|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Tolleson Union High 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 Learners (ELL) program.
Administration (see pages 5 through 11)
In fiscal year 2006, the District’s administrative costs per
pupil and number of administrative positions were similar to the comparable
districts’. However, Tolleson UHSD did not adequately control some expenditures
and did not always maintain documentation. For example, $26,000 of purchases on
the Superintendent’s district credit card, including items such as meals,
flowers, employee gifts, and repairs on his personal vehicle, were not properly
documented and may not have been appropriate. Other district purchases on store
charge accounts were also not properly documented. In addition, the District
inappropriately paid to some staff cell phone stipends that were not specified
in employment contracts and do not appear to have been approved by the governing
board. Further, the District did not establish proper user security to protect
its accounting system’s integrity. For example, several accounting system users
were given access to more functions than were necessary for their duties, and
access had not been removed for three former employees. Finally, the District
holds an annual golf fund-raiser, but spent less than half of the proceeds for
the intended purposes. Also, it is unclear if statute allows school districts to
conduct such fund-raisers. Use of the district credit card and the fund-raiser’s
proceeds are under further review by the Auditor General’s Office.
Student transportation (see pages 13 through 15)
The District’s student transportation costs were similar to
comparable districts’ costs, but the program still needs improvement. Tolleson
UHSD spent more on student transportation than it received in related revenues,
subsidizing its program by approximately $148,000 in fiscal year 2006. Also, its
reported number of riders did not agree with supporting records. Further,
performance measures such as bus capacity and cost per mile would facilitate
program management.
Plant operation and maintenance (see pages 17 through 18)
Tolleson UHSD’s $741 per-pupil and $5.44 per-square-foot
plant costs were similar to those of districts with similar size and number of
students. Further, the District is preparing for the anticipated reduction in
excess utility funding by working to replace older, less efficient equipment and
implementing a software program to analyze utility consumption. The law
authorizing additional funding for excess utilities is set to expire at the end
of fiscal year 2009.
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. Tolleson UHSD’s plan for spending its Proposition 301 monies was
complete, addressing how its base pay, performance pay, and menu option monies
were to be spent, and the District spent its Proposition 301 monies according to
statutory guidelines. However, auditors found that about 56 employees received
incorrect amounts of Proposition 301 monies because of a clerical error. Of the
39 errors that were more than $100 each, 24 employees were underpaid by as much
as $2,700 each, and 15 employees were overpaid by as much as $2,600 each.
Classroom dollars (see pages 23 through 25)
Statute requires the Auditor General to determine the
percentage of every dollar that Arizona school districts spend in the classroom.
Therefore, auditors reviewed the District’s recording of classroom and other
expenditures to determine their accuracy. After correcting more than $3 million
of accounting errors, Tolleson UHSD’s fiscal year 2006 classroom dollar
percentage decreased by almost 4 percentage points to 57.7 percent, which is
lower than the state average of 58.3 percent for the same fiscal year and the
national average of 61.5 percent.
In addition, Tolleson UHSD’s fiscal year 2006 per-pupil
spending was also lower than the state and national averages. This lower
spending, coupled with the lower classroom dollars percentage, resulted in the
District’s spending $3,402 per pupil in the classroom versus the state average
of $3,981 and the national average of $5,274. Two reasons for the lower
per-pupil spending included Tolleson UHSD’s spending less federal and state
program monies than the comparable districts and receiving a smaller amount of
funding because its teachers were less experienced than other districts’
teachers.
English Language Learner programs, costs, and funding
(see pages 27 through 32)
Statute requires the Auditor General to review school
district compliance with English Language Learner (ELL) requirements. In fiscal
year 2006, Tolleson UHSD identified approximately 4 percent of its students as
English Language Learners and provided instruction for them in several different
types of programs, including structured English immersion, bilingual education,
and compensatory instruction components.
In fiscal year 2006, Tolleson UHSD did not separately account
for ELL-related costs, and they could not be determined from the District’s
records. During fiscal year 2007, the District began recording the incremental
portion of some ELL teachers’ salaries, but did not identify these costs for all
ELL teachers. These incremental salary costs represent the additional costs
involved in educating non-English speaking students and occur because the ELL
teachers have smaller class sizes than teachers with English-proficient
students.
For fiscal year 2007, the District received an additional
$56,332 through the Compensatory Instruction (CI) Fund budget process; however,
these monies were not spent in fiscal year 2007. District officials indicated
that the monies were received too late in the year to implement additional CI
programs. At the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year, the District was
awaiting ADE’s final approval of the fiscal year 2008 CI budget before starting
the CI programs even though the fiscal year 2007 funding was available.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
