State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools Special

State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools:
Special Act 97-4

A primary objective of this study was to determine whether or not the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools is complying with its statutory mandates specified in Special Act 97-4. The special act created the board of trustees and outlines several specific requirements the board of trustees is to fulfill during its term. These requirements and their implementation status serve as an initial gauge of the progress made by the board since its inception in mid-1997.

Special Act 97-4 calls for the term of the Hartford board of trustees to expire on June 30, 2000. A key provision of the special act allows the board to request an extension of its term if additional time is needed to: 1) sufficiently address recommendations from an independent management audit of the Hartford school district’s operations and a series of 48 recommendations made by the commissioner of the state Department of Education (SDE) known as the Hartford Improvement Plan; and 2) improve student achievement. The special act requires the board to request an extension by January 1, 2000.

The board of trustees formally requested a two-year extension this past September. On October 6, 1999, the State Board of Education granted the extension. The state education board noted the trustees have made systematic progress in implementing the necessary requirements within the Hartford school system, but needed more time to fully complete their responsibilities. The state education board also noted the trustees needed additional time to allow their new superintendent, hired in April 1999, to implement his programs and initiatives under the trustees’ direction. The State Board of Education said it supported the work the board of trustees was doing and voted unanimously to extend its term until June 31, 2002. Appendix C provides the memo from the chairman of the board of trustees to the State Board of Education requesting the term extension and the state education board’s resolution approving the extension.

As mentioned, Special Act 97-4 outlines numerous responsibilities the board of trustees is to accomplish. The committee analyzed whether the board is complying with its statutory requirements. A brief description of the special act’s provisions is presented below, along with the committee's analysis, findings, and recommendations.

Special Act 97-4 required the board of trustees, in consultation with the state education commissioner, to contract for a fiscal and operational audit of the school district for completion by January 1, 1998. The audit, completed in December 1997, focused on the district’s administrative operations to avoid duplication with the city's annual fiscal audit. The operational audit was completed by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand.

The audit outlined five primary organizational themes applicable to the entire operations of the school district, including:

      1.     An overall lack of tangible accountability and responsibility throughout the organization
2.     Control processes and procedures are not standardized or reinforced.
3.     Statutory requirements and contractual agreements frequently complicate efficient operations and data processing between/within the Hartford public school system and the city.
4.     System and process improvements are being compromised by incomplete process redesigns, sub-optimal project management, lack of resources, limited training and education, and no year 2000 or business continuity planning.
5.     A culture has been created over time within the school district resulting in operational "silos" which prohibit information-sharing and effective communication.

In addition to these observations, the audit contained findings and 98 recommendations in 10 specific operational areas. The auditors made recommendations where controls and/or processes were weak. The report noted the 10 areas were those needing the greatest attention for change within the school district. The operational areas examined included: budget and planning; enrollment management; facilities, construction, and property maintenance; financial management; human resources; information technology; payroll; procurement; special funds; and warehouse facilities. The board of trustees has placed a high priority on implementing the audit’s recommendations. A summary of the operational audit is provided in Appendix D. The summary outlines the findings and recommendations in each of the 10 functional areas.

Implementation structure. In accordance with Special Act 97-4, the trustees have developed a plan and structure to implement the recommendations. In early 1998, the trustees decided they needed assistance in organizing a structure for implementing the audit recommendations given the board’s limited resources. At that point, the MetroHartford Chamber of Commerce formed a collaboration with the board to assist in developing such a structure. The chamber -- through its not-for-profit affiliate "Citizens' Committee for Effective Government" (CCEG) -- assisted the board in organizing a 13-member Operational Audit Steering Committee, which currently oversees the implementation process. The committee includes two board members (including the board chairman, who chairs the steering committee), the superintendent of schools, the commissioner of education, the majority and minority leaders of the Hartford city council, the city manager, two CCEG representatives and two alternates, and two representatives of the firms that conducted the operational and financial audits. School district staff and city personnel serve on the committee on an as-needed basis. The committee structure is shown in Figure III-1.

The purpose of the audit steering committee is to set priorities, serve as an oversight body regarding audit recommendation implementation, and ensure a coordinated implementation effort among the school district, city, and community. The committee began its work in April 1998. According to minutes and other relevant documents, the committee has met on a consistent basis since its inception in mid-1998. The records indicate the committee continually reviews the efforts to implement the audit recommendations and discusses strategies for future work.

To facilitate the steering committee’s work, a chief of staff position was created in mid-1998. The chief of staff oversees the daily implementation responsibilities and is accountable to the full steering committee, including the chairman of the board of trustees who chairs the steering committee. The original chief of staff position was filled in June 1998. The position became vacant, however, the following month when the person resigned to become the interim school superintendent in Hartford. A new chief of staff was hired in November 1998, and has been in the position since that time. This factor, along with little turnover of the steering committee members and regular attendance at meetings by members, shows stability in the audit implementation structure.

CCEG also acts as the fiduciary for the operational audit implementation project. Funding for implementation comes mainly from state appropriations provided through grants from the education department to the school district. A contractual arrangement between CCEG and the board provides that the district will release monthly allotments to CCEG for the purpose of implementing the audit recommendations. The FY 2000 state appropriation for the project totaled $600,000; the FY 99 appropriation was $400,000. Additional in-kind contributions to the audit committee totaled an estimated $250,000 for FY 99. The funding is used for such expenses as outside consultants for special projects, the chief of staff’s salary, and administrative support.

Implementation status. The Coopers and Lybrand audit identified 98 recommendations for improving the operations of the Hartford school system. Realizing full implementation of the recommendations at one time was not feasible, the audit steering committee prioritized the recommendations. The committee began this process in August 1998, followed by a review at the end of that year.

The chief of staff monitors the overall progress of the implementation project and has developed a system for tracking each recommendation. The steering committee knows which recommendations have been prioritized, are closed, remain in progress, are under review, or have yet to be prioritized. The chief of staff provides the steering committee with this information on a regular basis. In addition, a more detailed quarterly update report is given to the steering committee for the prioritized recommendations, including each recommendation's objective, status, and any issues with respect to implementation.

Program review committee staff attended the steering committee’s monthly meetings held during the course of this study. Monthly updates on the implementation status of the recommendations were provided to the committee members at those meetings by the chief of staff and others. The steering committee also devoted time at a recent meeting to prioritize which recommendation areas would be focused on during the coming months.

The status reports provided to the audit steering committee were analyzed during this study to determine the level of progress made by the board of trustees in implementing the audit recommendations. The reports, in their current form, were first presented to the steering committee in March 1999. The first status report incorporates work completed from mid-1998 through March 1999.

Analysis of the status reports shows the board is making steady progress, both in fully implementing the recommendations and prioritizing remaining recommendations for future implementation. Figure III-2 shows the actual progress made from March 1999 and October 1999.

Of the 98 total audit recommendations, 21 (one-fifth) have been fully implemented as of October 1999. This is more than double the number of recommendations implemented as of March 1999. The number of recommendations in the process of implementation has also increased, from 28 to 32 (14 percent). Progress is being made in the number of recommendations being prioritized for implementation as well. Between March and October, the audit steering committee decreased the number of “not prioritized” recommendations by 41 percent, leaving 27 of the 98 original recommendations not addressed.

The program review committee believes Figure III-2 shows progress by the steering committee in implementing the operational audit recommendations. The committee recognizes the figure only shows aggregate information and does not indicate which recommendations have been implemented or their relative difficulty in being implemented. The steering committee, however, prioritizes the recommendations and focuses its efforts accordingly. Further, implementation of the operational audit recommendations shows actual structural changes being made to the school district’s operations.

As noted earlier, the operational audit discussed five organizational-wide themes not specific to any particular department or operation within the school district. The program review committee observed the steering committee is addressing these broad issues in addition to the actual recommendations, again leading to structural changes in the system. For example, the audit cited a need for increased communication between the district and the city. The steering committee’s chief of staff, as part of the overall audit implementation efforts, is facilitating meetings between district and city officials and staff to help foster such increased communication.

Reports to board. Although progress reports are provided to the audit steering committee, the full board of trustees does not receive regular audit updates. During this study, the board held one “informational meeting” to discuss the audit steering committee structure and process. An implementation update was also provided to the trustees at the meeting. That was the only time, however, the full board and general public received a formal status report on the operational audit implementation progress.

As part of their quarterly reports, the state monitors attempt to provide an update on the board’s progress in implementing all the requirements of Special Act 97-4, including the operational audit. The most recent quarterly report distributed in late September, the sixth report overall, provides a status report of the audit recommendations. The fifth quarterly report, however, presented this past May focused on academic achievement, and did not include an update on the audit recommendations. The fourth quarterly report provided a brief update, but that report was published in December 1998. In other words, 10 months elapsed in the monitors’ reporting process between updates on the operational audit recommendations. These factors indicate more frequent and formal reporting to the board is necessary on the progress of implementing the operational audit recommendations.

      ·        A functional and organized structure exists via the audit steering committee to implement the operational audit recommendations; the committee has met on a regular basis to address the audit’s findings.
·        Oversight of the daily audit recommendation process exists through a chief of staff, who is accountable to the steering committee and the chairman of the board of trustees.
·        The audit steering committee is systematically addressing and prioritizing the recommendations and has made steady progress at implementing the recommendations
·        Neither the full board of trustees nor the public receives regular updates regarding implementation of the operational audit recommendations.

Each member of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools should begin receiving a copy of the monthly status reports distributed to the audit steering committee. The board should hold at least semi-annual informational meetings devoted to providing the board and general public with a full progress report on the implementation status efforts of the operational audit required by Special Act 97-4.

Although the chairman of the board of trustees chairs the steering committee and is aware of the level of progress being made regarding implementation, the program review committee believes more routine reporting and formal updates should be made to the entire board of trustees and general public. Regular status reports will provide a greater opportunity to follow the implementation progress of the operational audit recommendations. This is important because the audit, and its implementation, was specifically required by Special Act 97-4. Providing the trustees with periodic updates will allow the full board to monitor and gauge the overall progress of the audit implementation efforts and thereby help ensure continued structural changes to the operations of the school district.

Special Act 97-4 requires the state board of trustees to continue implementing a series of 48 recommendations developed by the state Department of Education and adopted by the Hartford Board of Education in 1996. The recommendations, termed the Hartford Improvement Plan, are aimed at improving the academic and administrative operations of the Hartford public school district.

As a precursor to the Hartford Improvement Plan, the state education commissioner requested the assistance of Brown University in early 1996 to help identify major issues impeding the educational progress of the Hartford school system. The university, through its Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (LAB), was to use its findings to make recommendations to assist in providing appropriate educational programs for all students within the district.

The university assembled a team of 12 of its staff to work on the project. The team conducted close to 200 interviews to collect information regarding the problems facing the school district. Community members, teachers, administrators, and others were interviewed. A final report was issued in November 1996.

The questions asked by the Brown University team focused on goals delineated in the school district's 1994 strategic plan. The study's findings indicated the vast majority of respondents believed the system was either "somewhat" or "not at all" effective in achieving any of the goals identified by the strategic plan. The report also found that although the district had strengths, those interviewed believed such strengths were not sufficient enough to alleviate the systemic problems faced by the school district. The study further outlined five main themes identified as needing major attention, including:

      ·       curriculum;
·       accountability and leadership;
·       communication and collaboration;
·       resource management; and
·       training and staff development.

The Brown University study made clear its recommendations should not be implemented in isolation. They were to be combined with those from other studies of the school district to provide a comprehensive approach to solving the district's educational issues. The study team also concluded the operations, approaches, and attitudes within the district needed to change before a unified effort toward a common goal could be achieved.

At the same time as the Brown University study, the state Department of Education conducted a study of specific program areas within the Hartford school system and released its findings in a report entitled Building Success Program by Program. The areas studied by the department were: 1) curriculum and instruction; 2) federally funded programs through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 3) bilingual/English as a Second Language programs; 4) special education; 5) early childhood; 6) parent involvement; 7) budget analysis; 8) collective bargaining; and 9) partnerships, governance teams, and local resources.

The department's study was a compilation of interviews, analysis of relevant documents and reports, and experiences of education department staff. Its purpose was to help "further discussion and decision making within the Hartford Public Schools and continue the improvements undertaken by the district.”

Using the Brown University and SDE studies, along with the district's 1994 strategic plan, the commissioner of education released a detailed document in November 1996 outlining 48 specific recommendations for improving the Hartford public schools. As mentioned, the recommendations became known as the Hartford Improvement Plan. The purpose of the plan is "to bring together key points from all the documents developed to identify and address the problems faced by the Hartford Public Schools." The plan’s 48 recommendations are provided in Appendix E.

In early 1997, the Hartford Board of Education formally adopted the education department's 48 recommendations as its own goals in addition to those outlined in the 1994 strategic plan. The department said it would assist and work with the district toward achieving better functioning schools, both from an academic and operations perspective. The assistance was – and continues to be --primarily guided by the recommendations.

Actions document. A handbook entitled "Actions to Improve the Hartford Public Schools" (i.e., “actions document”) has been developed by the state education department in conjunction with the superintendent and essentially replaces the Hartford Improvement Plan. The “actions document” encompasses the various themes of the original 48 recommendations, along with key points of the different strategic documents developed for the school system, and consolidates them into 10 separate categories or clusters for better coordination and reference. The categories include:

      ·       school district management and accountability;
·       curriculum and course offerings;
·       instruction, assessment, and school climate;
·       professional development;
·       early childhood;
·       technology;
·       student support;
·       parent and community support;
·       fiscal management; and
·       facilities management.

Using the actions document as a focal point, the district's two permanent superintendents during the state board of trustees' tenure each developed their own goals and objectives to meet the state education department's recommendations. The current superintendent, Anthony Amato, has finalized his goals and objectives for the 1999-2000 document. The trustees recently approved the superintendent’s goals for the new school year. The document will also be aligned with the board’s goals and objectives, which were being discussed as part of a board retreat held in late August. A copy of the 1999-00 actions document is provided in Appendix F.

The district's goals and objectives outlined in the 1999-2000 actions document have not been developed in isolation. The Department of Education, in assisting the school district, has assembled an internal team to work with the district in identifying and achieving the commissioner's improvement recommendations. The team consists of several department personnel with knowledge and experience in specific areas relevant to the 10 major themes outlined in the actions document. The department offers technical assistance to the school district and works with district personnel in implementing the recommendations. The department also tracks the district's implementation progress and reports to the superintendent on a regular basis. The project is overseen within the department by an associate commissioner and by the school district's chief of staff.

As noted earlier, implementation of the Hartford Improvement Plan, which is incorporated into the current “actions document,” is specifically cited in Special Act 97-4 as one of the charges to the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools. The state monitors are also tracking the progress made in implementing the improvement plan/actions document. During the most recent round of school visits, for example, the monitors made sure school improvement teams have copies of the actions document handbook. The monitors also asked the teams what success they have had within their particular schools in implementing the recommendations. The results of these visits, and the monitors' observations, will be included in the upcoming quarterly report submitted to the legislature as required by Special Act 97-4.

Implementation structure. An appropriate organizational structure is in place to implement the original 48 improvement recommendations. The structure involves a team from the state education department working in conjunction with a team assembled by the school district to implement the recommendations. Under this approach, the state is supposed to provide technical assistance when requested and help monitor implementation.

With changes in superintendents over the last several years, however, the people identified by the school district to work with the state education department team have also changed. For example, as a result of the most recent change in administration, it took six months to identify staff from the district who would be responsible for continuing implementation of the recommendations. The fact that key district staff responsible for working with SDE to ensure implementation of the Hartford Improvement Plan has fluctuated causes interruptions in addressing the plan’s recommendations.

Implementation status and reporting. At present, the actual status of the original 48 recommendations is not clearly articulated in any formal document. The program review committee believes this is because the 48 recommendations have been integrated within the board’s full spectrum of goals and objectives.

For planning purposes, the inclusion of the recommendations into the board’s annual goals and objectives seems appropriate. Special Act 97-4, however, requires the board to implement the original Hartford Improvement Plan. Tracking the status of the individual recommendations is necessary if compliance with the special act is to be determined.

The last full accounting of the implementation status of the Hartford Improvement Plan was provided in the final report of a three-report series developed by the school district and the state education department in June 1998 (Partnership for School Improvement: Interim Report No. 3). All three reports, distributed to the board chairman, provided a detailed update on the implementation status of the Hartford Improvement Plan. All reports and documents since then, including the state monitors’ reports, refer to the board’s broader annual goals and objectives and not the Hartford Improvement Plan specified in legislation.

Program review committee staff attended several monthly meetings held between the state education commissioner and the Hartford school superintendent. Key staff from the department and district, including the state monitors, attended meetings. At each meeting the state monitors requested an update from the district on the progress in implementing the Hartford Improvement Plan/board goals and objectives. The program review committee believes such meetings help serve to monitor the implementation process and progress of the 48 improvement recommendations. However, the focus continues to be more on the board’s overall goals and objectives than the original 48 recommendations.

· Special Act 97-4 specifically requires the board of trustees to implement the Hartford Improvement Plan, yet no full status report showing implementation progress of the plan has been produced since June 1998.

· The recommendations contained in the original Hartford Improvement Plan have been integrated into a broader planning document outlining the board’s annual goals and objectives.

· The structure originally designed to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in the Hartford Improvement Plan now focuses on the board’s broader goals and objectives, in addition to those contained in the improvement plan.

· The SDE commissioner and staff, including the state monitors, meet monthly with the superintendent to discuss progress on various topics, including the Hartford Improvement Plan. Such meetings help serve to monitor the implementation progress, but lack the documentation necessary to evaluate the requirements of Special Act 97-4 regarding the Hartford Improvement Plan.

The board of trustees, through the superintendent, and the state education department should determine which of original 48 recommendations contained in the Hartford Improvement Plan have been satisfactorily implemented, which recommendations are still relevant, and then prioritize those recommendations for implementation purposes. Specific indicators, such as timeframes for implementation, should be established for the recommendations as part of the prioritization process. Consideration should be given to the costs associated with implementation and how the recommendations align with the district’s overall academic and operational goals and strategy.

Beginning in March 2000, and quarterly thereafter, the State Board of Trustees should be provided with the implementation status of the recommendations contained in the Hartford Improvement Plan. The update should include, but not be limited to, a listing of recommendations, whether they have been fully or partially implemented, or if no progress has been made.

The state board of trustees is required by Special Act 97-4 to ensure all elementary and middle schools within the Hartford school system become accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Schools are required to address 10 different areas for accreditation, including mission, needs assessment, instruction, facilities, and budget. The overall process includes a self-evaluation phase, a peer review phase, and a follow-up phase addressing the strengths and weaknesses identified in the first two phases. A site visit(s) of the school by NEASC is also part of the process. Depending on the individual school, the self-evaluation phase alone can take between 12 to 18 months to complete. The standards used for accreditation are provided in Appendix G.

The board’s progress in this area was examined from several different perspectives. First, the committee wanted to know if an overall plan was in place to have the district’s 29 individual elementary and middle schools complete the accreditation process. Second, since the process is new to the district’s elementary and middle schools, the committee was interested in how school personnel are being helped with technical assistance and other necessary resources so they know how to approach accreditation. Third, the committee was interested in how the board of trustees was monitoring progress of the accreditation requirement of Special Act 97-4.

Planning and resources. The accreditation process for Hartford’s elementary and middle schools began in earnest in October 1998, almost a year and a half after the board’s term began. Prior to that time, the board focused on the accreditation efforts of the district’s three high schools. In October 1998, a presentation was made to the trustees by the district administrator overseeing accreditation outlining how elementary and middle schools would begin developing and aligning their budgets in accordance with standards required for accreditation.

Overall, the board of trustees has approached accreditation on an incremental basis. Six elementary schools were originally selected in late 1998 to undergo accreditation. As Table III-1 shows, the six schools are still in the beginning stages of the accreditation process. The district estimates each school is about 40 percent through the self-evaluation phase, which is the first of a three-phase process.

Planning for an additional six schools to begin the self-evaluation phase in early 2000 is currently underway; a third group of six schools, including the first middle school, is also being scheduled to begin the accreditation process. The schools included in the district’s schedule are those Hartford schools on the SDE commissioner’s list of priority schools released in mid-1999 in accordance with P.A. 99-288. The plan -- presented to the board in mid-November 1999 -- did not, however, indicate what, if any, resources the district would provide the schools for the accreditation process, such as technical assistance and professional development.

Table III-1. Status of Hartford Elementary and Middle Accreditation Efforts: October 1999.
School	Accreditation Status
Barnard Brown Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Hooker Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Kennelly Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Milner Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Simpson-Waverly Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Twain Elementary	Phase 1: Self Evaluation (40% complete)
Note: A target date for peer reviews of the elementary schools is Fall 2000. Source of data: State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools; NEASC

The six schools currently undergoing accreditation were selected through a voluntary application process. The schools were required to answer questions and received input from the school improvement teams and the community. An internal steering committee has also been appointed within each school. The steering committee develops a timeline for the self-study phase of the process, develops a budget, maintains contact with NEASC and the district’s central office, and oversees the process.

As noted above, a peer-review process takes place once the self-evaluation phase is completed. The reviews are conducted by outside teams assembled by NEASC consisting of mainly administrators and teachers. The teams attempt to validate the work done by a school during the self-evaluation phase and determine how well the school meets NEASC accreditation standards. The final phase is a follow-up visit by NEASC to determine how well the school has implemented the recommendations made by the peer review team.

Although not specifically required by Special Act 97-4, the city’s three high schools are also at various stages of accreditation. As shown in Table III-2, Bulkeley and Weaver High Schools are accredited, although each has items to remediate. Hartford high school is accredited with probation and has deficiencies to resolve. The school will undergo another site visit by NEASC in April 2000. A one-year correction plan has been developed and a five-year plan is also being developed with the help of outside resources.

Table III-2. Hartford Seconding Schools’ Accreditation Efforts: October 1999.
School	Accreditation Status
Bulkeley High School	Accredited: minimal items to remediate
Hartford Public High School	Accreditation with probation: short term plan created; working on 5-year plan
Weaver High School	Accredited: minimal items to remediate
Note: Bulkely and Weaver High Schools are working towards their 10-year accreditation status, Bulkeley beginning in 2003 and Weaver, 2002. Source of data: State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools; NEASC

Oversight. At least three separate presentations have been made to the board of trustees on the status of the accreditation efforts for elementary and middle schools by district staff. In late 1998, an accreditation workshop was held by the board with a report presented by the central office outlining the district’s approach to accreditation. The board also received an update report on the accreditation process at its January 1999 meeting, which included discussion about the need for preparing a comprehensive plan for accreditation of schools districtwide.

During a recent reorganization of the district’s administrators, the current superintendent selected a new person to coordinate the accreditation process. To date, the person has made two presentations to the board regarding accreditation -- the first in October 1999 and the second at an informational meeting of the board in mid-November. The informational meeting allowed the board to focus on the accreditation area, and receive an update on the district’s upcoming approach for accreditation. The coordinator has also been in contact with NEASC to facilitate the accreditation process.

The quarterly reports prepared by the state monitors also serve to oversee the district’s progress in accrediting elementary and middle schools. Although they have adequately documented the accreditation process, the program review committee believes the reports need to now focus on accreditation from a more comprehensive perspective. This includes identifying the district’s overall strategy for approaching accreditation of elementary and middle schools and the resources necessary to continue the process, which should prove easier now that a district coordinator has been appointed to oversee the accreditation efforts.

· The board of trustees began addressing the accreditation process of elementary and middle schools in accordance with Special Act 97-4 late last year.

· Progress and planning have been made on an incremental basis, with six schools undergoing initial work beginning in late 1998.

· A coordinator has recently been selected to oversee the accreditation process and is developing a schedule for schools to begin the accreditation process.

· Although a schedule has been presented to the board for additional schools to begin the accreditation process, no comprehensive strategy or action plan exists for all components of the process, including resources, technical assistance, and budget implications.

· The school district is working in conjunction with NEASC and other outside resources to facilitate the accreditation process, including providing professional development and technical assistance.

The board of trustees should ensure a comprehensive written strategy, including an action plan, is developed for the accreditation of all the district’s elementary and middle schools in accordance with Special Act 97-4. The strategy and action plan should be developed in conjunction with the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the state Department of Education, and any other resources identified by the board. Included in the comprehensive strategy should be a timetable for the accreditation of all schools, financial and staff resources projected to complete the accreditation process, and a plan for professional development and technical assistance for schools.

Given the district’s incremental progress to date and the amount of time necessary to complete the accreditation process, it is unlikely at the current pace that all of Hartford’s schools will be accredited by the end of board’s term in June 2002. The intent of the above recommendation is to push the board forward on the accreditation process. The committee believes accreditation could be a component for ensuring sustained progress by establishing a defined and ongoing assessment tool following the expiration of the board’s term in mid-2002.

There is reason to be optimistic about the accreditation process. As mentioned, the district’s coordinator for accreditation has had several recent meetings with NEASC, and a schedule of the next schools to begin accreditation has been developed. The program review committee believes, however, there needs to be a more comprehensive strategy, including budget and other resource and assistance implications, followed by a complete action plan, presented to the board of trustees if accreditation of all elementary and middle schools is to occur.

The state monitors, in their March 1998 quarterly report, provided a detailed workgrid summarizing the major components of the district’s goals and improvement areas, state laws affecting Hartford schools, and the NEASC accreditation standards for Hartford. The monitors are working on a revised version of the workgrid, which could be a useful tool for designing a comprehensive accreditation strategy. This is particularly important in making sure the work necessary for accreditation is coordinated with the other planning documents and requirements.

Special Act 97-4 calls for the board of trustees to provide a mechanism for parent, teacher, and community involvement in the schools. To date, no single mechanism exists, rather the overall system supports various ways for parents, teachers, and the community to become involved in their schools.

The program review committee believes the issues before the board of trustees should be whether a formal parental involvement policy exists, if the proper structure is in place to fulfill the policy, and if regular oversight is provided to ensure the policy is implemented in its intended manner. The board has an established parental involvement policy. In general, the policy requires the district to make its schools “open and inviting” to parents and the Hartford community. The policy further states a partnership among parents, students, the community, and school employees on behalf of children should exist. Each school should also have an active organization for fostering parent/community involvement.

Six specific areas by which to measure parent/family involvement programs were drafted to support the board’s original policy. Each area has various “quality indicators” by which overall success can be measured. The six measurement areas include:

      ·        communication between school and home;
·        parenting skills;
·        student learning;
·        parental volunteer efforts;
·        school decision making and advocacy; and
·        community collaboration to strengthen schools, families, and student learning.

The school district has been developing various ways to involve parents, teachers, and the community in schools. In addition to the initiatives described later in the report, the district is implementing several other structures to support the board’s parental involvement policy, including more parent/teacher organizations within schools, increased contact between parents and teachers through conferences and open houses, and increased training for parents. The district is also involved in partnerships with a variety of community groups to increase the involvement of parents in the school system, including the Hartford Parent Network, Hartford Areas Rally Together, Educate our Children Now, and others.

Parent organizations. Probably the closest fit to a single mechanism for parent involvement is the recent establishment/reconstitution of Parent Teacher Organizations and Parent Teacher Associations in each school throughout the district. These organizations are intended to foster interaction among parents, schools, and the community regarding schools. When the board of trustees began its term, this type of structure was not present in every school.

Elections for members of each school’s parent organization have been held by each school within the district. Standardized bylaws and operating procedures have also been developed by the central office for use by each organization.

The development of a “President’s Council” is also progressing. The idea behind this initiative is to have each school’s parent organization select a representative to serve on the council. The council as a whole then meets with the superintendent to discuss issues.

Parent/teacher interaction. The current teachers’ contract calls for more open houses to take place during the year. Teachers at all levels are now required to attend two mandatory evening open house activities each year. The previous teachers’ contract called for one open house a year. Further, as a way to standardize the open house process, the central office has provided principals with a schedule of events that should occur at each open house during the current school year.

The new teachers’ contract also provides for parent-teacher conferences at all schools levels. Under the previous contract, conferences were only required at elementary schools. To facilitate this change, the new contract calls for teachers to have four hours per semester for parent conferences. The teacher’s union also agreed to having conferences held during the evening hours in addition to time during the afternoon. The thought behind this effort was to have teachers more accessible to parents who could not make conferences during the afternoon. The central office has distributed a checklist to principals of areas to be covered during parent/teacher conferences.

The program review committee believes the changes in the teachers’ contract language show a commitment on the part of teachers and the board to increase the amount of contact between parents and teachers. The changes also become the baseline for future contract negotiations, which may help ensure their continuation in the future.

Parent training. Training is being provided by the district to help parents become more involved in their children’s schools. A “parent institute” was held over the summer attended by approximately 100 parents. The program, taught by a variety of professionals including Hartford teachers, offered parents courses on learning about the organization of the school system, ways to become involved in their child’s school, computer training, and personal growth classes. The superintendent has developed comparable parent training programs that began this fall, and more are anticipated during the school year.

Student handbooks. It came to the committee’s attention late in the study that the distribution of student handbooks to parents is not a coordinated effort and varies throughout the district. Some schools develop handbooks for parents describing the district’s various policies and procedures and them to students at the beginning of the school year to be sent home to parents. Other schools do not distribute such handbooks.

As a result of the uneven development of student handbooks, some parents may not be receiving the information they need regarding the district’s policies and procedures. The central office was unclear about past practice and said it would look into the matter.

· A parental involvement policy has been developed by the board of trustees with clear standards.

· The current system supports several different ways to involve parents in the schools, rather than a single mechanism as required by Special Act 97-4.

· The district is revising the structure used to implement the board’s goals and objectives regarding parental involvement.

The board of trustees should ensure coordination of the various parental, community, and school involvement approaches being implemented throughout the district. Through its oversight role, the board also needs to ensure the district’s performance regarding parental involvement is measured against the parental involvement standards adopted by the board in its original policy.

A seven-member advisory council was established in early 1998 in accordance with Special Act 97-4. The council is comprised of parents with children in the school system, teachers, principals, and a representative from higher education. It is responsible for advising the board of trustees and superintendent on matters regarding curriculum, student achievement, parental and community involvement, and school safety and discipline. The special act does not provide for the appointment of a chairperson.

Committee staff attended several council meetings held during this study. Overall, the council seems to have served its advisory role in the past. For example, it assisted the trustees during its search for a new permanent superintendent. The council was involved in the interview process and in recommending a list of finalists to the trustees. The council also participated in developing various policies ultimately adopted by the board, including the social promotion, parental involvement, and extended day/year policies. Further, regular meetings have been held and usually attended by most council members, as well as the trustees and district administration.

It appears, however, the role of the council may have diminished somewhat now that its work on board policies and the superintendent search have concluded. Advisory council meetings are held on days the board has its regular monthly meeting, and scheduled one hour before the board’s normal executive session. The council meetings attended, however, were not conducted in a completely organized manner. The meetings were informal and lacked focus. For example, no formal agenda was ever used and no minutes were taken. There were also times when the different constituencies represented on the council did not have enough time to provide their input or ask questions. A more formal structure with allotted time frames for each group represented on the council would help provide more coordination, facilitate the meetings, and ensure equitable time for the groups to address their issues.

It is also unclear to the committee whether there is any formal manner in which the different groups on the advisory council collect their information. There is no mechanism in place, such as a periodic survey of parents, teachers, or community members or an “informational meeting/hearing” process for the council members to inform the vast constituencies represented on the advisory council about the council’s role or to solicit feedback. The advisory council process might improve if such informational collection strategies were used periodically.

· The advisory council established by Special Act 97-4 has been involved in developing several major board policies and in the search for a permanent superintendent.

The advisory council, created by Special Act 97-4, should reestablish its role and the various representatives on the council need to develop and coordinate a clear agenda of major issue areas. Direction should come from the superintendent and trustees during this process, although the parent, teacher, and principal representatives should meet separately on occasion to develop their collective strategy on improving the council’s role/process and developing its agenda.

An advisory council chairperson should be appointed by the chairman of the board of trustees. The council, through its chairperson, should incorporate more organization into its regular meetings. This should at least include developing a working agenda for every meeting, taking minutes of meetings, making written requests for specific information to the superintendent, and ensuring responses from the administration to such requests are made at the council’s following meeting.

Two full-time equivalent state monitor positions were established within the Department of Education in August 1997. According to Special Act 97-4, the monitors are to assess the progress made by the board of trustees and the needs of the school district. The monitors must also consult with the board and superintendent. The special act further requires the monitors to continue their duties for one year following conclusion of the board’s term currently set for June 30, 2002.

The program review committee’s overall assessment of the state monitor process is positive. The monitors are knowledgeable about the Hartford school district and diligent in their efforts in requesting and gathering information, visiting schools, attending key meetings, and meeting with school personnel, parents, community groups, and the board of trustees on a regular basis. The monitors have a strong understanding of the operational systems being implemented within the district, including the automated financial management system, purchasing system, and the overall technology initiatives. The committee also believes the monitors show a solid grasp of the academic expectations and initiatives taking place within the school district.

Special Act 97-4 requires the monitors’ work be presented in quarterly progress reports. The reports are distributed by the SDE commissioner and state board of education. They address the operations and academic standing of the Hartford school district along with any progress made under the management of the trustees on a quarterly basis. The reports are sent to the legislature’s education committee for review. Legislative leaders, the governor, and the board of trustees also receive copies and the reports are made available to the public. The quarterly reports are required until the trustees’ term expires.

To date, six quarterly reports have been issued by the monitors. Two of the reports did not correspond with the actual timeframe they should have, but incorporated two quarters worth of reporting into one. The monitors said this was necessary so updated statistical information could be collected, analyzed, and reported for performance indicators such as test scores, attendance rates, and truancy levels, and to incorporate the results of site visits and facilities reviews made of each school. The program review committee concurs with this response. Further, no one expressed any objection to the committee regarding the frequency or adequacy of the monitors’ reports.

Each of the quarterly reports prepared by the state monitors was reviewed during this study. The reports were detailed and included synopses of the district’s progress, or lack of progress, in many relevant areas. The reports focused on key elements of Special Act 97-4, the board’s annual goals and objectives, and quantitative indicators of the school district’s performance, including achievement levels on standardized exams required by the state.

The committee believes the quarterly reports, and the state monitor process as a whole, bring accountability regarding the performance of the Hartford school district under the trustees. Given the content of the reports, their frequency, and to whom they are distributed, the committee believes the reports provide policy makers, administrators, and the public with a collective source of information and analysis to make decisions regarding the school district’s progress.

Although the committee believes the quarterly reports are well prepared, the overall reporting process does not incorporate any type of annual or cumulative report. The reports only document what happens from quarter to quarter. No annual report is made compiling the overall progress of the board of trustees for that year. Such a report would be useful in gauging improvement and progress on a yearly basis made against the board’s established annual goals and objectives without compromising the analysis of any trends provided by the quarterly reports.

The state monitors are also required by Special Act 97-4 to make monthly written reports to the state education commissioner and the State Board of Education on the progress and needs of the Hartford school district. The reports must be forwarded to the board of trustees and the superintendent. No such written reports are prepared; rather the monitors meet with the education commissioner on a monthly basis to discuss the school district. The committee believes the monthly meetings between the monitors, commissioner, and superintendent are sufficient to fulfill the statutory intent.

· The state monitors are diligent in their efforts to document progress made on a quarterly basis by the board of trustees and Hartford public school system.

· The state monitors add a level of accountability through their presence and quarterly reporting process.

· The quarterly reports document the school system’s progress from a qualitative and quantitative perspective.

· The monthly written reports required by Special Act 97-4 are not prepared, but this does not seem to pose any problems.

The state monitors should begin developing an annual report as part of its regular fourth quarter reports. The annual report should detail the board’s cumulative progress in meeting its stated goals and objectives and implementation of its specified policies and procedures over the course of the previous year. The distribution of the annual reports shall be the same as its other quarterly reports.