State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools System Oversight

The district lacked updated policies, regulations, and bylaws when the board of trustees began its term in mid-1997. Upon its appointment, the board of trustees recognized the need to update and revise the policies and administrative regulations governing the district and the board of education.

The board of trustees has revamped its entire policies and administrative manual, with a final version nearly completed. A revised set of bylaws governing the board’s conduct has also been adopted. The board’s policies manual and operating bylaws were evaluated and found to be clearly written and comprehensive.

It is evident from the information and analysis presented throughout this report that the board of trustees has primarily focused its efforts on developing and implementing structures and controls to guide the school district’s administrative operations – as required by Special Act 97-4. Now that such changes have been established, the board must focus on ensuring the proper systems and processes are being developed to implement its various policies and regulations. This effort becomes further warranted given the board’s revamped polices and regulations are near completion and a permanent superintendent was hired by the board in April 1999 to carry out those policies.

Structures and procedures to implement the board’s policies in areas such as social promotion, parental involvement, attendance, and extended day/year are either being developed or revised by the current superintendent. As such, it is important for the board to receive regular updates on how well its policies are being implemented.

The program review committee believes more formal reporting back to the board needs to occur to help ensure proper oversight of the implementation progress. One of the main ways to oversee policy implementation is through a standardized reporting process, which the board does not seem to have except for the monthly financial reports presented at each board meeting and general reports made by the superintendent. The board collects its information through a variety of mechanisms, including regular board meetings and informational meetings. Informational meetings are used by the board (and the general public) as the primary way to receive information from the administration on specific topics or policy areas. Although informational meetings serve a valuable purpose, they are ad hoc in nature and cannot feasibly cover the board’s numerous policies and regulations. For this reason, the committee believes a more formal and standardized reporting structure is necessary.

The board is aware more formal and frequent reporting is needed. The overall improvement of the district’s management information system is being examined as a means of increasing the flow of information to the board. As part of this effort, the operational audit steering committee is working on developing and increasing the internal reporting capacity of the school district as its various automated systems become more developed.

Another way for the board to ensure proper implementation and oversight of its policies is through a formal performance evaluation of the superintendent. The evaluation is the primary mechanism used to determine how well the board’s policies are being implemented and provides built-in accountability to the system. The superintendent’s contract calls for an annual performance evaluation to occur before the end of each year of the contract, which runs from April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2002.

The board has also established a formal set of roles and responsibilities for the superintendent, which are included in the superintendent’s contract. These standardized roles and responsibilities, along with the board’s newly revised policies manual and annual goals and objectives, should enhance system oversight and the evaluation of the superintendent’s yearly performance.

· The board has nearly completed a revamped/updated policies and regulations manual governing the school system.

· The primary focus of the trustees has been the development of an organized system of operational/administrative structures and controls; main focus should now be on implementing the board’s various policies outlined in its new policies manual, along with the district’s recently initiated academic programs.

· Formal reporting to the board on the implementation of its policies seems ad hoc and not standardized.

· The superintendent’s contract calls for annual performance reviews. Clear roles, responsibilities, and policies as recently developed by the board should enhance the overall performance evaluation process.

The board of trustees should develop a standardized reporting mechanism for oversight purposes. At minimum, the board should enhance its oversight role by establishing a quarterly calendar of specific reports submitted by the superintendent regarding implementation progress of the board’s various policies and the district’s academic programs. The board should also develop a cumulative annual report for the school district outlining the district’s yearly progress and successes.

The program review committee believes the board and general public would benefit from a more standardized reporting process in addition to what is currently presented at the board’s regular and informational meetings. Several purposes would be served by having the board determine which reports it deems necessary, particularly for its major policy initiatives such as parental involvement, attendance, social promotion, and extended day/year, and receiving those reports quarterly. First, the school district would have to focus its data collection efforts around the information needs of the board. The board would determine the reports it wants and when they would be due, while the superintendent would decide the key performance measures/indicators to include in the reports presented to the board. Second, a standardized reporting mechanism offers a formal structure for overall management analysis. Periodic reports on the board’s policy initiatives would help ensure the board is receiving the basic, up-to-date information it needs for proper oversight and analysis without having to hold numerous meetings to collect the information. The program review committee believes the reporting recommendation would augment the informational meeting process and does not preclude the board from holding such meetings. Third, the annual report would provide a useful vehicle for the board/school district to present its yearly accomplishments and successes to interested parties.

The program review committee expressed interest at its September public hearings about ways to ensure changes made under the board of trustees are sustained in the future, independent of a particular board of education or superintendent. Table V-1 offers some ways to continue the district’s progress. Several of the initiatives were originally contained in Special Act 97-4 and could be continued through legislation, while others would be administrative changes not necessarily needing legislation. The factors highlighted in the table are not exhaustive; rather they offer some of the various ways to maintain positive changes occurring within the school district. The program review committee makes no recommendation about any of these possibilities. It is important to note, though, that the city of Hartford is currently engaged in a charter revision review that could significantly change the framework within which these and other options would operate.

Table V-1. Hartford Public Schools: Positive Change Sustainability Factors
Factor	Pros	Cons
Legislative Options
Continue collective bargaining provision of Special Act 97-4; gives board direct access to union membership and changes arbitration criteria	· Focuses negotiation efforts on best interests of children	· Possible opposition from unions and/or management
Require frequent updates of long range facilities plan	· Requires district to review facilities status	· Resource intensive
Require second full-scale opera-tional audit after board’s term to determine efficiency/effectiveness of changes made under trustees	· Identifies efficiencies after systems fully established	· Personnel and fiscal resources to imple-ment recommd.
Continue advisory council	· Provides small forum for board, supt., constituencies to discuss issues	· Members needed · Undefined role
Continue state involvement through monitor process	· Monitors serve as outside check on district’s progress · Help ensure accountability	· Resources necessary · Local opposition possible
Require schools to complete and maintain NEASC accreditation	· Ensures schools meet regionally-accepted standards · Standardization across district	· Resource-intensive and time consuming process · Master plan needed
Require sunset provision on various legislative changes	· Reasserts local control after specified time period	· Local opposition possible to extending state involvement/treating Hartford differently
Administrative/Municipal Options
Require formal training for new board members	· Assists members with role, responsibilities, and board operations prior to term · Available from various sources (e.g. CABE, United Way)	· Board members may not participate if training is voluntary
District to regularly disclose financial info (e.g., monthly status reports, annual audit results)	· Allows full broad review and analysis of financial data · Information already available	· None foreseen
Periodic update of board policies and procedures by board	· Requires board to regularly review its policies · Ensures current policies	· None foreseen
Continue to seek technical assistance from SDE/others	· Allows district to use state and other as resource	· Local opposition possible
School District Governance
· Change way school board selected in Hartford · Board appointed by mayor, city council, or jointly · Board appointed by independent panel · Other	See Appendix I for comments from Hartford Board of Trustees chairman and Connecticut Assoc. of Boards of Education
Source: Program Review Committee

School governance. One significant issue being discussed is what governing structure will take the place of the board of trustees once its term expires on June 30, 2002. Although current provisions of Special Act 97-4 require the system returns to a locally elected board, alternative structures are being discussed. The State Board of Education also noted at its October decision meeting for extending the trustees’ term that it was not too early for the trustees to begin thinking about the transition process following the board’s term, as well as the type of governing body to replace the board of trustees.

Several options regarding the governing structure for the school district have been discussed by the board of trustees, and are included in Appendix I. It should be noted, the board has endorsed an appointed school board made up of Hartford residents.

The governing structure is also a topic planned for discussion by Hartford’s Charter Revision Commission. In fact, the board of trustees is scheduled to address the commission in early December and present its views regarding the Hartford public school system governance issue. The commission is scheduled to complete its work and issue a report in March 2000. A referendum, if necessary, could be held in November 2000.

As a matter of reference, according to the Education Commission of the States, 96 percent of the 15,000 school districts nationwide have locally-elected school boards. Several states have given control of local school districts to individual mayors. Cities such as Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit have school districts under mayoral control. The mayor is responsible for appointing board members and top administrators. In Connecticut, only New Haven has a school board appointed by the mayor; all other municipalities (excluding Hartford) have locally-elected school boards.

Legislative options. The program review committee also heard during this study that the state should not fully relinquish its responsibilities to the Hartford school system upon the term expiration of the board of trustees. Several possibilities as to how the state could maintain its responsibilities to the district were identified. First, the state could conduct another study similar to the one leading to the development of the Hartford Improvement Plan and the original 48 improvement recommendations. Such a study could be done within several years after the board’s term expires, and would examine the changes made to the educational system under the direction of the board. State involvement could also include the state education department continuing its technical assistance role to the school district, thus providing the district with an additional resource. Further, the state monitor positions within SDE could be continued to provide added accountability to the system.

Other possibilities to help ensure sustained change could be to have another independent audit of the district’s administrative operations conducted within a certain time period after the board completes its term. The audit would examine the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the operational changes made under the trustees’ direction. By having the audit completed after the board’s term would help ensure the recommendations from the first audit, and the operational changes made by the board, have been fully implemented.

Given the overriding goal of returning control of the educational system back to the city and its residents, the legislative factors identified in Table V-1 could be time-limited through a sunset provision. Such a provision could help ensure various provisions within Special Act 97-4 -- or any other legislative initiatives -- and the state’s involvement in the school district are maintained, but only for a limited time period. After that period, full local control would occur.

Administrative options. Independent of any state legislation, new school board members in Hartford could benefit from required training upon becoming a board member. The training, offered through resources such as the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, could assist new members on the function(s) of a school board and individual members’ overall duties, responsibilities, and role. A new school board could also present regular information to the public about its finances, facilities, and operations as a way to increase accountability.