On June 1, 1997, the state formally took control of the Hartford Public School system. The Hartford Board of Education was dissolved and a seven-member board of trustees is currently responsible for overseeing the district’s operations. The board of trustees was established by Special Act 97-4.

The board’s primary function pursuant to Special Act 97-4 is to enhance the quality, adequacy, and equality of educational opportunities, increase student achievement, and allocate and manage resources efficiently and effectively. The board is also required by statute to continue implementing an educational improvement plan developed by the state Department of Education and adopted by the Hartford School Board in 1996, as well as recommendations resulting from a 1997 independent audit of the school system’s administrative operations.

The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools is responsible for managing the school system from June 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000. The district consists of 32 elementary, middle, and secondary schools, plus an additional eight special education and alternative programs. Student enrollment on October 1, 1998, was 21,980 students for the 32 schools and 1,754 students in the supplemental programs for a total enrollment of 23,734, making Hartford the largest school system in the state. The district’s anticipated budget expenditures for the 1998-99 school year total approximately $269 million, including $184 million in general budget funds, $50 million in special funds (federal, foundations, etc.) and $35 million from the city to account for indirect/fringe benefit costs. (Final expenditure figures are due out soon.)

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee authorized this study of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools in March of this year, focusing on the progress made by the board of trustees, state Department of Education, and the State Board of Education in implementing their statutory charges to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the school system’s administrative and managerial operations. The study scope primarily calls for reviewing:

 

• the board’s compliance with requirements specified in Special Act 97-4 regarding planning, reporting, and communications;

   

• the development and implementation of efficient and effective administrative operating systems relating to personnel, finance/budget, facilities, and student attendance;

   

• progress in addressing and implementing recommendations made in the independent operations audit of the school system required by Special Act 97-4; and

   

• implementation of the improvement plan developed between the state Department of Education and the Hartford Board of Education in 1996, including efforts to develop programs, procedures, and benchmarks to improve student performance and measure achievement.

An evaluation of education system outcomes since the takeover by the board of trustees, namely whether or not the board has increased student achievement, is not included in this study.

In preparing this briefing report, committee staff reviewed applicable statutes and literature dealing with the state takeover of the Hartford school system, including the state education department/Hartford board of education improvement plan, various strategic planning documents, and the operations audit. Committee staff is relying on the validity of the findings and recommendations made by the various studies of the Hartford school system reviewed for this report, some of which are specifically incorporated into the board’s duties under Special Act 97-4. This study is not attempting to duplicate the results of the earlier studies, but rather determine the board’s success at implementing the recommendations intended to create more efficient and effective school district operations. This particular report is intended to provide initial background information and will be followed by another report outlining findings and recommendations.

Material for this report was also collected from interviews with the chairman of the board of trustees, school district staff, state education department personnel, and various consultants working for the board. Minutes from each board meeting have been reviewed, as have the quarterly progress reports submitted to the board by the state monitors, established by Special Act 97-4 to oversee the board’s progress. The monitors have provided committee staff with pertinent information, and staff has accompanied them on visits to 16 schools within the district, summer programs, and a special education facility. Committee staff has also attended board meetings and various board committee meetings. As this study continues, additional interviews will be conducted, including those of parent/community groups, members of the board of trustees, the State Board of Education, consultants affiliated with the school district, and district and city personnel.

The report is divided into four sections. Section I provides a general overview of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools, focusing on the requirements specified in Special Act 97-4. The board’s membership, administrative structure, term, and activities are also described in this section. Section II outlines the primary strategic planning documents used by the board of trustees in guiding its work. The actual implementation of these plans will help frame future discussion about the success of the board of trustees in carrying out Special Act 97-4. Section III provides a synopsis of the changes to the school district’s main administrative operating systems occurring under the trustees’ direction. Finally, Section IV summarizes major policies enacted by the board of trustees to increase student achievement, and the major academic programs developed by the school district since the state takeover.

In April 1997, the state legislature passed Special Act 97-4, declaring the Hartford school district was in a state of crisis. The act found the continued existence of the crisis was detrimental to Hartford’s children and in conflict with the educational interests of the state. Resolution of the crisis was considered a matter of paramount public interest. The district’s educational performance was low, a privatization effort recently failed, and there was persistent turnover at the superintendent level, all factors precipitating state intervention.

As a way of dealing with the problems facing the district, the legislature dissolved the local Hartford school board for a period of at least 37 months, beginning June 1, 1997. In its place, a newly created State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools became responsible for the governance, management, and fiscal operations of the Hartford public school system. The trustees became the district’s board of education with all the duties, rights, and responsibilities designated to such boards under state law.

The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools is required by law to have up to seven members appointed jointly by the governor and legislative leaders. The mayor of Hartford also serves on the board as an ex-officio, nonvoting member. The board’s chairperson is designated by the governor. Six trustees currently serve on the board, and a membership list is provided in Appendix A.

The appointed board members must include representatives of racial and ethnic minorities and persons with expertise in the fields of education and financial matters. No board member is permitted to be a relative of any Hartford school district employee.

Figure I-1 sets out selected key dates relating to the term of the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools. The board is solely responsible for the management of the school system from June 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000. On or before January 1, 2000, however, the trustees may request a two-year extension. The final decision regarding the extension rests with the Connecticut State Board of Education.

Extension criteria . The decision to extend the board’s term will be based on several factors, according to Special Act 97-4. Included in the State Board of Education’s decision making criteria are: 1) whether additional time is needed by the trustees to improve student achievement, and 2) whether the trustees have had sufficient time to address both the Hartford Improvement Plan (described later) and the findings and recommendations of a fiscal and operations audit required by Special Act 97-4. If the trustees seek an extension, the State Board of Education is required to act on the request by February 1, 2000. If the state education board grants the extension, the trustees will continue to manage the Hartford public school system through June 30, 2002. If an extension is not requested by the trustees or, if requested and rejected by the state education board, a specific process for electing a new municipal school board is detailed in Special Act 97-4.

Process upon board expiration . As shown in Figure I-1, Special Act 97-4 outlines a process to transfer governance of the school system once the board of trustees’ term expires. In January 2000 (or January 2002, if an extension is granted) the governor is required to issue a writ of election to the Hartford city clerk ordering an election for new school board members on a specified date in March of either year. Candidates are to be nominated and elected in accordance with the city charter.

Following the election, new school board members are scheduled to take office either July 1, 2000, or 2002, as appropriate. Special Act 97-4 specifies that terms of six elected members will expire on "the Monday immediately preceding the first Tuesday in December 2001 or 2003, as appropriate," while the terms of three members will expire the "Monday immediately preceding the first Tuesday in December 2003, or 2005, as appropriate." In other words, six new members will serve 17-month terms once elected and three will serve for 41 months.

During the period from the election of a new school board until it officially takes control, joint meetings are required with the out-going state board of trustees. The purpose of the meetings is to provide a transition from the trustees to the new school board. Further, as discussed later in this report, the state monitors assigned in accordance with Special Act 97-4 to oversee the board of trustees must continue their oversight role under the newly elected board of education for one year.

The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools has various duties and responsibilities required by Special Act 97-4. The board is primarily responsible for the governance, management, and fiscal operations of the school district all in order to : 1) increase student achievement; 2) enhance the quality, adequacy, and equality of educational opportunities; and 3) allocate and manage resources efficiently and effectively. The board of trustees also has all the duties and responsibilities state law provides to local boards of education. For example, all contracts and agreements – including collective bargaining agreements – made in the name of the Hartford Board of Education are now assigned to the state board of trustees.

 Specific responsibilities of the board also include:

 

• all aspects of school district governance and management, including delegating any such authority to the district’s superintendent;

   

• developing a budget for the district;

   

• continuing to implement the "Hartford Improvement Plan" (described later);

   

• requesting the SDE commissioner to waive any provision of the statutes or regulation under the department’s jurisdiction regarding the development of innovative programs for educational improvement the board determines may assist it in improving the district; and

   

• providing a mechanism for parent, teacher, and community involvement in the schools.

Advisory council . Special Act 97-4 requires the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools and the superintendent of schools to appoint a seven-member advisory council. The council must consist of parents, classroom teachers, school principals, and representatives from higher education institutions. Full council membership is provided in Appendix B.

The advisory council was established with a full complement of members in February 1998. It holds formal meetings prior to the monthly board of trustees meetings to discuss its agenda. The superintendent attends the meetings as do various board members.

The purpose of the council is to advise the trustees and superintendent on matters relating to curriculum, student achievement, parental and community involvement, and school safety and discipline. The council terminates upon the expiration of the board of trustees, and its responsibilities are transferred to the district’s newly elected local board of education.

Financial and operations audit . The board of trustees, in consultation with the state education commissioner, was required by Special Act 97-4 to contract for a fiscal and operations audit of the Hartford public school system. The audit had to be conducted by a certified public accounting firm, paid for by the city, and completed by January 1, 1998. The board is required to develop a plan to address the audit findings and implement its recommendations. A summary of the audit is provided later in the report.

Accreditation . Another directive spelled out in Special Act 97-4 requires the board to ensure all elementary and middle schools within the Hartford public school district become accredited. Currently, six elementary schools plus the three high schools are undergoing accreditation. The accrediting agency is the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

Long-term building program . The board of trustees is required to develop a long-term school building program for the district. The program must be developed in consultation with the state education commissioner and expedited by the board and city.

Collective bargaining . 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. Two of the contracts, covering teachers and principals/supervisors, fall under the requirements of the Teacher Negotiation Act (TNA), while the remaining 10 are covered by the Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA). Both acts set out procedures by which public employee contracts are to be resolved. The teachers’ act imposes strict deadlines tied to the municipal budget process, while MERA’s timeframes are more flexible. Both provide for binding arbitration.

Among the employee groups under MERA are: buildings and grounds supervisors; custodians; paraprofessionals; health professionals; and school secretaries. Table I-1 identifies each unit and its membership size.

Special Act 97-4 gives the trustees special powers with respect to the collective bargaining process under both TNA and MERA. First, the act provides the trustees with direct access to the whole membership of a bargaining unit if attempts to reopen and renegotiate a contract with union representatives fail. This is not an option under either TNA or MERA. Second, the act alters certain provisions of the arbitration process for any contracts that reach that stage.

With respect to reopening contracts already in place, if the union representative agrees with the board’s request to renegotiate current contract issues, the parties have up to 28 days to attempt these negotiations. If agreement is reached, the process proceeds to the normal employee ratification phase. However, if the board and the union representatives fail to agree, the board’s last best offer is submitted to the bargaining unit membership for a final vote.

Alternatively, if the union representative denies the initial request to renegotiate, the State Board of Labor Relations is required to convene a meeting of the bargaining unit membership. The board then may present its proposed revision directly to all the affected employees for their vote, which is final.

Second, the act alters the process for any negotiations that end in arbitration. Specifically:

 

• the arbitrators may make no presumption in favor of: 1) retaining contract provisions agreed to by the local Hartford Board of Education and the unions in previous negotiations or awarded by arbitrators in prior arbitration proceedings; or 2) continuing past employment practices of the local Hartford Board of Education ( Current law directs arbitrators to consider previous negotiations between the parties and existing conditions of employment);

   

• the arbitrators must give the highest priority to the educational interests of the state, as those interests relate to Hartford’s children, in arriving at their decisions and are to consider other factors in light of such educational interests (Current law directs arbitrators to consider several factors in making their decisions, but under both TNA and MERA, arbitrators must give priority to the financial capability of the affected municipality in their decisions);

   

   

• the arbitrators are not limited to the last best offers of the parties on the issues in dispute ( Under both TNA and MERA, the arbitrators must choose the last best offer of a party, and cannot fashion a third, independent solution) ; and

   

• the arbitration decision is not subject to rejection by the Hartford city council (Under both TNA and MERA, the local legislative body may reject the arbitration decision by a two-thirds vote, sending the issues back to one more, final arbitration).

Use of provisions. When the trustees took over operation of the Hartford school system in 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 Office of Attorney General issued an opinion that contracts that expired before Special Act 97-4 was enacted were not subject to the special collective bargaining provisions. According to district personnel, this did not prove to be a bar to negotiating those contracts in the spirit of the special act. As of August 31, 1999, only one contract remains outstanding.

With respect to the teachers’ and principals’ contracts, participants in the process believe that the very presence of the special act provisions aided in the negotiations. Specifically, a salary reopener for the last year of the teachers contract that expired in June 1999 went to arbitration under the special provisions, and the arbitrator awarded no salary increase.

Figure I-2 illustrates the overall administrative and operational structure of the board of trustees. The board interacts with numerous constituencies, each providing input to assist the board in managing the district’s affairs. The trustees have links with state and local agencies, private sector companies, and non-profit groups. Although the diagram focuses on the board, these constituencies also interact with the superintendent and school system on a regular basis.

Table I-2 shows the board’s meeting activity since June 1997. The board conducts its normal business at "regular" monthly meetings held throughout the year at various schools in the district. There is a specific agenda for each meeting, and formal votes are taken. The board is required to maintain a formal record of its proceedings, including attendance and votes cast by members.

Additional meetings are also called by the board to discuss particular topic areas. "Special" meetings are used by the board for matters needing board attention, but not warranting a full board meeting (i.e., action on grant applications or collective bargaining agreements.) The board also holds meetings for "informational" purposes, allowing the board to obtain information on specific topics, such as program or operational initiatives. No voting is done at informational meetings and they occur less frequently than regular or special meetings, as indicated in the table.

Staff analysis of the board’s minutes revealed the trustees have met at least once a month since taking control in June 1997. As Table I-2 shows, meeting attendance on part of the trustees is also very high. From June 1997 to May 1998, when the board had seven members, attendance at the regular meetings averaged 6.4 members. Attendance at meetings since the board’s membership was six averaged 5.7. The board experience similarly high attendance rates for its special and informational meetings as well.

The agenda for a regular meeting held by the trustees typically covers a wide variety of topics relating to the operation and administration of the school system. A public comment period and reports from students are also standard agenda items for regular meetings. Overall, as the table shows, regular meetings average almost 3 hours, informational meetings just under 2 ½ hours, and special meetings roughly an hour.

Executive sessions are held before each regular board meeting and, on several occasions, before special and informational meetings. The trustees use the sessions to discuss personnel and legal matters. On average, executive sessions last between 1 and 2 hours.

Work of the board is primarily completed using a "committee of the whole" process. There are times, however, when specific board members serve on committees for particular subject matters (e.g., labor relations/collective bargaining, building, and audit implementation.) The board also uses outside resources on an as-needed basis to help facilitate its business.

Special Act 97-4 specifically calls for the creation of two state monitor positions for the Hartford public schools. The monitors are chosen by the state education commissioner and report directly to him. Currently, there are three persons serving as state monitors -- one full-time, and two half-time. One monitor was a former interim commissioner of the education department, one works for the education department, and one was involved in education issues at the community level.

According to the special act, the monitors’ main function is to consult with and assist the State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools and the superintendent in assessing the progress and needs of the school district. The act also requires the monitors to secure outside assistance from corporations and universities in helping fulfill the district’s needs. The monitors are required to meet regularly with the commissioner and superintendent to review the district’s progress and needs. Monthly follow-up reports are to be prepared by the monitors for the SDE commissioner and State Board of Education, with copies also sent to the board of trustees. The reports are to note any additional assistance required by the school district. In practice, the monthly meetings occur, although monthly written reports are not produced.

Quarterly Progress Reports on the Hartford Public Schools . Beginning October 1, 1997, the state education commissioner and the State Board of Education are required to send quarterly reports to the governor and the legislature’s education committee. The special act requires the reports to address the operations of the Hartford school district and progress made under the management of the board of trustees. Quarterly reports are required until the school district is again under the direction of a local board of education.

The quarterly reports are developed by the state monitors, with final distribution by the commissioner. The reports are detailed and include information on student achievement, school visits, operation of the school system, and the district’s progress toward fulfilling specific recommendations outlined in the "Hartford Improvement Plan", a joint effort between school district and the state education department described in the next section.

School visits . As part of their oversight duties, the state monitors have conducted three rounds of visits to each school within the Hartford school district. The first round of visits, started in late 1997, focused on general observations, the overall physical condition of the schools, and discussions with school staff. Inspections were made of buildings, classrooms, bathrooms, and grounds during the visits to obtain a baseline overview of the schools. A facility specialist from the state Department of Education accompanied the monitors on the physical plant inspections. The monitors detailed their findings in the March 1998 quarterly report.

A second round of visits by the state monitors was conducted during the summer of 1998 and at the start of the 1998-99 school year. The visits concentrated on recent improvements made at individual schools since the monitors’ last visit, progress made in fulfilling various goals adopted by the board of trustees, and facility improvements. The third round of school visits was made by the monitors during the first and second quarters of 1999. The monitors asked school personnel and school improvement teams (described later) to identify improvements having the greatest impact upon student success since the monitors’ last visited the schools. The monitors also asked school personnel and improvement teams to identify their greatest needs for increasing student success and improving the school. Results from these visits are being assembled by the monitors and should be included in their next quarterly report scheduled for release this September.

The state monitors also visited four of the various six-week summer school programs during 1999, as well as summer programs held in 1998. The standard protocol for this summer’s visits included meeting with the school principal and staff to go over a list of questions covering specific areas, as well as a tour of the program. The monitors also visited the "Parent Power Institute" conducted at the University of Hartford. The program was for parents with children in the Hartford school system, and included classes covering various professional and personal growth topics.

The State Board of Trustees for the Hartford Public Schools is guided by several strategic planning documents resulting from efforts put forth by the school district, the state Department of Education, and the community at large. The documents combine work completed prior to the board's tenure, as well as initiatives accomplished under its direction. The major planning endeavors, described below, help shape the board's focus in several key operational and academic areas. The actual implementation of these plans will help future discussion about the success of the board of trustees in carrying out Special Act 97-4. The plans, along with their current implementation status, include the:

 

• Hartford Public Schools Strategic Plan (on-going);

   

   

• Brown University Report (completed);

   

   

• Department of Education Report (completed);

   

   

• Hartford Improvement Plan (on-going);

   

   

• Operations Audit (on-going); and

   

   

• Technology Plan (on-going).

   

Work on a strategic plan for the Hartford school district began in the spring of 1991, when the Planning Committee of the Mayor's Task Force on Quality Education sponsored 33 public forums on improving each Hartford school. The school board used the information from the forums and developed 10 strategic goals for the district.

Once the 10 goals were established, the board instructed superintendent to develop a plan to achieve the goals. A special advisory group of school, community, and business leaders was assembled to work with the superintendent to establish guidelines and processes for individual working teams developed around each of the goals. The teams, comprised of parents, school administrators and teachers, community and business representatives, and selected students, were charged with developing implementation strategies for each of the 10 goals.

Plans from the teams were given to the superintendent in September 1993, who assembled them into a larger integrated plan. The superintendent divided the plan into three strategic areas:

 

• curriculum and student outcomes;

   

   

• community involvement (parents, businesses, local and state government, churches, etc.); and

   

   

• school organization enabling the outcomes and involvement to occur.

   

In June 1994, the Hartford Board of Education formally adopted a mission statement and strategic plan for the city's public school system. The mission and 10 strategic goals are outlined in Appendix C.

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

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

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

 

• accountability and leadership;

   

   

• curriculum;

   

   

• communication and collaboration;

   

   

• resource management; and

   

   

• training and staff development.

   

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

• school district management and accountability;

   

   

• curriculum and course offerings;

   

   

• instruction, assessment, and school climate;

   

   

• professional development;

   

   

• early childhood;

   

   

• technology;

   

   

• student support;

   

   

• parent and community support;

   

   

• fiscal management; and

   

   

• facilities management.

   

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

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

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

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

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

 

1. An overall lack of tangible accountability and responsibility throughout the organization.

    

    

2. Control processes and procedures are not standardized or reinforced.

    

    

3. Statutory requirements and contractual agreements frequently complicate efficient operations and data processing between/within the Hartford public school system and the city.

    

    

4. System and process improvements are being compromised by incomplete process redesigns, sub-optimal project management, lack of resources, limited training and education, and no year 2000 or business continuity planning.

    

    

5. A culture has been created over time within the school district resulting in operational "silos" which prohibit information-sharing and effective communication.

    

In addition to these observations, the operations audit contained findings and recommendations in 10 specific operational areas. The auditors made recommendations where controls and/or processes were weak. The report noted the 10 areas were those needing the greatest attention for change within the school district. The operational areas examined included: budget and planning; enrollment management; facilities, construction, and property maintenance; financial management; human resources; information technology; payroll; procurement; special funds; and warehouse facilities.

A summary of the operations audit's findings is provided in Appendix F. The summary outlines the findings and recommendations in each of the 10 functional areas.

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

The purpose of the audit steering committee is to set priorities, serve as an oversight body regarding audit recommendation implementation, and ensure a coordinated implementation effort among the school district, city, and community. The committee began its work in April 1998. In addition, to augment the committee’s structure, a chief of staff position was created as the lead administrative person for the operations audit implementation process. The chief of staff is a consultant hired through CCEG, with board input. The chief of staff is responsible for daily oversight of the project and reporting to the steering committee on a regular basis. The committee meets monthly.

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

Implementation process . The Coopers and Lybrand audit identified close to 100 recommendations for improving the operations of the Hartford school system. Realizing full implementation of the recommendations at one time was not feasible, the audit steering committee prioritized the recommendations. The committee began this process in August 1998, followed by a review at the end of that year. The committee is now in the process of analyzing its progress and prioritizing the recommendations not yet implemented.

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

As part of an effort to incorporate technology into the district's overall educational and operational strategy, the board of trustees approved an information technology plan in early 1998. The plan covers a four-year time span and incorporates and supports the district's 1994 strategic plan and the Hartford Improvement Plan.

Five primary components necessary for an efficient and effective technology system are addressed in the plan. The main strategic initiatives include hardware, software, professional development, networking, and service/maintenance.

The technology plan delineates five "critical success factors" that together form the foundation and strategy for technology for the school district. The factors include:

 

• access to technology tools;

   

   

• staff skills and competencies;

   

   

• integrated technology in instruction and school management;

   

   

• quality and timely support;

   

   

• leadership.

   

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

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

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

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

A perennial challenge facing the Hartford public school system is the overall physical condition of its school facilities covering approximately 4.2 million square feet. The operations audit found the district did not have an updated, prioritized, long-range plan for facilities or property maintenance. The audit also noted that preventative maintenance is compromised by constant crisis management to alleviate current facilities and maintenance problems.

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

Responding to the legislative direction, the board of trustees hired an architectural firm in early 1998 to conduct a multi-phase assessment of the school district's facilities. The result of this analysis will be a 10-year facilities master plan for the school district, scheduled to be completed in November 1999.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several major changes to the administrative operating systems within the Hartford School District have taken place under the board of trustees’ direction. For example, the board’s finance and budget operation has been reorganized, new budget and reporting processes have been implemented, and a systemwide automated financial management system is being installed. Purchasing processes have also changed, mainly to help alleviate a backlog of purchase orders and to ensure teachers receive supplies before the school year starts. Collective bargaining agreements have been renegotiated, job descriptions have been updated or created, and personnel evaluation systems are being formulated. Changes and upgrades to the district’s technology infrastructure have also occurred, providing the district greater and quicker access to various types of information.

The board of trustees inherited a financial management system that was inefficient and ineffective. Minutes from early board meetings show the district was in a budget deficit situation and there was a lack of financial management systems. As a result, the board was not obtaining appropriate information and data on which to make management decisions.

During the early part of the trustees’ term, it became clear the school district faced critical financial problems. There was a budget deficit, purchase orders were not being filled, and bills were not being paid.

Chief state’s attorney’s report . Problems with the district’s financial management in the area of special education became severe enough that in early 1998 the board requested the chief state’s attorney’s office investigate the school district’s financial records to determine if criminal wrongdoing had occurred. The examination into the finances of the Hartford school district by the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney concluded that although criminal findings could not be substantiated, payment voucher records had been altered and bills for 1997 were paid with 1998 funds. The report, released in July 1999, also found the school district lacked appropriate financial controls. The district had concealed a deficit of over $2 million in special education expenses incurred in FY 97 and charged the expenses to the following year. The report also cited a lack of proper financial controls, inadequate management and supervision, and unaccountability in the financial management area.

Reorganization . In mid-1998, the state board of trustees began reorganizing the district’s central financial management operation. A new assistant superintendent for finance and administration was hired, along with a new director of financial management, special funds manager, and purchasing manager. This past August, however, the assistant superintendent resigned to take another job. The position’s responsibilities have been taken over by the director of financial management.

Budget and reporting processes . In early 1999, a series of detailed public budget meetings were held by the board to thoroughly examine each budgetary item. The board was able to use accurate and timely financial information for the first time since beginning its term.

The assistant superintendent for finance and administration also developed a new budget process manual for the school district to use during the 1999-00 budget cycle. The manual incorporates school improvement teams (discussed in Section IV) into the budget decision making process, requires schools to align their budgets with district goals and objectives, and highlights key dates by which specific duties need to be accomplished and information sent to the central office for processing.

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

As a result of the enhanced budget and reporting processes, the board chairman told committee staff the board now has appropriate, accurate, and timely financial information for management analysis and budget development. Moreover, at a recent board meeting, the board noted the school district ended the fiscal year on June 30 with a zero balance, in contrast to previous years’ deficits.

SmartStream . One of the major changes to the school district’s financial management operation is the implementation of "SmartStream." SmartStream is an automated system software package integrating various financial management components (e.g., general ledger, procurement, budget, and payroll/human resources.) The system is client server based, rather than operating from a mainframe, and is being integrated with the district’s wide area network capabilities. Each school will have access to the system. The school district’s conversion to the SmartStream system is being done in conjunction with the city, which is making the same conversion.

Purchase and implementation of the system began in 1997. The system became partly operational in mid-1998; however, problems arose when data were transferred from the old system to the new SmartStream system. The district is also in the process of resolving several other implementation-related issues, including converting to a new software version that is Year 2000-compliant and developing a joint chart of accounts with the city.

To help the district (and city) with the system conversion, a consultant was hired at the beginning of 1999 to serve as project coordinator and oversee the SmartStream implementation process. The overall project is being monitored by the Operational Audit Steering Committee, which includes the board’s chairman.

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

The purchase order system has also been changed for the upcoming school year for school supplies. Supplies are now being delivered by a single vendor directly to individual schools by teacher name, which has never been done before. Orders from teachers were to be submitted by June to the central office, batched, and then sent to the vendor. The negotiated delivery deadline from the vendor for all supplies was mid-August, well in advance of the start of school. Supplies for the superintendent’s Success for All initiative (discussed in Section IV) -- approved in July -- are also scheduled for receipt by school, by teacher, prior to the new school year. Principals were trained on the new purchase order system to make sure the process operated efficiently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The board of trustees has taken several major steps over the last two years intended to make the district a successful operation, both academically and administratively. Specifically, the board has adopted policies with broad implications for academic performance and parent/community involvement, hired a new permanent superintendent in April 1999, and revamped its outdated operating procedures. The board has also reorganized its central office, developing and enhancing administrative processes and business practices.

One of the purposes of this study is to document the major efforts made by the school board to implement Special Act 97-4 in developing programs, procedures, and benchmarks for improving student performance and measuring achievement. This section highlights some of the main policy and programmatic initiatives undertaken to increase student performance. As specified in the study scope, however, it is not the program review committee’s intention to measure the district’s academic achievement while under the current board’s direction.

In the course of revamping and updating its entire policy and administrative manual, the board of trustees adopted new policies related to student achievement in several key areas. The overall aim of the board’s policies is to increase academic performance and enhance the quality, adequacy, and equality of educational opportunities. Program review committee staff identified the following major policies:

 

• Student Attendance and Truancy;

   

   

• Student Promotion, Retention, and Intervention;

   

   

• Parent and Community Involvement;

   

   

• School Improvement Teams; and

   

   

• Extended Day/Year.

   

According to state Department of Education data, the cumulative four-year dropout rate for Hartford’s public schools in 1998 was 51 percent. This figure is significantly above the statewide average of roughly 15 percent for the four-year period ending 1998.

In recognition of the district’s comparatively high dropout rate, and upon a recommendation contained in the Hartford Improvement Plan calling for updated policies to significantly increase student attendance, the board of trustees enacted its student attendance policy in August 1997. The detailed policy states in part that any student with 15 or more unexcused absences, or who continually cuts class, will have his or her whole progress for the year reviewed by the appropriate teachers and principal. The policy further establishes a penalty for habitual truancy (unexcused absences of 20 or more days) stating such student’s promotion to the next grade may be contingent upon the successful completion of a summer school program, or retention in the same grade to acquire the appropriate skills for promotion.

A formal plan to implement the board’s new attendance and truancy policy was completed by the superintendent in early 1998. The "Hartford Public Schools Reschooling Plan for Attendance Improvement, Truancy, and Dropout Reduction" is based on prevention and intervention as the two primary methods used by the district to address attendance issues. The plan addresses the roles/responsibilities of parents, students, and schools. Strategies are devised to increase attendance and lower truancy and dropouts, including incentives to recognize and reward attendance improvement, development of a "re-schooling" team to monitor and evaluate attendance goals, and establishing attendance improvement committees at individual schools.

Additional initiatives by the district to increase school attendance include a coordinator to oversee dropout prevention and attendance efforts, attendance workers at the middle and high school levels to monitor unexcused absences, and parent liaisons at the elementary schools to work with parents regarding attendance improvement.

Upon approving the attendance and truancy policy, the board instructed the superintendent to disseminate the policy to all principals and administrators, and make it available to all parents and students. The new policy is also included in the district’s overall policy and administrative manual.

The legislature, under P.A. 99-288, requires local education boards to review and revise their policies for promoting students to the next grade. The law calls for school districts to include in their policies: 1) objective criteria for student promotion; 2) a provision for measuring student progress against such criteria and reporting the information to parents; 3) alternatives to promotion, such as transition programs; and 4) a provision for supplemental services for students not making adequate progress. Policies have to be in place by July 1, 2000.

The Hartford school district’s past practice of promoting students to the next grade without the students having the requisite skills and abilities under some circumstances – called social promotion -- was changed by the board of trustees in March 1999. The board adopted a new procedure whereby a student’s advancement to the next grade must be directly related to his or her proficiency/appropriate developmental progress in achieving specific performance standards and outcomes. The standards are determined by the school district in conjunction with benchmarks set by the state Department of Education.

The policy calls for qualified staff having well articulated curricula in which students are expected to achieve academic and behavioral standards in place for each grade level. For students needing additional assistance and on-going assessment, the school system must provide the support. Students will be retained in their grades, in part, if they do not demonstrate appropriate proficiency and progress after opportunities for additional assistance are provided. The school principal, however, has the final decision regarding retention and promotion.

Individual schools are responsible for providing the extra assistance necessary for students not showing appropriate achievement according to the performance standards. The school improvement plan (discussed below) within each school must support and address this area. School improvement plans should include:

 

• a means for providing appropriate services for students requiring additional support;

   

   

• descriptions of the additional support services available districtwide and at the individual school, including regular school day and extended day/year programs; and

   

   

• an evaluation component to assess the effectiveness of the additional support services.

   

Regulations for implementing the board’s policy have been drafted by the current superintendent’s office and were presented to and adopted by the board in mid-June. The regulations outline the specific criteria the district will use to determine student retention by grade levels, including attendance. The regulations also require students to achieve minimum baseline scores on their state mastery exams, which is the first time the district has used this standard.

Although educational achievement is the primary consideration for determining student promotion or retention, the regulations cite two exceptions. First, a student will generally not repeat more than two years in elementary grades 1-6. Second, there may be times when a school principal, following review of all relevant information, may promote a pupil who does not meet promotion requirements. The regulations are in effect only for the summer, and will be reviewed and updated for the 1999-00 school year.

Upon adopting the promotion, retention, and intervention policy, the board required a review of the full policy on alternate years from its implementation date. This is to ensure the policy remains aligned with state and district standards and new educational research.

Special Act 97-4 requires the board to "provide a mechanism for parent, teacher, and community involvement in the schools." Establishing a parental involvement policy was a board goal for 1997-98. Specifically, the board wanted to increase parental involvement with the expectation that parent-teacher communication would occur on a monthly basis. (This process is separate from the advisory council the board was also required to develop.)

In November 1997, the board adopted a "Student-Centered Parent and Community Involvement" policy based on the premise that parents should be full partners in decisions that affect their children. The board’s policy received input on the policy from various constituencies, including parents and community groups.

On the theory that students and parents/guardians are the district’s first customers, the parental involvement 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.

Various standards for measuring parent/family involvement programs have been drafted to support the policy. Each standard has several "quality indicators" by which overall success is to be measured. The standards include: communication between school and home; promotion and support of parenting skills; parental involvement in student learning; parental volunteer efforts; school decision making and advocacy; and community collaboration to strengthen schools, families, and student learning.

In early 1998, the district also developed a guide for implementing the parent and community involvement policy. The guide provides new ideas and approaches related to school outreach strategies, and outlines ways to include School Improvement Teams (described later) as part of the overall process to increase parental and community involvement in schools. A new parental involvement program is being developed by the current administration.

Parent liaisons . Parents have been hired full-time to act as parent liaisons and work with teachers, administrators, and other parents to coordinate and advocate for family involvement in helping students learn. The liaisons help provide continuity for their school’s parental involvement initiatives, such as programs to increase student attendance.

Through 1997, parent liaisons worked on a part-time basis. In 1998, they were hired as full-time employees. Their current overall role, however, is changing under the new superintendent. Family Resource Aides, as they are now considered, will receive monthly training on various topics throughout the year, including attendance outreach, community outreach, and fundraising development. The training is coordinated through an assistant superintendent and the district’s new Office of Parent Involvement.

The major planning documents described in Section II involve a degree of decentralization whereby management of a school is made through a shared decision making process at the school/community level. Rather than have all strategic and management decisions emanate from the central office, this decentralized approach, also referred to as site-based management, attempts to involve the broader school community in planning, decision making, and implementation of specified functions for a particular school.

School improvement teams are a key component of decentralized management. The teams consist of parents, administrators, teachers, students, non-instructional personnel, and business/community representatives. According to an August 1998 proposal by the Hartford school superintendent on the roles and responsibilities of school improvement teams, the primary responsibilities of such teams include:

 

1. serving as an advisory body to the school principal;

    

    

2. increasing parent, community, and student involvement;

    

    

3. creating and maintaining a focus on the school mission; and

    

    

4. developing, monitoring, overseeing, and evaluating the implementation of the annual school improvement plan.

    

One of the major functions of the improvement teams is to develop a school improvement plan. The plan is intended to serve several purposes, including: 1) assessing the resources currently provided to the school and needed; and 2) describing unique themes and building on the school’s strengths.

The superintendent’s 1998 proposal was developed in response to the board’s goal of adopting a policy ensuring each school had a functioning school improvement team. In August 1998, the trustees endorsed the superintendent’s school improvement team proposal, and instructed him to execute its implementation. In its endorsement, the board noted that it is critical for school improvement teams to focus on academic improvements at school sites rather than management issues.

In March 1999, the board of trustees adopted a policy to maintain quality extended day/year programs within the city’s public schools. The programs must be included in each school’s improvement plan provided adequate funding exists to support the programs. The extended day/year programs are designed to:

 

• improve general student academic performance;

   

   

• support student needs according to personalized educational programs;

   

   

• increase parental involvement;

   

   

• promote creativity;

   

   

• increase social skills; and

   

   

• support health, fitness, and positive youth/family development.

   

According to the policy, development and implementation of extended day/year programs will be overseen by the superintendent, the city, community-based organizations, and parents. In addition to available funding, program continuation is contingent upon the achievement level of goals developed jointly with the schools. The programs will be monitored and evaluated by the district. The effective date of the policy is the 1999-00 school year.

While the board of trustees develops policies to guide the school district, the superintendent is responsible for implementing those policies. Multiple programs and services designed to accomplish the board’s objectives for improving student achievement either already exist within the school system or are in the process of being developed and implemented.

Committee staff has identified several key programmatic efforts aimed at increasing student achievement. Although the following program descriptions are not an exhaustive listing of every program or service in place to address student performance, they encapsulate and highlight the primary programs available to students at various grade levels throughout the district since the board of trustees began its term. Given that the current permanent superintendent was hired in April 1999 and is developing and implementing a series of new academic initiatives, the focus is on those programs. The major programs highlighted by program review committee staff include:

 

• School Reform ( Success for All) ;

   

   

• Classroom Technology Integration ( Jostens );

   

   

• Literacy/Numeracy/Test Sophistication;

   

   

• Spring/Summer Schools;

   

   

• Parent Summer Institute;

   

   

• Ninth Grade Laptop Program;

   

   

• Computer Application Program;

   

   

• Sylvan Learning Systems;

   

   

• Early Reading Success;

   

   

• Academies/Centers for Educational Excellence; and

   

   

• School Redistricting.

   

The superintendent is implementing a district-wide school reform program called Success for All (SFA) for all elementary schools. (One school previously implemented a comparable reform model, and was allowed to continue this effort in lieu of transitioning to the Success for All model; and another school has already implemented the SFA model.)

The Success for All program, developed by Johns Hopkins University and the Baltimore city school district in the mid-1980s, is a comprehensive approach to restructuring elementary schools to ensure each child’s success in reading and writing. The program emphasizes prevention and early intervention as ways to anticipate and solve learning problems. It provides intensive academic assistance to students at risk of school failure. By receiving intensive help early on, students at lower reading levels can "catch up" with their classmates at the appropriate level. The intent is to give students the necessary help to quickly achieve basic skills, rather than waiting until they require remedial education or are retained in the same grade.

The new literacy program is primarily designed for use in elementary schools with a large disadvantaged population base. It serves grades 1-6, but also has preschool and kindergarten components. Math, science, and social studies components are also available. The program has English and Spanish versions.

Staff support . One of the primary requirements necessary before SFA can be implemented, as stipulated by the Success for All Foundation, the nonprofit organization that produces the SFA product, is clear support for the program from the superintendent, principals and teachers. Parents and the community are also required to be informed about the program.

Each school must conduct a vote among its teachers to adopt the program. The vote is by secret ballot, and at least 80 percent of the teachers must cast an affirmative vote before the program is adopted and implemented. Each Hartford elementary school, except for the one already using an alternative model, will be implementing Success for All for the 1999-00 school year. Prior to the vote, principals and teachers were provided the opportunity to visit several schools in New York City currently using SFA, and speak to SFA representatives. The voting deadline was June 2.

Program curriculum, instruction, and assessment . For most of the day, students are assigned to heterogeneous, age-grouped classes. Under the SFA program, students are grouped across classes and grades by their reading levels beginning in first grade. Students at a common reading level are then provided with a 90-minute block of uninterrupted daily reading instruction, which is the primary component of the SFA program. The individual groups give teachers the opportunity to provide direct attention to students within a particular reading level, rather than having to segment a class with students at various levels.

The SFA program provides a pre-established curriculum initiated during the first grade year. A second curriculum is also provided through the program for grades 2 through 6. This process ensures standardization among schools.

Students experiencing reading difficulties – particularly in first grade – are given one-to-one tutoring. The tutoring is provided by trained teacher-tutors and paraprofessionals. Tutors diagnose students’ needs and tailor their instruction around those needs.

SFA facilitator . Every elementary school using SFA is to have at least one full-time facilitator. The facilitator must be a certified teacher, and is responsible (with the principal) for assisting in program implementation and operation. Facilitators provide teachers with program information through classroom visits, coaching, and formal meetings. They may work with individual students to determine successful teaching strategies and convey these strategies to teachers. Facilitators also coordinate activities and services among teachers, parents, students, administrators, tutors, and family support staff to ensure each child’s success.

Family support team . Another SFA program component is the family support team, consisting of the school principal or assistant principal, the SFA facilitator, social workers, counselors, attendance monitors, teachers, and volunteers. The team is to work closely with students and parents to focus on issues such as attendance, coordination of outside social services, parental involvement, and student behavior.

Training . Formal professional development is provided for facilitators, administrators, teachers, and tutors. A training program for principals and facilitators was conducted by the SFA foundation over the summer. The facilitators and principals then provided training to teachers and tutors during a three-day session held prior to the start of school in September. Teachers are scheduled to receive SFA materials in time for school.

The program also provides on-site assistance and follow-up visits during implementation. After each visit, the school will receive a detailed summary of observations and discussions, and a description of "next step" implementation plans.

Program assessment . The program focuses on individual accountability, common goals, and recognition of group success. Assessments are administered to students every eight weeks to ensure adequate progress and to determine if additional support services are necessary. An advisory committee within the school composed of the principal, the SFA facilitator, selected teachers and tutors, and parent representatives is supposed to meet regularly to review the program’s progress and identify/solve programmatic problems.

Cost . Approximately $4.3 million is budgeted for the upcoming school year to implement SFA. Program cost primarily entails training, curriculum and program materials, and professional development, and is based on enrollment size and location of the individual school, and number of schools collaborating in training.

The district is also implementing the Jostens software-based teaching initiative for the 1999-00 school year. Developed by the Jostens Learning Corporation, the program is intended to enhance student performance and improve the teaching process through the use of integrating technology into the classroom.

Increased teacher effectiveness and individualized instruction focusing on each student’s needs are key goals of the program. The primary focus of this year’s program will be on assisting teachers improve performance in reading and math/for students in grades 3, 5, and 7. The program incorporates objectives of the state’s Connecticut Mastery Test.

The program allows teachers to simulate a prescribed exam (e.g., CMT) by subject matter and grade level. Based on the test results, an individualized "learning path" using a prescribed curriculum is computer-generated and targeted to meet the needs of a particular student. Teachers have the ability to modify the course of instruction. The program’s reporting capabilities track progress on either an individualized or group basis. Periodic assessments are made to measure the program’s success at increasing student performance.

Although the focus is on grades 3, 5, and 7, the program is being implemented in each elementary, middle, and high school throughout the district. Full project implementation is divided into four phases, whereby software is installed and professional development occurs. Software and support services are provided by the Jostens company. The final installation/training phase for Hartford was completed at the end of August.

Total program cost to the district is based on a five-year leasing option. The first year of the option will cost the district $419,690; the overall five-year cost is $1.89 million. In July, the board of trustees gave approval to the superintendent to enter into a contract for the Jostens program.

The district is developing several scripted programs for the 1999-00 school year balancing literacy and numeracy to prepare students for the annual Connecticut Mastery Tests. The programs provide teachers with pre-planned curricula and teaching materials. In addition, students will be instructed on test taking strategies and will be given practice mastery exams to simulate the real CMT given in October. The programs are also intended to:

 

• provide students with a comprehensive, systematic level of instruction to improve their knowledge or reading/thinking strategies;

   

   

• develop reading, writing, and math skills to support parts of the state mastery tests;

   

   

• familiarize students with test taking procedures enabling improved performance;

   

   

• focus on individual student needs;

   

   

• reduce test anxiety without compromising test integrity.

   

The literacy enhancement and test sophistication program is designed to give students initial instruction and systematic, on-going practice in strategies and skills necessary to increase reading and writing comprehension. The program focuses on helping students learn how to organize and write effective narrative, expository, and persuasive essays. The numeracy enhancement and test sophistication program is focused on increasing the mathematical abilities of students, again using pre-designed scripted lesson plans. The specialized programs will be administered until the CMT is given. After that time, the district will begin using its standard literacy and math programs.

Looping . Another practice being implemented this school year designed to help students taking the CMTs is "looping." Students entering grades 4, 6, and 8, the grades administered the CMT, will remain with their teachers who taught them in grades 3, 5, and 7. The concept behind this practice is to maintain the students’ degree of familiarity with their teachers as the students enter the CMT grades. By keeping students with their previous year’s teachers, there is intended to be "built-in" continuity from the previous school year. This continuity is intended to help students achieve better on the mastery tests.

Upon taking office in April 1999, the new superintendent initiated two programs to help increase student performance, particularly those students taking the upcoming state mastery tests. The first initiative involved extra classroom instruction time during the normal spring vacation week. Students were encouraged to attend "Spring Power School" during their vacation break for additional instruction covering topics included on the CMTs.

The district’s second initiative was the "Summer Power School" program, which emphasized academics and focused on increasing student achievement. Pre-planned instruction curricula and materials in reading and math was provided daily for three hours during the six-week program. The overall goal of the program is to help students achieve better in school and on the state mastery tests. Students taking the mastery exams were automatically enrolled in the program and encouraged to attend. A weekly average of 3,590 students participated in the summer school program from July 1 through August 6 (excluding two days designated for field trips only). The district is currently working on attendance figures for the last week of summer school, including the number of students taking part in the practice CMT exams held during that week. Committee staff will include a full analysis of the spring and summer school programs in its next report.

Curriculum . Students attended summer school four days a week during the six-week period. The program’s curriculum was tightly scripted by the central office, to ensure standardized instruction and materials were provided for students, particularly those taking the upcoming CMT exams. Teachers received prescribed lesson plans detailing daily instruction and the amount of time spent for each activity.

Students spent each three-hour morning session on academics. Afternoon sessions included community summer programs providing recreational opportunities and enrichment programs, such as cultural activities. There was no fee to attend the summer school programs, and students were provided with free breakfasts and lunches.

Training . Certified teachers hired for the summer school program and principals received training from the district’s central office regarding standardized curriculum and format. Using the training received from the central office, the teachers and principals then trained other staff members at their individual schools.

Assessment . Practice CMT exams were given at both the beginning and end of the summer school program. The district is analyzing the results and will make any adjustments for the upcoming school year it believes necessary. The superintendent is also receiving formal evaluations from teachers regarding the strengths and weaknesses of this year’s summer school program.

Professional and personal growth classes for parents within the Hartford school district were held over a four-week period during the summer. The cooperative effort between the Hartford public schools and the University of Hartford focused primarily on providing parents with increased opportunities to become involved in their children’s public school system.

Parents participated in a series of one-week classes presented during the four-week period. The class offerings included parent leadership training, accessing information with technology, and preparing your child for school. The summer institute was provided at no cost to parents, and transportation and childcare were made available. The district is finalizing its attendance figures for the program, but enrollment statistics show between from 61 to 98 parents signed up for classes.

Efforts to increase the use of technology within the school district include a 9 ^th grade laptop program. The pilot program provides approximately 400 incoming 9 ^th grade students entering high school (roughly 20 percent) with the opportunity to purchase or lease laptop computers at reduced prices. The program increases students’ exposure to computers for coursework, Internet access, and technology training. Teachers within individual schools have been selected and trained to oversee the program.

The district’s goal is to have the students retain their computers during their first two years of high school. Program expansion is anticipated next year, in which all 10 ^th graders would have laptop computers in addition to another 400 9 ^th graders. Training for the program is being provided by the Capital Region Education Council (CREC). The expected "roll-out" of the program is mid-September.

The district is implementing a computer application program (ScanTEK) to provide 9 ^th and 10 ^th graders the opportunity to learn about and work with computers on a technical basis. Students in the program disassemble, repair, refurbish, and assemble computers, allowing them to gain an understanding of computer hardware through practical applications.

The program also has a student performance tracking system. The system provides a comprehensive competency-based portfolio of job skills students can transfer to further education or training, or for use at job interviews.

The Sylvan Learning Systems program is designed to augment a school’s curriculum by providing supplemental instruction to low-performing students. The program uses an individualized, prescriptive approach to instruction. Students are first given a series of tests to identify their specific skill needs. Once this occurs, individualized education plans are developed for each child. The plans are updated daily, allowing the school to manage and monitor a student’s progress.

Instruction and advancement are geared around a student’s mastery of specific skills. The program’s goal is to accelerate learning to bring the student up to grade level using an individualized approach. Trained/certified staff provide instruction, and a teacher to student ratio of 1:3 is required. The program also calls for staff/teacher conferences after every eight hours of instruction. Conferences with parents are held after every 12 hours of instruction.

The program was adopted by the board of trustees in March 1998, and was piloted in the Hartford Public High School during the summer of 1998. In August 1998, the acting superintendent requested the board implement the program at three additional elementary schools. There was much discussion by the board, mainly around contract language and lack of identifiable performance on part of the program given its short tenure within the district. The board ultimately approved implementing the Sylvan program in three additional schools plus Hartford High, to serve roughly 350 students at a cost of $1.8 million for three years.

With the implementation of both the Sylvan and Jostens programs, the district is operating two similar supplemental instructional programs. The board questioned this approach at a recent meeting, and ultimately decided to use the Jostens program districtwide. The board also decided a review of the Sylvan contract would be made.

The board of trustees authorized the superintendent to submit a grant application to the state Department of Education under the Early Reading Success program created by P.A. 98-243. The public act required the education department to develop an early reading grant program designed to: 1) help priority school districts establish intensive early reading programs for students in danger of not learning to read by the end of first grade; 2) establish full-day kindergarten programs; and 3) reduce class size for grades K–3 to a maximum of 18 children per class.

The district was awarded an Early Reading Success grant for $3.2 million in mid-1998. The funding was primarily designated for early reading intervention purposes. Twenty-one reading specialists for grades K-3 were hired, and assigned to the 17 elementary schools with the lowest performance scores on the most recent CMTs. The grant was also used for other projects, including extended day programs in reading for elementary school students and professional development for reading teachers.

The primary instructional method used under the district’s early reading intervention program includes a 90-minute block of uninterrupted instruction for language arts for grades 1-3. At the onset of the program, reading and writing levels for students are determined using the "First Steps" system, which is the district’s student assessment tool. The assessments are conducted by teachers to first identify skill deficiencies and then monitor progress. Teachers use the assessments to develop instruction plans and measure a student’s development in reading, writing, language, and spelling. The early reading intervention program and the assessments are aligned with the district’s overall curricula and the state’s mastery tests, and will be integrated with the Success for All literacy reform program described above.

The school district also received over $530,000 in funding under a separate part of the Early Reading Success grant for library books. The funding is to enhance libraries and media centers.

In early 1998, then-Superintendent Patricia Daniel presented a framework for restructuring secondary schools within the city’s public school system. High schools would become "centers for educational excellence," focusing on skills needed to achieve in an era of increased technology and information. The educational centers are intended to integrate core academics with technical/occupational areas. The centers are intended to maintain close contact with business and educational institutions assisting with the program. The program is offered to students throughout their four years of high school, and students select their course of study.

The goal of the program is to motivate students to stay in school and pursue educational choices moving them toward a career. All standard graduation requirements are met, and student proficiencies are addressed preparing them for higher education or work. Examples of programs within individual high schools include: Technology/ Pre-Engineering; Humanities/Fine Arts, Finance; Allied Health/Nursing; and Bio-Medical.

Lighthouse Grant . Two schools within the district recently received grants from the state education department to attract students from throughout the district for specialized programs. The grant allows the schools to develop "academies" geared toward specific themes. Hartford Public High School, for example, received $100,000 in August 1999 to continue its "Academy for Excellence and Career Exploration." The program is designed for 9 ^th graders and incorporates the latest teaching strategies and technology for students to develop skills to meet state goals on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test, which is a state mastery test given yearly to 10 ^th graders.

The designated schools using the grant funding are designed to attract students from throughout the Hartford school district, and help strengthen an interdistrict magnet school program, which attracts students from several surrounding communities.

A plan to redistrict the Hartford public schools was received by the board in July 1999. The new plan, essentially designed by then-acting Superintendent Matthew Borelli, is an effort to alleviate the crowded conditions existing at several schools throughout the city. The plan also attempts to eliminate inappropriate space for educational programs, reduce the number of students in any one building where overcrowding exists, and maintain local neighborhood schools. The board approved the plan for the 1999-00 school year, with the new superintendent conducting a more comprehensive redistricting study beginning in September 1999 that coordinates with the results of the district’s 10-year facilities plan to be completed in November.

The Hartford Public School System must be a community of active learners which nurtures self-confidence, respect and excellence in all its members. Within such a community, all students:

 

• master communication, computation, analytical and problem-solving skills

   

   

• develop their physical and artistic potential;

   

   

• acquire strong ethical values; and

   

   

• learn to act creatively, responsibly, and effectively in meeting the challenges of a diverse and changing world.

   

 

1. Establish performance-based standards which will specify what every student will know and be able to do in order to graduate.

    

2. Develop methods to demonstrate and assess student competence and creativity in a variety of ways.

    

3. Align our administrative resources to ensure adequate supervision, evaluation, incentives, and staff development so that each school is held accountable for student performance outcomes.

    

4. Implement site-based management and shared decision-making in each school.

    

5. Develop city-wide and neighborhood-based plans that will enable all children to come to first grade ready to learn.

    

6. Ensure that every child will attend a safe, properly-sized and equipped educational facility.

    

7. Bring Pre-Kindergarten--Adult Education curricula, school staff, and student services into alignment so that programs will be well integrated and mutually reinforcing as students progress from school to school both within the city and throughout the region.

    

8. Integrate technology throughout our Pre-Kindergarten—Adult Education curricula and assure equal access by all students to such technology.

    

9. Require each school to develop a plan which ensures maximum parent and community involvement and support for high quality learning and personal growth.

    

10. Develop community and responsible citizenship by A) teaching all students a language other than their native language, B) providing opportunity and encouragement for students to perform community service, and C) recruiting, hiring, and developing our own workforce as a model of diversity.