5. Objectives: The district’s strategic plan did not contain specific, measurable and timed objectives. Action plans found within the strategic plan had yearly deadlines but were broad and difficult to measure. School plans and department plans using the same format met this criterion. Goals were measurable, persons responsible were identified, and goals contained time limitations.
Evaluation: No formal program of measuring objective attainment was included in the strategic
Program evaluations were part of all school site-plans and some
7. Action Plans: The strategic plan includes yearly due dates. However, it does not include the person responsible or cost. All school plans and some department plans met this criterion.
Integration: No school or district plans were coordinated with the 1997-98 Strategic Plan.
address anywhere from 14-57 percent of the and action plans by each department to attain District Focus. There is a lack of focused plans. Therefore, this criterion is not met.
District Focus goals. The Superintendent’s Goals the superintendent’s goals are not aligned with the integration between district goals and supporting
9. Planning and Budget Timeline Relationships: Projected costs are included in most plans. However, while the 2001-04 Technology Plan recognizes budget constraints, other plans do not address this consideration. There is no relationship between district finances and individual school and department anticipated costs.
Multi Year Planning and Goal Feasibility: The strategic plan was designed to be a five-year plan. However, the plan is in disuse. The current District Focus document is designed for two years. The school site-plans are three-year plans. District department plans range from one-year to three-year documents. The Human Resource Plan contains 72 separate actions in a one-year plan. Feasibility is questioned.
Connected Plans: No planning documents are aligned with the strategic plan. Only four are aligned with the District Focus. Little to no integration between plans is evident.
Stakeholder Commitment: Committee members who worked on the strategic plan are listed. Stakeholders who are members of their site-based council were assumed to be involved. However, stakeholder involvement often was limited to follow-up surveys.
Monitoring in Design: There was no central monitoring plan to assess school or department goal attainment.
Auditors assessed the strategic plan and the other district planning documents listed in Exhibit 1.2.1 against the criteria. Only five of the 13 criteria were met or partially met. Plan Integration and Connected Plans were the least evident of the criteria.
Finding 1.3: The Organizational Structure Does Not Meet Audit Criteria for Effective Organizational Action.
Administrative role relationships are important in an educational organization for effectively grouping curriculum management tasks and functions. Without such grouping, there can be no economy of scale in administrative deployment. A functional, accurate, and timely delineation of administrative relationships is usually depicted in a graphic form, and is called the table of organization or the organizational structure of the school system.
The auditors reviewed the organizational structure provided by the Clover Park School District, and compared its characteristics with the criteria found in Generally Accepted Audit Standards for
Curriculum Management. organizational structure, and
The auditors also reviewed board policy, which refers to the conducted interviews with the Board, superintendent, and other
Clover Park School District Audit Report Page 24