State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools Findings

Findings and Recommendations - Staff Report
Committee Accepted
December 14, 1999

State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools
Findings and Recommendations

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 A provides the memo from the chairman of the board of trustees to the State Board of Education requesting the term extension.

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

Special Act 97-4 required the board of trustees to facilitate an independent audit of the school district’s operations. The audit, completed in December 1997, contains 98 recommendations for improvement and covers areas such as financial management, human resources, technology, purchasing, and budget and planning. The board of trustees has placed a high priority on implementing the audit’s recommendations.

Implementation structure. In accordance with Special Act 97-4, the trustees have developed a plan and structure to implement the recommendations. As detailed in the committee staff’s briefing report, an operational audit steering committee was established in mid-1998. The committee structure, as shown in Figure I-1, includes representation from the trustees, district administration, Hartford chamber of commerce, city officials, consultants, and the private sector. The steering committee provides overall structure, planning, and guidance to the board’s implementation efforts.

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.

According to minutes and other relevant documents of the audit steering committee, 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.

Implementation status. 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.

Program review committee staff analyzed the status reports provided to the audit steering committee 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 I-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 of this year. 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.

Program review committee staff believes Figure I-2 shows progress by the steering committee in implementing the operational audit recommendations. Committee staff 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. Appendix B provides a summary of the audit recommendations by functional area and their overall status as of October 1999.

In addition, as described in the committee staff’s briefing report, the operational audit discussed five organizational-wide themes not specific to any particular department or operation within the school district. Program review committee staff 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, program review committee staff observed 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.

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, program review staff believes more routine reporting and formal updates should be made to the entire board of trustees and general public. Regular status reports will provide the board and general public 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 helping 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 previous 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.

The original 48 recommendations have been categorized into 10 groups and the board of trustees has synthesized the recommendations into its annual goals and objectives beginning with the 1998-99 school year. The document containing these annual goals and objectives also incorporates parts of the district’s 1994 strategic plan, which was outlined in the committee staff’s briefing report. The new format essentially replaces the Hartford Improvement Plan, since it incorporates the original 48 recommendations along with goals and objectives from other more recent strategic planning efforts.

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 the change 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. Program review committee staff 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, attend the 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. Committee staff 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 and whether they have been fully or partially implemented or whether 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 C.

Program review committee staff examined the board’s progress in this area from several different perspectives. First, committee staff 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, committee staff was interested in how the school personnel are being helped with technical assistance and other necessary resources so they know how to approach accreditation. Third, committee staff 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 one and a half years 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 I-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 include the Hartford schools highlighted 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 I-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 I-2, Bulkeley and Weaver High Schools are accredited, with minimal 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 I-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, committee staff 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 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 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 staff 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. Committee staff 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.

Committee staff 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 as described in the committee staff’s briefing report. 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:

The school district has been developing various ways to involve parents, teachers, and the community in schools. In addition to the initiatives described in the committee staff’s briefing 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.

Committee staff 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 such as 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 committee staff’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 told committee staff it would look into the matter.

The board of trustees should ensure coordination of the various parental, community, and school involvement approaches being implemented throughout the school 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 serve its advisory role. For example, the advisory council 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 are 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 by committee staff, 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 committee staff 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, 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 its 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.

Program review committee staff’s overall observations of the state monitor process are 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 an understanding of the operational systems being implemented within the district, including the automated financial management system, purchasing system, and the overall technology initiatives. Committee staff also believes the monitors show a strong 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. Program review committee staff concurs with this response. Further, no one expressed any objection to committee staff regarding the frequency or adequacy of the monitors’ reports.

Program review committee staff reviewed each of the quarterly reports prepared by the state monitors. The reports were detailed and included synopses of the district’s progress, or lack of progress, in many relevant areas. The reports focus 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.

Committee staff 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, committee staff 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 committee staff 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. Committee staff believes the monthly meetings between the monitors, commissioner, and superintendent are sufficient to fulfill the statutory intent.

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.

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, human resources, facilities, and technology all had problems or deficiencies to varying degrees impeding the overall operation of the school district.

Program review committee staff 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, settlement of the district’s 12 collective bargaining contracts, development of a long range facilities plan, and capital improvements to facilities. On the academic side, standardized programs are being implemented districtwide, primarily under the board’s new 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, committee staff could not examine ultimate outcomes. Rather, staff focused on the types of progress made during the board’s term to date in developing and implementing functional systems the district previously lacked. Committee staff also examined whether appropriate controls and structures are being developed to help sustain the trustees’ improvements after control 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 told committee staff 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.

Although the investigation by the chief state’s attorney did not uncover any criminal wrongdoing, it found the 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 deficit of $2 million 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 the specific recommendations in detailed areas, the independent 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 process/financial reporting. 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 included 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 public sessions were held by the board at the beginning of 1999. Board members told committee staff the workshops were important not only for creating a budget but providing a public forum for the budget development process.

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 staff, 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.

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, committee staff spoke with one of the district’s larger vendors who 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 frequently 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 D 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, committee staff asked if they believed timely financial reports were being received and whether the reports provided appropriate information to make management decisions. Each trustee said 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 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 vendor delivered the supplies directly to the schools by individual teacher by mid-August, 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.

According to records provided to committee staff, 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. This system allows the district to maximize economies of scale for purchasing such items.

Financial management procedures manual. Although financial management processes are becoming more efficient, the district lacks a written procedures manual despite being cited for this shortcoming in the board’s recent financial audits. Committee staff has been told 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 committee staff believes written procedures are necessary to ensure the improvements made to the system become normal business practice.

Automated financial management. The school district is installing an automated financial management system, called SmartStream, purchased almost three years ago. 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 and is being tested for reliability. The city is also converting to the same automated system.

A consultant has been retained through the Operational Audit Steering Committee (discussed in Section I) to implement the automated financial management system because of problems encountered with its installation. The consultant, hired this past February, regularly reports implementation progress to the steering committee. Although reports to the committee show progress on the 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. Committee staff believes the board of trustees needs to ensure the district has the internal capacity to operate, manage, and maintain the automated financial management system the board has committed to implementing once the consultant’s work is completed, tentatively scheduled for late 2000. The consultant has made this issue known to the operational audit steering committee, which is looking into the matter.

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, plans for constructing a new Hartford Public High School are being developed.

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 II-1 identifies some specifics about the schools reviewed.

Table II-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, 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" by committee staff. 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, committee staff examined several factors of each school’s interior. The overall general observation is 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.

Committee staff found repeated problems 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.

Committee staff was told by several head custodians and principals at all levels 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 interesting artwork or design.

Although the newly-built schools received high ratings, several problems were found. Committee staff was shown a tar-like substance that has been dripping from the gymnasium roof of one 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.

Long range facilities plan. The long range facilities plan detailed in the committee staff’s briefing report 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.

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 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 generally clean schools, a fact concurred with in the consultant’s report. Custodians have daily schedules according to records obtained by committee staff 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. Committee staff believes its site visits showing general school cleanliness and appearance are good indicators of adequate custodial services.

Although the schools were found to be generally clean, the district 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. Committee staff confirmed these changes with several head custodians during our 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 told committee staff 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 was being scheduled at that time.

As the buildings and grounds operations become more standardized and a formal preventative maintenance program is established, committee staff 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 topic 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, committee staff 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 by committee staff to randomly selected schools revealed the schools to be generally clean, although some schools did show 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 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.

Over 3,400 persons are employed by the Hartford school system. Besides the teaching function, within which is significant variety, 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:

Current contracts. As noted in the briefing 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 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. Just recently, the State Board of Education 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:

Under the pilot program, each teacher must develop a "Professional Growth Compact" (PDC). 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 PDC concept. The current expectation is to present the new evaluation method to the board of trustees next spring, with a three-year implementation plan.

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

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.

The board of trustees approved a four-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.

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. Program review staff 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. Committee staff 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. Committee staff 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.

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.

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. Committee staff reviewed the policies manual and operating bylaws and found both documents to be clearly written and comprehensive.

It is evident from the information and analysis presented throughout this report 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.

Committee staff 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, committee staff 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 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.

Committee staff 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. Committee staff 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 III-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. Committee staff 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 III-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 long range facilities plan update every 3-5 years	Requires district to periodically 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 E for comments from Hartford Board of Trustees chairman and Connecticut Assoc. of Boards of Education
Source: Program Review Committee Staff

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 E. It should be noted, as of late November, the full board has not formally endorsed any particular governing structure.

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 Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, 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. Committee staff 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 position, 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 conduced 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 III-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.

Appendix B
Operations Audit Recommendations Status (as of 10/99)

	Closed	In Progress	Under Review	Not Prioritized
Financial Management
1. Management reporting in place		X
2. Develop and distribute formal policies on preparation			X
of financial reporting and processing
3. Evaluate operational management reporting requirements		X
and develop reports
4. Master reporting schedule with due dates and		X
priorities "tickler files"
5. Hire accounting manager to oversee financial	X
operations of grants and special funds
6. Improve communication with school and central admin.		X
for establishing new grants, grant appvl., and funds recpt.
7. Establish electronic transfer of funds to treasurer's office				X n/a
8. Provide guidance regarding soliciting/receiving funds in		X
policies and procedures
9. Identify all sources of cash with expect due dates		X
10. Compare information on cash forecasts to records	X
of receipts
11. Improve petty cash procedures within school. Research			X
use of procurement card program
12. Establish controls and review activity for special			X
activities revolving funds

Budget and Planning
1. Review actuals by line item when establishing budgets	X
2. Communication of budget amendments and allocations	X
changes to Cost Center managers
3. Detail special funds budget based on estimate funding		X
4. Budget reallocation prior to budget approval		X
5. Cost center responsibilities clearly defined and comm.				X
6. Quarterly budget reports to Board of Trustees	X
7. Cost center managers on-line access to budget	X
8. Evaluate purpose, structure, and need of existing cost		X
centers
9. Evalute moving non-budget and planning functions such			X
as payroll correction and code assign. to payroll/HR
10. On-line approval for intra-line allocation/transfers				X
11. Improved reporting - budget to actual including	X
encumbrances, etc.
12. Updated policies/procedures for budget, cost center		X
managers, and central office

Procurement
1. Streamline purchasing process. Combine activity of		X
HPSS and city purchasing depts. to simplify process
2. Transfer requisition review and vendor setup to			X
HPSS accounting
3. Provide HPSS staff access to vendors set up in system			X
4. Review current division of educ./noneduc. Purchases			X
5. Eliminate paper handoffs of receiving rpts. with new sys.		X
Procurement continued	Closed	In Progress	Under Review	Not Prioritized
6. Implement formal review process for open purchase orders	X
7. Redesign requisition form/system template to include				X
specification fields
8. Improve communication bt. Requisitioners and purch staff	X
9. Develop/distribut purch/bid policies and procedures		X
10. Re-evaluate purchasing agreements	X
11. Vendor feedback from purchasing dept and end users		X
12. Develop policies/procedures to evaluate vendors				X
13. Update/distribute non-purchase orders policy	X
14. Consider implementing procurement card program				X
15. Create small-dollar order process w/in new fin mgt prcss.			X

Information Technology
1. Establish IT senior management position				X
2. Consider estab joint IT organization w/ city				X
3. Benchmark HPSS against peer systems re: staffing	X
4. Develop comprehensive Y2K plan	X
5. Implement and track Y2K plan		X
6. Implement single e-mail system at city and HPSS				X (sep.e-mails)
7. Establish strong project management function		X
8. Dev formal security plan re: increased connectivity w/ city				X
9. Prepare a computer security policy plan	X
10. Communicate computer security policy to all employees			X
11. Implement anti-virus software on all PCs and servers		X
12. Clearly define/comm roles/resp for support of SmartStream		X
13. Est formal service level agmt between HPSS and city				X
14. Develop business continuity plan		X
15. Est formal controls re: computer security,cnge mgt,opertns				X
16. Est formal help desk; consider merging with city		X
17. Implement procedures to notify IT re: employee trans/leaves		X

Special Funds
1. Create spec funds dept for pre/post award grants admin.			X
2. Est special funds financial accounting mgr position	X
3. Evaluate requirements for prog evaluations/qualif of staff		X
4. Dev finanical reports for proj mgrs to monitor fund balances	X
5. Transfer resp for reviewing ordn grant expends to proj mgrs	X

Warehouse
1. Examine need and use of school supply warehouse	X

Payroll
1. Redesign payroll function; examine current staff qualifications		X
2. Reconcile info from substitue phone system and substitute			X
payroll data and roster teachers' sick/vacation time
3. Ensure necessary controls re: time and check distribution		X

Facilities/Construction/Property Management
1. Long range facilities planning		X
2. Utilize new construction comm for construction admin		X
3. Est policies/procedures for eval change orders and claims		X
4. Plans shared/monitored on regular basis		X
5. Implement preventative mantce program integrate in LRFP			X
	Closed	In Progress	Under Review	Not Prioritized
6. Annual inventory verification and tagging				X
7. Vendor bills sent to accts payable rather than some to B/G		X
8. Convene TF to consider solutions to vandalism				X
9. Conduct random security inspections; report breakdowns				X

Enrollment Management
1. Review forcast assumptions with third party		X
2. Dev/issue administrative rules/regs re: allocation formulas			X
3. Define attendance issues in policy manual	X
4. Reconsider consultation process req to enter child to class				X
with maximum count
5. Imp training for teachers to comply w/ enroll/attnd procedures				X
6. Incorp attendance reporting into evaluation process				X
7. Automate student attendance reporting			X
8. Id specific employee at schools resp for attendance accuracy				X
9. Initiate internal audit function to monitor enrollment controls				X
10. Acquire new tech to mng spec educ roster/automate reports			X
11. Assess staffing for special education			X

Human Resources
1. Translate empl contribution vision into useful/specific guidance				X
2. Complete job descriptions	X
3. Establish clear performance objectives focused on outcomes			X
4. Recognize high achievement levels through program development				X
5. Institute targeted training (legal,safety,harassment,supv,process)				X
6. Improve accountablity/shared respon for results (contract neg)	X
7. Redesign HR department and upgrade HR positions		X
8. Need staff (training, employee comm,HR system,labor relations)		X
9. HR exposure to variety of needs within schools by being there				X
with some form of official responsibility (emp relations,comm,tng)
10. Unemployment claims; prepare proper challenges				X
11. New employee orientation program			X
12. Initiate proactive morale building activities				X
13. Rotate security guards annually as slated in security policy				X