|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Nadaburg Unified 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)
In fiscal year 2008, Nadaburg USD’s administrative costs per pupil were similar to those of other districts with a similar number of students. However, because the District did not maintain adequate controls over its payroll and expenditure processes and access to its computerized accounting system, it exposed itself to increased risk of errors, fraud, and misuse of sensitive information.
Student transportation (see pages 9 through 13)
In fiscal year 2008, Nadaburg USD spent 12.6 percent of its available operating dollars on student transportation, compared to 4.9 percent spent by the comparable districts and the state-wide average of 4.4 percent. Although the District’s total transportation costs were also significantly higher, its program appeared to operate efficiently with adequately filled buses and a cost per mile of $2.58, which was lower than the comparable districts’ average. The District’s high transportation costs were the result of traveling extra miles to transport its high school students to other districts, since Nadaburg USD did not have a high school of its own. Because the District’s transportation costs are increasing at a faster pace than its transportation funding, the District needs to monitor its costs and establish performance measures to regularly evaluate its program efficiency. The District should also implement better controls over its fuel pumps to reduce the risk of unauthorized fuel usage.
Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 15 through 17)
In fiscal year 2008, Nadaburg USD spent 18 percent more per square foot on plant operation and maintenance than comparable districts’, on average. The higher costs were primarily the result of the District’s employing more plant operations and maintenance staff and spending more on general supplies and energy costs. Nadaburg USD had lower purchased service costs than comparable districts because it performed most repair and maintenance in-house and used inexpensive well water. However, these savings were offset by higher supply costs. The District also had slightly higher energy costs than comparable districts. Although the District has begun making some changes to reduce its energy consumption, it should also develop an energy conservation plan to ensure that energy consumption is monitored and staff is aware of policies and procedures to reduce energy usage. Implementing an energy conservation plan is especially important since the District’s utility costs have increased substantially with the opening of its second school in fiscal year 2009 and the anticipated reduction in funding for utility costs.
Proposition 301 monies (see pages 19 through 22)
In November 2000, voters passed Proposition 301, which increased the state-wide sales tax to provide additional resources for education purposes. Nadaburg Unified School District spent its Proposition 301 monies for purposes authorized by statute. However, some of its performance pay goals did not promote improved performance, and the District paid some employees without evaluating whether all performance goals were achieved.
Classroom dollars (see pages 23 through 24)
Nadaburg USD’s fiscal year 2008 classroom dollar percentage was 51.8 percent, significantly lower than the comparable districts’ average and the state and national averages. The primary cause of the District’s low classroom dollar percentage was its very high student transportation costs, which were three times those of the comparable districts, on average. Because the District transported students significantly more miles than comparable districts, it received and spent more transportation funding, which in turn lowered its classroom dollar percentage. The District spent its other monies in the classroom at about the same rate as comparable districts. As a result, Nadaburg USD spent $4,462 per-pupil in the classroom, an amount similar to that spent by comparable districts and the state average in fiscal year 2008.
English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding
(see pages 25 through 29)
In fiscal year 2009, Nadaburg USD failed to provide English language development services for 31 of its 96 identified English Language Learner (ELL) students. The District misunderstood ADE’s policy regarding parent notification and consent forms and therefore did not provide services unless the forms were returned. Further, the District’s Structured English Immersion program and its Compensatory Instruction program did not meet state requirements. The District did not provide 4 hours of English language development to all ELL students, did not properly use Individual Language Learner Plans, and mainstreamed ELL kindergarten students in regular classrooms. Further, the District’s Compensatory Instruction program inappropriately included non-ELL students and was not limited to improving English proficiency.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
