What the Curriculum Audit Reveals About School.

What can school reformers learn from the curriculum management audit? A recent study by this author and Glynn Bates, principal of West Springfield High School in Fairfax County, Va., gleaned some lessons for reform from 74 such audits undertaken by school districts between 1988 and 1995. The study addressed how these districts compared on the five audit standards.

Since the purpose of an audit is not to extol the virtues of school districts but to identify areas for improvement, most findings relate to deficiencies in management practices of school systems.

Critical Concepts

When attempting to improve the functioning of a school system, one needs to understand the critical concepts of curriculum design and delivery. Much criticism has been heaped on schools because of poor delivery; that is, because schools aren't adapting instruction to reach all students. While poor delivery is a serious problem, students who benefit from even the most effective instructional approaches may come up short if the K-12 curriculum is weak or the necessary linkages are not in place to support instruction.

The late W. Edwards Deming, father of the quality movement, taught that people can be making their best efforts (a delivery issue) and yet be unable to improve if the system is poorly structured (a design issue). Auditors find that most deficiencies relate to design issues. Poorly conceptualized policies, planning documents, or curriculum guides are some examples. Lack of alignment between the written, taught, and tested curriculum, system inequities, ineffective budget design, and inadequate facilities are others.

Clearly, improving the system for developing and delivering curriculum 11 reap great rewards: more efficient operation of schools, improved student achievement, optimized use of staff, equity for all students, improved superintendent-board relations, sharpened focus, and more community involvement, to name a few.

The study found these common characteristics most prevalent within each of the five audit standards.

* Standard No. 1: Control: A school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel.

The most prevalent common indicators of control in a school system are policy, planning, and organizational structure. While most districts were deficient in these areas, a few were strong.

Well-delineated policies on curriculum management provide an operational framework for the design and delivery of a school system's curriculum. But having well-designed policy is not sufficient. Policies must be effectively implemented, and none of the audits reported proper implementation.

Long-range planning is essential to continuously improve the system when student needs are constantly changing. Effective planning includes scanning the local community and future trends to assess how this impacts on students and curriculum.

A functional organizational structure organizes personnel to ensure the effective and efficient design and delivery pf curriculum. Communication must t be effective both across grades, subjects, and schools and vertically, throughout the organization, so that system policies or goals are translated into school course content.

* Standard No. 2: Direction: A school system has established clear and valid objectives for students.

The two common indicators of direction most often cited in audit reports pertain to quality of curriculum guides and the curriculum management structure. Most districts fell short of meeting the criteria on both elements.

An adequate curriculum management structure provides strong directional focus to facilitate the design, delivery, and assessment of curriculum. Curriculum guides are a key indicator for this standard. Weak written curriculum is a design problem, not a delivery issue. Obviously the optimal scenario is that districts have strong curriculum guides in every program and grade and that teachers use these guides to plan lessons and units.

Standard No. 3: Connectivity and Equity: A school system demonstrates internal connectivity and rational equity in its program development and implementation.

The common indicators most often cited that pertain to connectivity and equity in a school system are equity design, monitoring practices, staff development design, and course articulation and coordination. Most districts were deficient in these important areas. However, there were notable exceptions.

A well-managed school district reflects a strong commitment to equity and fairness for all children 4 across numerous aspects of the instructional program. Equitable distribution of resources, access to programms, representation in special programms and disciplinary procedures are a few of the many issues examined.

Instructional monitoring in the form of curriculum and instructional supervision is an integral part of school leadership for improving teaching and learning. When auditors look for "connectivity" in a school district, they examine the relationship between a system's policies and operations. Monitoring is one means of assuring those connections.

Staff development programs and services require effectively preparing people for implementing the curriculum. Systemic staff development contributes to effective long-term continual improvement and change.

* Standard No. 4: Feedback: A school system uses the results from system-designed and/or adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs.

The two most common indicators cited on the feedback standard are scope of the testing program and use of assessment data.

The primary purpose of a sound assessment program is to provide timely and critical feedback for continuous curriculum development, instructional development, and program development and evaluation. A sound assessment program also uses information to design and deliver effective teaching and to terminate ineffective programs.

* Standard No. 5: Productivity: A school system has improved productivity.

The most common indicators cited in audit reports pertaining to productivity are curriculum-driven budgeting and facilities.

Systemwide productivity is improved and facilitated when there is a direct relationship between curricular needs, priorities, and goals and resource allocation. To date, no district has been audited that has a curriculum-driven budget in place, although some districts are moving toward that goal.

More typically, districts have line-item budgeting, focusing on financial reporting rather than on program-centered planning. In a district using curriculum-driven budgeting, emphasis is placed on program needs and curricular priorities, and then staffing and resources are reorganized to support them.

In order to deliver the curriculum, school districts require adequate facilities. Auditors examine facilities for sufficient space, cleanliness, and safety. Site visits also reveal whether resources are distributed equitably.

An Action Plan

The analysis revealed the extent to which school districts that have had curriculum audits are adequate in major management functions relating to curriculum design and delivery. Although most findings concerned design issues, ineffective implementation appears to stand in the way of districts realizing their potential when the proper components are in place.

While a review of audit recommendations was not within the scope of the study, they are a segment of each curriculum management audit. They represent the auditors' best professional judgments regarding how to address problems. It is up to the school district to decide whether to implement any or all of the audit recommendations.

Many districts find that audit recommendations complement strategic planning efforts. District leaders planning improvement efforts would do well to look at areas cite here as they address changes in their management structure to strengthen school systems.

Curriculum Audit Services and Training

The Curriculum Management Audit first was offered by the accounting firm Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., where a partner, Fenwick English, adapted it from the financial audit process.

Subsequently, English, now dean of the School of Education at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, brought the service to AASA, and the National Curriculum Audit Center was created. The audit is based upon organizational theory and effective schools research.

The first curriculum audit was conducted in 1979 in the Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools. Since then, nearly 100 audits have been performed in 26 states, the District of Columbia, and two foreign countries.

The audit reveals the extent to which a curriculum management system is sound, valid, and operational. Information from documents, interviews, and site visits is gathered and corroborated to determine the extent to which a school district is meeting its goals and objectives.

The audit focuses on curriculum and instruction and other operations that enhance or hinder curricular design and/or delivery. It provides an intensive look at how well a school system has set valid directions for pupil achievement, concentrated resources to accomplish those directions, and improved performance. It does not concern itself with the content of curriculum, but with how curriculum is developed and implemented. A public report is issued as the final product.

The audit process is an established means of analyzing management operations in all types of school districts. Most audits are contracted voluntarily by districts, but audit results also have been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation concerning school finance, general resource management, and school desegregation in a number of states. The audit was an important data source in state takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky.

AASA's National Curriculum Audit Center trains curriculum auditors and performs curriculum audits. Auditors serving on each curriculum audit are trained through an intensive program designed and developed by NCAC for the purpose of conducting audits.

The cost of a curriculum audit generally ranges from $22,000 to $65,000, depending upon a number of variables.

Interested school leaders can learn more about the audit at AASA's 1996 National Conference on Education in San Diego. In addition, information about the audit is available from the National Curriculum Audit Center, 1801 N. Moore St., Arlington, Va. 22209, or by calling 703-875-0702.

Virginia Vertiz