
performance “gap” between the two groups for performance in spring of 2000 and spring of 2001.
The auditors then prepared tables that show the gap between each ethnic subgroup and the Caucasian
percent passing, adding a column to indicate by how much the gap narrowed, widened, or if it
remained unchanged between academic year 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Using that change, the auditors
calculated the number of years required at that rate of change to close the achievement gap between
the two groups being compared if no changes were made in current practices.
Exhibit 4.1.21 examines Benchmark Examinations in Reading for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. A
negative number in the Change 2000-01 column means that the gap has narrowed. A positive number
means that the gap has continued to increase, and is shown in bold numbers.
Exhibit 4.1.21
Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations in
Reading for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years
and Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*
Anchorage School District
Grade
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Change
2000Years to
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: Alaska Native - Caucasian
28
28
0
Never
27
28
1
Never
15
19
4
Never
28
29
1
Never
Gap: Combined Native - Caucasian
27
26
-1
26 Yrs
26
26
0
Never
14
18
4
Never
25
28
3
Never
Gap: African – Caucasian
21
17
-4
5 Yrs
27
16
-11
2 Yrs
16
16
0
Never
28
35
7
Never
Change
2000Years to
Grade
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: American Indian- Caucasian
Gr. 3
18
4
-14
1 Year
Gr. 6
18
1
-17
1 Year
Gr. 8
4
8
4
Never
Gr. 10
4
20
16
Never
Gap: Asian/Pacific Islander – Caucasian
Gr. 3
20
18
-2
9 Yrs
Gr. 6
18
16
-2
8 Yrs
Gr. 8
16
12
-4
3 Yrs
Gr. 10
26
28
2
Never
Gap: Hispanic – Caucasian
Gr. 3
21
24
3
Never
Gr. 6
24
16
-8
2 Yrs
Gr. 8
14
10
-4
3 Yrs
Gr. 10
24
26
2
Never
*Data derived from Profiles of Performance 2000-2001
Note: Caucasian scores declined in all four reading grade levels on the 2001 Reading Benchmarks.
Exhibit 4.1.21 indicates 11 areas where the achievement gap is currently increasing in benchmark
reading. In the ten areas where the gap is being narrowed, only five gaps could be closed within five
years at the current rate of change.
• Benchmark reading gaps range in 2000 from a low of four percentage points (American Indian –
Caucasian in grades 8 and 10 to a high of 28 points (African American – Caucasian grade 10,
Alaska Native-Caucasian grades 3 and 10).
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 176
•
Benchmark reading gaps range in 2001 from a low of one point (American Indian – Caucasian
grade 6) to a high of 35 points (African American – Caucasian grade 10).
• Fourteen areas had gaps greater than 20 points in 2000.
• Only three areas reduced achievement gaps by more than 10 points (American Indian –
Caucasian grades 3 and 6 and African American – Caucasian grade 6).
• The achievement gap in benchmark reading did not change in three subpopulations even though
Caucasian performance declined.
• The achievement gap in benchmark reading increased in 11 areas in 2001.
• The achievement gap in benchmark reading decreased in 10 areas in 2001.
• Where benchmark reading gaps are narrowing, the range until parity can be as small as one year
and as great as 26 years at the current rate.
Exhibit 4.1.22 examines gap data on the writing benchmarks again using data originally derived from
the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 as reflected in Exhibit 4.1.20.
Exhibit 4.1.22
Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations in
Writing for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years
and Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*
Anchorage School District
Grade
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Change
2000Years to
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: Alaska Native - Caucasian
33
28
-5
6 Yrs
28
24
-4
6 Yrs
30
37
7
Never
26
27
1
Never
Gap: Combined Native - Caucasian
32
26
-6
5 Yrs
28
22
-6
4 Yrs
28
36
8
Never
26
24
-2
12 Yrs
Gap: African – Caucasian
22
20
-2
10 Yrs
24
16
-8
2 Yrs
21
33
12
Never
33
27
-6
5 Yrs
Change
2000Years to
Grade
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: American Indian- Caucasian
Gr. 3
22
3
-19
7 Yrs
Gr. 6
25
1
-24
1 Yr
Gr. 8
10
26
16
Never
Gr. 10
23
7
-16
1 Yr
Gap: Asian/Pacific Islander – Caucasian
Gr. 3
12
11
-1
11 Yrs
Gr. 6
13
10
-3
4 Yrs
Gr. 8
18
20
2
Never
Gr. 10
20
15
-5
3 Yrs
Gap: Hispanic – Caucasian
Gr. 3
18
25
7
Never
Gr. 6
20
14
-6
3 Yrs
Gr. 8
21
25
4
Never
Gr. 10
25
25
0
Never
*Data derived from Profiles of Performance 2000-2001
Data from Exhibit 4.1.22 show:
• Benchmark writing gaps are narrowing the range until parity can be as small as one year and as
great as 26 years. Gaps in 2000 are all double digit, ranging from a low of 10 points (American
Indian – Caucasian in grade 8) to a high of 33 points (African American – Caucasian grade 10,
Alaska Native – Caucasian grade 3).
• Benchmark writing gaps range in 2001 from a low of one point (American Indian – Caucasian
grade 6) to a high of 37 points (Alaska Native – Caucasian grade 8).
• Eighteen areas in benchmark writing had gaps greater than 20 points in 2000.
• Only three areas reduced achievement gaps by more than 10 points (American Indian –
Caucasian grades 3, 6, and 10 and African – Caucasian grade 6).
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 177
•
•
•
The achievement gap in benchmark writing did not change in one group (Hispanic – Caucasian).
The achievement gap in benchmark writing increased in eight areas in 2001.
The achievement gap in benchmark writing decreased in 15 areas in 2001.
Exhibit 4.1.23
Achievement Gap Analysis of Percent Proficient or Advanced on Benchmark Examinations in
Mathematics for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Academic Years
and Years to Parity at Current Rate of Change by Grade Levels and Selected Subpopulations*
Anchorage School District
Grade
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Gr. 3
Gr. 6
Gr. 8
Gr. 10
Change
2000Years to
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: Alaska Native - Caucasian
27
25
-2
13 Yrs
28
28
0
Never
25
30
5
5 Yrs
26
21
-5
Never
Gap: Combined Native - Caucasian
26
24
-2
12 Yrs
28
27
-1
27 Yrs
24
30
6
Never
25
19
-6
4 Yrs
Gap: African – Caucasian
24
29
5
Never
35
26
-9
3 Yrs
34
31
-3
11 Yrs
31
36
5
Never
Change
2000Years to
Grade
2000
2001
01
Parity
Gap: American Indian- Caucasian
Gr. 3
15
12
-3
4 Yrs
Gr. 6
25
15
-10
2 Yrs
Gr. 8
20
30
10
Never
Gr. 10
16
6
-10
1 Yr
Gap: Asian/Pacific Islander – Caucasian
Gr. 3
17
20
3
Never
Gr. 6
18
17
-1
17 Yrs
Gr. 8
16
13
-3
5 Yrs
Gr. 10
19
12
-7
2 Yrs
Gap: Hispanic – Caucasian
Gr. 3
17
28
11
Never
Gr. 6
28
25
-3
9 Yrs
Gr. 8
26
26
0
Never
Gr. 10
23
27
4
Never
*Data derived from Profiles of Performance 2000-2001
Note: Caucasian scores declined in grade 6 mathematics on the 2001 benchmark
Exhibit 4.1.23 demonstrates the following:
• Grade 6 mathematics show a narrowing of the gap for every subpopulation except Alaska
Natives; however, Caucasian proficient and advanced percentages declined in mathematics in
grade six thereby accounting for some of the narrowing of the gap.
• Benchmark mathematics gaps in 2000 are all double digit, ranging from a low of 15 points
(American Indian – Caucasian in grade 6 to a high of 28 points (Combined Native – Caucasian
grade 6, Hispanic – Caucasian grade 6).
• Benchmark mathematics gaps range in 2001 from a low of six points (American Indian –
Caucasian grade 10) to a high of 31 points (African American – Caucasian grade 8).
• Seventeen areas had gaps in benchmark mathematics greater than 20 points in 2000.
• Only two areas reduced achievement gaps by at least 10 points (American Indian – Caucasian
grades 6 and 10).
• The achievement gap in benchmark mathematics did not change in two groups (Alaska Native –
Caucasian grade 6 and Hispanic – Caucasian grade 8).
• The achievement gap in benchmark mathematics increased in eight areas in 2001.
• The achievement gap in benchmark mathematics decreased in 14 areas in 2001.
• Where benchmark mathematics gaps are narrowing, the range until parity can be as small as one
year and as great as 27 years at the current rate.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 178
The achievement gap is a serious issue for Anchorage School District. The auditors did not receive
similar data for limited English proficient (LEP)/ non-LEP students. However, the No Child Left
Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project Application set a goal of merely two percent
improvement to move from “not proficient/below proficient” to “proficient/advanced.” There is no
written rationale for setting this goal at two percent.
There are many in the district who stated that socio-economics (SES) is the prime predictor of student
performance. The Education Trust and the Council of Great City Schools have conducted research
on the subject, pointing out thousands of high-performing, high poverty schools and high-performing,
high-poverty and minority schools that have outperformed expectations for students of low SES. The
auditors examined the achievement data by SES using free and reduced lunch as an indicator of low
SES.
The Anchorage School District’s Assessment and Evaluation Department provided the auditors with
electronic data by school regarding the numbers of students qualifying for free lunch, reduced lunch
and non-free or reduced lunch status. They also provided the subgroup performance of those student
populations on the Benchmark Tests. The auditors used data from the 71 schools for which all data
could be matched on the two files provided by the district.
The auditors graphed the data for free lunch, reduced lunch, and non-free or reduced lunch in each
performance category. The results indicated that SES was a strong factor in performance, as shown
in Exhibit 4.1.24. The first column indicates the students scoring “Not Proficient,” the second column
indicates those scoring “Below Proficient,” the third column indicates those students that scored
“Proficient,” and the fourth column indicates those scoring at the “Advanced” level.
Exhibit 4.1.24
2001 Benchmark Performance by Lunch Status and Benchmark Achievement
Anchorage School District
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NP%
BP%
Not F/R
Reduced
P%
A%
Free Lunch
Exhibit 4.1.24 demonstrates the following:
•
Students from all categories of free, reduced, and non-free or reduced lunch are represented in all
four levels of Benchmark proficiency.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 179
There is an inverse relationship of lunch status to scoring level, with Free Lunch decreasing in
representation from “not proficient” to “advanced” and Not Free or Reduced Lunch increasing in
representation across those same categories.
The Anchorage School District data indicate that SES status is a strong factor in performance. The
auditors wanted to adjust for that factor in order to identify schools that were underperforming or
outperforming based on what would be expected given that school’s percentage of students with low
SES. Since free lunch is not administered at the high school level, high school was not included.
The auditors combined all tests taken at a given school. The percentage of the students in the school
that scored in the four performance categories was calculated. The auditors then calculated the
percentage of students in each school that were low SES based on the percentage of students
participating in free and reduced lunch programs. A scatter plot by school was made of the percent of
students achieving in each of the four performance levels versus percentage of low SES of the school.
Thus, there were four points plotted for each of the 71 schools. The auditors calculated a linear
interpolation for each of the performance categories. The equations are indicated in the scatter plots
shown in Exhibit 4.1.25.
Exhibit 4.1.25
School Performance by SES and Achievement Category with Trendline
All Tests Taken by Elementary and Middle Schools
Anchorage School District
Spring Benchmark 2001
80%
Not Proficient: y = 0.2411x + 0.0307
70%
Below Proficient: y = 0.2325x + 0.1316
60%
Proficient: y = -0.0537x + 0.4369
50%
Advanced: y = -0.4199x + 0.4008
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-10%
NP%
BP%
P%
A%
Linear (NP%)
Linear (BP%)
Linear (P%)
Linear (A%)
The auditors then took each of the formulas for the trend lines and calculated the expected percentage
of the students in each of the achievement categories using the school’s low SES percentage. The
auditors then calculated the difference by school in each of the achievement categories between
actual and SES-expected performance within Anchorage School District derived from the trend line
formulas. The auditors subtracted the actual performance from the calculated performance and
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 180
multiplied by the sign of the slope of the trend line. The auditors summed the four differences to
determine an overall performance variance indicator.
The auditors plotted the overall performance variance indicator versus percent low SES for each
school. Schools to the right of the vertical axis, exceeded expectations that trend line equations
predicted for their SES. Schools to the left of the axis, under-performed the expectations predicted for
their SES. Eighty-nine percent of the schools were within approximately plus or minus 20 percent of
expected performance based on SES. As expected, increasing low SES percentage also increased
non-passing percentage and decreased passing percentage. However, some schools far exceeded
predictions.
Four schools were outliers in the positive direction. These four are Ursa Major (43.9 overall
performance variance indicator), Mount Spur (39.6 overall performance variance indicator), Ursa
Minor (34.9 overall performance variance indicator), and Government Hill (23.9 overall performance
variance indicator). Four schools were outliers in the negative direction, meaning that they underperformed given their level of ol w socio-economic students: Campbell (-27.4 overall performance
variance indicator), Muldoon (-29.5 overall performance variance indicator), Family Partnership (-29.8
overall performance variance indicator), and Whaley Center (-120.1 overall performance variance
indicator).
These variances are not indicators of absolute test scores, merely scores that are different than would
be predicted by Anchorage School District SES achievement data alone. Some schools with high
scores may indeed be under-performing given their student population.
This analysis is not intended to build competition among schools, but rather to indicate where practices
might be found in schools outperforming the trend line that can be replicated in other schools and to
spur discussion of issues that may exist in schools that under-perform expectations within the district’s
own data. It is also a means of encouraging the district to re-examine assumptions about SES. While
certainly a strong factor, performance gaps can be closed. It has been done in other school districts,
and Anchorage School District can change student performance for all subgroups.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 181
Exhibit 4.1.26
Overall Performances Variance Vs. Student Free-Reduced Lunch Percentage
All Tests Taken Benchmark Tests
Anchorage School District
March 2001
120%
Student F/R Lunch Percentage
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-140%
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Performance Variance
Summary
The Anchorage School District has a tradition of performing at or above state averages; however, it
has persistent achievement gaps among its subpopulations. Its testing largely is limited to reading,
language arts, and mathematics. The district has been developing an emphasis on the Six Traits of
Writing, and the achievement gap displays the greatest number of gains in benchmark writing, but the
gap is still increasing for at least one grade level in each subpopulation on that test. Unless actions are
taken to intervene, the gap in some areas may never be closed. Student assessment information was
insufficient in scope to provide adequate evaluation of the instructional program required by board
policy. Socio-economic data does serve as a predictor of performance; however, several schools
have far exceeded performance that would have been predicted by Anchorage School District trend
data. Similarly, schools with fewer students on free and reduced lunch have performed worse than
would be predicted by Anchorage School District.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 182
Finding 4.2: While Test and Other Demographic Data Have Been Compiled in a
Comprehensive Document, the “Bridges” to Data Use are Neither Systematic Nor
Systemic to Inform Decisions related to Curriculum Development, Staff Development,
Budget Development, and Site-level Instructional Decisions to Improve Student
Achievement.
Auditors expect to find that school district staff have comprehensive data on which to base decisions.
District leaders must have carefully decided what data are needed to inform decision-making. They
also must have a systematic way of communicating to the teaching and administrative staffs how the
data relate to the written curriculum and classroom instruction. A clear, focused direction on how to
use the data must exist throughout the district in a systematic way, designed to improve student or
program performance. District-wide aggregated test data alone can be misleading. For a district to
be successful with all student sub-populations, test data and demographic data must be systematically
and systemically used to ensure that all students are progressing at an adequate pace to master the
standards set by the district.
Bridges from policy and written curriculum must exist, clearly linking assessment with both.
Assessment and other demographic data must be used for curriculum revisions and for the creation or
modification of support documents. Administrators and teachers must share a common understanding
of how the test and other demographic data are related to written curriculum and standards. Focused,
clear dissemination strategies designed so that all staff understand the implications of the test and
demographic data go beyond merely publishing data. Professional development should also be
prioritized so that teachers have knowledge of the content and strategies to strategically improve
student achievement. Instructionally-focused professional development must consistently include the
use of data and its explicit connection to curriculum and instruction so that the importance of datadriven instructional decisions is clearly communicated. Budget development begins with analyses of
student data to determine budget priorities targeted to improve student achievement. Data are
collected and used so that expenditures for programs, interventions, staff development or materials
have led to desired results. There must be a single source for district data to maintain data integrity
and accuracy.
In Anchorage School District, the Profiles of Performance 2000-2001 document provides an
extensive collection of data coupled with thoughtful discussion of the data. There are current and
historical test data, as well as demographic data and survey data. However, no document was
presented to auditors which outlined how decisions were made regarding which data needed to be
reported and how those reports could best be formatted to assist in data interpretation in the schools.
Other documents presented to the auditors indicated that linkages on what data should be collected
and how end users of test data should analyze student performance with demographic data are
fragmented and dependent upon leaders of different programs rather than as part of a central, districtwide focus. Curriculum documents do not specify in sufficient detail the connection of the curriculum
to the various district-wide assessments administered in the district (see Finding 2.2), and instructional
materials and classroom instruction are not systematically linked to content and performance standards
that are measured (see Findings 2.3 and 2.4).
While individual schools can and do request additional data, there is little evidence of systemic,
systematic examinations of the performance of major sub-populations at every school, meaning that
some schools may be scoring well overall, while a large gap may exist for sub-populations within the
school (see Finding 4.1). There was no evidence presented to auditors that all schools had specific
goals to accelerate learning for subpopulations or individual students performing consistently below
their peers.
The auditors examined board policy and other documents regarding formal directives regarding
collection of data.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 183
Board Policy 144 Expectations for Performance states, “The Board shall adopt and periodically
review expectations for performance of the instructional program of the district, including statements
of instructional goals, priorities among instructional goals, expectations for student achievement and
short- and long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
Board Policy 349 Evaluation states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional
improvement. Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be conducted
annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and the public. To
effectively appraise educational progress the Superintendent shall report orally and in writing to the
Board as circumstances dictate and may require such periodic reports from state members.”
Anchorage School District 2002-02 Preliminary Financial Plan p 93 sets the responsibility of the
Assessment and Evaluation Department. It states, “The Assessment and Evaluation Department has
the responsibility for measuring and reporting district progress toward meeting goals for student
academic achievement.” The department maintains and operates the district-wide assessment
programs. These include the state-mandated Terra Nova, Benchmark and High School Graduation
Qualifying Exams, and Kindergarten and First Grade Profile, and local writing, pre-algebra, and
curriculum-referenced tests. The department provides reports of student achievement for individual
students, schools, programs, and the district as a whole. State examinations show student status
relative to state standards at benchmark grades. Norm-referenced examinations show student status
relative to a national population. Additional activities include program evaluations, coordination of
evaluations for funded programs, community and student surveys, collection of input into staff
evaluations, and institutional research as requested by the School Board and Administration. The
Assessment and Evaluation Department provides valid and accurate data on student performance
combined with assessments of the success of the Anchorage School District in meeting academic
achievement goals.
Anchorage School District Profiles of Performance 2000-2001, provides extensive data and
analysis of test scores, demographic data, and survey data at the district-level as well as reports by
individual schools. School data are not easily compared in the current format, making it difficult to
capitalize on pockets of outstanding instruction or areas needing more assistance. Data are not
collected and reported by the same ethnic group labels for each test. This may reflect state decisions,
but indicates that the district has not yet determined how it wants to analyze and reflect on its data for
subpopulations.
SMS Test Score Reports, dated April 19, 2002, lists and describes 18 data reports from the
Anchorage Student Management System that all administrators can access. Reports can be
generated by student, classroom, building level, and district-level. Samples of the reports are also
included. Schools can display CAT/5 achievement results by gender, ethnic group, special education
services, migrant education services, free lunch, reduced lunch, bilingual services, and Title I services
for the current year or past year.
Test Score Menu, published by the Data Processing Department in January 2002, as a user guide,
lists maintenance and HSGQE scheduling options, in addition to test score reports.
Elementary Principal Inservice, dated August 20, 2001 contains an agenda on test data analysis
for Benchmarks, CAT, and Writing Assessment to be used as information to share with teachers and
parents, a means of beginning school report card goals and learning opportunity grant plans, and a
template for staff development on test and data analysis. There was no written statement regarding
feedback on the actual usage of the material, nor did auditors receive similar documents for secondary
schools.
Anchorage School District Title I Program document dated 5/17/2002 presents descriptions of
optional Title I assessments and examples of data use by several schools. In the examples presented
to auditors, data disaggregation was by gender and LEP status only.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 184
Construct and Predictive Validity of the Alaska State High School Graduation Qualifying
Examination First Administration written by three Anchorage School District staff members for
presentation at the 2001 American Educational Research Association Convention in Seattle
Washington is an extensive analysis of the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination in
Anchorage and raises multiple questions about the test assessing standards that were adopted in 1999.
“In response to a state survey, better than 20 percent of the responding teachers indicated they
offered ‘little’ or ‘no’ instruction relative to seven of the 14 reading standards included in the survey,
one of the three writing standards, and all of the 27 math standards.” The paper states, “Principals
and teachers must understand what is expected of students and provide instruction in line with the
expected standards, based on information relative to students’ progress.” The report also points out
that surveys asking teachers if the standards are taught are stated so generally, that it is not possible to
know if the respondents were addressing the specific concepts and skills students need to learn to be
successful on the test.
While there is board policy establishing the purpose for evaluation and a requirement for the Board to
review expectations for the performance of the instructional program, there is no direction connecting
the written curriculum to classroom instruction and assessment, nor are there responsibilities specified
for the use of data. There is no requirement for the administration to determine the demographic and
test data that must be collected and reported, nor is there a directive that the administration have a
system for the dissemination and use of the data. While reporting structures are in place and capable
staff are able to make data available to schools, no documents presented to auditors indicated that a
district-wide systematic plan for systemic use of data was in place or being planned.
While many reports are available on the Student Management System, few staff members explicitly
referenced these reports. Interviews with the Data Processing Department indicated that the
department accepts individual school requests for additional types of reports. If the department
decides to devote resources to produce the report, the report is available to all schools. The
department presents information and documents to principals regarding the availability of reports. No
evidence was presented that the availability and use of these data reports is part of an overall plan for
the use of data within the Anchorage School District.
Interviews with board members, central office, school staff, and parents provided indications of the
lack of bridges or connections, among the assessment and evaluation department and other
departments concerned with curriculum management. While many agree that they receive important
data, there is not agreement on how the data are disseminated for use and whether the data are
formatted for ease of use. There is no clear message on how the data are to be used or how well
they meet the schools’ needs. There are also mixed perceptions on the processes used in the district
to share data and how the central office uses data to improve its own materials and supports to
schools. However, based on interviews, there is a growing awareness on the need to use data. The
following statements from those interviews reflect that while most are aware of the presence of data,
systematic, systemic bridges are not in place for end users to use the data to improve student
performance.
Desire for Data
• “There are people in Anchorage that have a hunger to understand their programs and use datadriven decision-making.”
• “We’re hoping to become a data-driven school.”
Bridge to Disseminate Data to End Users
• “They (Assessment and Evaluation Unit) send us everything we need. The Profile is very
helpful.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 185
•
“We don’t get data in a timely manner or in the best format. I don’t know if there is feedback and
a mechanism for making changes. It’s a bit haphazard.”
• “We’re not getting the (assessment) data in a usable format for high school. It’s awfully hard to
hold teachers accountable. Staff development is needed to teach teachers how to use the data in
some kind of a prescriptive manner.”
• “The campus receives the raw data. We must disaggregate by hand if we want information by
groups.”
• “There’s test score data kind of scattered around.”
• “You get data, but only if you ask for it.”
• “Our system of getting the information to the classroom has to be improved. You have to ask for
it to get it.”
Bridge to Internal Processes to Use Data to Improve the System
• “How does the assessment department and curriculum department work together?”
• “I don’t know if our test data goes to curriculum or elementary ed.”
• “Some teachers get a lot of content staff development, but as far as tying it to assessment; I don’t
think it has been linked.”
Bridge to School Use
• “I am not sure how things relate to state standards.”
• “It’s silly to have the tests and not do anything with the data.”
• “Profiles of Performance is a wonderful book. But we don’t make any changes given what the
numbers show in it.”
• “We get it (test results) so late in the year. The kids will be gone. We look at the API. We have
a staff meeting. The teachers work by grade level to make statements about what the data is
telling us. We list where we are doing well and where we are missing the boat. Everybody buys
into the fact that this is a school-wide responsibility.”
• “One of the things we did with the data was give it to counselors to contact every parent of a child
who did not pass a section of the test to explain it to them. Other than that, to be honest we
haven’t done a lot. We are working to figure out what the data means. We have been working
with math to align their courses and also in freshman and sophomore English to be sure they are
more standards aligned. It’s had a positive impact in classroom instruction.”
• “Trying to figure out how to make the data usable is tough. It’s especially hard when the test
results are not back in time to do something with them before the end of the school year.”
Indicative that there is not a common vocabulary regarding test data, these statements are made in
interviews:
• “We disaggregate data primarily by grade level.”
• “We disaggregate by special education/regular education, and SES.”
• “We disaggregate by special education, ethnicity, SES, and use it to plan goals and instruction.”
• In response to question regarding disaggregated data, “What’s that?”
• “Disaggregated data? I think they’re working on that.”
• “We break down the data by grade level and regular education/special education.”
Interviews revealed that there are many Anchorage School District staff using data, but there is a lack
of systemic or systematic use of data throughout the district. Clear linkages have not been forged so
that end users understand or have a voice in which data are collected, how the data flow to schools
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 186
and departments, and how data are to be used to improve student achievement. There is also a lack
of common vocabulary to describe these practices.
For test data to be used with maximum impact, there must be a clear alignment of the written, taught,
and tested curriculum (see Finding 2.2). Teachers must have explicit links of curriculum, classroom
instruction, and test data. There must be required, explicit training on the use of data for all staff. In
the Anchorage School District, the Elementary Council received training in how to begin analyzing
data at the school and classroom level to identify areas of strength and weakness. Title I schools have
begun an assessment program reporting data to track student progress. These are pockets of direct
instruction on the use of data. However, as seen in Exhibit 4.2.1, there are many bridges that are
needed to inform curriculum development, staff development, budget development, and site-level
instructional decisions to improve student achievement.
Exhibit 4.2.1
Explicit Bridges for Use of Data
Anchorage School District
Document/Activity
Board Policy 144
Expectations for
Performance
Board Policy 349
Evaluation
Purpose
Requires the Board to set
expectations for performance of
the instructional program of the
district.
Sets the purpose of evaluation of
priority areas as an annual
function for the purpose of
instructional improvement and
requires reports to the Board and
the public.
Anchorage School
District 2002-02
Preliminary Financial
Plan, page 93
Sets the responsibilities for the
Assessment and Evaluation
Department.
Anchorage School
District Profiles of
Performance 20002001
Reports to Board and Schools
data from and analysis of test
performance and other data
impacting instruction and
perceptions of stakeholders in
the Anchorage School District.
Provides a list and description of
reports available to
administrators through the
Student Management System.
SMS Test Score
Reports, dated April
19, 2002
Status of Bridge
Only a portion of the instructional program is
measured (see Finding 4.1). Policy does not
address the use of data in setting priorities.
There is no setting of responsibilities for the
use of data.
Policy does not address the use of data an
integral component for determining priorities
for district action in staff development,
classroom instruction, and in budget
planning, as well as a tool for reviewing the
district’s curriculum.
While the district does collect and report data
with sophisticated analysis of the data,
school interviews reveal only pockets where
the data are used in depth.
There is no explicit responsibility for directly
training others on the meaning or use of data
at the district and school levels, nor requiring
collaboration with other departments and
schools to ensure the data collected and
format in which data are reported meets user
needs.
There is no explicit bridge explaining how it
was determined which data to collect and
report. There is no explicit bridge to train
users on the implications of the data for their
program or school.
While interviews indicate that the document
is disseminated to administrators in a meeting,
there is no explicit bridge to ensure that
administrators are trained in the use of the
system and the data implications for their
school. Auditors did not see a document
calling for tracking the use of the system to
provide a feedback bridge for knowing which
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 187
Test Score Menu
Provides a user guide to test
score reports, maintenance, and
HSGQE scheduling options.
reports are the most useful to schools, which
should be modified or dropped, or which
schools may need additional support in the
use of the report system.
There is no evidence that the training
principals received covered how to analyze
the data in the reports and the implications of
the reports for school decision-making and
budget planning. Auditors did not receive
feedback on actual usage of the data reports.
Exhibit 4.2.1 (continued)
Explicit Bridges for Use of Data
Anchorage School District
Document/Activity
Elementary Principal
Inservice, dated
August 20, 2001
Anchorage School
District Title I
Program document
dated 5/17/2002
Construct and
Predictive Validity of
the Alaska State High
School Graduation
Qualifying
Examination: First
Administration
Purpose
Provides elementary school
principals with data analysis
tools that appear to be a reduced
in scope from similar tools found
on the state’s website. There
was no evidence presented to
auditors that the reduced scope
was purposeful or a prelude to a
planned expansion in the use of
data to be phased in over time.
A set of options for Title I
schools to collect data on
student progress in state-tested
areas and a move to become
more data driven, disaggregating
data by gender and LEP status
only. Data collected from
schools is reported to Title I for
the creation of a database.
A paper presented at the 2001
American Educational Research
Association Convention in
Seattle Washington extensively
analyzing the High School
Graduation Qualifying
Examination in Anchorage and
raising multiple questions about
the test, particularly regarding its
alignment to classroom
instruction and variables that are
outside of school control.
Status of Bridge
There was no explicit indication that this
information reached every principal, nor
feedback on whether or how it was used at
every campus.
This program is in its initial stages and
intends to provide data that can follow the
student via a new database structure. In its
initial stages, interviews indicate that its use
and fidelity of application varies across the
schools. The setting up of a separate
database may lead to complications in
accuracy of data maintained in Anchorage
School District when state and federal reports
must be made or when data are furnished to
the public. There is no explicit bridge
indicating that there may be future
implications in the Anchorage system as a
whole, should the testing program prove
useful.
This paper raises serious concerns about
teacher understanding of the standards and
the inclusion of classroom instruction that
gives students the opportunity to learn what
they need to master for success on
assessments of those standards. Deep
training of teachers to understand and apply
the performance standards in instruction is a
bridge that must drive staff development and
curriculum support. While interviews indicate
that the bridge has begun in the area of
writing (see Finding 1.4), there are no
documents presented to the auditors that
indicate there is a systematic, systemic plan
to address the issue in all areas.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 188
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is strong data analysis capability in Anchorage School District evidenced in the documents
published through the Assessment and Evaluation Department.
There is the beginning of use of an analysis tool in the elementary school program; however, there
is little feedback regarding how extensively it has been implemented or how classroom practice
has been impacted.
Central office and school staff have no explicit requirement through board policy to use test and
other demographic data to design, modify, or terminate their programs or to use those data in the
design and modification of classroom instruction.
Policy does not address the use of data an integral component for determining priorities for district
action in staff development, classroom instruction, and in budget planning, as well as a tool for
reviewing the district’s curriculum.
There is no explicit set of expectations for training of staff on the availability and use of test and
other demographic data.
There is a beginning of parallel maintenance of data systems.
There is no systematic feedback loop built into the use of reports or other mechanisms to know if
schools are accessing or using data reports or whether other forms of data reporting would be
useful.
Summary
The Anchorage School District has personnel who have demonstrated sophisticated capabilities for the
collection and analysis of test and other demographic data in the reports they have produced. In
interviews, many staff evidence a deep understanding of those data. In some areas, data use is
promoted. However, the Anchorage School District lacks key bridges to ensure that data are used to
drive curriculum, programmatic, instructional, and budgetary priorities and decisions. There is no
policy stating that data use is a requirement in the district, specifying responsibilities or directing the
Superintendent to develop written responsibilities regarding collection, dissemination, training and use
of data. There is no indication of systematic collaboration to ensure that the data collection and
reporting serves the users well and that all instructional staff are instructed in how to interpret and use
the data to improve their programs or instructional or budgetary planning decisions. While pockets of
data users do exist, there is no evidence of systemic use of data.
Finding 4.3: There is Inconsistent Use of Test and Other Data within the Schools to
Improve Student Achievement Growth. While Some Principals are Aggressive and “Datafocused,” others Lack Either Interest and/or Skill in Data Utilization in Constructing Plans
or in Pursuing Strategies which are Likely to Yield Improved Student Achievement on
Required Testing Instruments. Data Disaggregation Does Not Include Ethnicity at the Sitelevel.
Auditors expect to find a comprehensive system of assessment and testing which creates a timely and
relevant database through the use of valid measurement tools that indicate how well students are
learning the district-determined learning goals and objectives. Teachers and administrators
demonstrate a clear understanding of how students are assessed on required testing instruments,
including the standards, types of questions, and level of the concepts, skills, and knowledge students
must master to be successful. The test results are well understood so that all administrators and
teachers know how to analyze important trends in the instructional program district-wide, as well as
areas of strength and weakness by classroom, groups of students, and individual students. They use
this information for planning and improving classroom instruction and programs that are likely to
improve student achievement measured on required testing instruments. Data are disaggregated
consistently and in meaningful ways for the district leaders to determine that all sub-populations are
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 189
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.
The auditors reviewed board policy and other district documents presented to them to indicate how
data are used in the schools. While board polic y calls for evaluation for the purpose of instructional
improvement, it is vague in mandating the use of achievement data. Board policy does not specify the
responsibilities of central office and school personnel in terms of use of the data for the purpose of
instructional improvement. It does not require the reporting of student achievement by subpopulations
to verify that all students are making adequate progress. It does not require that major objectives be
measured or that a process for doing so be established (see Finding 4.1).
• Board Policy 144 Expectations for Performance states, “The Board shall adopt and
periodically review expectations for performance of the instructional program of the district,
including statements of instructional goals, priorities among instructional goals, expectations for
student achievement and short- and long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
• Board Policy 349 Evaluation states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional
improvement. Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be
conducted annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and the
public. To effectively appraise educational progress the Superintendent shall report orally and in
writing to the Board as circumstances dictate and may require such periodic reports from state
members.”
• Anchorage School District Title I Program document dated 5/17/2002 presenting descriptions
of optional Title I assessments and examples of data use by several schools. In the examples
presented, data disaggregation was by gender and Limited English Proficiency status only.
• No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project Application School Year 20022003, Appendix A provides school level plans for school-wide programs. Each school
specifically calls for analyzing test data to address student needs. However, auditors did not note
any schools specifically referencing alignment of instruction to the testing requirements
• Elementary Principal Inservice, dated August 20, 2001 provides an agenda on test data
analysis for Benchmarks, CAT, and Writing Assessment to be used as information to share with
teachers and parents, a means of beginning school report card goals and learning opportunity grant
plans, and a template for staff development on test and data analysis. The document mentions
alignment of curriculum content and test content as well as teacher expectations. It asks school
staff to review test score data by Alaska Performance Index (API), which indicates a child’s
score and subsequent placement within the range of the four proficiency categories. Schools are
to manually plot API scores by Benchmark test and grade level by classroom, school-wide,
district, and Alaska cut score. CAT scores are to be analyzed by percentile rank. Teachers are
to review a set of questions to analyze areas of strength and weakness, including analyzing
content standards related to performance standards.
These documents indicate the Board’s intention to set expectations and review evaluation data to
appraise educational progress. The Title I program staff and leadership in the elementary schools are
working towards the use of data to drive instructional decisions. Auditors did not receive documents
indicating the responsibility of school leaders to use data (see Finding 4.2). Tools for using data are
more suggested than required. Auditors saw no evidence of a requirement for all schools to
disaggregate data by ethnicity, socio-economic status, LEP/non-LEP, special education, gender, nor to
compare performance of Title I to non-Title I student performance. There is no direction to examine
survey data, attendance data, or any other non-test data. This lack of direction and specificity
contributes to inconsistent and ineffective use of data.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 190
The auditors interviewed board members, central office staff, principals, teachers, and parents
regarding the use of data in Anchorage School District. The following comments illustrate the
inconsistent use of data:
• “The data report rank orders students on low to high on any one of the tests. They can identify
those most in need. It also identifies other special programs in which in the child participates.”
• “It (graphing data) opened their (K-3 teachers’) eyes to the fact that all teachers are responsible
for achievement of each child.”
• “Last year we agreed on the tests we would all give (for early reading). Each school decided
what would mean struggling or proficient. There are great similarities, and so we created a
district standard. The teachers were 73 percent accurate in determining whether students would
score proficient (on reading).”
• “All principals got the data and graphed it and took it back to their sites. We were not told to
share it, but it was suggested that we did.”
• “We test our readers with a DRA kit and district benchmark kit and other assessments with a
mid-year test for the struggling readers. A lot of the schools used criterion-referenced tests to
determine the status of their readers.”
• “Everyone does their own thing. On the reading K-4 test, the teachers did their own test rather
than the one that was designed and did their own scores.”
• “I really like test data to see where the strengths and weaknesses are in the team. If the kid is
low in grammar, they can look at what to do to help. We can use the CAT to look at the school
as a whole. When you do the stats, we look at ethnicity.”
• “The data we get from the district regarding assessment is usually on school reports or benchmark
testing. It’s never the testing teachers would use to alter instruction. It’s the big stuff.”
• “We compile and discuss trends in student data at third grade.”
• “In the fall, we work with the data to do a profile for each grade in multi-level grade level groups.
It was not disaggregated as much as I would have liked, but central office is working on it.”
Interviews reveal a willingness to use data, but an inconsistency in the use of test and other data
within the schools. There are a variety of interpretations as to what district expectations are for
utilizing data to develop plans and strategies likely to improve student achievement on required testing
instruments.
Summary
District leaders and many principals indicate that data are being used in the Anchorage School
District. There is no requirement for each school to examine test and other data such as attendance
rates, retention rates and patterns, and other data readily available in the district that indicate how well
a school is meeting the needs of its students. The lack of clear, comprehensive, district-wide training
in the use of test data to align classroom instruction and programs (see Finding 4.2) has resulted in
some principals lacking either interest or skill in utilizing data to construct plans or pursue strategies
which are likely to yield improved student achievement on required testing instruments.
Finding 4.4: There Have Been Little Systematic Program Evaluation Activities Completed
by District Personnel; Board Members Indicate Frustration with the Lack of Data
Regarding Program Effectiveness, Especially Around Budget Development and Continuing
Budget Support for Non-evaluated Programs.
Schools institute programs as a means to address a perceived need. A comprehensive program
assessment provides a foundation on which to base decisions on the success of instructional or other
interventions. The district’s systematic program assessment is a vehicle for examining how well
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 191
programs are actually producing desired results. The evaluation of programs can also provide
feedback to teachers regarding how classroom instruction can be more effective and provides data by
which the staff can compare the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and program
alternatives. Appropriate and continuous program evaluation needs to be an integral part of the overall
assessment system.
Program assessment must not be left to chance or conducted in a haphazard manner; rather, it is
deliberate, purposeful, and clearly defined. The well-managed district consistently employs a data
collection process that determines the quality of existing programs. New programs are not put into
place without designing and implementing an evaluation plan that looks at the impact of the program.
Instructional programs must always have a component that measures student achievement gains, not
merely perceptions or attendance of participants or if the implementation was completed according to
schedule. The lack of careful, planned program evaluation leaves the Board and education leaders
with only anecdotal and random evidence concerning the effectiveness of programs and interventions,
and leaves parents and students uncertain about the extent of student learning.
The auditors wanted to be able to directly trace the impact of modifications or enhancements made in
programs or school-level interventions to a positive impact on student achievement and that the
programs and interventions were implemented based on data-driven decisions. The auditors reviewed
policy, assessment data, and procedures regarding program evaluation. Interviews with school district
personnel and board members also presented data on program evaluation activities. The review of
documents and interviews with staff revealed that there has been little systematic program evaluation,
even though board policy requires it for pilot programs.
Board Policy 349 Evaluation states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional
improvement. Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be conducted
annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and the public. To
effectively appraise educational progress, the Superintendent shall report orally and in writing to the
Board as circumstances dictate and may require such periodic reports from state members.”
Board Policy 341.22 Pilot Programs states, “Pilot programs may be modifications to the current
curriculum and/or changes in how the curriculum is delivered. The Superintendent shall create
procedures for developing, implementing, and evaluating pilot programs. Pilot programs shall be
reported to the Board. Pilot programs that have major impact or involve the expenditure of more than
$20,000 shall require Board approval.
Interviews indicated dissatisfaction with the lack of program evaluation, and a lack of resources to
conduct the type of evaluation upon which program continuance, termination, or modification could be
based.
• “We have not done a good job at evaluating our programs.”
• “We used to do it (evaluation of programs) anecdotally. We are moving away from that. We
now have a variety of sources on how well programs are doing. I’d like to do a better job with
that. There is feedback, but we could be better.”
• “At one point we were doing a lot of evaluations, but the luxury of having that amount of labor has
dwindled.”
• “One thing the district does not do is real objective evaluation of programs. We get a program and
it stays forever. There isn’t any evaluation of that program. That function needs to rise to the
top.”
• “I really don’t think we made decisions made on test data.”
• “We don’t do nearly as much ‘results-based’ assessment as we should.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 192
•
“I think the Board does get enough data. Descriptions of the program and schools. Six pages on
each school. You can track what is working and what isn’t from these data.”
• “The Board has made decisions based on test data. They have come into the community to work
with us. We request surveys so we can continue to receive our grants.”
• “We need to validate what works best.”
• “We put programs into effect and assume (evaluation) is done. I’m not sure we have a good
system in analyzing programs.”
• “We never see any results from these community surveys.”
• “Fifteen years ago we linked programs and demography and special reports, pilots of instructional
materials, but that was sort of deconstructed over the years.”
Auditors received several documents indicating program evaluation was taking place; however, there
was no central plan presented nor clear design for the use of the evaluations. Grant programs that are
evaluated as a provision of the grant were not received in written form for review, but were discussed
in interviews. Exhibit 4.4.1 lists the documents received, provided an overview of the document, and
an indication of the use of data within the evaluation.
Exhibit 4.4.1
Overview of Program Documents and Evaluation Description
Anchorage School District
Evaluation Document
1994 Graduate Survey
Results,
Assessment and
Evaluation Report #946, February 1995
Class of 1997 Graduate
Survey, Assessment
and Evaluation Report
#98-2, March 1998
Class of 1999 Graduate
Survey,
Assessment and
Evaluation Report #011, July 2000
May 13, 2002, ASD
Memorandum #278
Overview
Survey related to high school
academic and non-academic
experiences, perceptions of
program quality, and satisfaction
with staff and school rules, helping
to fulfill a Federal Government
requirement for collecting
information on the success of grant
funded vocational education
programs.
Survey related to high school
academic and non-academic
experiences, perceptions of
program quality, and satisfaction
with staff and school rules, helping
to fulfill a Federal Government
requirement for collecting
information on the success of grant
funded vocational education
programs.
Survey related to high school
academic and non-academic
experiences, perceptions of
program quality, and satisfaction
with staff and school rules, helping
to fulfill a Federal Government
requirement for collecting
information on the success of grant
funded vocational education
programs.
The memorandum summarizes the
2002 application, providing a
Evaluation
Data collected, tabulated, and reported for
19 percent of the class. All large high
schools had 10 to 18 percent of their
graduates contacted.
Data collected, tabulated, and reported for
25 percent of the class. All large high
schools had 11 to 20 percent of their
graduates contacted.
There is no explicit indication of whether
changes were made in programs based on
the analysis of the 1994 Graduate Survey
Results.
Data collected, tabulated, and reported for
27 percent of the class. All large high
schools had from 11 to 20 percent of their
graduates contacted.
There is no explicit indication of whether
changes were made in programs based on
the analysis of the Class of 1997 Graduate
Survey.
There is no mention of evaluation plans for
these programs.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 193
(2001-2002) to the
School Board from the
Office of the
Superintendent
regarding the No Child
Left Behind Federal
Programs Integrated
Projects Application
detailed summary of 27 programs
that will be included in the No Child
Left Behind Federal Programs
Integrated Projects Application.
Exhibit 4.4.1 (continued)
Overview of Program Documents and Evaluation Description
Anchorage School District
•
•
•
Evaluation Document
No Child Left Behind
Federal Programs
Integrated Project
Application School
Year 2002-2003
Overview
Application for federal funds that
lists over 50 separate programs
taking place in schools
Instructional
Technology Plan: A
Working Document,
Fall 2001
A document that anticipates
actions and costs required to
implement the Alaska Technology
Standards for Students.
Evaluation
On pages 19-28, of the 30 programmatic
evaluations listed, only three specifically
called for increased student achievement as
a measure of success.
Evaluations of most programs are primarily
based on attendance and feedback surveys
rather than results in terms of student
behaviors and demonstrated skills. The
Creating Successful Futures project is an
exception in that discipline referrals and
academic pre- and post-tests will be utilized
in the evaluation.
Another exception is on page 13 where
staff development will be evaluated by
training evaluations, data analysis of
student performance, focus group feedback
and teacher interviews.
Appendix A school plans do measure goals
by student achievement results, but no
explicit rationale is provided regarding why
a particular strategy is expected to yield
results on the state-required tests.
Evaluation calls for unspecified monitoring
of progress toward the goals and
integration of technology into the
curriculum at the beginning and end of
each school year. Each school will be
responsible for an as yet unspecified
process to evaluate the effects of
technology on student achievement of
Alaska content and performance standards.
In reading the three Graduate Survey Reports, there was no indication of how the data was used
to change program implementation from one year to next.
Most program evaluations submitted to auditors are driven by grant or federal requirements.
Evaluations in the No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project Application rarely
examine impact on student achievement, but rely on attendance and opinion of participants rather
than measurable results. Success of individual school plans in Appendix A will be measured in
terms of student achievement and call for the analysis of achievement data. However, there is no
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 194
explicit rationale for the use of particular programs to achieve the goals set, nor specific evaluation
set in place to see which of the strategies prove to be most successful.
A partial list of programs in the No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project
Application, School Year 2002-2003 is presented in Exhibit 4.4.2. While it would require enormous
resources to do a formal evaluation for each program, auditors were not given any document that
indicated a plan to review the programs on a rotating basis.
Exhibit 4.4.2
Partial List of Programs
No Child Left Behind Federal Programs Integrated Project Application
Anchorage School District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Title I School-wide programs in 13 schools
Title I Targeted Assistance programs in five schools
Preschool at North Star ES
Parent Involvement
Professional Development
Training for teaching assistants
Title I Summer Enrichment Academy
Services to homeless children
Supplemental services for residential treatment
programs
Academic support and transitions to school and
community for students at McLaughlin Secondary
School
Migrant Education
Teacher and Principal Training
Assessment Training
Professional development in Math and Science
Literacy
Class Size Reduction in K-1
Technology training for building level coordinators
Services to LEP students
Resolving Conflict Creatively Program
Infusion of alcohol/ drug/ violence prevention material
into the K-12 curriculum
Development of the district five-year plan for staff
development
Continuance of current administrative training
Math and Science Family Fun Nights
24. Learning Through Performance Tasks collaboration
25. Posting lesson plans, assessments, and
strategies on district website
26. Infuse Alaska Cultural standards into
curriculum through teacher training
27. Kagan Cooperative Learning
28. Learning Opportunity Grants
29. Corrective Reading
30. Second Chance Reading
31. CRISS
32. REAL Grant
33. Gifted program
34. CFS Program
35. RCCP
36. Peace in the School
37. Peaceable Schools
38. Parent Home Activities guide
39. Peace in the Family
40. Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
41. The Search Institute
42. Don’t Laugh at Me (grades 2-9)
43. Quest International
44. Peer Education
45. DARE
46. Gates-McGinitie Reading Assessment as
pre/post measure
47. Lightspan
48. The Great Body Shop
49. Here’s Looking at You 2000
50. Project ACHIEVE
51. The Giraffe Project
Summary
Within Anchorage School District schools, the auditors observed many programs and initiatives. While
policy calls for evaluation of pilot programs, there are insufficient district resources available to
conduct even these evaluations. Auditors did not receive a plan for periodic review of all major
programs. Title I has begun its own collection of data. The data, however, are not explicitly tied to
specific interventions or program implementation.
Finding 4.5: There is No Assessment Plan in Place for the Design or Acquisition of Testing
Instruments, the Evaluation of Other than State-required Curricular Areas (no local
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 195
Criterion-referenced Tests other than in Writing); or for the Stipulation of Goals and
Objectives to Guide the Assessment Process (and Which Fulfill a Locally-adopted Board
Policy).
A school district establishes its expectations for student performance at each grade level and for each
course through its Board-adopted curriculum. The district must have a mechanism to measure student
progress to ensure that students are mastering the major objectives it has set forth. Since the district
curriculum must encompass state-level requirements, a teacher who ensures that students master that
curriculum should find that students do well on state assessments as well as curriculum-aligned district
assessments. Teachers, principals, and the district need to have formative as well as summative data
linked to a well-defined, aligned curriculum.
Finding 4.1 indicates that state testing drives assessment of student learning in the Anchorage School
District. The district priority must address the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics so that all
students achieve at least at grade level on norm-referenced tests and reach at least proficient on
benchmark tests. However, the district must also ensure that teachers are teaching and students are
mastering the whole curriculum.
The Anchorage School District does implement its own writing assessment in grades 5, 7, and 9 in
anticipation of state benchmark testing in grades 6, 8, and 10 (see Finding 4.1). While the Anchorage
School District does write its own Pre-Algebra Qualification Test for grade 6 to determine program
placement, it does not monitor student progress at specific points throughout the year to know how
students are progressing or if interventions are being effective in mathematics in all grade levels. Title
I has implemented some assessment instruments in state assessment areas. There were no other
district-developed criterion-referenced tests directly linked to the Anchorage District Curriculum major
objectives presented to auditors.
Auditors did not receive any document nor did interviews reveal that an assessment plan to go beyond
state-tested areas is in place or under discussion. Auditors found board policy regarding the intention
of the Board to evaluate student progress which names the courses that must be offered to students.
These policies are as follows:
Board Policy 144 Expectations for Performance states, “The Board shall adopt and periodically
review expectations for performance of the instructional program of the district, including statements
of instructional goals, priorities among instructional goals, expectations for student achievement, and
short- and long-range goals for instructional improvement.”
Board Policy 349 Evaluation states, “Evaluation shall be for the purpose of instructional
improvement. Evaluation of the school program is an administrative function and shall be conducted
annually in priority goal areas. The results shall be reported to the Board and the public. To
effectively appraise educational progress the Superintendent shall report orally and in writing to the
Board as circumstances dictate and may require such periodic reports from state members.”
Board Policy 341.1 Course of Studies states, “The secondary courses will include language arts,
social studies, mathematics, science, world languages, career technology, fine arts, physical education,
and health. Additional electives in the middle schools may be offered, pending approval of the Middle
School Executive Director. A Program of Studies book for each level will be published annually and
describe the curricular offerings.
“The elementary curriculum shall include language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, art,
health, music, physical education, and library skills.”
Board Policy 343.1 Grading System states, “The Superintendent shall be responsible for a student
evaluation system. Schools may request waivers from the Superintendent to allow use of alternative
evaluation systems. The teacher has the responsibility to determine grades within the approved
system. An appeal of a grade may be made to the principal.”
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 196
Board Policy 343.2 Reports states, “A progress report to students and parents is required on a
quarterly basis. This requirement may be satisfied with either a written report or a parental
conference. Results from standardized tests for grades 3 through 11 shall be provided on an annual
basis to parents. An attempt shall be made to notify parents and students of their academic progress
and/or failing grades at each mid-quarter of the school year.”
While teacher grades are evidently meant to provide formative assessment data, auditors did not
receive any written document other than staff development on writing that indicated there was a
district-wide effort to standardize performance expectations for students. Auditors did not receive
documents that indicated other criterion-referenced assessments were under development or
discussion.
Summary
There is no assessment plan in place to go beyond state-testing requirements by designing or acquiring
testing instruments for formative assessments linked to the curriculum, or assessments in content
areas other than reading, writing, or mathematics. Thus the Anchorage School District does not
stipulate the major objectives that must be assessed to guide the assessment process.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 197
STANDARD 5: A School System Has Improved Productivity.
Productivity refers to the relationship between system input and output. A school system meeting this
standard of the PDK-CMSi Curriculum Management Audit is able to demonstrate consistently
improved pupil outcomes, even in the face of diminishing resources. Improved productivity results
when a school system is able to create a consistent level of congruence between major variables in
achieving enhanced results and in controlling costs.
What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Anchorage School District
While the attainment of improved productivity in a school system is a complex process, caused in part
by the lack of a tight organizational structure (referred to as “loosely coupled”), common indicators of
a school system meeting this audit standard are:
•
Planned and actual congruence among curricular objectives, results, and financial allocations,
•
A financial data base and network that are able to track costs to results, provide sufficient
fiduciary control, and is used as a viable data base in making policy and operational decisions,
•
Specific means that have been selected or modified and implemented to attain better results in the
schools over a specified time period,
•
A planned series of interventions that have raised pupil performance levels over time and
maintained those levels within the same cost parameters as in the past,
•
School facilities that are well-kept, sufficient, safe, orderly, and conducive to effective delivery of
the instructional program, and
•
Support systems that function in systemic ways.
Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Anchorage School District
This section is an overview of the findings that follow in the area of Standard Five. The details follow
within separate findings.
After examining fiduciary documents and interviewing appropriate personnel, the auditors concluded
that the current fiscal situation in Anchorage School District remains tenuous. A review of the
independent auditors’ records show that there could be a threat to the fiscal health of the district in the
future if certain revenue and expenditure trends continue. While the budgetary process is quite
comprehensive, it is connected to neither student achievement data nor explicit curricular priorities at
the present time. In general, school facilities are excellent and in good condition. There is a school
facilities plan.
Finding 5.1: The District’s Independent Auditors’ Analysis of Past Financial Trends
Reveals Fiduciary Soundness.
However, if a Projected Trend of Revenues and
Expenditures Is Realized, the District’s Financial Condition Will Be Compromised.
A balance between revenues and expenditures, with adequate controls in place and close monitoring
of this relationship at regularly established intervals, is critical to the financial health of an organization.
In school districts, if expenditures exceed revenues or if revenue is uncertain or fluctuates substantially
from year to year, the ability to provide quality educational services to students is compromised.
To determine the financial trends of the district, auditors reviewed board policies; budget documents;
annual financial statements that include the independent auditors’ reports with accompanied associated
management letters that detail findings and recommendations to the school regarding improved fiscal
management; newspaper clippings; general obligation bond planning documents; and staff memoranda
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 198
to determine the fiscal soundness of the Anchorage School District. Interviews of key personnel,
including principals and finance department staff, were used to corroborate the documents.
The auditors expected to find a system in sound financial condition, with a close and continuous
monitoring of expenditures and revenues throughout the fiscal year and a history of projected financial
stability. Although brief, Board Policy 727.4 Internal Controls provides clear direction to the
superintendent to establish internal controls to “ensure the safeguard and management of district
assets” and to “establish a control environment which shall include a reliable and accurate accounting
system.” Board Policy 722.72 directs the superintendent to “submit to the Board a summary
statement of revenues and expenditures, bank balances, and report of investments on a monthly
basis.” The auditors found the district’s immediate past and present financial status to be sound, but
projections regarding revenue generation and expenditures indicate a fiscal gap of almost $20 million in
two years without successful intervention to increase revenue and/or decrease expenditures.
School district boards, taxpayers, the superintendent, and financial staff depend upon an independent
auditor’s annual evaluation of the system to provide an expert and objective opinion of fund
management and the overall fiduciary soundness of the district. Board Policy 727.32 Annual
Independent Financial Audit requires this service, and the superintendent has historically secured it
each year and published the results. In fact, the district received awards of Excellence in Financial
Reporting for fiscal year 2000 from the association of School business Officials International (ASBOI)
and the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for
publishing “an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, whose
contents conform to principles and standards as recommended and adopted by ASBOI and GFOA.”
In addition to the independent auditors’ numerical report of their findings that includes combined
statements of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances as well as other pertinent financial
data, they also provide the district with a management letter that identifies potential and actual
problems related to the district’s internal control as well as observations and recommendations on
other accounting, administrative, and operating matters. The auditors reviewed the FY 1999, 2000,
and 2001 management letters from the KPMK, LLP firm. The FY 1999 management letter included
eight recommendations; the 2000 letter, one; and the 2001 management letter, two. None of the
findings/recommendations were repeated beyond the initial year of note, indicating that the district has
taken action to rectify potential problems in a timely fashion.
The Anchorage School District receives revenue from three major sources: state, local, and federal.
The largest percentage of funds has traditionally come from the state via the Alaska Public School
Funding Program. The current formula provides a base allocation of $4,010 per Average Daily
Membership (ADM) and incorporates district cost factors as well as other variables in calculating the
final allocation. Local revenue is the next largest component of the annual budget and is generated by
taxation of real and personal property. Federal sources of revenue include competitive discretionary
as well as entitlement funds for specific groups of students (i.e., Title 1, special education). The
district operates a July 1-June 30 fiscal year.
The Anchorage School District is a dependent school district in that it does not have taxing authority
and must have approval of its annual budget by the Anchorage Assembly (subsequent to Board
approval) and the mayor (who has veto power). In addition to approving the district’s annual budget,
the Assembly approves, levies, and collects taxes; approves the borrowing of funds and issuance of
general obligation bonds; and sets the upper limits of local funding. Although this approval process has
run smoothly for the past two years because of improved school and city relationships, the process by
nature creates a sense of unknown and uneasiness regarding the year-to-year reliability of adequate
revenue. The current status is exacerbated by the fact that the district has reached its voter-approved
“tax cap” that limits tax increases to inflation, population growth, and new construction and leaves
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 199
approximately $18-$20 million of state funds on the table each year due to the state funding formula.
The following quotes capture the frustration and concern regarding the district’s current funding:
• “We are struggling to get balanced on our funding. We have problems with oil and we are trying
to get long-range stability on our finances” (board member).
• “Financial challenges are another big challenge—our legislature is pretty much dysfunctional. This
makes funding ‘iffy’” (board member).
• “The budget cycle here is a little troubling, unlike business where you have control over your
income. When we develop a budget we don’t know what we will have as income. It hasn’t been
consistent over time” (board member).
• “We have zero growth [in the budget] when we’re not cutting. We’ve not seen new money in a
long time” (administrator).
• “We’re always in somewhat of a shortfall (regarding budget)” (administrator).
The district’s budget is divided into five separate funds for organizational purposes: (1) general fund—
the operation budgets for all schools and most of the district’s departments, (2) food service fund—a
special purpose fund used exclusively for the district’s Student Nutrition Program, (3) debt service
fund—a special purpose fund for the principal and interest paid on school bonds for capital
improvements, (4) local, state, and federal projects fund—a fund for all categorical (entitlement)
grants and contracts to provide for specific instructional programs, and (5) facilities
management/capital projects fund—the fund for administrative costs related to capital construction
projects.
The general fund is the largest component of the overall budget and provides the most flexibility of
use. Exhibit 5.1.1 provides a comparison of the actual total general fund revenues for the past three
years (FY 1999-2001) and projected revenues for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
Exhibit 5.1.1
Five-year Trend in General Fund Revenue Sources Excluding Fund Balance
Anchorage School District
Fiscal Years 1999 - 2003
Fiscal
Year
1999
2000
2001
*2002
*2003
Local
95,991,362
103,089,040
108,806,461
112,484,218
118,952,551
%
30.50
31.24
32.28
31.60
33.01
State
211,258,145
215,874,479
217,111,852
228,537,939
225,008,584
%
66.16
65.43
64.42
64.21
63.41
Federal
10,623,599
10,963,758
11,131,412
9,885,000
10,885,000
%
3.34
3.33
3.30
2.78
3.07
% Annual
Total
Increase
317,873,106
NA
329,927,277
3.8
337,049,725
2.2
350,907,157
4.1
354,846,135
1.1
*Projected
Data Sources: ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001 (KPMG, LLP), ASD
Proposed Financial Plan, 2002-2003
As noted in Exhibit 5.1.1, past and future general fund revenue trends indicate annual increases
ranging from one to four percent. Both local and state revenue sources reflect an increase with the
exception of a slight decrease in the 2003 state projection. However, the local revenue percentage of
the total general fund budget has increased at about the same degree as the percentage of state
revenue to the total budget has decreased (approximately three percent) within the four-year period.
The amount of federal funds has remained relatively static, with the percentage of the total budget
decreasing only slightly. The anticipated proportionate contributions to the fiscal year 2002 general
fund budget are 32 percent local, 64 percent state, and three percent federal.
Exhibit 5.1.2 presents a comparison of the year-end general fund unreserved, undesignated fund
balance for the past four fiscal years. An unreserved, undesignated fund balance represents
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 200
unallocated funds that the district has available to handle cash flow needs as well as unexpected onetime expenditures. Although most of these funds are in short and long-term investments, some are
held as cash. For example, the district maintains a $985,000 non-interest bearing certificate of deposit
as a compensatory balance in return for zero-balance banking services at its depository bank.
Exhibit 5.1.2
Comparison of End of Year, Unreserved, Undesignated Fund Balance
to General Fund Operating Budget
Anchorage School District
Fiscal Years 1998 - 2001
Fiscal
Year
1988
1999
2000
2001
End of Year
Unrestricted, Unreserved
GF Fund Balance
15,113,502
17,616,997
12,428,233
17,171,678
General Fund
301,916,256
317,873,106
329,893,038
337,049,725
% of Fund Balance
5%
6%
4%
5%
Data Source: ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 1999; FY 2001(KPMG, LLP)
As noted, the district’s unreserved, undesignated fund balance has fluctuated from four to six percent
of the general fund budget for the past four years. According to district financial personnel statements
and published documents, the industry standard in the state of Alaska is five percent. According to an
explanation provided to the auditors, state and local funds flow to the district in equal monthly
installments beginning in September.
Exhibit 5.1.3 illustrates the anticipated shortfall of revenue over the next two years if projections made
by district financial personnel are correct.
Exhibit 5.1.3
Actual, Revised, Proposed, and Projected Financial Data
Anchorage School District
Fiscal Years 2001 – 2005
Element
Total Revenues
Total Expenditures
Fiscal Gap
Total Cost per Student FTE
G.F. Cost per Student FTE
Total Student FTEs*
2000-2001
Audited
Actual
412,525,896
408,021,944
4,503,952
8,326
6,794
49,002
2001-2002
Revised
448,655,706
448,655,706
0
8,971
7,116
50,020
2002-2003
Proposed
454,862,275
454,862,275
0
9,139
7,130
49,766
2003-2004
Projected
460,080,293
474,623,685
(14,543,392)
9,551
7,482
49,694
2004-2005
Projected
466,575,500
486,558,820
(19,983,320)
9,836
7,728
49,470
*FTE considers half-day kindergarten and pre-kindergarten children at one-half, consistent with their programs.
Data Source: ASD Proposed Financial Plan 2002-2003
Projections in Exhibit 5.1.3 assume continuation of current formulas for local and state revenue and
student enrollment as projected by the district demographer using the cohort-survival formula.
Assumptions for expenditures are:
• Operating costs will continue to rise according to the projected Consumer Price Index.
• Current programs will be maintained.
• The district will settle future labor obligations/contracts at current best estimates.
Other points to note in Exhibit 5.1.3 include:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 201
•
The projected student FTE (full-time equivalent) is approximately 500 less than the audited FY
2001 number, reversing an upward swing over the past decade.
• The general fund cost per FTE increases approximately 14 percent over the four-year period,
while the total cost per FTE increases slightly more than 18 percent, due primarily to the increase
in bonded indebtedness for capital improvements.
• Total revenues are expected to increase approximately 13 percent over the four-year period.
• Total expenditures are expected to increase approximately 19 percent.
• Anticipated expenditures and revenues are balanced for FY 2002 and 2003.
• The district will experience a $20 million fiscal gap between revenues and expenditures at the end
of FY 2005 if the above assumptions are met.
Although the projected FY 2004 and 2005 expenditures and revenues reflected in Exhibit 5.1.3 do not
include the sale of bonds for capital improvements as approved by the voters in April 2002, both would
increase proportionately, maintaining a similar fiscal gap for the two years.
As a result of steady enrollment gains over the past few years, district personnel have been aggressive
in planning and recommending major capital improvements to accommodate the growth and keep
existing facilities in operable condition. The annual requirements to amortize all general obligation
bond debt outstanding at the end of FY 2001 are provided in Exhibit 5.1.4. Additional bond
indebtedness information is provided in Exhibit 5.1.5. Neither exhibit includes $73,150,000 in
previously authorized but un-issued general obligation bonds or the $99 million approved by the voters
in April 2003. Data do represent a July 2001 “refund” of approximately $52 million worth of
authorized bonds to a lower interest rate in place when bonds were actually issued, resulting in lower
debt service payments totaling $2,445,039 over the subsequent 12 years, with a net economic gain of
$1,745,275.
Exhibit 5.1.4
Annual Payments of Principal and Interest for
General Obligation Bonds Outstanding as of June 30, 2001
(Rounded to the Nearest Thousand)
Anchorage School District
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007-11
2012-16
2017-21
Total
Principal
21,655,000
23,300,000
24,555,000
25,885,000
24,400,000
136,945,000
152,060,000
87,755,000
496,555,000
Interest
24,783,000
24,724,000
23,490,000
22,151,000
20,761,000
83,411,000
44,034,000
10,720,000
254,074,000
Total
46,438,000
48,024,000
48,045,000
48,036,000
45,161,000
220,356,000
196,094,000
98,475,000
750,629,000
Data Source: ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 1999; FY 2001(KPMG, LLP)
As noted in Exhibit 5.1.4:
• The district’s total 20-year general obligation indebtedness is three-quarters of a billion dollars.
• Approximately one-third ($254,074,000) of the total 20-year debt is interest.
• The annual debt (principal and interest) ranges from a high of approximately $48 million (FY 20032005) to a low of approximately $20 million during the last five years of the schedule.
As authorized in House Bill 281 (approved by the Alaska Legislature in 2000), the state provides a 70
percent debt reimbursement for bonds authorized by voters after June 30, 1998. Debts since that date
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 202
combined with prior bonded indebtedness yielded total state revenues at 41 percent ($17,023,000) of
the district’s total FY 2001 debt service revenues.
Exhibit 5.1.5
Ratio of Net General Bonded Debt to Assessed Value
and Net Bonded Debt Per Student
Anchorage School District
Fiscal Years 1998 - 2001
Fiscal
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
ADM
47,316
48,116
48,157
48,856
Assessed
Valuation
13,095,347,728
13,331,562,133
14,546,572,224
14,939,812,371
Gross Bonded
Debt
323,175,000
358,840,000
337,530,000
496,555,999
Net Bonded Debt
318,193,682
352,783,299
333,046,894
490,689,818
Net Bonded
Debt Per
Student
6,725
7,332
6,916
10,044
Data Source: ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2001 (KPMG, LLP)
The variance between the gross and net bonded debt displayed in Exhibit 5.1.5 is the debt service fund
balance on hand during the respective year to defray a portion of the debt. As noted in exhibit:
• The average daily membership has risen by 1,540 students (3.3 percent) over the past four years.
• The assessed valuation (of real and personal property) has increased by approximately 14 percent.
• The gross and net bonded debt have risen by approximately 54 percent.
• The net bonded debt per student has risen approximately 50 percent over the four-year period,
with a jump of 45 percent during the last year.
Summary
In summary, the auditors found the Anchorage School district in sound financial condition as per
independent auditors’ analysis. However, the current local funding scenario coupled with a projected
shortfall of approximately $20 million at the end of FY 2005 places the district in jeopardy for future
fiduciary problems.
Finding 5.2: The Budget Development Process Is Comprehensive in Nature But Lacks
Procedures for Considering Assessment Data and Curriculum-related Priorities.
The budget is a quantifiable representation of a school district’s priorities, whether the result of a
conscious decision or not. It reflects what the Superintendent and Board have determined as worthy
of funding among the fierce competition from myriad interests and distracters. High performing
school districts have a tight, formal linkage between curricular priorities and funding choices, with
decisions made in respective order. Fidelity to allocating funds in such a way as to maximize
attainment of established district goals is the capstone of the budgeting process. Hence, the Board
and Superintendent embrace and promote what is known as a “curriculum-driven budget.”
The auditors reviewed documents and interviewed staff and board members regarding the Anchorage
School District budget development process. Major documents included budget documents from past
years, the 2002-2003 Proposed Financial Plan, several budget development manuals (elementary,
secondary, special education, administrative), and the following school board policies:
• Board Policies 721.1, 721.2, and 721.3 Financial Management Responsibility outline the
specific budgetary responsibilities of the Board, Superintendent, and chief financial officer. The
Superintendent will “direct the development of the annual budget”; the Board shall submit the
budget to the Municipal Assembly for review and approval; and the chief financial officer “shall
be responsible for seeing that adequate records of all expenditures and revenues are maintained,
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 203
controlling the major budget categories, and providing information required for the annual budget
preparation.”
• Board Policy 722.2 Budget Contents specifies that the budget will “be based on the educational
needs...and as expressed by the annual statement of Board priority goals for instructional
improvement.”
• Board Policy 722.3 Planning and Compilation addresses campus budget development,
requiring “building administrator(s) [to] review their proposed budget plan with their parent and
staff groups,” be based on a “needs assessment conducted at the unit level,” and submitted to the
Budget Director prior to November 15 for the next fiscal year.”
• Board Policy 722.5 requires that the Board hold public hearings “and approve the proposed
Financial Plan prior to submission to the Municipal Assembly on the first Monday in March of
each year.”
Auditors found that the board policies are inadequate to support a curriculum-driven budgeting
process. The policies do not include adequate direction regarding the role of a clinical needs
assessment, rank ordering of program components, cost benefit analysis, and establishment of districtwide priority programs and initiatives in development of the budget. They also found that the budget
process itself is not driven by curricular priorities.
The Anchorage School District administrators currently utilize a detailed, prescriptive budget
development process that is initiated in August of the previous year and involves a series of budget
document submission, review, and approval steps with the final budget approved by the Anchorage
Assembly no later than the first Monday in March. Budget center managers first submit their
proposed unit budgets to the superintendent and financial division staff. Although a document entitled
Budget Basics indicates that managers are to submit prioritized lists of changes “that would help
achieve the district’s goals of improving academic achievement,” auditors determined that the current
practice of budget development is actually driven by strict allocations to campuses and “maintenance
level” budgeting for central office budget centers. Campuses are given two major allocations. The
first one is for supplies and materials over which the principals and staff have discretion over
assignment of funds. Elementary campuses are provided $90 per student; middle schools, $98; and
high schools, $100. Additional allocations are provided for special-needs students. Student counts are
based on October (of the current year) projections. The other major allocation is for personnel, over
which almost all principals interviewed on this issue reported having little “arrangement authority.”
Central office budget managers are directed to hold total expenditures to that of their current year’s
budget.
The auditors assessed the budget documents and development process using six components of
curriculum-driven budgeting. The results of this assessment are provided in Exhibit 5.2.1.
Exhibit 5.2.1
Components of Curriculum-driven Budgeting and Ratings of Adequacy
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Ratings
1.
2.
3.
Criterion
Tangible, demonstrable connections are evident between assessments of
curriculum effectiveness and allocations of resources.
Rank ordering of program components is provided to permit flexibility in
budget expansion, reduction, or stabilization based on critical needs or
priorities.
Cost benefits of curriculum program components are delineated in budget
decision-making.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 204
Adequate
Inadequate
X
X
X
Exhibit 5.2.1 (continued)
Components of Curriculum-driven Budgeting and Ratings of Adequacy
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Ratings
4.
5.
6.
7.
Criterion
Each budget request or submittal is described in terms of performance or
results, which permit evaluation of consequences of funding or non-funding.
Budget requests compete with each other for funding based upon the
evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum
effectiveness.
Key educational staff participating in the decision-making process sets
priorities in budget allocations.
Teacher and principal suggestions and ideas for budget priorities are
incorporated into the decision making process.
Adequate
Inadequate
X
X
X
X
As indicated in Exhibit 5.2.1, auditors determined that the Anchorage School District budget
development process is inadequate to support the design and delivery of curriculum. Explanations of
the component ratings are as follows:
1. Tangible, demonstrable connections: Board Policy 722.2 Budget Contents specifies that
the budget will “be based on the educational needs...of the district,” and the superintendent’s
2002-2003 Proposed Financial Plan cover memo to the Board-referenced budget development
that included an assessment of “what is being done during the current fiscal year and what
progress is being made.” Further, in the introductory section of the 2002-2003 Proposed
Financial Plan, preliminary budgets are described as the first stage of budget development in
which “each school and department develops a budget after analyzing expenditures and programs
in previous and current fiscal years.” Although each of these references addresses the desired
connection, the auditors were unable to document through interviews of budget managers and
review of budget related documents that adequate linkage between assessment data (i.e., student
achievement, program evaluation) and budget priorities/requests actually occurs in practice.
2. Rank ordering of program components: This component involves the breakdown of a
particular program or initiative into logical components that can be considered separately or
cumulatively for funding considerations. The auditors found no reference of this criterion in
budget-related documents or interviews of staff.
3. Cost benefits: This criterion addresses the formal or informal quantitative analysis of what the
district receives from a particular cost investment. The auditors found no reference of this
criterion being used in decision making at the individual budget center or overall district level.
4. Evaluation of consequences of funding or non-funding: A summary of major budgeted
expenditure increases and reductions (from the 2001-2002 budget) is provided in Budget Basics
and Attachment B of the 2002-2003 Proposed Financial Plan. Data are provided for each of
the major budget centers (i.e., district-wide, elementary, middle school, high school, special
education). Reductions and additions are presented as line items that include the category and
amount (i.e., Masters Degree Bonus [reduction of $182,900], Equipment Replacement Fund
[increase of $266,758]) and overall result by budget center and the total district budget. However,
an explanation of the consequences or impact of the reductions or increases was not provided in
either document, and budget department personnel were unable to provide the auditors with
supporting or back-up documents.
5. Competition of budget requests based on connection to need: During review of documents,
auditors found implied evidence of competition for funds in the budget development process.
Approximately two months prior to the final budget adoption by the Board, projected expenditures
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 205
in the 2002-2003 budget exceeded anticipated revenues by approximately $3.7 million. In the
superintendent’s memorandum that accompanied a proposed balanced 2002-2003 budget without
the use of fund balance as a source of revenue, the Board was advised that “all departments’
requests and needs were not able to be met...[but] some program improvements...have been
addressed.” However, an explanation regarding how the competition for funds is addressed was
not provided in the budget documents or to the auditors via staff interviews.
6. Priorities set by key educational staff: General priorities of the Board, Superintendent, and
district staff are referenced in the introductory section of the 2002-2003 Proposed Financial
Plan under the mission statement, goals, commitments, and areas of focus. However, these
priorities address desired outcomes (ends) rather than district-wide program/initiative priorities for
how to accomplish the outcomes (means). During document review and interviews, the auditors
found no evidence of such priorities.
7. Teacher and principal input regarding budget priorities: The current budget development
process incorporates numerous opportunities for teacher and principal as well as other stakeholder
input into budget decisions from October to June of the budget development cycle. Formal input is
available via 17 budget review teams that involve approximately 200 community members, public
forums, the district website, a suggestion box, board hearings, and budget readings, and at
assembly review. Principal interviews indicated that teacher input is considered in identifying
priorities that are included in the campus budgets; however, the degree of input varies widely from
campus to campus.
The following comments from principals, central office administrators, and board members were
typical of opinions expressed to the auditors regarding the district’s current budgeting process:
• “Fiscal accountability gets more play than academic accountability” (central office administrator).
• “I can’t recall any funding that was stopped because something wasn’t working—a general lack
of wanting to have any criticism” (board member).
• “Test scores do not drive budget development specifically” (board member).
• “Budget is not data driven. We don’t have the evaluation setup. It’s really kind of ‘seat of the
pants’” (board member).
• “We tend to determine where we’ll put money based on who’s there [as the budget manager]”
(central office administrator).
• “Principals can do the same thing (request funding beyond allocations), but they’re pretty much
told they’ll be held to maintenance” (central office administrator).
• “When we are building our budget at the building, I have my own little formula for plugging in
what I think we should do” (principal).
• “Lot of times we still look at the budget we had before” (principal).
• “I go to the teachers and ask them what their classroom needs are.”
• “I divide the money up among departments” (principal).
• “Each program has “True Believers” and we get 500 e-mails when we try to cut something. So
we have gut level feelings when you can’t pull out data” (board member).
• “There’s no process for asking for more money in my budget than what I’m allocated” (principal).
• “The budget for curriculum is always up and down” (central office administrator).
• “It doesn’t” (when asked how curriculum drives budget decisions) (central office administrator).
Summary
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 206
The auditors found little connection between district determined curricular priorities, “results for the
money,” student assessment and program evaluation data, and ultimate budget decisions. Although a
few district documents reference such linkage, actual budgeting is primarily a function of fixed
allocations and program/initiative continuance practices.
Finding 5.3: School Facilities Are in Generally Good Condition, Well-maintained, Clean, and
Safe. There Is a Long-range Facilities Plan.
The physical condition of a school district’s facilities is an important indicator in its ability to deliver the
curriculum. Facilities that are well maintained, clean, and safe create a learning environment that does
not interfere with the learning process. The availability of usable instructional space is critical for the
delivery of the curric ulum. Inadequate space hinders effective instructional delivery and therefore
negatively impacts learning.
The auditors visited every school in the district. While at the school, the auditors made note of any
facility deficiencies that would likely inhibit or restrict effective teaching and learning. Specifically, the
auditors considered the adequacy of the size of the instructional spaces for the numbers of students
currently being served in those areas. In addition, the auditors looked for potential safety hazards, the
physical atmosphere including lighting, air conditioning, or heating. The auditors noted the appearance
of the facilities in terms of the overall building maintenance and cleanliness. While at the schools, the
auditors interviewed the principals regarding the level of support and response time provided by the
district in the areas of maintenance and custodial needs.
The auditors visited a total of 84 schools in the Anchorage School District. The audit team made
observations in 2,139 classrooms during their campus walk-through visits. Overall, the auditors found
that the district’s facilities were in good condition. Some of the buildings were undergoing renovations
during the time of the school visits. In most cases where facility needs were noted, the district has
addressed those needs in its current capital improvement plan. The auditors received a copy of the
district’s long-range facility planning document entitled, Six-year Capital Improvement Plan. The
plan spans the timeframe of July 1, 2002-June 30, 2008. The plan was dated March 11, 2002.
An analysis of the Six-year Capital Improvement Plan was completed. The results of that analysis
are shown in Exhibit 5.3.1.
Exhibit 5.3.1
Comparison of District Facility Planning Efforts to Components of a
Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Components of a Comprehensive Long-range
Facilities Plan
1. Philosophy statements that review the
community aspirations and the educational
mission of the district and their relationship
to short- and long-range facilities goals.
2. Enrollment projections which take into
account any known circumstances which may
change the pupil population.
District Planning Efforts
No philosophy statements were contained the district’s
document. The document did contain eight “Capital
Improvement Goals.” These goals were not linked to
the educational mission of the district.
Enrollment projections for each campus through the
year 2007-08 were included in the plan. Although
specific numerical impacts were not shown, the plan
made reference to circumstances that are known to
impact school populations. The references included:
the construction of a natural gas pipeline, oil
exploration, and the closure of military installations.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 207
Exhibit 5.3.1 (continued)
Comparison of District Facility Planning Efforts to Components of a
Comprehensive Long-range Facilities Plan
Anchorage School District
May 2002
Components of a Comprehensive Long-range
Facilities Plan
3. The current organizational patterns of the
district and identification of possible
organizational changes necessary to support
the educational program.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Identification of educational program needs
to be considered by designers of capital
projects for renovation or addition of school
facilities.
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.
Prioritization of needs for renovation of
existing facilities and the provision of
additional facilities.
Cost analysis of potential capital projects to
meet the educational needs of the district,
including identification of revenues
associated with capital construction.
Procedures for involvement of stakeholders
of the school community in the development
and evaluation of the long-range facilities
plan.
District Planning Efforts
The current organizational patterns were included, and
there was a reference regarding the identification of
organizational changes approved by the Board to
support the educational program at some individual
schools.
No reference to educational programs needs to be
considered by designers of capital projects for
renovation or addition of school facilities.
Detailed evaluations of individual facilities were not
included in the district’s planning document.
The district’s plan included a listing of capital
improvement projects to be done by year.
The total projected cost for each capital improvement
project was included; however, the revenue sources
were not specified. Funding for much of the Anchorage
School District’s capital improvement projects is
dependent upon the approval of funding by other
government agencies; therefore, the level of funding
can change from one year to the next.
The district’s planning document outlines ten steps
taken in preparing the capital improvement plan.
Although none of the ten steps specifically speak to the
involvement of stakeholders, step seven does refer to
the Capital Request Advisory Committee. Through
staff interviews, the auditors determined that this
committee does include some of the stakeholders.
As described in Exhibit 5.3.1, the district’s facility planning documents do not adequately satisfy the
criteria for a comprehensive, long-range facilities master plan. Although some of the elements are
addressed, the plan does not provide a linkage to the district’s mission or to the educational program
needs. Goal number two of the capital improvement goals listed in the district’s planning document
states, “The following goals guide decision-making with respect to school facilities in the Anchorage
School District: 2. To provide the necessary facilities for programs that support the standard school.”
The auditors interviewed district administrative staff regarding a “cookie cutter” approach to
addressing campus facility needs. The administrator responded with the statement, “Each elementary
school is figured as having 26 classrooms…and the district uses district-wide staffing ratios for
allocating funding for teachers.” The auditors found that the Anchorage School District is a large and
diverse district that includes schools located in the center of the city and schools located several miles
outside of the city. The auditors found that while some elementary schools had vacant classrooms,
others were using every possible space for instruction. The auditors found that although some of the
older schools have smaller-size classrooms than the newer schools in the district, these older schools
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 208
are allocated teaching positions using the district-wide staffing ratio. The result is that some campuses
have to squeeze students into smaller instructional spaces than the newer or recently renovated
schools.
The auditors also found that some of the district’s special program campuses lack adequate facilities
to meet the needs of their students. Most of these needs are scheduled to be addressed in the
district’s six-year capital improvement plan; however, the plan fails to take into account, as far as
prioritizing projects is concerned, health and safety issues that exist in some of these special program
facilities. For example, according to the district’s capital improvement plan, Whaley School is
scheduled for “Assessment” in 2002-2003 with “Renewal, Programmatic, and Code Upgrades” in
2003-2004. The auditors noted during the walk-through of Whaley that the building was not originally
built to be a school, and there are portions of the building that cannot be adequately monitored. This is
a health and safety issue due to the type of program being housed at Whaley. The “library” at the
Whaley campus consists of shelves of library books stacked in the hallway because the room
previously used as the library had to be converted to a cla ssroom for autistic children. A second
example of a lack of responsiveness regarding some safety issues was noted at Girdwood Elementary.
The school’s playground is located on top of a former landfill site. Although the district administration
has been aware of this issue, the remediation has been slow in coming.
Portable classrooms at Wendler Middle School without ADA access
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 209
Broken seats in the auditorium at West High School.
Teacher conducting a reading assessment in a closet at Wonder Park Elementary School.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 210
A school shower used as a storage area at
Girdwood Elementary School.
Shared library between West High School and Romig Middle School.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 211
Exterior paint peeling at Rabbit Creek Elementary School.
Summary
The auditors found school facilities in the Anchorage School District in very good condition as a rule.
There were some exceptions. Facilities were safe and clean. The landfill at Girdwood Elementary
has been addressed. The Anchorage voters approved a $1.5 million bond project in April of 2002 to
excavate and remediate the playground situation. The contract has been managed by the Municipality
of Anchorage and will be completed prior to the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 212
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDK-CMSi CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT
AUDIT TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ANCHORAGE SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
Based on the three streams of data derived from interviews, documents, and site visits, the PDKCMSi Curriculum Management Audit Team has developed a set of recommendations to address its
findings shown under each of the standards of the audit.
In the case of the findings, they have been triangulated, i.e., corroborated with one another. In the
case of the recommendations, those put forth in this section are representative of the auditors’ best
professional judgments regarding how to address the problems that surfaced in the audit.
The recommendations are presented in the order of their criticality for initiating system-wide
improvements. The recommendations also recognize and differentiate between the policy and
monitoring responsibilities of the Board of Education, and the operational and administrative duties of
the Superintendent of Schools.
Where the PDK-CMSi audit team views a problem as wholly or partly a policy and monitoring matter,
the recommendations are formulated for the Board of Education. Where the problem is distinctly an
operational or administrative matter, the recommendations are directed to the superintendent of
schools as the chief executive officer of the school system. In many cases, the PDK-CMSi audit
team directs recommendations to both the Board and the Superintendent, because it is clear that policy
and operations are related, and both entities are involved in a proposed change. In some cases, there
are no recommendations to the superintendent when only policy is involved or none to the board when
the recommendations deal only with administration.
Audit recommendations are presented as follows: The overarching goals for the Board and/or the
Superintendent, followed by the specific objectives to carry out the overarching goals. The latter are
designated “Governance Functions” and “Administrative Functions.”
The recommendations have been grouped into three macro-levels: 1) system-wide issues such as
board policies and system planning; 2) system-wide organizational relationships primarily centered in
curriculum staff development and assessment issues and the reconfiguration of these areas along with
teacher and administrative appraisal; and, 3) improving the planning functions of curriculum,
assessment program evaluation and staff development. Sub-recommendations further delineate
suggested School Board and administrative actions.
Recommendation 1: Develop New and Revised School Board Policies to Establish the
Institutional Framework to Guide the Conduct of the Superintendent and Administrative
Staff in Improving System Accountability for Student Learning via the Creation of a Six-year
Educational Plan; Confronting the Inequalities Among Ethnic and Racial Groups Which
Currently Exist in the Schools; and Positioning the District to Link its Budgeting Practices
with Improvements in System Operations Over Time, Including the Design and Delivery of
Its Curriculum.
A comprehensive set of school board policies is a prerequisite for the sound management of a school
district. Policies articulate the intentions of the School Board regarding procedures and operations and
provide clear direction for administrators, teachers, and other staff members. Such policies promote
constancy of purpose in district operations by furnishing reference points for recurring decisions. The
current set of policies for the Anchorage Public Schools is inadequate and ineffective on a variety of
counts (see Findings 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 3.1, and 4.2). Without definitive policies, the School Board cannot
ensure program focus, effectiveness, consistency, productivity, or accountability. Many Anchorage
school board members interviewed expressed great frustration at the lack of definitive data regarding
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 213
program effectiveness, especially around budget development time. Some described their various
forays into operations as largely futile in an effort to control costs and provide a sharper focus to
budget discussions without good information upon which to make decisions. The auditors concur that
there has been too little reliable evaluative data for the Anchorage School Board to conduct its
business and to remain responsive and accountable to the various sub-publics which it represents. The
recommendations developed here by the auditors are aimed at improving the basic accountability of
the elected Anchorage School Board to exercise policy control of the operations of the Anchorage
School District.
This recommendation is now parsed into the major policy initiatives upon which it is comprised. The
auditors see the implementation of them as occurring simultaneously, first within the framework of
new and revised policies, and secondly going on in parallel fashion within the administrative structure
as the system leadership team refocuses its work to accomplish the tasks to ensure policy compliance.
Sub-Recommendation 1.1: Develop a six-year educational plan which corresponds to the
state and city’s plans, and which becomes the basis for connecting all central functions to
the goals and objectives of the school system. Such a plan will provide the focus and
synergy now absent within the upper tiers of the Anchorage School District by preparing
district personnel to improve the achievement of all students with special emphasis on
erasing the current achievement gaps of minority children. Link assessment data to the
creation of site-level objectives, planning, staff development, budget priorities, staffing, and
administrative evaluation.
A variety of plans currently exist in the Anchorage School District (see Findings 1.2, 2.1, and 4.5).
However, there is no long-range system plan connecting these separate plans together. The budget
and facilities plans are not connected to an educational plan. And the curriculum and textbook
adoption cycles are separate and distinct initiatives. The lack of a central planning focus is deleterious
to not only improved operations, but also to any attempt to control administrative costs. Separate plans
encourage duplication and separatism, as well as the lack of coordination within the administrative
structure.
Many years ago the district leadership attempted to develop a strategic plan. For a variety of reasons
the effort was not successful and left a bad “taste” in the mouths of those who remember the project
(see Finding 1.2). At least in part, strategic planning assumes a stable revenue stream which is not
guaranteed for the Anchorage School District by the fact that the system is fiscally dependent and
may have its budget vetoed or cut back by other supra-political bodies. This fact has created, in the
opinions of the auditors, an anti-planning bias among some school administrators. This condition must
change for the simple reason that without a good central plan, system focus, connectivity, and
productivity are impaired.
Despite the fact that the schools are fiscally dependent, planning must occur to link all central
functions into a cohesive whole. This will enable administrative leaders to understand how their
functions and activities relate to and support the overall goals and objectives adopted by the
Anchorage School Board.
The first and foremost objective of the six-year educational plan must be the erasure of the
achievement gaps of minority school children in the Anchorage School District (see Findings 3.1 and
3.2). These children will become the majority in the student population within the next decade. Given
this eventuality, it is of paramount importance that educators engage in a systematic effort to improve
their academic success now.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 214
G.1.1: Adopt a policy requiring the creation and annual review of a six-year educational plan that
focuses on erasing the current achievement gaps of minority children in the Anchorage School
District.
This plan should include bold, yet achievable performance targets for each school to raise achievement
for all student groups. Use the “years to parity” concept in the audit as a benchmark to determine
how long it will take to erase the existing gaps (see Finding 4.1). Revise Policy #349 to require that
the evaluation results be disaggregated by student sub-populations to be explicitly delineated in written
administrative processes for district-wide and site-level analysis. The student populations must meet
Alaska and federal requirements, but may go beyond those requirements to provide data needed by
the Anchorage School District in determining the progress and success of all of the students it is
obligated to serve.
G.1.2: Include in the policy the following factors:
• The Board’s overall expectation for equity and fairness in all district practices.
• Increased access to academic programs and related opportunities for all students.
• Allocation of human, learning, and financial resources based on the differential needs of students.
Provide extra, targeted support for schools who are not making adequate progress, and require
school administrators to meet directly with the superintendent individually to explain what they will
do to meet the next targets.
• Assignment of the responsibility and authority of the Superintendent of Schools to eliminate any
practice not covered by policy that inhibits the district’s effort to eliminate inequities and
inequalities.
G.1.3: Direct the Superintendent to assist the School Board to identify roles and responsibilities of
staff members and school-community leaders for contributing and monitoring the achievement of
equality and equity goals with the school system.
G.1.4: Direct the Superintendent to provide staff development related to the newly-developed district
policy initiative that is centered on research-based strategies to reduce the achievement gaps.
G.1.5: Require from the Superintendent annual public reports on the progress towards eliminating the
achievement gaps and any other inequality or inequity found to be impeding the progress of the district
towards eliminating the achievement gaps. Such reports should be by building site, grade level, and
subject content area where applicable.
G.1.6: Require the Superintendent to review retention, suspension, and drop-out data by school and
program with disaggregated ethnic and racial data to determine if discipline plans and student codes of
conduct need to be revised and if schools are administering disciplinary practices consistently and
fairly. Require this review to be publicly released semi-annually.
G.1.7: Direct the Superintendent to establish an assessment team that includes central office staff and
representative principals to examine the categories of data needed for decision-making and the
formatting of data so that it is easily understood by the end users.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.1.1: Assist the School Board in drafting the recommended policy to ensure completeness and
regulatory compliance.
A.1.2: Create regulatory guidelines to eliminate the equality/equity gap in all district operations.
Include the following elements:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 215
•
•
•
•
Directing each principal to allocate resources, including teachers, time for learning, and assignment
of aides to increasing the learning of students who are not achieving or in danger of being retained
or dropped.
Incorporate the use of disaggregated data by race and ethnicity to determine the effectiveness of
district and school programs and practices.
Budget and provide for staff development for school principals and assistant principals to become
skilled in the disaggregation and use of data in creating program plans and related interventions to
erase the achievement gaps which may exist at their buildings.
Require regular and uniform reports on disciplinary procedures and student codes of conduct at all
school sites to ensure fairness for all students.
A.1.3: Create and provide oversight for a central monitoring structure that will provide building
administrators, program administrators, and the School Board with timely reports on eradicating
inequalities and inequities.
A.1.4: Establish an assessment team that creates usable and understandable data indices for staff and
public consumption in order to determine progress made towards district goals and objectives. Among
the decisions to be rendered by this team are:
• The defined sub-populations for which current and historical data will be collected and reported,
that include compliance with new board policy and Alaska requirements. As a minimum, current
and historical data should be collected and reported in the following categories at the district and
school levels:
o Low socio-economic/non low socio-economic, Title 1/Non Title 1, ethnicity, disability/nondisability, limited English speaking, gender, and migrant status.
o The list of ethnicities that will be used for consistent reporting, ensuring that the list includes all
requirements for Alaska State reporting.
o The smallest number of members of a sub-population for which a school will be accountable
for achievement gaps using disaggregated data.
o How data reports will be available to teachers and administrators by individual students,
classrooms, grade levels, school level, district-level, similar cities, and Alaska state-level
performance.
o Develop a clear model for how data will flow through the school system and which staff
functions have access to specific data.
o Determine useful formats for presentation of data to school administrators, teachers, parents,
and community agencies.
o Wherever item analysis data are available, train key staff to provide item-analysis information
to school principals and teachers so that they will know how to determine areas of weakness
and strength of each student.
Sub-Recommendation 1.2: Revise the current budgeting development process to
incorporate formal procedures that include a clinical needs assessment based on
assessment data, cost-benefit analyses, and district-wide curriculum priorities.
A clear, tight, and substantive linkage between curricular priorities and the district’s budget is critical
to successful efforts in attaining and sustaining increased levels of student achievement, particularly in
closing critical achievement gaps. Intended results are lost or delayed when there is no conscious or
formal process in place to link the financial plan to the district’s learning priorities. To simply “roll
over” a majority of the prior year’s budget line items or allocate resources unilaterally on a strict
formula basis ignores the annual opportunity to pursue intended results in a strategic fashion. The
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 216
auditors found that the district’s budgeting process lacks critical steps and elements that will provide
connection from data to decisions and from allocations to results (see Finding 5.2). Further, the
auditors found that clinical projections of revenue and expenditures for the two years subsequent to
the 2002-2003 fiscal year reveals an estimated $20 million fiscal gap (see Finding 5.1). Affecting the
revenue side of this equation will involve a change in the state funding formula for school districts,
removal of the current locally imposed “tax cap,” and/or some other equally formidable measure(s).
Reducing expenditures is the most expeditious approach to this dilemma.
Converting to a curriculum-driven budgeting process will address concerns related to Finding 5.1 and
Finding 5.2. Institutionalizing structures that formally support data-driven financial decisions will allow
the district to reduce expenditures without sacrificing desired outcomes and thus maintain a financially
sound system under future conditions of “no new money.”
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.1.8: Direct the Superintendent to submit proposed text for revision of Board Policy 722.3
[Budget] Planning and Compilation to include adequate direction for curriculum-driven budgeting
using the criteria noted in Exhibit 5.2.1.
G.1.9: Determine in collaboration with the superintendent a reasonable time frame in which the
district can successfully complete the transition into a curriculum-driven budgeting process. The
timeline will likely be multi-year.
G.1.10: Direct the Superintendent to develop and disseminate administrative regulations or operating
procedures that communicate the revised budgeting process and the expected timeline for full
implementation to all stakeholders.
G.1.11: Direct the Superintendent to revise the budget development timeline to incorporate the
changes recommended to enable the budget to incorporate feedback data and curricular prioritie s.
G.1.12: Require, as a part of the School Board and Anchorage Assembly budget approval process, a
presentation from the administration to communicate how the proposed budget addresses the district’s
goals and priorities and responds to student and program evaluation data. The presentation should
include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the previous year’s budget in achieving district priorities.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.1.5: Draft and submit text for revised Board Policy 722 to the Board as addressed in Action
G.1.8.
A.1.6: Assist the School Board in establishing a reasonable timeline for transitioning to a curriculumdriven budget process. The timeline will likely be multi-year.
A.1.7: Develop and communicate the administrative procedures addressed in Action G.1.10.
A.1.8: Revise the budget development process and timeline addressed in Actions A.1.5 and A.1.6,
ensuring that the budget planning process moves beyond a spreadsheet accounting function so that
leaders and budget managers are focused on goals and program results as they develop their financial
plans. Clear connections must be established between student performance information and the basic
instructional and support areas of the budget. Undertake steps similar to the following to increase the
connection of programs and priorities with budgeting decisions:
• Using the current construction of the budget, identify various education activities or programs and
group them into broad areas of need or purpose served.
• Assign a budget manager to each program and direct the managers to prepare a concise and
meaningful budget packages for their respective areas.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 217
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attach a goal statement to each program area or budget request which states the program’s
linkage to established goals and priorities, its purpose, the criteria for identifying success, and how
these will be evaluated. Each budget request should be described so as to permit evaluation of the
consequences of funding or non-funding in terms of performance results.
Compile the goal/linkage statements and budget packages and submit to appropriate staff to gather
data that best describe needed service levels, program outcomes, and cost-benefits.
Define program performance expectations with the involvement of staff. Current results should
be compared to desired expectations and related service requirements. For example, to be
successful a specific program may need to be established at 110 percent of previous spending
levels. This will necessitate a comparable reduction from some other program/budget judged to be
of lesser value have a lesser effect. Prepare guidelines and recommendations and submit them to
budget managers who will then compile all recommendations into a single budget proposal.
Compile past cost information, especially expenditure percentages of budget, with performance
data and recommendations to guide preliminary budget estimates.
Appoint a budget planning team representing the various stakeholders that will eventually bring the
draft budget document to the Superintendent’s cabinet or top-level staff. This team studies the
goals, priorities, and parameters inherent in the decisions being made and receives technical
support from the directors and managers who developed the program budgets. Discussions of
cost-benefit information are critical at this stage. In general, budget plans should be extended over
a minimum of three years to assure consistency of effort and focus and sufficient time for
evaluation.
The Superintendent’s cabinet evaluates and ranks the budget packages. Budget requests need to
compete with each other for funding based upon data derived from evaluation of the priority of
need and level of program effectiveness.
Compile results of the evaluation and ranking and publish them in a preliminary budget with
programs listed in priority order. Use this draft with administrators for input before a draft is
prepared for presentation to the Board.
Build the capital outlay and improvement budget from a zero base each year with multi-year
planning for improvements, including life-cycle, replacement and preventative maintenance.
Prioritize decisions based on health and safety factors, the impact on the learning environment, and
protection of investment. Identify and communicate documented parameters for decisions on
needs that are not considered health and safety matters. Many capital needs change annually and
do not reoccur once met and paid for, such as durable goods and construction costs. The budget
planning process should reflect these changes while projecting life-cycle replacement costs of
buildings and systems over five to fifteen years.
Finalize budget allocations based on available revenues, the appropriate levels to be authorized,
and program funding priorities and rankings.
Prepare the preliminary budget to be taken to public hearings.
Use the public hearing process to communicate broadly the financial planning link with student
needs, program priorities, and results sought through the actions taken.
Prepare the proposed budget after considering public and Board comments and present to the
board for adoption and then to the Anchorage Assembly for approval.
Load the approved budget into the financial data management system and implement controls.
A.1.9: Provide training and assistance as needed to all budget managers and other affected staff
members during the transition to a curriculum-driven budgeting process and format.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 218
A.1.10: As required by policy, law, or contractual provisions, involve principals, teachers, other staff,
and parents in the new budget building process as key stakeholders. Without their involvement,
education priorities may not be accepted and appropriately focused.
Sub-Recommendation 1.3: Focus specifically on upgrading and expanding board policies
regarding the scope of curriculum design and delivery to more sharply define system needs
and responses to an increased system of educational accountability requirements expected
from state and federal initiatives.
The Anchorage School District instructional staff is currently not ready to be fully responsive to new
state and federal accountability initiatives (see Findings 1.1 and 4.1). The first response is for the
School Board to revise its policy framework to require an upgraded form of educational accountability.
Establishing clear direction for curriculum development and delivery will require the Board to revise
some policies and to create some additional policies. Policies are missing that provide for:
• An aligned written, taught, and tested curriculum for all subject/learning areas;
• Articulation and coordination of curriculum;
• Predictability of the written curriculum from one level to another; and
• Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities.
Specific policy areas that require revision and improvement include:
• A clear philosophical statement regarding the curriculum approach to be maintained, K-12,
throughout all curriculum areas;
• A requirement that written curriculum be developed for all subject areas;
• Allocation of specific amounts of time for learning for subject areas;
• Delivery of the written curriculum;
• Training of staff in the delivery of the curriculum;
• Monitoring of the delivery of the curriculum;
• Development of a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation plan;
• Resource allocation tied to curriculum priorities; and
• Data-driven decisions for the purpose of increasing student learning.
Sound policies:
• Establish clear direction for the system;
• Provide for consistency of actions over time as members of the Board and administration change;
• Guide professional staff in their efforts to improve the curriculum;
• Establish a framework for monitoring progress in the attainment of district learning goals; and
• Provide a framework for the systematic evaluation of all district staff, including the
Superintendent.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.1.13: Establish as a priority the completion or the review of curriculum policies within a 12- to 18month time frame.
G.1.14: Direct the development and adopt a policy that requires an aligned written, taught, and tested
curriculum for all subject/learning areas.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 219
G.1.15: Direct the development and adopt a policy that requires the articulation and coordination of
the curriculum.
G.1.16: Direct the development and adopt a policy that requires resource allocation tied to curriculum
priorities.
G.1.17: Establish procedures for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of all policies. Add
a section to each policy entitled, “How Implementation of This Policy Will Be Monitored.” Indicate
the necessary data and data format required to monitor implementation, the frequency with which
those data will be reported to the Board, and designate the Superintendent as the individual responsible
for collecting and presenting those data.
G.1.18: Direct the Superintendent to prepare draft policies on the above-listed topics for consideration
by the Board and implement them when approved.
Administration Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.1.11: Assist the Board in the preparation of the recommended policies by submitting draft policies
on the above-indicated topics.
A.1.12: Ensure that all major stakeholders are involved in the policy review and revision process as
required by law and contractual provisions.
A.1.14: Adhere to board policies when making decisions. Ensure that major decisions are based on
policies that have been approved by the Board of Education.
A.1.15: Make the responsibility for the implementation of policies part of the administrative evaluation
system.
A.1.16: Define and implement an effective instructional staffing and support structure in order to
carry out the policies effectively and in a timely manner.
Recommendation 2: Define and Implement a Focused, Sound, and Integrated
Administrative Support Structure Designed to Carry Out the School Board’s Revised and
New Policies to Erase the Achievement Gaps of Minority Children. Take Steps to
Adequately Staff the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation Which Is Crucial to
Providing the Linkages from Assessments to System-wide Improvements in Student
Learning. Create a Teacher and Administrator Evaluation System that Provides for Setting
Goals and Feedback on Growth Targets.
In order to implement an effective curriculum management system, the district must have in place a
focused, sound, and integrated administrative support structure. Roles and responsibility must be
clearly defined in accurate job descriptions that specify accountability for the design and delivery of
procedures that lead to eliminating the present achievement gap evident among sub-groups in the
system (see Findings 1.3, 2.1, and 4.1), enabling the administrators and teachers to fulfill the student
achievement goals of the School Board. This type of system requires procedures for designing quality
curriculum documents that teachers can use as the basis for instructional planning (see Finding 2.3),
developing a structure to systematically review and evaluate all instructional programs (see Findings
2.1 and 4.4) creating a support staff who can serve as content experts for teachers and school
administrators, and assist in the monitoring of the implementation of the School Board approved
curriculum, assist in the development of program evaluation designs that provide classroom teachers,
administrators and the School Board with data necessary for determining how well present programs
are functioning and giving direction to the Board for making informed decisions about the modification,
expansion, or termination of existing programs. This system should enable teachers and administrators
to engage in activities that ensure the deep alignment of curriculum within the system.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 220
Sub-Recommendation 2.1: Reconfigure and staff the present Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation to provide focused, integrated support for both design and delivery of the district
curriculum that is deeply aligned with state content and performance standards. This will
require coordinators to hold Type B Alaska Certification and become actively involved in
assisting building level staff in monitoring the delivery of curriculum and require the
coordination of support programs such as Title I, Indian Education, Literacy Education,
Special Education, and Bilingual/Multicultural.
Currently, no long- or short-range planning is underway within this department (see Finding 2.1).
There are no School Board-approved job descriptions for this department (see Finding 1.3). The
present table of organization structure, planning procedures, and daily operations have led to
coordinators and supervisors to work independently with little accountability for closing the
achievement gap or meeting School Board approved goals. Coordinators have not been formally
evaluated for some time. Not all coordinators report to the same administrator; i.e., Title I and the
Reading Initiative (see Finding 1.3). There is little evidence that the activities of the curriculum
support programs such as Indian Education, Multi-cultural and Bilingual Education and other support
programs are actually leading to closing the gap in student achievement.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.2.1: Adopt a policy that requires a yearly approval and update of the district tables of organization
and all areas of responsibility depicted on the district table of organization and that meets the audit
criteria.
G.2.2: Adopt a policy that establishes a periodic review of all job descriptions.
•
As a minimum these job descriptions should include the following:
o Qualifications;
o Links to chain of command;
o Major duties and/or functions of the job; and
o Relationship to curriculum/design, alignment or other delivery responsibilities where
appropriate.
G.2.3: Direct the Superintendent to create new job descriptions for the Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation and submit these to the Board for approval during the fall of 2002.
G.2.4: Direct the Superintendent to establish a procedure for the annual review of all personnel in the
Department of Curriculum and Evaluation.
G.2.5: Direct the Superintendent to establish a procedure for the development of a long- and shortrange plan for the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation
G.2.6: Direct the Superintendent to prepare a summary report for the Board detailing how the
activities of the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation have been effective in meeting the annual
goals established by that department.
G.2.7: Direct the Superintendent to submit a new table of organization for the Department of
Curriculum and Evaluation (see Appendix C) for a suggested model.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.2.1: Assist the Board in developing policies for the creation of accurate and complete tables of
organization and job descriptions that meet audit criteria.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 221
A.2.2: Develop a revised table of organization for the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation (see
Appendix C for suggested model). This suggested organizational chart places content, program, and
assessment coordinators under the direction of three supervisors eliminating a possible span of control
problem and providing greater supervision to coordinators. These supervisors could be coordinators
who are paid an extra stipend to assume this leadership role. They would have the responsibility of
coordinating the work of the content, program, and assessment specialists assigned to them and
ensuring that the work of the specialists is integrated across these areas. It is recommended that the
Grants Coordinator report directly to the Executive Director for Curriculum and Evaluation. This
should ensure that grant-writing efforts are coordinated with the overall long- and short-range plans of
this department. A new position, Director of Staff Development would also report directly to the
Executive Director. Two new assessment coordinator positions are also recommended to provide
teachers, district administrators, and the School Board with the data necessary to ensure that the
achievement gap is being eliminated (see Recommendation 3 for a further discussion of responsibilities
for these positions).
A.2.3: Improve the clarity of job descriptions for all members of the Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation and ensure that all staff who deal with the educational program are connected to curricular
quality control. These job descriptions should focus not only on the design of curriculum that is aligned
with state content and performance standards but also delineate the role of coordinators in assisting in
the implementation of curriculum. These job descriptions should enable principals to clearly
understand how coordinators will help and support the monitoring responsibilities of building principals.
In implementing these new job descriptions, the School Board and central administration could choose
between one of two strategies: create new jobs and titles which go into effect in January 2003 and to
which current persons may apply; or, perform a needs assessment based on past performance and
evaluations, engage in job training and enhancement or counseling out, and have some new hires in
new positions.
A.2.4: Place coordination of all content areas under the direction of a supervisor who reports to the
executive director of curriculum and evaluation including reading.
A.2.5: Place all specialized programs designed to supply additional support for students under the
direction of a supervisor who reports to the executive director of curriculum and evaluation including
Title I, and special education.
A.2.6: Hold the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction responsible for the effective functioning of
the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation.
A.2.7: Direct the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction to develop quarterly reports to the
Superintendent for the next two years, outlining the progress of the Department of Curriculum and
Evaluation as they make the transition to an integrated, focused, goal-oriented department delivering
services to schools and teachers that include: modeling exemplary teaching practices, showing
teachers how to utilize data to differentiate instruction, and assisting principals in monitoring the
delivery of instruction.
A.2.8: Increase staffing in assessment by two additional roles to provide for a formalized,
comprehensive program and student assessment cycle that will enable school administrators and
teachers to be adequately trained in data disaggregation to support instructional planning for improving
student achievement and enable district personnel and the Board to make informed decisions regarding
the continuation, modification, or elimination of programs.
A.2.9: Shift all soft money data analysis roles to assessment to ensure quality control of data sets.
A.2.10: Institute internal procedures to curb conflict of interests or inequitable proximity to resources
regarding extra pay and opportunities and travel.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 222
Sub-Recommendation 2.2: Establish administrative regulations that detail how the
Department of Curriculum and Evaluation should function.
The Curriculum and Evaluation Department should provide the necessary support for the development,
implementation and evaluation of curriculum. This function is an essential component of the
organizational structure of a school district. This department is currently not fulfilling this critical
function (see Findings 1.3 and 2.1). There is a disconnect between the work completed by the
department and the perceptions of school administrators regarding the effectiveness of the unit. This
disconnect led the Board to consider whether the unit should continue to exist or be abolished.
Coordinators within the unit are considered content experts, and each one is currently involved in
activities that have led to a perception that the department lacks focus, places multiple demands on
staff development time, utilizes a majority of the coordinator’s time in design issues rather than
focusing on assisting school administrators and teachers in the delivery of curriculum. Questions have
been raised regarding extra pay, professional leave time, and coordination among members in the unit.
The curriculum guides currently in place are of poor quality and do not lend themselves to enabling
teachers to engage in deep alignment (see Findings 2.2 and 2.3).
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.2.8: Direct the Superintendent to develop administrative regulations that outline in detail the
expectations for how the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation should function.
G.2.9: Require the Superintendent to establish procedures for closely monitoring the implementation
of these regulations.
G.2.10: Direct the Superintendent to staff the department with personnel who demonstrate the skills
necessary to work collaboratively with each other and with building administrators.
G.2.10: Direct the Superintendent to develop/revise and enforce regulations regarding professional
leave, conference attendance, and addendum to pay.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.2.11: Develop administrative regulations that outline in detail the expectations for how the
Department of Curriculum and Evaluation should function.
A.2.12: Establish a curriculum design/delivery advisory committee that reports directly to the Director
of Curriculum and Evaluation. The purpose of this committee is to review all phases of the curriculum
development, implementation, and program evaluation process and make recommendations to the
Executive Director of Curriculum and Assessment and the Assistant Superintendent for instruction for
approval. The Executive Director for Curriculum and Evaluation should chair this advisory committee.
Membership on the committee should be for three years and initially terms should be staggered so that
the majority of the team membership is continued from year to year.
A.2.13: Design the membership of the committee to include supervisors, coordinators, building
administrators, program administrators, central office finance administrators, department chairs, and
selected teachers. The Director of Staff Development and the Grant Coordinator should be
permanent members of this advisory committee. The purpose of this advisory committee is to provide
direction to the Department of Curriculum and Evaluation for the development of plans and work
activities. The work of this committee should include:
•
Develop a revised, six-year curriculum review cycle that focuses on two or three content
area/programs per year. When a content area/program is being reviewed, the review should
encompass K-12. This cycle should have three distinct Phases. Phase I would focus on
gathering information necessary to complete a written curriculum or program guide revision and
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 223
normally lasts about a year. During Phase II, the actual guide is developed and piloted. This also
takes about a year. Phase III includes implementation, formative assessment, modification, and
program evaluation. This phase can extend over a multi-year period. Phase I of the review cycle
would include preparation work necessary for the development/revision of K-12 content area
curriculum or program design. This committee should direct the assembly of curriculum/program
materials and development of executive summaries for use by the Curriculum Writing Design
Team. This team works during Phase II of this process. The steps undertaken at Phase I include
the following:
o Assembling Resource Materials: this includes assembling all resource documents to be used
by the committee that will actually develop the new curriculum/program. These could include
the latest national standards development by learned associations, international standards from
countries noted for high academic achievement, a variety of state frameworks, other
exemplary curriculum documents, publicly released state and national accountability
assessment items in a variety of modes such as multiple choice, short response and extended
response. These test items should include examples from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress and other international tests such as those used to meet graduation
requirements in Scotland, France, Japan, and Germany. These materials should serve to
provide the Curriculum/Program Design Team with an understanding of what knowledge,
skills and dispositions being required by other states and countries. The advisory team does
not actually do the work, rather it oversees that the work is completed.
o Review Student Achievement Data: the committee should review all students’ achievement
data for the past five years. If the area under development is part of the state or district
accountability system, these data should be disaggregated by ethnicity, gender, and SES. The
format, content, and use of assessment data within the system should be summarized and
made available in Phase II to the Curriculum/Program Design Team.
o Conduct Literature Review: conduct a literature review of the content/program area to
determine “best practices” regarding pedagogy in content/program area.
o Identify Future Trends: future trends occurring within the content/program area must be
identified and projection of these trends on the development of new curricular materials must
so stated.
o Review Current Board Policy: revisit current board policy regarding curriculum philosophy and
goals to ensure that direction can be given to the Curriculum/Program Design Team that
reflects the board’s intent. For example, if the Board has policy that directs curriculum to
enable students to think critically to solve problems, the committee developing the curriculum
documents must know that.
o Review Current Instructional Materials: prepare a status report dealing with current
instructional materials. The curriculum review cycle is often connected to the materials
acquisition cycle but rarely enables district to replace all instructional materia ls in the
content/program area. This inventory is helpful to the Curriculum/Program Design Team in
determining what new materials will need to be purchased to support the implementation of
the revised curriculum guides and how current and new materials must be modified to ensure
deep curriculum alignment.
o Develop Work and Guide Specifications: These specifications should include time parameters,
guide format, team representation, what support the team may expect, a mechanism for
communicating the work of the team to the rest of the faculty affected by the
revision/development of the curriculum guide and the resources available to the team.
•
Phase II – Curriculum Writing Design Team:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 224
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
Team Configuration: this team should be configured depending on what content/program area
is under review. The member of this team may include representation from the advisory
committee but the expertise needed for this phase includes a comprehensive knowledge of the
content/program area under review, knowledge in how to write curriculum documents with
enough specificity so that teachers can use them to plan differentiated instruction. As a
minimum these guides should meet the criteria necessary to be rated at a 12 or higher level
using the audit criteria explained in Finding 2.3.
Team Chair: this team should be chaired by the appropriate curriculum coordinator for the
content/program area.
Materials Review: the design team should review all materials prepared during Phase I of this
process. The chair should provide the team with an overview of the task, review the design
specification for the guide, and make the team aware of the time frame in which they will
work.
Student Mastery: it is important for the team to understand that the guide should be written so
that students are expected to reach mastery of the objectives listed at each grade level.
Determining Student Mastery: the guide should identify when and how mastery will be
determined at benchmark grade levels and the design team is responsible for developing
assessment measures to determine mastery if these are not already available.
Teacher Use for Instructional Planning: teachers using the guide should be able to determine
the content, context and cognitive level of knowledge, skills, and processes identified in the
guide and know the level of performance required to be demonstrated to determine mastery.
Faculty Validation: the team should design a procedure for faculty validation of the guide that
would include an opportunity for faculty input to the committee and a sign-off by teachers that
they have read the guide and will be accountable for the implementation of the guide.
Phase III – This phase should be under the direction of the advisory committee:
o Piloting the Guide: a procedure is developed which will enable the guide to be piloted by
teachers who will be held accountable for its implementation.
o Providing for Faculty Input: procedures must be developed to ensure that teachers
implementing the guide have an opportunity to provide feedback to the advisory committee
about the implementation. These procedures may include focus groups, questionnaires, or
chat rooms.
o Program Evaluation Design: a program evaluation design that includes both formative and
summative information must be developed. The advisory committee should review the results
of these periodic reviews.
o Staff Development Plan: staff development plans for the content/program area addressed by
the guide must be based on teacher/administrator needs related to the implementation of the
guide. Determination of staff development needs could be the result of needs assessments,
focus group discussions, or the results of recommendations of building administrators and
coordinators based on their observations of curriculum implementation.
o Documenting Exemplary Practice: a system should be developed to identify and capture
teacher exemplary practices in implementing the guide and achieving student mastery.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 225
Sub-Recommendation: 2.3: Revise the teacher, coordinator, and administrator evaluation
instrument to provide feedback for professional growth which promotes student
achievement gains.
The purpose of an effective evaluation system is to provide quality assurance in order to improve
teaching and learning so that student achievement is increased. In this way, the district’s overall
educational program is affected. To achieve this, the district’s evaluation system must be specific
about its feedback for constructive improvement. Effective appraisal systems include training
evaluators to ensure consistency. An effective system also provides data to inform staff development
for professional growth. Feedback from evaluations should be analyzed to assess the areas of
strength and weakness of the district’s certificated staff (see Findings 1.3 and 1.5).
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board.
G.2.11: Direct the Superintendent to revise policies dealing with supervision and evaluation to require
constructive feedback as part of an effective appraisal process to support professional growth and to
enable coaching/mentoring.
G.2.12: Direct the Superintendent to develop a written plan for the ongoing training of administrators
and supervisors in training components of effective appraisals. Train evaluators so that judgments are
accurate, consistent, and based on evidence. Establish the allocation of resources to support this
ongoing training.
G.2.13: Direct the Superintendent to provide regular reports on progress regarding the training for and
use of appraisal instruments.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.2.14: Assist the Board in the revision of the relevant policies.
A.2.15: Revise the Teachers,’ Coordinators,’ and Administrators’ instruments to require feedback for
constructive improvement as part of an effective appraisal process to support professional growth and
to enable coaching/mentoring.
A.2.16: Provide for ongoing and specific training for effective appraisals. Train evaluators so that
judgments are accurate, consistent, and based on evidence. Establish the allocation of resources to
support this ongoing training.
A.2.17: Direct Human Resources to provide an annual report. The report should comment on the
ongoing training for evaluators. The report should also include recommendations for staff
development to align evaluator training with targeted system goals.
A.2.18: Direct all evaluators to undertake consistent, effective evaluations and to provide constructive
feedback to staff undergoing evaluation.
Recommendation 3: Require Top-level Administrators in Curriculum, Assessment,
Program Evaluation, and Staff Development to Create Multi-year Administrative Plans
Which Are Tightly Linked to Erasing the Achieveme nt Gaps and Which Are Supportive of
Site-level Plans to Do the Same. Revise the Technology Plan So That It Is Congruent.
The auditors did not find plans for curriculum design/delivery, program evaluation or assessment which
were linked to the district’s educational plan (such an educational plan did not exist, see Finding 1.2).
While staff development and training had some aspects of planning present, there was little evidence
that it was directly linked with the means to improve district-level performance goals. The ultimate
method for evaluating the effectiveness of these four functions would be evidence of consistent
student learning gains. From this perspective, curriculum, staff development, program evaluation, and
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 226
assessment are means towards the ends of improving student achievement. What the auditors found
was the performance of functions and tasks which could not be related as means towards these ends
(see Findings 1.3, 1.4, and 2.1). The following recommendations are put forth to remedy this problem
in the Anchorage School District.
Sub-Recommendation 3.1: Create a comprehensive curriculum management plan to provide
for system direction for the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of the curriculum.
Design and implement aligned curriculum guides that promote effective delivery of the
required curriculum via deep alignment which improves learning for all students.
A curriculum management plan is centered on the function of the design and delivery of curriculum
within the Anchorage School District. The plan links the support function of curriculum development
to the overall goals and objectives of the school system. It should not be a stand alone effort created
in isolation from being a means to the desired ends of improving student learning and reducing the
achievement gaps which have been identified in this audit, and which, hopefully, will be adopted by the
Anchorage School Board as its number one educational priority.
Critical features of a comprehensive curriculum management plan include:
1. Policies that provide a framework for curriculum management;
2. Curriculum management plans requiring periodic review and revision of curriculum and support
programs using student performance data and educational program formative and summative
evaluation results;
3. Provisions for coordination and articulation of the curriculum;
4. Curriculum guides that provide sufficient statements of work for teachers;
5. Professional development to support curriculum and program design and delivery, and
6. Supervision for evaluation and improvement of instruction.
The auditors determined that the Anchorage School District lacked a comprehensive curriculum
management plan. Such a plan establishes a framework for the design and delivery of boardapproved curriculum that provides clear direction for the teachers and students of the Anchorage
School District (see Finding 2.1).
The scope of the written curriculum was found to be adequate for the elementary grades, kindergarten
through six. However, the scope of the written curriculum was found to be inadequate for the
secondary grades; middle school, grades 7 and 8, and high school grades 9-12. Clear linkages
between the written, taught, and tested curriculum across grade levels, classrooms, and schools are
essential to produce consistent student learning outcomes throughout the district (see Finding 2.2).
The quality of the guides varied across grade levels and content areas. The quality of the curriculum
guides was determined to be insufficient to direct instruction (see Finding 2.3). Staff development in
the Anchorage school district was found to be fragmented and unfocused on system priorities (see
Finding 1.4).
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.3.1: Create and adopt the following policies to provide the framework for a comprehensive
curriculum development system (see Finding 1.1):
•
A policy that provides a clear philosophical framework for the development of curriculum.
•
A policy that requires the alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum across all grade
levels and content areas and which promotes deep alignment.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 227
•
A policy that specifies the procedures for the design and implementation of curriculum, including a
curriculum development cycle and the development and revision of curriculum guides which is
coordinated with textbook and instructional materials adoption and acquisition.
•
A policy that articulates the components of a quality, consistent, and coordinated uniformed
curriculum that meets the needs of all students across all grade levels.
•
A policy that provides that local, state, national, and international content and performance
standards are important criteria in the adoption of all instructional materials and resources to
support classroom teaching.
G.3.2: Direct the Superintendent to draft a policy for Board adoption that mandates a comprehensive
curriculum management plan (see Finding 2.1).
G.3.3: Create a policy framework that requires the development of a comprehensive set of
curriculum guides linked to state and local assessments for all content areas K-12 and the use of those
guides by teachers to direct teaching in the classroom (see Findings 1.5, 2.3, 4.1, and 5.4).
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.3.1: Assist the School Board in creating and revising required policies to ensure a comprehensive
curriculum management plan is developed. The plan should provide for consistency for all curriculum
areas as well as horizontal and vertical articulation/coordination. It should include the following
components:
•
Philosophical framework and educational goals;
•
Delineation of responsibilities by role/job for implementing the management plan;
•
Curriculum development and review calendar, processes and format for the development of
quality written curriculum;
•
Process for the inclusion of adopted state, national, and international content and performance
standards;
•
Plans for monitoring instruction, procedures for formative and summative evaluations and the
selection of instructional resources;
•
Description of how assessment data will be used to improve curriculum and instruction; and
•
A comprehensive communication and staff development plan to ensure quality implementation for
the adopted curriculum (see Finding 1.4).
A.3.2: Direct the district curriculum department staff to develop and submit for School Board
approval curriculum guides for those courses or academic areas for which no written curriculum
guides exist (see Finding 2.2.)
A.3.3: Direct the curriculum department staff to focus curriculum redevelopment efforts on a single,
consistent curriculum guide format for all subject areas and courses (see Finding 2.3) to include all of
the elements of a deeply aligned quality curriculum guide via front and backloading processes. That
format should include:
•
A clear statement of what skills/concepts should be learned, when and how it should be
performed, and the amount of time or emphasis given to each objective;
•
Linkages between each objective and district and state performance assessments;
•
Specific delineations of prerequisite skills/concepts (i.e., scope and sequence grade levels);
•
Linkages to adopted texts and/or instructional materials, and specific instructional activities or
examples of how to approach key skills and or concepts.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 228
A.3.4: By using publicly released test items consistent with state guidelines for ethical test preparation
practices, engage in the creation of pedagogical parallel activities within curriculum guides that
include the following steps:
•
Secure random, publicly-released test items regarding tests in use. These can usually be secured
from the DOE Website or from samples available from the State Department of Education.
•
Deconstruct the public, randomly released test items to illustrate the dimensions of complexity and
depth required of students to be responsive to likely testing scenarios.
•
Develop alternative test items at similar depth and complexity to demonstrate understanding of the
dimensions involved. These can also be used as benchmarks.
•
Check for extant textbook/test alignment at identified depth and complexity levels.
•
Develop parallel activities and then move towards enhanced depth and complexity, creating
classroom activitie s which include, but are clearly beyond, what is immediately required. This is
the idea of no surprises for children on tests of accountability.
•
Remain vigilant for examples of cultural bias being included on parallel activities that work
towards disadvantaging culturally different children. Achievement gaps cannot be eliminated if
minority children are subjected to insensitive applications.
•
Develop staff development modules for administrators and teachers regarding the need and
practice of deep curriculum alignment.
Sub-Recommendation 3.2: Develop an assessment plan which is linked to the district’s
educational plan and which provides policy makers, administrators, and teachers with data
connected to district and site- level strategies to improve achievement for all students.
Anchorage School District has no assessment plan linked to its educational plan. Its policy makers,
administrators, and teachers do not have formative and summative assessments that can be connected
to site-level strategies designed to improve achievement for all students (see Findings 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and
4.5).
A comprehensive program and student assessment plan provides the primary basis for making
decisions about the effectiveness of curriculum design and delivery. A school district’s plan for
assessment and evaluations is the means for determining how well the curriculum and the strategies
used to deliver it are actually producing the desired impact on students. Such information is critical for
individual teachers as well as for site-level, program, and district-level decision-makers to assess areas
in need of improvement. Informed curriculum decisions become possible when data from student
assessment tools can be reviewed and considered in identifying areas of strength and weakness in the
curriculum. Without extensive information, curriculum decisions are left to opinion or speculation of
the personnel involved in decision-making. An effective assessment program requires that the means
of measurement be directly related to the major learning objectives in every course of study.
Student achievement is learning that is measured. Students may be successfully learning many things,
but unless they are taught what is being measured, their learning may not be demonstrated as student
achievement. To make consistent or rapid gains over time, every teacher and administrator must have
an in-depth understanding of the inter-relationships of the written curriculum, what is taught in
classrooms, and what is tested for accountability by the state, the requirements for federal programs,
and the school district. Teachers and administrators must have in-depth knowledge of curriculum
content and the strategies and practices that produce student achievement. When tests are not
aligned to the written and taught curricula, there will be strong correlation with socio-economic and
other factors outside of school control (see Finding 4.1). When students are deeply taught the
concepts, knowledges, and skills that are to be tested, school staff do positively impact performance
for all students.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 229
In order to ensure that students are effectively and efficiently taught the concepts, knowledges, and
skills they need, all district and school efforts need to align with common, clearly understood goals
prioritized by data results. To do so requires focused, rather than random strategies for data use.
While there are pockets of staff working towards construction of procedures to use data to drive
decisions, the district currently lacks shared, district-wide direction with focused strategies to
effectively use data (see Findings 4.2 and 4.3). As a first step, the Anchorage School District should
concentrate on developing strategies to inform decisions in four areas: curriculum development and
support; staff development; budget development; and site-level instructional decisions with the explicit
purpose of improving achievement for all students (see Findings 1.3, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, and 5.1).
The Board must require the use of disaggregated data so that no student groups are left behind (see
Findings 4.1 and 4.2). All district central office and school-level instructional staff need to pool
expertise and resources to support data-driven decisions. Instructional staff development priorities
must be determined by analysis of student achievement data (see Findings 2.4, 4.2, and 4.3). Budget
decisions that support the aligned efforts, training, resources, and programs must have priority over
“nice to do” activities and purchases (see Findings 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2). Site-level instructional decisions
must be prioritized and implemented based on disaggregated test results (see Findings 4.2 and 4.3).
The district currently lacks assessments to determine how well major objectives are being met as both
formative and summative assessments (see Finding 4.1).
To accomplish this effectively, all administrators and teachers must have a deep understanding of the
achievement tests that are currently required of students. They must know which concepts,
knowledge, and skills are tested and exactly how they are tested and items credited. They must
understand how to deconstruct test items to analyze the implications for classroom instruction. This
does not mean that classroom work is “drill and kill,” but it does mean that students have a deep
mastery of the designated concepts, knowledge, and skills and multiple ways they may be asked to
demonstrate mastery (deep alignment). All staff involved with instruction must understand how to
analyze data results and use those results in making instructional decisions. All teachers in all grade
levels must understand their role in helping all students achieve that mastery because there are explicit
documents, staff development, and site-level support in place.
A school district should communicate clearly to its staff and students what its expectations are in
terms of the concepts, knowledge, and skills students are to master in each grade level or course. A
district with focused strategies on the use of data is clearly focused on results, not just activities.
There are procedures to ensure that the curriculum is clearly delineated and explicitly linked to the
assessments that measure student achievement. The curriculum may certainly go beyond the
objectives that are assessed, but to be fair to every child, the curriculum must contain and emphasize
all concepts, knowledge, and skills the assessments will require of them. It must anticipate how these
concepts, knowledge, and skills could possibly be assessed and teach children in such a way as to
ensure that they can handle assessment in those areas no matter how questions are posed.
Disaggregated data from student assessment must be used to judge the adequacy of the continuum of
the written and taught curriculum.
A district should have assessments for all major objectives in order to know how their students are
progressing (see Findings 4.1 and 4.5). Assessments then become a tool for all layers of the
organization and public to know when instruction is successful and when students need to be re-taught
or accelerated. Anchorage School District concentrates assessment in the areas of state testing (see
Finding 4.1), and lacks a clear process to provide all teachers and administrators with an understanding
of the tests and how learning is being assessed on those tests (see Finding 4.2).
School districts that are successful in raising student achievement have a clear direction and focused
strategies that provide all staff with the knowledge and skills they need to use data.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 230
The No Child Left Behind Act will require states to disaggregate data based on economically
disadvantaged, race and ethnicity, disability, limited English proficiency, gender, and migrant status.
Adequate Yearly Progress to bring the subgroups to 100 percent passing by 2014 will be required for
all of those groups with the exception of gender and migrant status. Anchorage can meet this
challenge with careful planning and implementation strategies that make the most effective, efficient
use of resources.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.3.4: Expand Board Policy 349 to require the Superintendent to develop a formative and
summative assessment system with a clear rationale of providing the Anchorage School District with a
means to evaluate student progress in mastering major curricular objectives. Specify the roles and
responsibilities of the Board, central office staff, and school-based staff regarding the use of student
assessment data. The responsibilities should include that the use of data is an integral component for
prioritizing staff development and instructional decisions.
G.3.5: Direct the Superintendent to establish administrative processes to collect the test data
necessary for data-driven decision-making. While this recommendation is directed at the use of
student test data, it should not be construed to limit data collection to only test data.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.3.5: Develop assessment processes that are ongoing with reliable and valid measures. Direct the
Assessment and Evaluation unit in collaboration with Content and Support Program units in the
Curriculum and Assessment Department to develop the measures over a three-year period, beginning
with writing, mathematics, and reading so that formative and summative assessments are aligned with
major objectives and aligned with required testing with results that are put into a form that allows them
to be used for modifying instruction to prepare students for success. The process should encompass
the following characteristics:
•
Be based on a philosophical framework that requires formative and summative assessment aligned
to curriculum and classroom instruction for all subjects and grade levels, linked to the mission of
the school district.
•
Encompasses the responsibilities for staff in regard to use of data.
•
Provides ongoing needs assessment to establish goals of student assessment and program
assessment.
•
Provides for assessment at all levels of the system (organization, program, and student).
•
Provides a matrix of assessment tools, purpose, subjects, type of student tested, timelines, etc.
•
Controls for bias, culture, etc.
•
Directs the rela tionship between district, state, national, and international assessments.
•
Specifies overall assessment procedures to determine curriculum effectiveness and specifications
for analysis.
•
Directs the feedback process; assures proper use of data.
•
Specifies how assessment tools will be placed in curriculum guides.
•
Specifies equality/equity issues and data sources.
•
Identifies the parameters of a program assessment.
•
Provides ongoing training plan for various audiences on assessment.
•
Presents procedures for monitoring assessment design and use.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 231
•
Establishes a communication plan for the process of student and program assessment.
•
Provides ongoing evaluation of the assessment plan.
•
Describes budget ramifications, connections to resource allocations.
A.3.6: Assist the Board in revisions of existing policies and the creation of a new one that specifies
the roles and responsibilities of the Board, central office staff, and school-based staff regarding the
use of student assessment data. The responsibilities should include that the use of data is an integral
component for prioritizing staff development and instructional decisions and as an integral component
in budget planning, as well as a tool for examining the district’s curriculum. District-level
responsibilities must include the use of data to develop and revise curriculum, determine district-wide
staff development needs, allocate budget and staffing resources, and to analyze district and school
performance based on state, national, and other urban area performances and the district’s own set of
goals. Principals’ responsibilities should include using data to determine areas for improvement at
grade levels, strengths and weaknesses of teachers regarding instructional alignment, gaps between
student sub-populations, professional development priorities, resources needed to assist students, and
outreach to the community. Teacher responsibilities in the use of data should include analyzing the
data to learn which objectives require greater emphasis and time for all students and which specific
students need additional resources and interventions. Teacher responsibilities should include
demonstrating understanding of content and performance standards as well as local curriculum
objectives and demonstrating the use of aligned instruction so that students have the opportunity to
master the concepts, skills, and knowledge they will encounter on required tests. Students and parents
should use data to identify the student’s strengths and opportunities for growth.
A.3.7: Address principals and teachers with a message that builds pride in accomplishments of the
district staff. Establish a district-wide attitude that change is needed to move to the next level by using
the new Benchmark tests, performance standards, No Child Left Behind legislation, this audit report,
current research on schools where demographics do not determine student achievement, and
emphasize the need for all students to demonstrate achievement. Employ change management
techniques to reach all constituents and stakeholders. Plan for logical dates and events where
awareness can be introduced, followed throughout the year with additional emphasis on the capability
of the district staff to be leaders in making this change.
•
Hold regular discussions with principals and central office instructionally-focused staff on research
that indicates how schools with high poverty and high minority enrollments have achieved
outstanding performance, and how those same techniques can enhance performance for all
students.
•
Direct Staff Development to develop and implement a plan to build awareness and implications of
the latest research on curriculum alignment and deep alignment concepts for central office, school
administrators, and teachers. Direct Staff Development to work with Assessment and Evaluation
to provide training so that all principals and teachers to build their awareness of the need to use
disaggregated data so that No Child is Left Behind.
•
Build a spirit of collaboration where all staff pool expertise and resources to help the district’s
students achieve the bold performance goals established for them.
•
Develop a three-year plan to move towards a climate of “no excuses.” Require central
departments to work to meet as a team to ensure that there is a focused approach to using staff,
resources, and budget.
A.3.8: Direct the Director of Staff Development to ensure that there are explicit bridges for the use
of student assessment data in staff development by building a shared knowledge base and including a
component on the use and implication of assessment data in all instructional staff development
sessions. To accomplish this goal:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 232
•
Staff development should concentrate on selected priorities and within priorities on selected
research-based strategies to improve student achievement (see Findings 2.4 and 3.2). The
prioritization must also recognize that problems in student performance may begin in earlier grade
levels.
•
Require that all instructional staff development include a component that references use of student
performance and disaggregated student assessment data.
•
Develop and implement a written process that assures that central office staff, school
administrators, and teachers have a common vocabulary and understanding of the concepts,
knowledge, and skills that are tested and exactly how they are tested and judged.
•
Help staff understand student performance standards and content standards in terms of student
product expectations at each grade level. Assures that all staff at all levels can articulate the
priority student achievement goals for the district.
•
Provide processes and training for central office staff, school administrators, and teachers to
assure the proper understanding and use of disaggregated data and implications for classroom
practice.
•
Delineate a professional development plan for various audiences on deep curriculum alignment
concepts, student assessment, and use of data to improve classroom instruction and interventions.
•
Take steps to develop a phased capacity-building implementation process so that at least one
person at each school will have great expertise in each of the four core content areas of language
arts, mathematics, science, and social studies to meet a planned, prioritized timeline.
•
Provide training for principals in what to look for in classrooms that are implementing the
strategies that are being worked on by teachers in long-term staff development.
•
Provide extra on-site assistance to specific schools, as needed.
A.3.9: Develop procedures to use disaggregated data to drive site-level instructional decisions. The
procedures should:
•
Explicitly identify the principal as the instructional leader of the school.
•
Explicitly delineate the feedback process so that the organization is clear on who receives data
reports.
•
Establish a two-way communication process between central office and schools regarding the use
of data.
•
Provide for ongoing evaluations of the processes in place for the dissemination and use of data.
•
Provide a template for data analysis. While it may be based on the template on the state website,
it needs to go beyond it by requiring the use of disaggregated data by ethnicity and other
subpopulations defined by the Data Assessment Team.
•
Provide for evaluation of how data analysis is being translated into classroom and school
strategies, practices, and implementation.
•
Require all schools to provide time for data analysis, and horizontal and vertical planning to identify
problem areas through use of disaggregated data to identify specific needs, successes, and
opportunities for improvement for all students and sub-populations.
•
Encourage teachers to meet in teams by grade level or course to use disaggregated data by subpopulation to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Encourage teachers to meet vertically
to ensure that the foundation for more complex concepts, knowledge, and skills is developed
across the grade levels as called for in the curriculum.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 233
•
Require schools to identify root causes for areas of weakness and how school staff can overcome
those causes. For example, students may come to school with a lack of academic vocabulary;
however, schools can specifically develop multiple ways to help students learn that vocabulary.
•
Analyze how successful current practices have been in raising student achievement.
•
Examine the alignment of each practice to the performance and content standards assessment
instruments. Take steps to show how each teacher is demonstrating the use of instructional
strategies that will lead all students to meet the expectations set by the district.
•
Require principals to use data to determine particular areas of strength and weakness in each
classroom and grade level by student group and teacher to determine how strengths can be shared
and if particular staff development is a priority. Encourage teachers to take time to observe best
practices.
•
Develop a process to show that there is balance in the instructional program and that all of the
content areas are being taught even if greater emphasis is placed on targeted areas.
•
Have teachers involve parents as appropriate.
•
Within school plans:
o Ensure alignment with district goals.
o Have schools include strategies for closing the gap among student sub-populations while
raising the performance of its top achieving sub-population.
o Develop adequate staff development so that all members of the school staff can articulate the
school’s instructional focus.
o Develop a process so that all objectives that will be tested are taught prior to the test and that
formative assessments have been used to ensure students were adequately progressing in
those objectives.
o Create a procedure so that time is allotted for horizontal and vertical planning based on the
data analysis.
Sub-Recommendation 3.3: Create a procedure which requires that at least every three
years all programs undergo systematic, external or internal program review linked to
student achievement data. Develop RFPs and implement this policy for key programs in
the next academic year.
While Anchorage School District board policy requires the evaluation of pilot programs, it does not
explicitly require that all programs be evaluated (see Finding 4.4). This leaves the School Board with
anecdotal data or testimonials for determining whether a program should be expanded, modified, or
terminated. Board policy needs to be strengthened to provide direction for conducting both internal
and external evaluation and research activity. Assessment and monitoring expectations need to be
established to clarify how the Board will use evaluation data for monitoring program success and
whether the program will continue to be supported.
The use of program evaluation in the Anchorage School District is driven by federal and grant
requirements with little evidence that the data is fed back into the system to continue, modify, or
terminate a program or practice. Staff development is largely evaluated by participation and not by
student achievement results (see Finding 4.4).
The Assessment and Evaluation unit is understaffed for the work that must be done in the future. The
audit has recommended increased staffing in these areas (see Recommendation 2.1). When datadriven models are instituted and used for budget development, the initial costs of the evaluation will be
offset by savings in terminating ineffective programs and using resources in ways that produce
replicable improvements in student achievement.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 234
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.3.6: Adopt board policy which requires that at least every three years all programs undergo
systematic internal or external review linked to student achievement data. Require schools to monitor
student achievement results as a component of establishing or continuing programs and interventions.
G.3.7: Direct the Superintendent to determine a prioritized list of key programs and provide budget
support for implementing the external or internal review of these programs.
G.3.8: Direct the Superintendent to develop job descriptions for two positions in Assessment and
Evaluation for the purpose of program evaluation. Open and approve funding for these positions.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.3.10: Assist the Board in the development of policy which requires that at least every three years
all programs undergo systematic internal or external review linked to student achievement data, and
requires schools to monitor student achievement results as a component of establishing or continuing
programs and interventions.
A.3.11: Determine a prioritized list of key programs for a three-year period for external review.
Direct the development of RFPs for external evaluation, and prepare appropriate budget support.
Utilize federal funds where possible, and ensure that all grant programs allocate sufficient funding for
evaluation that includes impact on student achievement data, disaggregated by student subpopulations
where appropriate.
A.3.12: Develop job descriptions for two program evaluator positions for the Assessment and
Evaluation Department. Pool funding sources from departments whose programs require evaluation
to fund these positions.
A.3.13: Place Title I evaluation under the supervision of the Assessment and Evaluation unit, and
maintain all databases under a single source to avoid potential complications with data reporting.
Sub-Recommendation 3.4: Establish a policy framework and procedures to improve the
coordination, monitoring, evaluation, and resourcing of site-based and district-level staff
development programs that are aligned to the Anchorage School District’s priorities and
which will provide the coherence and the long-range direction necessary to support
instructional practices designed to improve student achievement.
Staff development and training are the means by which all staff working within the district acquire
and/or expand the knowledge, skills, and values needed to create quality systems of education for all
learners. A district that maintains a focused approach to improving student achievement requires a
strong staff development program. Effective staff development programs rely on an ability to assess
the needs of all staff in order to determine what skills and supports are necessary to align and to
integrate with the district’s policy, and/or strategic or long-range plan. High-quality programs provide
for systemic, coordinated, and varied activities to organize all staff into learning communities.
Effective schools and effective districts are places where teams meet regularly to focus on data
obtained from student work and alter the instructional design and delivery of programs to obtain better
results. Too often, staff development is generic, and not aligned with improving student achievement.
A suggestion for staff development is that it is delivered to site-based teams consisting of an
administrator and teachers. This will support the district’s direction that site-based administrators are
the instructional leaders of the schools.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 235
G.3.9: Revise Policy 341.4 to provide for a Comprehensive Staff Development plan that is aligned to
the district’s long-range goals. The revised policy should contain direction for the coordination,
monitoring, evaluation and resourcing of both site-based and district-level staff development programs.
The policy should contain a statement that staff development is critical to the establishment of a
learning community, essential for improving student achievement, and is an integral component of the
Anchorage School District’s strategic direction.
G.3.10: Develop a policy that affirms that staff development is aligned to the district’s long-range
goals; is for all employee groups; and is the responsibility of all supervisors to be involved in the
professional development of their staff.
G.3.11: Direct the Superintendent to create a position for a Director of Staff Development, reporting
to the Executive Director Curriculum and Evaluation, to provide for the integration of staff
development with curriculum development, implementation, monitoring and student and program
assessment, both site-based and system-level, in the Anchorage School District.
G.3.12: Develop a policy to provide for a Staff Development Coordinating Committee to assist the
Director of Staff Development with the coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of staff development
in the district. This committee will ensure system-wide management of staff development and will
ensure that input is received regarding all levels of staff development necessary to sustain the district’s
and the schools’ goals. Representation on the committee should consist of stakeholders that are the
major providers of staff development within the Anchorage School District. This will assist with the
alignment of instruction, curriculum, assessment, and resources.
G.3.13: Direct the Superintendent to develop a comprehensive, long-rang staff development plan that
is focused and is linked to the district’s own long-range goals. The plan should cover at least a threeyear period, with the understanding that annual updating/revisions will ensure tight linkages to
emerging priorities and the needs of the Anchorage School District.
G.3.14: Direct the Superintendent to annually report on the long-range staff development plan. This
will ensure that the staff development program continues to meet board policy direction, state and
federal requirements, and district and site goals. The report should include:
•
An overview of programs offered, both site-based and district-level.
•
A categorization of the programs offered as they align to the district’s long-range goals, emerging
priorities, and the assessed needs of students and staff.
•
A breakdown of the staff development offered to each employee group.
•
A breakdown of the financial/resource support for staff development that is district-generated and
the support that is externally obtained through grants and other mechanisms.
•
The number of programs that operate during the contract day and their impact on teacher time.
•
Evaluation of the programs based on multiple data sources. It should include the impact of the
staff development programs on student achievement and staff behavior.
•
Allocate funds within the budget to provide for adequate resourcing of site-based and district-level
staff development.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School
District Superintendent of Schools:
A.3.14: Assist the Board in revisions of existing policies and the creation of new ones.
A3.15: Develop a job description, post, and hire a Director of Staff Development reporting to the
Executive Director Curriculum and Evaluation. The Director of Staff Development would be
responsible for coordinating and overseeing the development of a comprehensive long-range staff
development plan that is clearly aligned to the district’s long-range goals and assessed needs of
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 236
students and staff. The Director of Staff Development will be responsible for coordinating the annual
revisions/updates to the plan to ensure tight linkages to emerging priorities and needs of the Anchorage
School District and reporting annually to the Board. The Director of Staff Development will be
responsible for ensuring the constant training of all staff, including non-certificated personnel.
A.3.16: Establish a Staff Development Coordinating Committee to assist the Director of Staff
Development with the coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of staff development in the district. In
collaboration with the Director of Staff Development, the committee will provide system-wide
management of staff development at both site-based levels as well as at a district-level.
Representation on the committee should consist of stakeholders that are the major providers of staff
development within the Anchorage School District. This will assist with the alignment of instruction,
curriculum, assessment, and resources. The committee, with the assistance of the Director of Staff
Development will be responsible for compiling an annual report to the Board.
A.3.17: Assign the Director of Staff Development and the Staff Development Coordinating
Committee to create a comprehensive, long-range staff development plan. In order to ensure the
development of qualified and skilled staff, input for the creation of a systemic plan should come from a
variety of sources:
•
The priorities established by the Board of the Anchorage School District.
•
An analysis of current state and federal directions;
•
An analysis of the student assessment data;
•
A needs assessment of all employee groups;
•
Feedback from the existing community and parent surveys, school profiles, report cards, and other
instruments; and
• Feedback from the members of the committee.
The plan should:
•
Be aligned with system priorities;
•
Reflect established standards for effective staff development (One reference may be The
National Staff’s Development Council’s Standards for Staff Development, 2001);
•
Provide for initiation, implementation, institutionalization, and renewal;
•
Be based on analysis of system data.
determine priorities;
•
Provide opportunities for all Anchorage School District staff;
•
List expected outcomes and/or results including specific reference to student achievement and
staff behaviors;
•
Report on the funding and resources needed to deliver the plan, include specific time lines; and
•
Provide for evaluation of the specific staff development programs.
Utilize disaggregated student achievement data to
A.3.18: Take steps to monitor progress on the comprehensive long-range, staff development plan by
reporting annually to the Board. Components used in the annual report should include:
•
An overview of programs offered both site-based and district-level;
•
A categorization of the programs offered as they align to the district’s long goals, emerging
priorities, and the assessed needs of students and staff;
•
A breakdown of the staff development offered to each employee group;
•
A breakdown of the financial/resource support for staff development that is district-generated and
the support that is externally obtained through grants and other mechanisms;
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 237
•
The number of programs that operate during the contract day and their impact on teacher time;
and
•
Evaluation of the programs based on multiple data sources. It should include the impact of the
staff development programs on student achievement and staff behavior.
A.3.19: Direct the Director of Staff Development to develop a common template to record all
system-directed staff development. This will enable the monitoring and coordination of district-level,
staff development programs across the various departments.
A.3.20: Direct the Director of Staff Development to expand the Leadership Series to provide relevant
professional training to experienced site administrators.
A.3.21: Direct the Executive Director Curriculum and Evaluation to ensure that staff development is
an integral part of school improvement plans. Revise the existing template for school improvement
plans to include the School-based Staff Development Plans. This will enable the monitoring and
coordination of staff development programs across schools. The site-based staff development should:
•
Align with school or district priorities;
•
Target improvements in student learning;
•
Include plans for identifying outcomes;
•
Involve collaborative work involving all staff;
•
Be sustained with available resources;
•
Be sensitive of teacher time; and
•
Be measurable in terms of student achievement and staff behavior.
Sub-Recommendation 3.5: Revise the instructional technology program to be more
inclusive of audit criteria.
Technology is an emerging effort within the Anchorage School District. Although an Instructional
Technology Plan has been developed and approved by the Anchorage School District School Board,
the plan is inadequate to bring about the effective implementation of a technology program that will
enhance instruction and improve student achievement (see Finding 2.4).
The plan includes descriptions of activities and sets parameters for the technology program but lacks
the specificity required to adequately measure the effectiveness of the overall effort. A needs
assessment is called for in the plan but lacks details which describe methodology and criteria. The
student and program assessment components lack specific criteria on which to measure success. The
staff development component includes evaluation criteria that focus on participation rather than skills
developed. The absence of board policy regarding technology creates a void in terms of direction and
control over the use and application of technology within the schools. The lack of school plans linked
to the district plan perpetuates the current status where school personnel have the freedom to
implement technology without parameters. In order for technology to be used as an effective tool in
the Anchorage School District, the technology program will require revision to bring the various
components in line with the audit criteria.
Governance Functions: The following actions are recommended to the Anchorage School District
School Board:
G.3.15: Adopt policy that requires comprehensive system-wide use of instructional technology
according to the district Instructional Technology Plan which meets all audit criteria.
G.3.16: Continue to support and fund articulated district and school level instructional technology
plans to promote increased student achievement.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 238
G.3.17: Direct the Superintendent to provide periodic comprehensive evaluation reports regarding
implementation of the instructional technology program.
Administrative Functions: The following actions are recommended to Anchorage School District
Superintendent of Schools:
A.3.22: Develop policy draft for Board review and adoption.
A.3.23: Direct the Chief Information Officer to work with the Instructional Technology Plan
Committee to revise the Instructional Technology Plan to meet all audit criteria with focused attention
on the specificity of evaluative measures for effectiveness and success of the various components
especially measures of student achievement, program effectiveness and staff development.
A.3.24: Direct all building principals to develop a school site Instructional Technology Plan that is
coordinated with the district plan.
A.3.25: Prepare and present to the Board of Education periodic evaluation reports of the instructional
technology program.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 239
V. SUMMARY
A curriculum management audit is an “exception report. Data are gathered by the auditors from three
sources: documents, interviews, and on-site visits and compared to audit standards and indicators. A
school system is not compared to other systems and rated accordingly. This would be an
inappropriate practice since there is no national or state system of education in place. Education is a
local matter, and substantial authority and control remain vested in the ands of the locally elected or
appointed Boards of Education.
The auditors subjected the Anchorage 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 and 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 of schools. When the
superintendent’s response is received, then the Board is in a position to act upon these two sets of
recommendations. In this manner, the Superintendent and the Board are always accountable for what
occurs in the school system after an audit report.
The Anchorage School District is unique in that it is dependent upon other agencies to approve its
budget. With some notable exceptions, many U.S. systems can independently exercise their taxing
authority to provide a stable revenue stream upon which to construct organizational constancy via a
strategic or long-range plan. This situation is simply not present in Anchorage. The system’s fiscal
dependency, and the ever present possibility of fiscal veto or budgetary recision, has created an
atmosphere of uncertainty and an anti-planning bias among some of its leadership team. Anything but
annual planning appears to many administrators to be a waste of time. This perception, and the
operational and psychological gaps caused by inadequate planning, must change in order to meet the
pressing challenges which lie ahead.
To remedy this situation there is a need for a visible and functional plan that unifies district operations,
one which will connect various organizational units and services into a cohesive whole. At the present
time, this condition is lacking. Many departments within the school district are “silos of excellence,”
but are isolated from other, related departments. Anchorage educational leaders, as well as members
of the Anchorage Board of Education, expressed a desire to bring greater clarity and connectivity to
their work. For this reason the auditors have recommended the creation of a six-year plan,
commensurate with the city and state planning cycles. At the same time we are not recommending
some grandiose experiment with “group think” requiring huge forums soliciting massive public input.
The planning recommendation is seen as an extension of ongoing organizational requirements filtered
through the elected Board of Education as the representatives of the people. The simple fact that the
Anchorage School District is fiscally dependent requires planning, but not an effort etched in stone.
Things are about to change dramatically for the Anchorage School District in terms of educational
accountability. New legal and learning challenges lie ahead in the recently enacted federal law No
Child Left Behind and the establishment of school benchmarks for acceptable progress by the state.
These mandates will usher forth incredible new pressures to improve student achievement at all
schools for all students. The audit has shown that minority students are still not as well served in the
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 240
Anchorage School District as they should be. Test data show at the current rate of progress, minority
student success at some school sites will never reach parity to the majority, even as the district
becomes a minority-majority school system in its ethnic and racial composition within the next decade.
The district is simply not prepared for these challenges at the present time.
The new superintendent, a veteran of many years in the Anchorage School District, has spent her time
repairing the human connections, both internally and externally, which are so vital to maintaining
morale and good will within and without the school system. This effort has earned her high praise and
stabilized the psychological strains which were beginning to unhinge the school system from its
constituencies and sub-publics prior to her tenure as superintendent. These aspects now mended the
school system requires attention to its structure and operations. It is to this end that many of the
recommendations in the audit are aimed. Tighter linkages are required within the crucial functions of
the school system involved with curriculum development, assessment, program evaluation, staff
development, technology, and budget development. The glue whic h will integrate, coordinate, and
connect these functions together is: 1) a revised and more functional set of board policies with new
requirements for a different set of system and individual responses; and, 2) a six-year educational plan
which becomes the basis for defining, integrating, measuring, and improving internal focus, cohesion,
and productivity.
The most pressing long standing issue in the Anchorage School District is the persistent achievement
gap in the measured learning between majority and minority students. In this respect Anchorage is
not unique nor alone among urban school systems in the United States. The underachievement of
minority students is the single gravest problem confronting American public education. What will add
new urgency to this dilemma are the new State and federal requirements looming large on the horizon
to confront the achievement gap issue. At the time of the audit, few Anchorage educators had fully
grasped the difficult and complex responses which these new requirements will demand of them. Onthe-other-hand, school board members were more fully aware of the general dimensions and scope of
the challenges than many operational officers and teachers interviewed by the audit team.
This curriculum management audit comes at a propitious time in the history of the Anchorage School
District. The School Board, the Superintendent, administrators, and teachers have a small but viable
window of opportunity to prepare themselves and the district to be responsive to a new set of
challenges which will test their competence and professionalism. With strong policy leadership by the
School Board, a shift in leadership priorities and tasks to creating better central focus and coordination
by the Superintendent and her top leadership team, adjustments in staffing and functions, stronger
connections between central and site-level responses, the Anchorage School District should be able to
successfully respond to the new legal mandates, and most importantly, reduce the achievement gap
which has been shown to have been a legacy which must be changed for good. This is not “mission
impossible.” The strategies, functions, tasks, and methods are known. They must be woven together
in a unique way to take into account the diverse situation in Anchorage. There is no reason to believe
that all involved cannot proceed with confidence.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 241
VI. APPENDICES
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 242
Appendix A
Auditors’ Biographical Data
Fenwick W. English, Senior Lead Auditor
Currently Dr. English is the R. Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of
Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. English is the “father” of the curriculum audit, having
started the process in 1979. He has performed audits all over the world. He is
the author/co-author of 21 books. His practitioner experience includes serving as
a middle school principal in California, an assistant superintendent of schools in
Florida, and a superintendent of schools in New York. He earned his Ph.D. at
Arizona State University.
Ricki Price-Baugh, Associate Lead Auditor
Dr. Baugh serves as the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instructional
Development for the Houston, Texas, Independent School District. Under her
leadership, the district designed, developed, and implemented an innovative
curriculum to clarify district-wide expectations for student learning and
performance, as well as targeted staff development resulting in improved student
achievement. She earned her Ed.D. at Baylor University and has served on
curriculum audit teams since 1996. She took her audit training in 1995 in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Curtis A. Cain, Auditor
Dr. Cain is the Director of Curriculum and Professional Development in the
Park Hill School District, Kansas City, Missouri. Formerly he was the program
manager for the School Improvement Model Center at Iowa State University in
Ames, Iowa, where he directed consortium based and district-specific
curriculum renewal, realignment, and assessment. He has taught grades seven
through the university level with an emphasis on social sciences, performance
evaluation, and issues related to diversity. He has worked on several audits of
urban school systems including Columbus, Ohio and the Government of
Bermuda. He earned his Ph.D. at Iowa State University. He took his audit training in Savannah,
Georgia, in 1999.
Beverly Freedman, Auditor
Ms. Freedman is the Superintendent of Programs and the Uxbridge schools for
the Durham District School Board, a K-12 Canadian school system of 68,000
students enrolled in over 120 schools. The Superintendent of Programs has
system-wide responsibilities for curriculum, learning, and assessment. She has
served as a program officer with the Ministry of Education. She holds double
master’s degrees in history and education and is currently completing her
doctorate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. She completed her
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 243
audit training in 1994 in Toronto, Canada and has served on international and American audits since
that date.
Rosalie Gardner, Associate Auditor
Ms. Gardner is the Curriculum Coordinator and Reading Specialist in the
Columbia Community United School District in Columbia, Illinois. She chairs the
District Curriculum Advisory Committee and serves on the District Technology
Committee. She has served as a middle school reading teacher, Title 1 teacher,
and a sixth grade, self-contained teacher. She earned her M.S. in Education at
Western Illinois University. She completed her audit training in 1999 in
Bloomington, Indiana.
Joe Gasper, Associate Lead Auditor
Dr. Gasper is currently Assistant Superintendent for the Newaygo County
Intermediate School District in Fremont, Michigan. His twenty-five years of
school administration experience include the areas of curriculum, finance,
technology, vocational, and special education. Dr. Gasper has served as a
planning facilitator, trainer, and consultant to a variety of public, private, and
governmental entities in the U.S. and Canada. He completed his doctorate in
Educational Leadership from Western Michigan University and has served on
curriculum audit teams since 1991. He completed his audit training in 1990 in San Diego, California.
Elizabeth Hammerman, Intern Auditor
Dr. Hammerman is currently a math/science consultant K-12 for seven county
school systems in North Carolina. She has taught at the middle school, high
school, and university levels and has twenty years of experience in teacher
education and staff development. Dr. Hammerman has published books and
articles on teaching in the outdoors, science education, teaching for thinking, and
performance assessment. Two technology-based projects dealing with MS
science and performance assessment K-10 are soon to be published. She earned
her Ed.D. at Northern Illinois University. Dr. Hammerman completed her audit
training in 1999 in Savannah, Georgia.
Kendra Johnson, Auditor
Dr. Johnson is currently the Associate Superintendent for Assessment,
Curriculum, Instruction, and Staff Development in the North Kansas City School
District, a suburb of the metropolitan Kansas City. She has served as a teacher
in Shawnee Mission School District and a building administrator in the North
Kansas City School District. She works extensively in strategic planning, state
accreditation, accountability systems, and instructional improvement. She has
also taught curriculum design at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. She
earned her Ph.D. in leadership and policy development at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City. She completed her audit preparation in Palm Springs, California, in 2000.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 244
Penny H. Kowal, Auditor
Dr. Kowal is currently serving as the Associate Superintendent for Educational
Services of Millard, Nebraska, a suburb of Omaha, Nebraska. She has served as
coordinator of programs for gifted students, direction of instructional
improvement, and staff development. She has taught preschool Montessori,
middle school music, and high school foreign language. She received her doctoral
degree from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. She completed her audit
training in 1997 at Bloomington, Indiana.
Kathryn LeRoy, Intern Auditor
Kathryn LeRoy is the Education Specialist, Leadership Development Services for
the Region IV Education Service Center in Houston, Texas. She is responsible
for providing technical assistance to principals and central office administrators as
well as teacher leaders. She directs training in benchmarking best practices,
district- and campus-based curriculum leadership, systemic planning for
continuous improvement, program evaluation, and state training for school
administrators. Ms. LeRoy’s M.Ed. is in the area of curriculum and instruction
from the University of Houston. She is currently in the doctoral program at Texas
A&M University. She completed her audit training in Austin, Texas, in 2000.
Norma Maldonado, Auditor
Ms. Maldonado serves as an Instructional Director for the San Antonio, Texas,
Public Schools. She has served as an elementary teacher, speech pathologist,
and an assistant principal. As an Instructional Director, she designs, organizes,
and delivers site-based decision-making at the district and campus levels. In 1989
Ms. Maldonado was chosen as the San Antonio Independent School District’s
Teacher of the Year. She also received Trinity University’s Excellence in
Education Award. Ms. Maldonado completed her audit training in San Antonio,
Texas in 1999.
John P. Rouse, Associate Lead Auditor
Mr. Rouse is currently serving as the Superintendent of Schools for the Port
Aransas Independent School District in Texas. His teaching experience ranges
from elementary school through first-year university chemistry students. He has
served as a school principal, director of elementary education, director of
instruction and federal programs, assistant superintendent for curriculum and
instruction. He holds a master’s degree from Texas A&M University. All the
campuses in the Port Aransas school district have consistently been rated as
“exemplary” or “recognized” by the Texas Education Agency. Mr. Rouse
completed his audit training in San Antonio, Texas in 1995.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 245
Socorro Shiels, Intern Auditor
Ms. Shiels is currently the Curriculum Coordinator for the Grant Joint Union High
School District in Sacramento, California. She is responsible for curriculum
alignment and development for the high school district. She has had previous
experience as a site principal and bilingual teacher. She earned her M.S. at Cal
State Hayward and is currently in the doctoral program at the University of
Southern California. She completed her audit training in 1999 at La Quinta,
California.
Rebecca A. Shore, Intern Auditor
Dr. Shore is currently a Lecturer in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Cultural Foundations at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. She
is the former principal of Los Alamitos High School in southern California and
Assistant Principal of Huntington Beach High School, also in southern California.
She has written extensively on early brain development of children and is the coauthor of a forthcoming book on charter school pioneers. She completed her
doctoral degree at the University of Southern California in 1996. Her audit
training was completed in 1994 in Burlingame, California.
Betty E. Steffy, Senior Lead Auditor
Dr. Steffy is formerly the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction in the Kentucky
Department of Education during its first years of implementation of the famous
Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). She has served as a superintendent
of schools in New Jersey as well as a director of curriculum in a large, urban
intermediate educational agency in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She is the author or
co-author of many books including Career Stages of Classroom Teachers
(1989) and The Kentucky Education Reform: Lessons for America released in
1993. Her most recent co-authored book is Life Cycle of the Career Teacher (2000) released by
Corwin Press in cooperation with Kappa Delta Pi, a national honorary education association. She
earned her Ed.D. at the University of Pittsburgh. She completed her audit training in 1988 in
Montreal, Canada.
Rosanne Stripling, Associate Lead Auditor
Dr. Stripling is currently serving as professor and department chair of the
education administration department at Texas A&M University-Texarkana.
She is the former superintendent of schools in the Waco, Texas, Independent
School District. Her areas of interest and research include early childhood
intervention, program evaluation, leadership development, and school law. She is
currently working as an External Lead Evaluator for the State of California and
has served on six prior audit teams. She earned her doctorate in educational
leadership from Baylor University. She completed her audit training in
|1996 in San Antonio, Texas.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 246
Appendix B
List of Documents Reviewed
by the
Anchorage School District Audit Team
Name of Resource
21 Reasons Why The English Language Is Difficult To Learn
Ace Study Final Report To School Board
ADS Board Policies
Agreement between Anchorage School District and Anchorage Council
of Education/American Federation of Teachers, Local 4425
Agreement Between the Anchorage Education Association and the
Anchorage School District
Agreement Between the Anchorage Principals Association and the
Anchorage School District
Alaska Native Education Study
Alaska Quality Schools Initiatives
Alaska Standard for Culturally Responsive Schools
Alaska Standards Culturally Responsive Schools
Art Curriculum Frameworks: Content Standards K-12 (Final Draft)
Art Curriculum Frameworks: Elementary Art/ Curriculum 4-6
Art Curriculum Frameworks: Elementary Art/ Curriculum K-3
Art Curriculum Frameworks: Middle School Art Syllabus
Art Curriculum Frameworks: Senior High School Art Syllabus
ASD 1998-99 Adopted Financial Plan
ASD 1999-00 Adopted Financial Plan
ASD 200-01 Adopted Financial Plan
ASD 2001-02 Adopted Financial Plan
ASD 2002-2003 Preliminary Financial Plan and Responses To request
Information Log
ASD Administrative Budget Supplement Manual
ASD Art Department Curriculum Frameworks
ASD Assessment & Evaluation 1994 Graduate Survey Results
ASD Assessment & Evaluation 1997 Graduate Survey Results
ASD Assessment & Evaluation 1999 Graduate Survey Results
ASD Board Monthly Agenda (for May 13, 2002)
ASD Bond Proposition School Board Work Session
ASD Certificated Employee Evaluation Document
ASD Charter Schools 2001-2002
ASD Classified Employee Evaluation System - Totem Performance
Appraisal – Non Instructional/Administrative
ASD Classroom Connection Newspaper
ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 247
Date
(undated)
May 13, 2002
Listed on website 2002
7/1/2001 – 7/30/2003
7/1/2001 – 7/30/2003
7/1/2001 – 7/30/2003
November 2001
June 2001
February 3, 1998
2001-2992
11/5/01
Draft June 1993
Draft 1993, rev. 6/98
Revised 9/98
9/89
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
FY 2002-2003
1994
1997
1999
May 13, 2002
12/3/01
2000
1/7/02
1991
9/2/01
FY ended 6/30/01
June 30, 1999
ASD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
ASD Comprehensive Financial Audit Report
ASD Comprehensive Financial Audit Report
ASD Comprehensive Financial Audit Report
ASD Consolidated FY 2002-2003 No Child Left Behind Federal
Programs Integrated Project Application
ASD Counselor Evaluation Rubrics
ASD Curriculum overview Kindergarten to Grade 6
ASD Developmental Profile
ASD Earth Systems Elementary Science Curriculum Frameworks
ASD Elementary Budget Development Manual
ASD High School Program of Studies
ASD Indian Education Act Native Advisory Committee By-Laws
ASD Indian Education Program
ASD Instructional Technology Draft Curriculum Frameworks
ASD K-12 Physical Health Curriculum Framework and Sexuality
Education Guidelines for Instruction
ASD K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Frameworks
ASD Kindergarten –Algebra 2 Math Program
ASD King Career Centre Curriculum Frameworks
ASD King Career Centre High School Curriculum Frameworks
ASD Language Arts K-8 and Grade 9 and English 10 Curriculum
Frameworks
ASD Language Arts: Student Performance Standards Kindergarten
through Grade 8, English 9, English 10
ASD Mathematics Content Standards
ASD Mathematics K-8 & Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Geometry and
Algebra II, with State of Alaska Performance Standards at Four
Benchmark Levels
ASD Mathematics K-8 & Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Geometry and
Algebra II
ASD Mathematics Performance Standards
ASD Memorandum #219 - Bilingual Education Plan of Service
ASD Memorandum #278 (2001-2002)
ASD Memorandum Administrative Response to Human Resources
Audit
ASD Municipal Public Opinion Survey
ASD Music Department Curriculum Frameworks
ASD Music Documents: Kindergarten (k1-6); First Grade (1A, 1B, 2A,
2B, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7A, 7B); Second Grade (1-8); Third Grade (1A, 1B,
2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4,5,6); Fourth Grade (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6);
Fifth Grade (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7); Sixth Grade (1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7)
ASD Profile of Performance
ASD Profile of Performance
ASD Profile of Performance Slides
ASD School Action Guide
ASD Science Frameworks Grade 7-9, Biology I, Chemistry I, Geology I,
Physics I, Biological Sciences, Earth Sciences, Conceptual Chemistry,
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 248
June 30, 2000
1999
2000
2001
May, 2002
2001
2001-2002
FY 2002-2003
2001-2002
2002
4/21/99
1999
May 24, 1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
4/10/00
May 13, 2002
December 12, 2001
November 2001
No date
1999-2000
2000-2001
2000-2001
2001-2002
1999
Conceptual Physics, Biology II, AP Biology, Chemistry II, AP
Chemistry, AP Physics B, AP Physics C
ASD Special Olympics World Winter Games
ASD Standards Based Instruction Survey
ASD Training and Professional Development
ASD Vacancy Position Posting
ASD World Languages Curriculum Frameworks
Budget Basics
By-Laws of Native Advisory Committee
Class Crier
Class Crier
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and the Totem Association Support Personnel
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and Public Employees Local 71 AFL-CIO
Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between Anchorage School
District and Anchorage Food Service Bargaining Unit
Competitive Grant procedures Flow Chart
Cook Inlet Tribal Council TREE (Together Reaching Educational
Excellence)
Description of Anchorage School District’s Inservice Days
Earth Systems Elementary Science Curriculum Overview
Essential Components of Comprehensive School Health Services –
School Nurse Evaluation Rubrics
Ethnic Origin Categories from Data Processing
(Undated)
Get to know your Anchorage School Board and Superintendent
Gifted Education Report Card
Grant Submission by Fiscal Year Report
Guidelines for Determining Proficient, Nearly Proficient, or Struggling
Readers
Health Curriculum Frameworks and Sexuality Education – Guidelines for
Instruction: K-6, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12 (four documents)
Independent Auditors’ Management Letter
Independent Auditors’ Management Letter
Independent Auditors’ Management Letter
Information Packet prepared for Literacy review Committee Meeting
Instructional Technology Plan (Working Document)
K-12 Social Studies Framework: (bound as one)
K-12 Social Studies Framework: Economics Course Frameworks
K-12 Social Studies Framework: Eighth Grade Social Studies
Frameworks
K-12 Social Studies Framework: High School Social Studies Elective
Requirements Geography/Area Studies Category A, History/Social
Sciences Category B
K-12 Social Studies Framework: High School Social Studies Frameworks
K-12 Social Studies Framework: Middle School Social Studies
Frameworks
K-12 Social Studies Framework: Social Studies Literature
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 249
2001
1999-2000
1999-2000
2/5/02
1999
March 4, 2002
May 1 2002
May 2002
7/1/2001 – 6/30/2004
7/1/2001 – 6/30/2004
7/1/2001 – 6/30/2004
9/05/01
2002-2003
2/1995, 9/17/1997
2001
2001-2001
2000
1999-2001
1/15/97 (last rev. date)
1999
2000
2001
January 8, 2002
Spring 2002
May 1994
February 1998
May 1996
January 1999
1996-97
May 1999
May 1994
K-12 Social Studies Framework: United States Government
K-6 Science Framework Expanded Version
K-6 Science Frameworks Expanded Version (draft)
Library Materials: Budget Amounts
Memorandum on Vision and Goal Statements, Alaska 20/20
Migrant Education Booklet
New Teacher News
Newspaper Clippings provided by ASD
Newspaper Clippings provided by ASD
Participation Guidelines for Alaska Students in State Assessments
Physical Education Curriculum Framework K- 12
Physical Education Curriculum Framework K-12
Promote Success for Bilingual Students: Part II
Reading Database memorandum to Elementary Principals
Retention: Double Promotion Report by Ethnicity and Gender
Science Frameworks : Grade 7-9 Integrated Sciences: Biology I,
Chemistry I, Geology I, Physics I, Biological Sciences, Conceptual
Chemistry, Conceptual Physics, Biology II, AP Biology, Chemistry II,
AP Chemistry, AP Physics B, AP Physics C
Guiding Principles
Science Frameworks: 7th Grade Life Science
Science Frameworks: 7th Grade Chemistry
Science Frameworks: 7th Grade Earth Science
Science Frameworks: 7th Grade Physics
Science Frameworks: 8th Grade Chemistry
Science Frameworks: 8th Grade Earth Sciences
Science Frameworks: 8th Grade Life Sciences
Science Frameworks: 8th Grade Physics
Science Frameworks: 9th Grade Chemistry
Science Frameworks: 9th Grade Earth Science
Science Frameworks: 9th Grade Life Science
Science Frameworks: 9th Grade Physics
Science Frameworks: AP Biology Frameworks
Science Frameworks: AP Chemistry Frameworks
Science Frameworks: AP Physics B Frameworks
Science Frameworks: AP Physics C Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Biological Sciences Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Biology I Content Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Biology II Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Chemistry II Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Conceptual Chemistry Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Conceptual Physics Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Earth Sciences Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Geology I Content Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Physics I Content Frameworks
Science Frameworks: Science As A Process
Scope for Instrumental: Woodwind, brass, Percussion/band,
Strings/Orchestra
Secondary Administrative Manual
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 250
April 1997
2001
2001
1991-1992, May 2002
December 6, 2001
May 2002
October 2001
2000-2001
2001-2002
2001-2002
4/97
4/97
2002
April 8, 2002
2000-2001
February 8, 1999
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 23, 1997
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
May 22, 2000
February 8, 1999
June 25, 2001
June 25, 2001
May 22, 2000
May 22, 2000
May 22, 2000
February 8, 1999
February 8, 1999
February 8, 1999
1982
November 2001
Secondary Budget Development Manual
Six-year Capital Improvement Plan
Slingerland Program Booklet
SMS Test Score Reports
Special Education Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Standards for Alaska’s Administrators
Standards for Alaska’s Schools
Standards for Alaska’s Teachers
State released Time In-Service Plans
Submission from Dr. Obermyer
The Global Village Handout
Title
Trends in Alaska’s People and Economy
World Languages Curriculum Framework
Note: Some documents identified in the audit text may not appear on this list.
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 251
FY 2002-2003
July 1, 2002-June 30, 2008
April 19, 2002
2001-2003
1997
1997
2002
April 15, 2002
Date
October 2001
1998-99
Appendix C
Proposed Organizational Relationships
Anchorage School District
Superintendent
Assistant
Superintendent
Instruction
Director of Staff
Development
Grants Coordinator
Supervisors
of
Content Areas
COORDINATORS
Art
Music
Reading
Math
Science
SS
Health/PE
World Languages
Advisory
Committee
Executive Director
Curriculum and Evaluation
Supervisor
of
Support Programs
Supervisor
of
Assessment/Program
Evaluation
COORDINATORS
Special Education
Title I
Indian Education
Multicultural and
Bilingual Education
Literacy - Migrant Ed
Career Tech
Anchorage School District Audit Report Page 252
3
Assessment
Coordinators
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement