Descriptions for Evaluation of Funding Consequences
Determinations to fund/non-fund specific programs were reported to be informally based upon decisions made by respective site or superintendent’s councils. No standardized forms or procedures requiring data analysis were presented as customary elements of the budgeting process.
Competition on Basis of Needs and Effectiveness
Competition among budget requests that are based on needs analysis or results of the service represented in the proposal occurs informally at the level in which the decision is made. Such considerations lead to a rank ordering of priorities.
Site-based councils have broadened participation in the decision-making process. Participation in site-councils varies by school. Attrition of building principals (see Finding 5.3) and site-council
members plan and
created the condition where may not fully understand.
individuals are implementing programs, which they did not Lack of understanding and misunderstandings regarding
budgeting processes have limited the effectiveness of addition, the budget revision process that occurs as new school-level service due to a loss of funding.
the budgetary decision-making financial data become available
process. In can interrupt
Auditors found little congruence among curricular objectives, results, and financial allocation. School budgets were primarily based on per-pupil allocation. Principals and site-based teams work to fund particular, but oftentimes unrelated programs, all of which lacked program evaluation procedures (see Finding 4.3) that are directly reflected in the next budgeting cycle. This process results in disparities due to resource allocation not based upon educational need (see Finding 3.5 and Exhibit 5.1.1).
Finding 5.2: Facilities and Educational Environments Are Adequate, but Some Problems Require Attention.
There is a direct relationship between the physical environment of a school and its ability to deliver curriculum effectively. School environments can support effective and successful instruction given appropriate classroom and shared facility space, cleanliness and sanitation, healthy and safe conditions, and timely maintenance and upkeep. In addition, the provision of comparable facilities and furnishings in all schools throughout the district support the consistent delivery of the instructional program.
Auditors visited each of the district’s schools. Visitations were made in instructional and non- instructional areas in order to gather data on the learning environment and any special problems or impediments that may exist. Specifically, auditors were concerned with adequacy of space, overall maintenance, accessibility, safety, ventilation, and use of the buildings. Furnishings were viewed for comparability and adequacy. Interviews were conducted with building and district administrators and support personnel at the school building sites and district office. The auditors also reviewed several documents referring to facilities, including board policies, procedures, budgets, CPSD Board Executive Summary on Preliminary Facility Data, and summaries of individual building history and future maintenance needs.
Clover Park School District Audit Report Page 102