State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools Admin

State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools
Administrative Operating Systems

A major goal of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools has been to develop efficient and effective operating systems for the overall administration and management of the school district in accordance with Special Act 97-4. The systems inherited by the board were not functioning in their intended manner. The basic functions of financial management, purchasing, facilities, technology, and human resources all had problems or deficiencies to varying degrees impeding the overall operation of the school district.

The program review committee believes important steps have been taken under the direction of the board of trustees to develop legitimate operating systems. The progress to date has been the development of organized and more efficient administrative systems. For example, the board’s finance and budget operation has been reorganized, new budget and reporting processes have been implemented, and a systemwide automated financial management system is being installed. Purchasing processes have also changed, mainly to help alleviate a backlog of purchase orders and to ensure teachers receive supplies before the school year starts. Collective bargaining agreements have been renegotiated, job descriptions have been updated or created, and personnel evaluation systems are being formulated. Changes and upgrades to the district’s technology infrastructure have also occurred, providing the district with greater and quicker access to various types of information. The development of a long range facilities plan has also occurred.

On the academic side, standardized programs are being implemented districtwide, primarily under the board’s current superintendent hired in April 1999. As such, the board of trustees has directed and overseen the development of the school district’s basic “infrastructure,” both operationally and academically.

Given the changes are in their beginning stages for the most part, the program review committee could not examine ultimate outcomes. Rather, the committee focused on the types of progress made during the board’s term to date in developing and implementing functional systems the district previously lacked. The committee also examined whether appropriate controls and structures are being developed to help sustain the trustees’ improvements after control of the educational system is returned to the city and its residents.

The financial management problems the board faced upon its appointment are well documented and were discussed at the public hearing held by the committee in September. There were outstanding debts, the district was in a budget deficit situation, proper financial accounting systems were deficient, and instructional supplies were generally not available at the opening of the school year. The independent financial auditors, who audit the board of education as part of the city’s audit, said the financial system was in a chaotic state and the entire system had to be stabilized before any forward progress could be initiated.

In early 1998, various controls were put into place to help stabilize the district’s financial troubles, such as budget, purchasing, and hiring freezes. The district’s financial management problems also dictated the establishment of an expenditure control committee in early 1998 to review emergency requests, monitor overtime, and identify whether special funds could absorb general budget costs to avoid a deficit situation.

Current board members have said it took several months following their appointments to fully realize the magnitude of the financial management problems, with serious issues surfacing in late 1997 and the first quarter of 1998. The problems became severe enough that the board requested the chief state’s attorney’s office to conduct an investigation of the school district’s financial management practices.

Chief state’s attorney’s report. Problems with the district’s financial management in the area of special education escalated to the point that in early 1998 the board requested the chief state’s attorney’s office investigate the school district’s financial records to determine if criminal wrongdoing had occurred. The examination into the finances of the Hartford school district by the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney concluded that although criminal findings could not be substantiated, payment voucher records had been altered and bills for 1997 were paid with 1998 funds.

The investigation by the chief state’s attorney did not uncover any criminal wrongdoing. The report, released in July 1999, found the school district lacked appropriate financial controls. For example, payment voucher records had been altered and bills incurred in one fiscal year were being paid with funds from another fiscal year. The investigation also revealed the district concealed a $2 million deficit in special education expenses for the 1996-97 fiscal year, and cited the district for inadequate financial management supervision and accountability.

The city’s independent financial auditors also cited financial management problems in their 1997 and 1998 audits of the board. Aside from specific recommendations in detailed areas, the auditors identified a general lack of written procedures in the financial management area.

Management structure. The board of trustees began assembling an entirely new upper-level financial management team in mid-1998 to help deal with the district’s financial problems. A new assistant superintendent for finance and administration was hired that August. The assistant superintendent then hired a new finance director, purchasing manager, and special funds director, who handles funding received outside of the general budget, including state and federal grants. The assistant superintendent, however, resigned in mid-1999 and the finance director became the acting executive director for finance and administration having the same responsibilities as the previous assistant superintendent.

Budget and reporting processes. One of the first tasks of the new financial management team was to develop and implement a budget manual and process for the 1999-00 budget cycle. The manual includes written guidelines for the new process and was distributed to school principals and cost center managers. Past budgeting practices were revamped resulting in more input from the local school level into the budget process. Principals were instructed to develop their budgets according to their individual school improvement plans and other districtwide planning efforts, such as the Hartford Improvement Plan, yearly goals and objectives, and the standards used for accreditation as required by Special Act 97-4.

The new budget process also included board “workshops” to discuss and develop the budget according to the district’s priorities once the information from the school level was received. At least nine detailed public sessions were held by the board at the beginning of 1999 to thoroughly examine each budgetary item. Board members have noted the workshops were important not only for creating a budget, but providing a public forum for the budget development process.

Another key component of the district’s improved financial accounting system deals with special funds/major grants. Monthly reports are now produced for the board for all special fund sources by fund and cost center. The new process helps address the concerns raised by the chief state’s attorney’s report referenced earlier. It is also the first time the district has had such an in-depth financial accounting and reporting process for its special funds.

As a result of the enhanced budget and reporting processes, the board chairman told the committee that the board now has appropriate, accurate, and timely financial information for management analysis and budget development. The board’s present budget/financial management position is favorable compared to the situation early last year. According to financial statements obtained by the committee, the school district had a zero balance for FY99 and did not incur a deficit. As a result, no budget, purchasing, or hiring freezes were necessary during the year as in the past.

Many outstanding payment balances for services provided to the district from previous years have been eliminated or put on a payment schedule. For example, an agreement was reached with one vendor to begin having the district pay off its outstanding debt of roughly $2 million for services provided during 1996 and 1997. Although a payment plan was arranged with final payment due this school year, the district paid the bill in full sooner than expected. Aside from several bills being reviewed by the city that include balances under dispute, payments to vendors are current. As an indication of progress, one of the district’s larger vendors was contacted and said the overall purchasing and payment processes have improved tremendously since mid-1998.

Increased financial reporting is also taking place. Detailed financial status reports are presented monthly to the board as part of the new financial management structure. The reports allow the board to monitor the financial condition of the school district. The board was also informed at a recent meeting that all relevant financial reports due to the state education department, which have been filed up to 11 months late in the past, were submitted according to their statutory deadlines for the 1998-99 fiscal year. Further, there is now an accounting of the roughly $40 million received as special funds, and the board recently received a report tracking these funds for the 1998-99 fiscal year. This is a practice that did not occur in the past.

The trustees believe the improved financial management and reporting systems helped the board secure additional funding for the 1999-00 school year totaling approximately $8 million; $6 million came from the state and $2 million from the city. In accordance with Special Act 97-4, 1999-00 marked the first year the board of trustees could determine the amount of local funding necessary to operate the school district. The overall general budget for the district increased from $184 million in FY99 to $192 million in FY00, or just over four percent. Appendix H provides the district’s adopted 1999-00 budget and its 1998-99 expenditures by object group and line item as a way to compare where the additional funding will be allocated.

During interviews with the trustees, each believed the current financial management system provides timely reports and the information included in the reports is adequate for management analysis purposes. The trustees noted, however, the improved budget and financial reporting systems are recent developments (within the last year) and were not in place during the beginning stages of the board.

Purchasing process. The school district has begun to restructure and standardize its purchasing process under the board of trustees. For example, the way the district purchases instructional supplies for teachers was changed for the 1999-00 school year. The new process required schools to submit purchase requisitions to the central office for supplies by mid-June 1999 for the 1999-00 school year and again in January 2000. The requisitions submitted in June were batched and a single purchase order was sent to one vendor. The negotiated delivery deadline from the vendor for all supplies was mid-August, well in advance of the start of school. Principals were also trained on the new purchase order system to make sure the process operated efficiently.

According to records provided to the committee, the delivery rate for instructional supplies for this school year was over 96 percent. The records also show a similar delivery rate for office supplies to the schools. Other procedural changes recently instituted for purchasing include ordering copy paper and bathroom supplies in bulk for the entire school year before the start of school.

Overall, the new system allows the district to maximize economies of scale for purchasing such items and provides for supplies to be delivered directly to the schools by individual teacher prior to the start of the school year, eliminating the central office from the delivery process. Under past practice the supplies were delivered to the central office and then distributed to the schools. There was no system in place to ensure the supplies were delivered prior to the school year.

Toward the end of 1998 and into early 1999, the district had a backlog of approximately 1,000 purchase orders. As a result, orders for such things as school supplies and materials were going unfilled. With the board’s reorganization of the financial management area, the backlog has been eliminated. It is now the goal of the central office to fill purchase orders within one week after they have been received.

The district also experienced general maintenance problems last year due to the purchase of inferior cleaning and custodial products. The problems have been identified and rectified for the upcoming school year. New products have also been ordered and delivered according to the district’s specifications. Custodians have been trained by company representatives on how to use the new products to ensure maximum effectiveness.

Financial management procedures manual. Although financial management processes are becoming more efficient, the district lacks a written procedures manual, a factor also cited for this shortcoming in the board’s recent financial audits. The committee has been informed that written documentation is being collected for outlining written procedures, but other priorities have delayed development of a comprehensive manual. The financial management system has incurred major changes over the last year and the program review committee believes written procedures are necessary to ensure the improvements made to the system become normal business practice.

Automated financial management system. The school district is installing an automated financial management system, called SmartStream, purchased almost three years ago. The system is an automated software package integrating various financial management components (e.g., general ledger, procurement, budget, and payroll/human resources.) It is client server based rather than operating from a mainframe, and is being integrated with the district’s wide area network capabilities. Each school will have access to the system. The school district’s conversion to the SmartStream system is being done in conjunction with the city, which is making the same conversion.

The system is partially operational and most of the recent implementation efforts have focused on installing a new version of the software that is Year 2000 compliant. The new software went “live” in mid-November 1999, and is being tested for reliability.

A consultant has been retained through the Operational Audit Steering Committee (described earlier) to implement the automated financial management system because of problems encountered with its installation. The consultant, hired in February 1999, regularly reports on implementation progress to the steering committee. Although reports to the committee show progress on the Year 2000 conversion efforts, the system as a whole has been criticized by some as not being appropriate for the school district. The district and city, however, are committed to implementing the system and are working toward its implementation.

Much attention and focus has been given to the automated financial management system, although progress has been incremental. Further, there has been limited progress in developing the internal resources necessary to maintain the system once it is fully operational. The program review committee believes the board of trustees needs to ensure the district has the internal capacity to operate, manage, and maintain the automated financial management system once the consultant’s work is completed, tentatively scheduled for late 2000. The consultant has made this issue known to the audit steering committee, which is looking into the matter.

· A new financial management structure has been developed under the board of trustees.

· The school district’s financial management and budget areas are now stabilized; no deficit was incurred this year and the vast majority of outstanding balances from past years have been paid.

· The yearly budget process was reorganized for the 1999-00 school year with a written budget manual and guidelines prepared and distributed to schools.

· The purchasing process has been restructured to include instructional supplies delivered by the vendor to each school, by teacher, twice per year; the delivery rate for instructional supplies delivered in mid-August for 1999-00 school year was close to 97 percent.

· Written procedures still need to be developed for the entire financial management area.

· The automated financial management system purchased almost three years ago is not fully operational; the system is being implemented by an outside consultant with no internal resources identified to sustain it once implemented.

The board of trustees should ensure all financial management processes and procedures are formally documented in a written manual(s) for use by school and central office personnel.

The board of trustees should ensure the school district develops the internal capacity to take ownership of the automated financial management project upon its full implementation. At minimum, this should include: assigning a project manager/team to oversee the system; providing necessary resources for continued project development and support; and providing staff training as needed.

The overall condition of the district’s schools is an issue being addressed by the board of trustees. For example, during the board’s term thus far, a long range facilities plan was initiated and developed and bond funding has been secured for various capital improvement projects, including roof replacements, new windows, and oil tank extractions. In addition, development of a new Hartford Public High School is expected to begin soon.

Although capital improvements are being made, preventative maintenance within the school district remains an issue. The district is responsible for maintaining 32 schools covering 4.3 million square feet of building space and 287 acres of grounds.

Site visits. As a way to see firsthand the overall general condition of Hartford’s schools, committee staff conducted site visits to 10 randomly selected schools throughout the district. The visits were unannounced and conducted around the start of the school day to aid comparability.

Each school was reviewed for basic factors such as: overall cleanliness and appearance; condition of the exterior and interior main student entrance; condition of the main student hallway; presence of bathroom supplies; presence and condition of basic classroom and cafeteria equipment such as chairs, desks, tables, and temperature and lighting levels. The ten schools visited included eight elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The schools provided a mix of newer and older facilities with their own characteristics and issues. The schools also had varying student population levels and covered each of the main quadrants within the city. Table IV-1 identifies some specifics about the schools reviewed.

Table IV-1. Hartford Public School Sites Visited by Program Review Committee Staff.
Site Visited	Year Built	Last Renovation	Capacity	Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)
Burns Elementary	1939	1992	800	109,850
Fisher Elementary	1965	--	680	103,492
King Elementary	1924	1977	1,000	152,000
Kinsella Elementary	1974	1988	520	96,741
Sanchez Elementary	1992	--	560	130,360
SAND Elementary	1998	--	480	81,684
Twain Elementary	1952	--	500	70,000
West Middle Elem.	1894	1930	540	100,874
Quirk Middle School	1972	--	1,422	225,873
Bulkeley High School	1974	--	2,016	299,300
Sources of Data: Hartford Public Schools; Connecticut Department of Education

Using ratings of either “good”, “adequate”, or “poor” and “yes” or “no” in its review, the committee staff’s overall conclusion is the schools visited were clean, although some of the facilities showed signs of wear. Observations of each school’s exterior revealed litter was relatively nonexistent. Very few schools showed signs of graffiti, and what graffiti was noticed was minimal. Several schools had plexiglas windows, which have become cloudy. The facades on the schools varied and were primarily considered either “adequate” or “good”, with only one school rated as “poor.” (The board is aware of this problem and is considering several options to correct it.) The overall condition of the grounds for the vast majority of schools was considered “adequate,” although the visits were made in late fall and leaf pick-up was either beginning or had not started for most schools.

As previously noted, several factors of each school’s interior were examined. The main observation is that each school is clean with signs of wear. Two of the schools visited were built within the last seven years and rated highly for each factor reviewed.

The main student entrances for all but one school were considered either “good” or “adequate”. This included being free of obstructions, having secure handrails where appropriate, and having adequate lighting. Students at the school having a “poor” student entrance entered from the back of the building, near the school’s trash collection area and outside mechanical operations.

The overall appearance of each school’s interior was generally clean, yet worn, for most schools. Several schools had main interiors with murals, plants, or carpeting. The main hallways used by students were considered clean, yet most schools had maintenance issues, such as chipped/scratched painting, missing/damaged ceiling tiles, missing/damaged floor tiles, or the need for general repairs. The overall appearance of classrooms visited was mainly “good” with supplies evident, artwork present, desks/writing tables and chairs available to students, and adequate lighting and temperature levels.

Repeated problems were found with school bathrooms. Other than in the new schools, bathrooms were not as well-kept as the other parts of each school. Boys’ bathrooms also generally lacked soap and paper towels, although hot water was usually present. Toilet paper was not present in several boys’ bathrooms. Girls’ bathrooms were also generally without soap, but usually had paper towels and toilet paper.

Several head custodians and principals at all levels noted that bathrooms remain an issue. Although schools received bathroom supplies at the beginning of the school year, there is a general problem with maintaining the supplies and dispensers and keeping them from abuse or damage by students. Some schools have tried several methods to correct the problems, such as having teachers distribute supplies as students leave the classroom.

Cafeterias, for the most part, were clean. All were equipped with enough tables and chairs for students, and lighting and temperature levels were “good”. The overall appearance of cafeterias varied, with the vast majority of schools considered “adequate.” One school received a “poor” rating for its cafeteria, mainly because it was in the school’s basement, was poorly painted, and devoid of artwork or design.

Although the newly-built schools received high ratings, several problems were found. The committee was informed that a tar-like substance that has been dripping from the gymnasium roof of one school since it was built. The substance is adhering to a rubberized gym floor causing stains and possible deterioration. The principal said attempts have been made to have the problem corrected, but there is difficulty in determining who is ultimately responsible since the school is new. The other new school visited had a side entrance for students directly adjacent to an abandoned house with a trash-strewn backyard.

Facilities reviews by state monitors. As mentioned earlier, the state monitors have conducted site visits and inspections of each school within the Hartford public school system as part of their overall review. The monitors have made three separate inspections/visits to each school since mid-1997 (alternative and special education facilities have been inspected once). The monitors have documented their detailed findings in the quarterly reports submitted to the legislature's education committee. Another round of school inspections/visits by the state monitors is planned for late 1999.

Long range facilities plan. A perennial challenge facing the Hartford public school system is the overall physical condition of its school facilities. The operational audit found the district did not have an updated, prioritized, long-range plan for facilities or property maintenance. The audit also noted that preventative maintenance is compromised by constant crisis management to alleviate current facilities and maintenance problems.

Recognizing this concern prior to the operational audit’s findings, the legislature, through Special Act 97-4, required the state board of trustees to develop a long-range school building program. The act also required the board and the city to "expeditiously" implement the program.

Responding to the legislative direction, the board of trustees hired an architectural firm in early 1998 to conduct a multi-phase assessment of the school district's facilities. The result of this analysis will be a 10-year facilities master plan for the school district, scheduled to be completed in early 2000.

The process for developing the plan is multi-faceted. One major component of the project was a demographic analysis and enrollment projection study. This task, completed in March 1999, will serve as the foundation for all future capital improvements from 1999-2008.

Development of a master plan also required an analysis of the overall physical condition of each school facility. The facilities condition component is complete, and a written report outlining the major capital improvements necessary for each school was submitted to the board of trustees in August 1999. Results of the facilities condition analysis will be included in the overall master facilities report/plan.

Other major components of the master plan require a financial analysis of the overall costs of any improvements associated with the facilities analysis, and a short-term assessment of priority projects relating to roof replacement at nine schools, system-wide underground storage tank replacement, and system-wide window replacement. The plan must also include a comprehensive short-term preventative maintenance program based on current conditions, and a long-term routine preventative maintenance program for each school facility. The preventative maintenance report has been completed.

In addition to the long-range facilities plan, the board hired a consultant in 1998 to conduct a review of the school district's buildings and grounds department. The study was completed and submitted to the board in October 1998. Some of the operational problems cited by the consultant include: 1) a lack of funding for school needs; 2) protecting buildings from vandalism with products and devices that look terrible (e.g., non-breakable, polycarbonate glazing material for windows); 3) too many approval levels for purchasing products; 4) understaffed buildings and grounds department; 5) unsatisfactory type and quality of some custodial products; and 6) inadequate business practices within the department. Various process problems within the buildings and grounds department cited in the consultant's report and the Coopers and Lybrand operational audit are being examined currently by the chief of staff of the Operational Audit Steering Committee and the school district.

School building committee. A school building committee comprised of school, city, state, and private representatives has taken on the role of overseeing the work being accomplished regarding public school facilities. The committee consists of three members of the board of trustees (including the chairman), school district representatives, the city manager and city staff, a city council member, and a representative from the school facilities unit of the state education department.

The building committee meets monthly to monitor the progress toward improving the city's public school facilities. The primary focus of the committee's recent meetings has been on the long-range facilities plan. The committee, however, is also following several other major initiatives, including: planning and construction of a new Hartford Public High School facility; capital improvements to various schools, including new roofs, underground storage tank removal/replacement, electrical upgrades, and health and safety matters; and property/general maintenance issues.

Last year the city approved a $108 million bond plan for capital improvements to school facilities to help fund various projects. The plan calls for $68 million for the Hartford Public High School project; $27 million in priority repairs to various schools, such as electrical service upgrades for increased computer equipment installation, health and safety projects, air conditioning projects, and window replacements; and $13 million for new roofs and replacement/extraction of underground storage tanks. Another $20 million in bonds were issued in late 1996 for renovation projects at 13 schools across the district.

The long range facilities plan detailed above was submitted by the private company that developed it to the joint school/city building committee in mid-November for review. It is anticipated that the plan will be reviewed by the building committee, board members, and schools principals. After the review period, a final facilities plan will be delivered to the board sometime in early 2000.

Although the facilities plan fulfills the requirement in Special Act 97-4 that a long-term school building program be developed by the district, the board needs to ensure the proper implementation structure is in place once the final version of the plan is completed. This includes developing short and long term strategies on how to best address the plan’s findings and recommendations. Implementation of the major capital improvements outlined in the plan is also dependent upon funding. Proper planning, therefore, is required to prioritize projects for funding purposes. The board recognizes this responsibility as evidenced by its inclusion as a discussion topic at an informational meeting held by the board in mid-November 1999.

Preventative maintenance. Preventative maintenance is considered a problem within the school district. There is no master preventative maintenance schedule or plan whereby buildings and grounds department staff routinely check/repair capital equipment within schools.

The lack of a preventative maintenance plan is being addressed as part of the long range facilities plan. The preventative maintenance plan includes an analysis of the district’s maintenance operation by an independent consultant. The consultant’s draft report indicates preventative maintenance is lacking, and a program based on a solid plan can help ensure the capital improvements made by the district remain in good condition.

The consultant’s report addresses five primary areas: a short term preventative maintenance program; a long term preventative maintenance program; implementation plans; evaluation of staffing requirements; and a custodial work plan. The report also includes an analysis of staffing requirements, the components required for a preventative maintenance program, and standardized checklists for such a program. The staffing analysis shows the district has an appropriate number of custodians (236) according to various standards used by the consultant, but their distribution among schools is questionable.

As noted above, the site visits conducted by committee staff found clean schools, a fact concurred with in the consultant’s report. Custodians have daily schedules according to records obtained from the buildings and grounds department. The schedules are developed by school, and include responsibilities such as trash removal, sweeping/vacuuming, refilling bathroom supplies, and overall cleaning. The committee believes the site visits revealing school cleanliness and appearance are good indicators of adequate custodial services.

Although the schools were found to be generally clean, the district’s custodial service has experienced significant problems in the past due to inferior cleaning products. The problems have been identified and rectified for this school year. New products from a different vendor were ordered and delivered according to the district’s specifications, and custodial staff throughout the district received training by company representatives on how to use the new products to ensure maximum effectiveness. These changes were confirmed with several head custodians during the committee staff’s school visits.

Regarding maintenance staff, the report suggests 11 more are necessary to maintain a program of 50 percent preventative maintenance and 50 percent routine/emergency repairs. The board of trustees authorized 13 new maintenance positions in its 1999-00 budget to facilitate maintenance. To date, four positions have been filled. The director of the building and grounds department noted the department is having difficulty filling the remaining positions due to either a lack of candidates or lack of proper experience for those who apply.

To help improve the overall buildings and grounds operation and facilitate the recommendations in the consultant’s report, a new chief of staff to oversee the buildings and grounds operation was hired by the district in mid-November 1999. The district, through the Operational Audit Steering Committee, also purchased a new automated work order system for routine repairs and maintenance. The system was implemented in November and staff training is scheduled.

As the buildings and grounds operations become more standardized and a formal preventative maintenance program is established, the committee believes there is a need for the district to develop written policies and procedures. This recommendation was also highlighted in the consultant’s report on preventative maintenance.

Redistricting. A natural outgrowth of the long range facilities plan is for the board of trustees to address the issue of redistricting and develop a redistricting plan or strategy. The plan would be based in large part on the findings of the facilities plan, since it includes a projection of the district’s population demographics for the next 10 years.

The board has already addressed redistricting once this past June when it approved a plan submitted to the board in mid-March 1999. The plan, however, is considered temporary and only good through the 1999-00 school year. The plan reconfigured 11 schools, mainly due to the opening of a refurbished elementary school with a large student capacity.

Redistricting is a difficult issue with ramifications on the district’s school children and families. Given the development of the long range facilities plan and a temporary plan currently in place, the committee believes the board of trustees should examine redistricting before its term expires. The administration should analyze the overall distribution of the student population throughout the district and the demographic trends highlighted in the long range facilities study to determine if redistricting is necessary. Once this is completed, and restructuring is necessary, a new plan should be presented to the board for its consideration.

· On-site visits to randomly selected schools revealed the schools to be clean, although some schools showed signs of wear.

· The long range facilities plan required by Special Act 97-4 is completed in draft form and a process is in place to finalize the plan.

· School custodians have daily schedules, although the district lacks an overall preventative maintenance schedule/plan. An independent consultant’s report on preventative maintenance is included in the long range facilities plan.

· A new chief of staff was hired in mid-November to oversee the buildings and grounds operation; a new automated work order system for routine repairs and maintenance, purchased through the Operational Audit Steering Committee, was implemented in mid-November and staff training is scheduled.

· The board of trustees approved a temporary redistricting plan in June, but it is only good through the 1999-00 school year; additional analysis is needed to determine whether a new plan is necessary, particularly after the draft long range facilities plan is finalized.

The board of trustees should devise short- and long-term implementation strategies in conjunction with the city to implement the 10-year facilities plan upon its completion. Using the facilities plan, the board should also analyze whether redistricting for the city’s public schools is necessary and develop a plan to ensure students attend properly sized facilities.

The level and sophistication of technology throughout the school district is increasing under the board of trustees, including instructional technology. The transformation has occurred in large part within the current superintendent’s initiatives to integrate technology into the curriculum and with the help of federal grants of approximately $24 million.

As part of an effort to incorporate technology into the district's overall educational and operational strategy, the board of trustees approved a multi-year technology plan in early 1998. Plan development was overseen by an advisory committee, which transitioned into the current technology committee. The committee is a cooperative effort of representatives from the school district, University of Connecticut, and the private and nonprofit sectors, and has taken the lead in monitoring the technology plan’s implementation.

Five primary components necessary for an efficient and effective technology system are addressed in the district’s technology plan. The main strategic initiatives include hardware, software, professional development, networking, and service/maintenance. The plan also delineates five "critical success factors" that together form the foundation and strategy for technology for the school district. The factors include:

      ·       access to technology tools;
·       staff skills and competencies;
·       integrated technology in instruction and school management;
·       quality and timely support;
·       leadership.

Technology committee. As mentioned, representatives from the school district, the private sector, the state university system, and private and non-profit sectors make up a technology committee. The committee originally was formed to address the school district's need for an overall technology strategy prior to the board of trustees. A plan was developed with the assistance of an outside consultant, and ultimately presented to the board of trustees once the board was established.

After the board of trustees approved the plan, the committee turned its focus to meeting the plan's objectives. The committee developed an implementation plan, which includes action steps, entities responsible for implementation, projected and actual completion dates, and specific measures to determine successful implementation for each major objective. At present, the technology committee reviewing the new superintendent's new technology initiatives, while the superintendent is familiarizing himself with the district’s overall technology plan.

Program review committee staff attended monthly technology committee meetings during the course of this study and made several observations. The technology committee consists of dedicated professionals, but lacked overall direction or legitimacy from the district/board. The committee was self-directed in its efforts, and the meetings attended usually did not include anyone from the district with policy or decisionmaking authority. The program review committee believes this is due to the transition between administrations, which occurred in April. Minutes from prior technology committee meetings show, in fact, an assistant superintendent and a director from the school district having attended those meetings.

The technology committee is beginning to regain its direction now that the school district’s new executive director for technology has begun chairing the committee. Among her first agenda items are to reestablish the purpose of the technology committee, particularly in light of the district’s recent technology initiatives, coordinate the district’s internal and external partners for technology, advise on policy issues, and report on success.

Technology integration is a big part of the current academic and administrative initiatives with large resource and student achievement implications. The program review committee believes a clearer focus for the technology committee is important to implement and monitor the technology plan adopted by the board.

The board also needs to have a clear understanding of the vision, implementation plan or strategy, and progress towards implementing its technology plan. The program review committee believes this is not being done in a comprehensive manner. For example, until recently, no formal updates have been given to the board since early 1998 on the implementation of the technology plan. Further, the technology plan adopted by the board is set to expire in 2001. Given the rapid changes taking place in technology and the high level of technological initiatives being introduced within the district, the board needs to maintain a current technology strategy.

Year 2000. The operational audit identified several deficiencies in the district's Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance efforts. As noted in Appendix D, the audit found no comprehensive Y2K plan had been developed for the school district and indicated an analysis of the school system's computer hardware, operating systems, and software was necessary. To help address the cited deficiencies, the school district formally assigned an internal staff person as project manager for Y2K planning in January 1998.

The project manager created a Year 2000 Readiness Team for the purpose of developing a strategy ensuring the district's Y2K compliance. The readiness team works in conjunction with a similar body at the city level and is responsible for planning and implementation. A steering committee also exists at the board level to monitor the district's progress regarding Y2K compliance. The steering committee consists of school and city staff, and private sector representatives; it is chaired by the board of trustees’ chairman. The chairman has noted that Y2K compliance is the district’s main business initiative and the district’s systems are being tested and brought into compliance (as best as possible) on an on-going basis.

Infrastructure. The school district is currently working toward completion of a major technology infrastructure project establishing local area networks (LANs) within each school and a wide area network (WAN) to connect the computer systems among schools, the city’s libraries, and the school district’s central office.

The project includes schools being “wired” to develop the computer networks. Each classroom and school office throughout the district will have been provided access to computer lines (approximately 7,000 stations) before the start of school in early September. Classrooms have hook-ups for four computers each. The computers will all have access to services such as the Internet and e-mail. This is a major overhaul of -- and improvement over -- the district’s previous technology capability.

Funding. The bulk of the funding for the technology upgrade program is from a federal program called “E-Rate” through the Federal Communications Commission. The program provided approximately $8 million to the school district to complete the project. An additional $1 million was provided by the state education department, and another $112,000 from the city. The state and city funding was used to leverage the federal funding. Another federal grant of approximately $15 million is also expected as part of the E-Rate program.

Additional system services. The improved technology infrastructure and “connectivity” between schools and the central office opens the door for increased system services. For example, the district is using its increased technology capabilities to implement a new student attendance software system. The system will provide schools and the central administration with an automated accounting of students’ attendance, class schedules, and records.

The district’s enhanced technology systems also allow for Internet access to the SmartStream financial accounting system described above. Schools can access the system without using outdated and inefficient modem communication. As a result, the transfer of financial information should be greatly increased with the new technology system.

· The overall level of technology within the school district is increasing under the board of trustees, both instructionally and administratively.

· Implementation of the technology plan, adopted by the board in early 1998, is overseen by a technology committee comprised of district, private, university, and non-profit representatives.

· The technology committee has lacked overall direction from the school district this year, primarily due to the change in administrations.

· The school district’s new executive director for technology began chairing the technology committee in October with a focus on reestablishing the committee’s purpose.

· Regular reporting to the board of trustees on the overall implementation status of the technology plan is lacking; the current plan is in place until 2001.

Periodic updates should be given to the board of trustees regarding the status of the board’s technology plan, including how the district’s current initiatives are linked with the plan. The board of trustees should also determine whether revisions to the current technology plan are necessary, and update/revise the plan before the plan’s expiration in 2001.

Human Resources

Over 3,400 persons are employed by the Hartford school system. Besides the teaching function, within which is significant variety of positions, there are a myriad of other jobs necessary to the system, ranging from finance to building maintenance. Given the critical purpose of the district -- the education of Hartford’s children -- individual accountability and institutional support in the form of a functioning human resources system, are integral to success. Components of an effective human resources system include:

1) clear articulation of what is expected from employees, and from the employee/employer relationship;

3) commitment to continuous professional development on the part of the employee and employer.

Current contracts. As noted earlier in the report, with the passage of Special Act 97-4, the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools took over the administration of 12 different collective bargaining agreements. When the trustees began operation of the Hartford school system in mid-1997, only two of the twelve bargaining units actually had current contracts in place—the teacher and the principal units. The other units were operating under contracts that had expired, in most cases a year earlier. The board of trustees has remedied this problem, and all the contracts are current.

Job descriptions. According to the current human resources director, in November 1997 when he started, most district job descriptions were either outdated or nonexistent. He cited the problem of postings announcing job vacancies conflicting with outdated job descriptions, causing confusion. Revamping job descriptions has been a major effort in the human resources area. As of October 21, 1999, 226 new job titles were either approved or in the reworking process. Examples of the different functional areas involved are: Curriculum and Instruction; Information Technologies; Food Services; Health services/education; and Psychological services.

Performance evaluation. C.G.S. Section 10-151b requires teacher evaluations be conducted in accordance with guidelines established by the State Board of Education. At present, most Hartford teachers are evaluated with an assessment tool in use since 1988. The evaluation instrument, however, is being revised to reflect recent changes in state guidelines.

Until recently, the pertinent state guidelines for evaluations were the Connecticut Teaching Competencies (CTC), made up of 15 key attributes adopted in 1984. The State Board of Education recently issued new guidelines called Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching (CCT). The CCT focuses on two areas: 1) foundational skills and competencies that are common to all teachers from pre-kindergarten through Grade 12; and 2) discipline-based professional standards that represent the knowledge, skills, and competencies that are unique for teachers of different disciplines. While the district is in the process of adapting its current evaluation instrument to the new state guidelines, other significant changes are also afoot to revamp teacher evaluations.

Pilot program. For the past few years, there have been efforts to develop an alternative evaluation process for teachers, including attempts to actually pilot a new system at selected schools. Most recently, in the last eight months, the Human Resources department has taken the lead for revamping teacher evaluations. There is a committee composed of five administrators and teachers, working under the direction of a human resource manager. Generally, the main differences between the current evaluation process and the anticipated process are:

· the new evaluation process will be integrated with professional development—both in terms of opportunity and responsibility; and

· teacher performance assessments will be tied to their students’ performance, as well as the performance of their schools and the district.

Under the pilot program, each teacher must develop a “Professional Growth Compact” (PGC). The compact is an individualized statement of goals and action steps, but reflects goals of the particular school and district. The pilot is currently being used at West Middle and Burns elementary schools, and is planned for use at Hartford Public High School. One item the committee is currently working on is incorporating accountability measures into the PGC concept. The current expectation is to present the new evaluation method to the board of trustees next spring, with a three-year implementation plan.

· It is critical to the purpose of the school district -- educating children -- that there be a fair and effective personnel evaluation system, with support for professional development needed to be able to meet changing expectations, and consequences for unacceptable results.

· Steps are underway to develop and implement an effective personnel evaluation system

The program review committee recommends the board of trustees require formal periodic reports on the development and implementation of the evaluation instrument.