|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Glendale Elementary School District pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1279.03(A)(9). This performance audit examines six aspects of the District’s operations: administration, student transportation, plant operation and maintenance, expenditures of sales taxes received under Proposition 301, the accuracy of district records used to calculate the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom, and the District’s English Language Learner programs.
Administration (see pages 5 through 8)
Glendale ESD’s fiscal year 2008 per-pupil administrative costs were 13 percent higher than the comparable districts’ average costs because the District employed more assistant principals, administrative information technology personnel, and administrative assistants. As a result, the District spent a higher percentage of its available operating dollars on administration, leaving it less to spend in the classroom. In addition to higher administration costs, the District inappropriately spent $55,000 of public monies on meals for district staff who were not on travel status.
Student transportation (see pages 9 through 13)
In fiscal year 2008, Glendale ESD spent about $1.5 million more to operate its transportation program than it received in transportation revenues, and it had higher per-mile costs than the comparable districts’ average. The District’s higher costs arose primarily because safety concerns, such as railroad tracks, canals, and busy streets, led the District to transport riders who would normally be considered ineligible for transportation because they live too close to a school. As a result, the District operated many short routes and drove fewer miles per rider than the comparable districts, on average. Despite the higher costs, the transportation program is generally efficient. For example, the District operates efficient bus routes, and it uses technology to further improve the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. However, the District should discontinue using three of its buses that are not in compliance with state minimum standards to transport homeless students to and from school.
Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 15 through 17)
The District’s fiscal year 2008 per-square-foot plant operation and maintenance costs were slightly higher than the comparable districts’ average primarily because of higher salary and benefit costs. These costs were high in part because the District employed substitute custodians to cover the shifts of custodians who were out sick, while the comparable districts either did not use substitute custodians or did not use them as frequently as Glendale ESD. Further, the District’s electricity costs were higher than the comparable districts’ average, possibly because it maintained buildings that were generally older. Older buildings are often less energy- and cost-efficient than newer buildings. However, the District has undertaken efforts, such as implementing an energy conservation plan and an energy management system, to help control its energy costs.
Proposition 301 monies (see pages 19 through 21)
In November 2000, voters passed Proposition 301, which increased the state-wide sales tax to provide additional resources for education programs. For fiscal year 2008, Glendale ESD spent its Proposition 301 monies according to its plan and for purposes authorized under statute. On average, eligible employees received $5,632 in Proposition 301 increases.
Classroom dollars (see pages 23 through 24)
Glendale ESD’s 55.7 percent classroom dollar percentage was lower than the comparable districts’, state, and national averages. Because of this lower-than-average classroom dollar percentage and because it received less overall revenue than comparable districts, the District spent significantly less in the classroom than the comparable districts. Two factors affected the District’s spending. First and most significantly, Glendale ESD received less overall revenue than the comparable districts averaged primarily because three of the comparable districts received desegregation monies, while Glendale received none. Further, the District spent more money per pupil on administration, leaving fewer dollars available for the classroom. In part because of these two factors and also because the District’s teachers were generally less experienced, Glendale ESD’s reported average teacher salary was 12 percent lower than the reported average for the comparable districts.
English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding (see pages 25 through 28)
In fiscal year 2009, Glendale ESD identified approximately 22 percent of its students as English language learners (ELL) and provided English language development (ELD) instruction for these students primarily through Structured English Immersion (SEI) and compensatory instruction programs. However, the District’s SEI program did not fully comply with state requirements primarily because the District made some minor errors in grouping ELL students, which caused some students at one school to be placed on Individual Language Learner Plans when they should have been placed in ELD classes. Additionally, the District did not account for its incremental ELL-related costs throughout the fiscal year, but stated that it planned to adjust its records at the end of the year to properly account for these costs.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
|
