Office of Accountability September 20, 2011 Office of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Office of Accountability September 20, 2011

Office of Accountability Superintendent Office of Accountability 2011-2012 Organizational Chart Ron Rode Supervising Executive Director Administrative Assistant II Office of Accountability Elizabeth Kramer Research and Reporting Performance Management and Monitoring and Accountabillity Assessment Services Department Evaluation Reporting Department Peter Bell Dina Policar Vikki Henton Erin Gordon Director Director Program Manager Director Senior Systems Analyst/ Resource Teacher Resource Teachers Administrative Assistant II Programmer (1.0 FTE) (3.0 FTE) (3.0 FTE) (3.0 FTE) Cynthia Craft Dario Gutierrez Samantha Clabaugh Lorenzo Curevas Mary Johnson Denise Ormsbee James Gustafson Susan Weinshanker Velvet Wright Tatiana Popescu Research Systems Analyst Administrative Aide Planning Analyst (1.0 FTE) Educational Research (2.0 FTE) Jeff Jones (1.0 FTE) Specialist Donna Havelin Marcellus Walker (3.0 FTE) Beverly Navarro Leah Baylon Mara Bernd Microcomputer Lorri Frangkiser Applications Training Administrative Aide Stock Clerk Specialist (1.0 FTE) (2.0 FTE) (1.0 FTE) Maria Johnson Israel Diaz de Leon Tressa Renee Research Systems Alice Stewart Analyst (1.0 FTE) Nick Nicolas Clerk Typist III Supervising Clerk Typist III (1.0 FTE) Educational Research (2.0 FTE) Berdalia Holt Griselda Aguirre Specialist Teresa Haywood Planning Analyst Vacant (1FTE) Karen Wilson Editor (1.0 FTE) Chuck Allen Administrative Assistant I 2 (1.0 FTE) Cathy Nunez -11-11

Office of Accountability: Assessment Services Department – Responsibilities ™ Coordinate the administration and processing of all district, state, and federally mandated assessments ™ Provide training and support for site test coordinators and principals; ™ Maintain test security ensuring appropriate test administration and test preparation procedures are followed at all school sites ™ Conduct investigations of reported testing problems Staffing (FTE = 10; all classified) ™ Director, 3 Administrative Assistants, 2 Administrative Aides, 2 Clerk Typists, and 2 Stock Clerks 3

Office of Accountability: Monitoring and Accountability Reporting Department – Responsibilities ™ Train and support sites with SPSAs (SBB), SSCs, WASC ™ Support the District Advisory Council (DAC) for Compensatory Education ™ Monitor federal and state compliance for compensatory education programs ™ Complete the Consolidated Application Staffing (FTE = 7; 4 certificated and 3 classified) ™ Program Manager, 3 Resource Teachers, 1 Planning Analyst, 1 Administrative Aide, 1 Clerk Typist 4

Office of Accountability: Performance Management and Evaluation Department – Responsibilities ™ Conduct program and policy evaluation; ™ Perform mandated parent notification for Program Improvement; ™ Facilitate/write school PI restructuring plans; ™ Provide training, support, and oversight for DataDirector; ™ Provide survey/scanning services for other departments ™ Provide support to QEIA schools Staffing (FTE = 5; 1 certificated and 4 classified) ™ Director, 1 Resource Teacher, 1 Educational Research Specialist, 1 Research Analyst, 1 Microcomputer Applications Training Specialist 5

Office of Accountability: Research and Reporting Department – Responsibilities ™ Process student, school, and district achievement, assessment, demographic, and other data; ™ Analyze data and prepare reports (e.g., CST, CAHSEE, dropouts and graduates, AP, SAT, ACT, etc.) ™ Collect, transform, and submit data for mandated reporting (e.g., CALPADS, CBEDS, OCR, SARC, etc.) ™ Maintain an extensive website to make data accessible to staff and public ™ Coordinate and monitor research within the district ™ Maintain the Course of Study and UC a-g course lists ™ Support the Board, district leadership, and staff with customized data and analyses for their reporting, planning, decision-making, fundraising, and other needs Staffing (FTE = 11; all classified) ™ Director, 3 Educational Research Specialists, 3 Senior Systems Analysts/ 6 Programmers, 1 Research Systems Analyst, 1 Editor, 1 Planning Analyst, 1 Administrative Assistant

Office of Accountability – Responsibilities ™ Oversee work of branch departments ™ Oversee updates to the Local Education Agency Plan ™ Prepare briefings and communicate with the Board, staff, and the public ™ Contribute to district initiatives (e.g. CRCP, Strategic Process, School Closure, AAAE workgroups) ™ Maintain relevant district procedures Staffing ™ Executive Director, Supervising Administrative Assistant ™ Total FTEs = 35 7

Office of Accountability Priorities – 1. Mandates and compliance 2. Serving sites (teachers and principals) and departments 3. Agreements/Contracts (e.g. grants) 4. District/Board priorities 5. Ad hoc requests 8

Office of Accountability Budget Challenges – Budget Item 2009-10 2011-12 Change Change % Overall Budget $6,400,083 $4,507,026 $1,893,057 -30% FTEs 45 35 -10 -22% FTE % of Budget 70% 78% +8 +11% 9

Office of Accountability Budget Challenges – 1. Elimination of district screening and diagnostic assessments 2. No expansion of district benchmark and formative assessments 3. Lack of data to effectively implement RTI 2 and other interventions 4. Assignment of work to diminishing numbers of staff 5. Limited ability to conduct program evaluations 6. Reduced ability to respond to new initiatives 7. Reduced ability for others to collaborate/meet deadlines 8. Quality of data can be compromised 10

Office of Accountability Cost Efficiencies – 1. Use district resources where possible for services 2. Use lowest bidders on outside contracts 3. Complete or bring projects in-house (e.g., SARC FITNESSGRAM, PBIS surveys, PI restructuring plans) 4. Automate processes where able (internally and across district, e.g., GATE, Special Ed.) 11

Office of Accountability Cost Effectiveness – 1. Maximize apportionment reimbursement (~$475K for state assessments) 2. Cost avoidance (re-scoring of tests) 3. Avoiding categorical fund repayments 4. Building capacity for staff to be self-sufficient in data access and analysis 5. Provide services and supports to increase efficiency in other departments (e.g., Special Ed., GATE). 6. Assuring accuracy of data 12

Office of Accountability Programmatic Differences in 2011-12 – 1. Reduced staffing results in less timely support to schools and delays in responding to staff and public data requests 2. Increased CALPADS work (more cycles) and less staff time 3. Increased number of schools in PI; more schools in Year 4 to write restructuring plans 4. District PI Year 3 — Corrective Action 5. Fewer/different staff members at sites to enter data; therefore, quality of data (accuracy and cleanliness) could be compromised; district achievement indicators may be affected 13

Office of Accountability: Impact of Further Cuts – 1. Increased time to respond to staff and public information/data requests 2. Quality of data (accuracy and cleanliness) could be compromised; district achievement indicators may be affected 3. Cuts in other departments and at schools affect our ability to gather complete and accurate data 4. Reduced support/training for DataDirector 5. Increase in testing irregularities; could affect accountability results 6. Potential loss of state reimbursement for state testing 7. Further lack of data to effectively implement RTI 2 and other interventions 8. Lack of support to other programs/initiatives (e.g., GATE, PBIS, Sp. Ed., grants) 9. Reduction in site training/support with SPSAs and SSC mandates 10. Increased risk of non-compliant use of categorical funds 11. Inability to conduct program/policy evaluations 14