What the Curriculum Audit Reveals About School

School Administrator, Dec, 1995 by Virginia C. Vertiz

What can school reformers learn from the curriculum management audit? A recent study by this author and Glynn Bates, principal of West Springfield High School in Fairfax County, Va., gleaned some lessons for reform from 74 such audits undertaken by school districts between 1988 and 1995. The study addressed how these districts compared on the five audit standards.

Since the purpose of an audit is not to extol the virtues of school districts but to identify areas for improvement, most findings relate to deficiencies in management practices of school systems.

Critical Concepts

When attempting to improve the functioning of a school system, one needs to understand the critical concepts of curriculum design and delivery. Much criticism has been heaped on schools because of poor delivery; that is, because schools aren't adapting instruction to reach all students. While poor delivery is a serious problem, students who benefit from even the most effective instructional approaches may come up short if the K-12 curriculum is weak or the necessary linkages are not in place to support instruction.

The late W. Edwards Deming, father of the quality movement, taught that people can be making their best efforts (a delivery issue) and yet be unable to improve if the system is poorly structured (a design issue). Auditors find that most deficiencies relate to design issues. Poorly conceptualized policies, planning documents, or curriculum guides are some examples. Lack of alignment between the written, taught, and tested curriculum, system inequities, ineffective budget design, and inadequate facilities are others.

Clearly, improving the system for developing and delivering curriculum 11 reap great rewards: more efficient operation of schools, improved student achievement, optimized use of staff, equity for all students, improved superintendent-board relations, sharpened focus, and more community involvement, to name a few.

The study found these common characteristics most prevalent within each of the five audit standards.

* Standard No. 1: Control: A school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs, and personnel.

The most prevalent common indicators of control in a school system are policy, planning, and organizational structure. While most districts were deficient in these areas, a few were strong.

Well-delineated policies on curriculum management provide an operational framework for the design and delivery of a school system's curriculum. But having well-designed policy is not sufficient. Policies must be effectively implemented, and none of the audits reported proper implementation.

Long-range planning is essential to continuously improve the system when student needs are constantly changing. Effective planning includes scanning the local community and future trends to assess how this impacts on students and curriculum.

A functional organizational structure organizes personnel to ensure the effective and efficient design and delivery pf curriculum. Communication must t be effective both across grades, subjects, and schools and vertically, throughout the organization, so that system policies or goals are translated into school course content.

* Standard No. 2: Direction: A school system has established clear and valid objectives for students.

The two common indicators of direction most often cited in audit reports pertain to quality of curriculum guides and the curriculum management structure. Most districts fell short of meeting the criteria on both elements.

An adequate curriculum management structure provides strong directional focus to facilitate the design, delivery, and assessment of curriculum. Curriculum guides are a key indicator for this standard. Weak written curriculum is a design problem, not a delivery issue. Obviously the optimal scenario is that districts have strong curriculum guides in every program and grade and that teachers use these guides to plan lessons and units.

Standard No. 3: Connectivity and Equity: A school system demonstrates internal connectivity and rational equity in its program development and implementation.

The common indicators most often cited that pertain to connectivity and equity in a school system are equity design, monitoring practices, staff development design, and course articulation and coordination. Most districts were deficient in these important areas. However, there were notable exceptions.

A well-managed school district reflects a strong commitment to equity and fairness for all children 4 across numerous aspects of the instructional program. Equitable distribution of resources, access to programms, representation in special programms and disciplinary procedures are a few of the many issues examined.

Instructional monitoring in the form of curriculum and instructional supervision is an integral part of school leadership for improving teaching and learning. When auditors look for "connectivity" in a school district, they examine the relationship between a system's policies and operations. Monitoring is one means of assuring those connections.