|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Miami Unified School District pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
§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 English Language Learner program.
Administration (see pages 5 through 9)
Miami USD’s fiscal year 2007 per-pupil administrative costs
of $1,173 were 31 percent higher than the comparable districts’ average costs of
$893 per pupil. Costs were high primarily because the District paid the medical,
dental, vision, and life insurance premiums for 50 retirees who had retired
after working for the District for at least 10 years and had elected to receive
district insurance coverage until they become Medicare eligible or accepted
coverage through a different plan. The District also paid retirement bonuses and
early-retirement incentives to 4 employees. In addition to having higher
administrative costs, the District did not maintain adequate controls over its
accounting system, cash, and inventory. For example, district office employees
were granted access to the District’s computerized accounting system that
allowed them to execute more tasks than necessary to perform their job duties.
Student transportation (see pages 11 through 15)
Miami USD’s fiscal year 2007 per-rider transportation costs
of $664 were 20 percent lower than the comparable districts’ average costs of
$835. The District’s costs were low because it did not employ a transportation
director, while all of the comparable districts each employed a director or
supervisor at an average annual salary of approximately $39,000. Further, Miami
USD’s fiscal year 2007 average bus driver salary was about 12 percent lower than
the comparable districts’ average salary. In addition, using school buses that
were only approximately 5 years old helped the District keep its repair and
maintenance and supply costs low because many of these costs were covered by
manufacturers’ warranties. Despite low costs, the District can take steps to
further improve its transportation program, such as improving the efficiency of
its bus routes; establishing and monitoring performance measures, such as cost
per rider, cost per mile, and bus capacity utilization; and implementing a
required bus preventative maintenance program.
Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 17 through 21)
Miami USD’s fiscal year 2007 per-square-foot plant operation
and maintenance costs of $4.09 were 15 percent lower than the comparable
districts’ average costs of $4.82. Despite operating two of its schools at well
below capacity, the District was able to achieve lower costs because it employed
fewer plant positions and each position maintained more square feet than the
comparable districts’ averaged. Further, the District had lower repair and
maintenance costs because its employees performed more of this work, while three
of the comparable districts relied more heavily on contracted vendors. However,
because of some higher cost services and supplies, such as water and natural
gas, opportunities are available for the District to lower its plant costs even
further and possibly redirect the savings to the classroom.
Proposition 301 monies (see pages 23 through 26)
In November 2000, voters passed Proposition 301, which
increased the state-wide sales tax to provide additional resources for education
purposes. For fiscal year 2007, the District spent its Proposition 301 monies
for statutorily authorized purposes. However, the District used approximately
$34,000 of these monies to supplant other district monies. Further, the
District’s Proposition 301 plan was incomplete in that it did not identify the
positions eligible to receive the monies or specify the amount of performance
pay employees could potentially earn. Additionally, the District did not ensure
that proper documentation was maintained to show that employees met the criteria
for one of its performance goals. On average, in fiscal year 2007, eligible
employees received base pay increases of $1,025, performance pay of $2,055, and
additional compensation increases through menu option monies of $2,300 for a
total average increase of $5,380.
Classroom dollars (see pages 27 through 30)
Statute requires the Auditor General to determine the
percentage of every dollar Arizona school districts spend in the classroom.
Therefore, auditors reviewed the District’s recording of classroom and other
expenditures to determine their accuracy. After correction for classification
errors, the District’s fiscal year 2007 classroom dollar percentage decreased to
51.6 percent, which is more than 6 points below the state average of 57.9
percent for the same fiscal year. In addition to spending more per pupil on
administrative costs, the District spent 62 percent more per pupil than the
comparable districts on student support services because it employed more
student support staff, such as guidance counselors. Further, the District spent
36 percent more per pupil on food service costs than the comparable districts
because it served more meals per pupil and had a higher percentage of students
eligible for free or reduced price meals through the National School Lunch
Program.
In addition, the District inappropriately spent $29,000 of its extracurricular
activities tax credit monies on activities that did not meet statutory
requirements. Specifically, the monies were spent primarily on items for a
sports hall of fame honoring former Miami USD athletes, while statute specifies
that tax credit monies can be used only for activities that are educational and
that benefit currently enrolled students.
English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding
(see pages 31 through 36)
Statute requires the Auditor General to review school
district compliance with English Language Learner (ELL) requirements. In fiscal
year 2007, slightly more than 2 percent of Miami USD’s students were identified
as English Language Learners. The District placed its ELL students in mainstream
classrooms where they received the same instruction as English-proficient
students. Although the District did not provide a structured English immersion (SEI)
program in fiscal years 2007 or 2008, its fiscal year 2009 approved SEI budget
indicates that the District will provide an SEI program that complies with ELL
Task Force models, including providing ELL students with 4 hours of daily
English language development.
In addition, the District’s student-level ELL data that it is statutorily
required to submit to the Arizona Department of Education contained a
significant amount of errors, which impacted funding and data integrity.
Further, although Miami USD received compensatory instruction (CI) monies, the
District did not provide its ELL students with a CI program because its
after-school and summer programs were open to all students and did not contain
required English language development instruction.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
|
