A Curriculum Audit™ · communicating roles and responsibilities associated with curriculum design and delivery.....52 Finding 1.3: While auditors found that planning is occurring

A Curriculum Audit™of the

Klein independent School diStrictKlein, Texas

Promise2Purpose

Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center Texas Association of School Administrators

406 East Eleventh Austin, Texas 78701

August 2017

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page iii

A Curriculum Audit™of the

Klein independent School diStrictKlein, Texas

Conducted Under the Auspices of Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center

Texas Association of School Administrators 406 East Eleventh

Austin, Texas 78701

(Copyright use authorization obtained from Curriculum Management Solutions, inc.

5619 NW 86th Street, Suite 500, Johnston, IA 50131)

Date Audit Presented: August 2017

Members of the Klein Independent School District Audit Team:

Lead AuditorKay Coleman, M.Ed.

AuditorsChristine Anderson, Ed.D. Linda Atkinson, Ph.D.

Dora Barrio, M.Ed. Lora Darden, Ph.D.Jim Ferrell, Ed.D. Robbin Gesch, M.Ed.

Susan Penny Gray, Ph.D. John Murdoch, Ed.D.Michelle Tenam-Zemach, Ed.D. Sue Van Hoozer, M.Ed.

Gary Zehrbach, Ph.D. Olivia Zepeda, M.Ed.

Off-Site AuditorsHeather Boeschen, B.A. Sarah McKenzie, Ph.D.

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page iv

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page v

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1

Background ...................................................................................................................................................1

Audit Background and Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................9

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit ............................................................................................10

Approach of the Audit ...........................................................................................................................10

II. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................11

The Model for the Curriculum Audit™.......................................................................................................11

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control .......................................................................................11

Standards for the Auditors ...........................................................................................................................12

Technical Expertise ...............................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Independence .............................................................................................................12

The Principle of Objectivity .................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Consistency ................................................................................................................12

The Principle of Materiality ..................................................................................................................13

The Principle of Full Disclosure ...........................................................................................................13

Data Sources of the Curriculum Audit™ ....................................................................................................14

Standards for the Curriculum Audit™ ........................................................................................................15

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................17

IV. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................23

STANDARD 1: The School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. ........23

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Klein Independent School District: ........................................23

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Klein Independent School District:.....................................23

Finding 1.1: Board policies meet state requirements but lack content and sufficient specificity to provide for adequate curriculum management direction or to ensure effective quality control. Numerous administrative directives are not current and are not linked to board policy. .....................24

Finding 1.2: The organizational chart does not meet audit criteria and is inadequate to reflect sound organizational management of the school system. Job descriptions are inadequate in clearly communicating roles and responsibilities associated with curriculum design and delivery. ................52

Finding 1.3: While auditors found that planning is occurring throughout the district, the plans lack some aspects of the audit standards for quality control of the design, deployment, and delivery of the curriculum. ............................................................................................................................................63

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page vi

STANDARD 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. ......................73

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Klein Independent School District: ........................................73

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Klein Independent School District:.....................................73

Finding 2.1: The Klein Independent School District lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan and a documented process to direct and implement the design, delivery, revision, or evaluation of curriculum across the school system. ...................................................................................................74

Finding 2.2: The scope of the written curriculum is adequate for all core and non-core subjects at pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) through grade 5 and for non-core courses at high school. The scope of the written curriculum is inadequate for core and non-core courses at the intermediate level and inadequate for core courses at the high school level to provide direction for instruction across all subject areas and grades. .......................................................................................................................91

Finding 2.3: The quality of the written curriculum is inadequate to inform instruction. The design of the curriculum documents provides a consistent template across some subjects and courses, but the availability and quality of critical components included in the curriculum documents needed to ensure delivery of instruction and mastery of student learning vary across subject areas and courses. ..........99

Finding 2.4: Congruency between the current district benchmark assessments and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills Student Expectations is disparate across grade levels, subjects, and courses. The design of instructional resources to support effective delivery of the district curriculum is inadequate to support student learning and success on state and local tests. There are too many standards and subskills to be taught to mastery in Algebra I given the time allotted for instruction. .135

Finding 2.5: The design of gifted and talented program services in Klein Independent School District is ineffective in meeting GT learners’ needs, and identification procedures are not sufficient to ensure that all students have timely access to the GT program. .....................................................................197

STANDARD 3: The School District Demonstrates Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Its Program Development and Implementation. ..................................................................................................................211

What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Klein Independent School District: ......................................211

Overview of What the Auditors Found in the Klein Independent School District:...................................211

Finding 3.1: The district provides an array of professional development opportunities; however, a comprehensive professional development plan is not in place to provide long-range direction and assure system coordination for professional development in support of desired student achievement. .......................................................................................................................................212

Finding 3.2: Inequalities and inequities exist among schools and students in a variety of functions, programs, and services that ultimately limit students’ access to learning opportunities and academic growth. This is in violation to district policy. ....................................................................................219

Finding 3.3: Observed instructional practices during classroom visits do not meet district expectations. Monitoring of instruction is inconsistent and lacks sufficient focus to improve curriculum delivery for the success of all students. ............................................................................246

Finding 3.4: Cognitive demand of classroom artifacts (student work samples) is frequently low, and contexts are overwhelmingly of the least engaging type in most of the core content areas. Inequalities in curriculum access are present in both secondary and elementary levels. Some elementary artifacts were below purported grade levels. ....................................................................................................265

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page vii

STANDARD 4: The School District Uses the Results from District-Designed and/or -Adopted Assessments to Adjust, Improve, or Terminate Ineffective Practices or Programs. ..................................................................299



Finding 4.1: There is no written district level comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation system plan to guide decision making for the improvement of student achievement. .....300

Finding 4.2: The scope of assessments in the district is inadequate to measure student mastery of the curriculum and to provide data necessary for instructional decision making. ....................................311

Finding 4.3: Assessment trends show increasing academic performance for the Klein ISD and that the district outperformed similar districts in the most recent year. Achievement gaps persist between student populations, however, and both postsecondary readiness and enrollment are lower than in districts serving similar students. ........................................................................................................320

Finding 4.4: The use of assessment data in decision making is emerging in some areas; however, a systematic approach to the use of data with regard to all programs and functions for informed decision making at all levels of the organization is lacking. .............................................................................341

STANDARD 5: The School District Has Improved Productivity. ..................................................................351



Finding 5.1: Comprehensive financial audits report that the district is fiscally sound. Budgetary decisions are primarily based on tradition, are formula driven, and are not tightly linked to the district’s curricular goals and strategic priorities. There are no cost benefit budget analyses based on ongoing program evaluation to ensure maximum productivity and achievement of the district’s vision. ..................................................................................................................................................352

Finding 5.2: The condition and functionality of district facilities is adequate; inadequate space exists on some campuses requiring portable classrooms; and projected growth requires continual planning. The district lacks a realistic replacement schedule for its bus and service vehicle fleets. ..................365

Finding 5.3: The initiation, modification, continuation, or termination of program interventions are not based upon any formalized evaluation procedures, resulting in insufficient quality control that is needed to ensure positive student achievement results. ......................................................................374

Finding 5.4: Klein ISD has invested heavily in technology with the goal of creating a 1:1 program for students in grades 6-12 by the beginning of the 2017-18 school year. While there are pockets of effective technology use in classrooms, this is not pervasive throughout the district. The current technology plan is inadequate to guide instructional delivery and ensure maximum student achievement in this 1:1 instructional environment. ............................................................................387

V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TCMAC-CMSi CURRICULUM AUDIT™ TEAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ................................................401

Recommendation 1: Adopt new and/or revise existing board policies and administrative regulations to communicate, clarify, and expand governance expectations. .........................................................401

Recommendation 2: Revise, adopt, and implement a table of organization and job descriptions that provide for control of district functions, support campuses in their delivery of curriculum, and lead to improved student learning. .................................................................................................................403

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page viii

Recommendation 3: Extend the quality of planning completed in 2016-17 for strategic planning, and incorporate planning for all functions under the umbrella of a comprehensive planning process to ensure linkage of organizational efforts and to support shared purpose. Revise the existing technology plan to address the quality criteria for an instructional technology program. ..................409

Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that coordinates and focuses all curriculum management functions and tasks across and within departments and schools. Deeply align current benchmark assessments and resources referenced in the district curriculum to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills; direct curriculum revision to ensure curriculum documents are of the highest quality and deeply aligned in content, context, and cognitive rigor with high stakes assessments. Redesign web-based curriculum for easier access. ...412

Recommendation 5: Develop, implement, and monitor plans for comprehensive professional development, identification of a basic instructional model that emphasizes higher order thinking skills, differentiated instruction and Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocols, and a plan to systematically eliminate disparities and inequities affecting student learning across the district. .....419

Recommendation 6: Develop a comprehensive student assessment and program evaluation system plan that provides for the systematic collection, analysis, dissemination, and application of student achievement and program evaluation results to promote improved student achievement. ................425

Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a three-year plan that aligns district and building level resources to curricular goals and strategic priorities. Include systematic cost-benefit analyses to assure that expenditures are producing desired results. ......................................................................428

VI. APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................................433

Appendix A: Auditors’ Biographical Data .........................................................................................435

Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed .......................................................................................441

Appendix C: Scope of the Written Curriculum in Core Content Courses Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 5 .................................................................................................................457

Appendix D: Scope of the Written Curriculum in Core Content Courses Grades 6-8 ......................473

Appendix E: Scope of the Written Curriculum in Core Content Courses Grades 9-12 .....................479

Appendix F: Klein ISD Organizational Chart ...................................................................................495

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page ix

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 0.1 Four-Year Enrollment Trends ....................................................................................................5

Exhibit 0.2 District Student Enrollment by Demographics ..........................................................................6

Exhibit 0.3 TEA Accountability Ratings and Distinctions Earned ...............................................................7

Exhibit S.0.1 Findings and Recommendations Aligned to Audit Standards .................................................18

Exhibit 1.1.1 Number of Policies and Regulations by Category and Level ..................................................26

Exhibit 1.1.2 Curriculum Management Board Policies Reviewed by the Audit Team .................................26

Exhibit 1.1.3 Curriculum Management Administrative Directives Reviewed by the Audit Team ...............30

Exhibit 1.1.4 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations for Standard One to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...........................................................................32

Exhibit 1.1.5 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations for Standard Two to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...........................................................................36

Exhibit 1.1.6 Auditors’ Analysis of Policy or Administrative Regulations for Standard Three to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .............................................................................................39

Exhibit 1.1.7 Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy and Administrative Regulations for Standard Four to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy ...........................................................................42

Exhibit 1.1.8 Auditors’ Analysis of Policy and Administrative Regulations for Standard Five to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .............................................................................................45

Exhibit 1.1.9 Summary Ratings of the Auditors’ Analysis of Board Policy for All Standards to Determine Quality and Degree of Adequacy .............................................................................................48

Exhibit 1.1.10 Local Board Policies with References to Administrative Regulations ....................................49

Exhibit 1.1.11 Principals’ Response to Question Regarding Policy Direction for Building Level Decision Making .....................................................................................................................................50

Exhibit 1.1.12 Central Office Administrator’s Response to Question Regarding Policy and Regulation Direction for Building Level Decision Making .......................................................................50

Exhibit 1.2.1 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Principles of Sound Organizational Management ............................................................................................................................53

Exhibit 1.2.2 Curriculum Management Audit Rating Indicators for Job Descriptions .................................57

Exhibit 1.2.3 Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions Using Audit Criteria and Indicators .....................57

Exhibit 1.2.4 Summary of Auditors’ Assessment of Job Descriptions Using Audit Criteria and Indicators 61

Exhibit 1.3.1 Plans Reviewed by Auditors ....................................................................................................65

Exhibit 1.3.2 Characteristics of Quality Planning Design, Deployment, and Delivery ................................66

Exhibit 1.3.3 Characteristics of District-wide Plan Quality for Design, Deployment, and Delivery............68

Exhibit 1.3.4 Characteristics of Department and School Improvement Plan Quality ...................................70

Exhibit 2.1.1 Tightly Held vs. Loosely Held Curriculum Management Functions and Components ..........75

Exhibit 2.1.2 Key Curriculum Planning Documents Reviewed by Auditors ................................................76

Exhibit 2.1.3 Curriculum Management Planning Characteristics and Auditors’ Assessment of District Approach ..................................................................................................................................77

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page x

Exhibit 2.1.4 Job Descriptions with Responsibilities for the Design and Delivery of Curriculum ..............81

Exhibit 2.2.1 Sample of Curriculum Documents Reviewed .........................................................................93

Exhibit 2.2.2 Scope of the Written Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten – Grade 5 ...............................................93

Exhibit 2.2.3 Scope of the Written Curriculum by Grade Level and Course Grades 6-8 .............................94

Exhibit 2.2.4 Summary of Scope of the Written Curriculum by Course High School ..................................97

Exhibit 2.2.5 Summary of Scope of the Pre-Kindergarten - Grade 12 Curriculum Documents by Level ....98

Exhibit 2.3.1 Sample of Curriculum Documents Reviewed for Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specificity by School Level ..............................................................101

Exhibit 2.3.2 Teacher Responses to a Survey Question About the Accessibility, User-Friendliness, and Usefulness in Planning of the District-Designed Curriculum ...............................................103

Exhibit 2.3.3 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Frame One Analysis: Minimal Basic Components for Curriculum Document Quality and Specificity ..........................................104

Exhibit 2.3.4 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Auditors Ratings of Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Pre-Kindergarten ..........................................................................................106

Exhibit 2.3.5 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Auditors Ratings of Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Kindergarten through Grade 5 ......................................................................106

Exhibit 2.3.6 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Summary of Ratings for Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 5 ..........................................113

Exhibit 2.3.7 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Auditors Ratings of Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Grade 6-8 ......................................................................................................114

Exhibit 2.3.8 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Summary of Ratings for Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Grade 6 Through Grade 8 ........................................................120

Exhibit 2.3.9 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Auditors Ratings of Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Grade 9-12 ....................................................................................................121

Exhibit 2.3.10 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Summary of Ratings for Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Grades 9-12 ..............................................................................132

Exhibit 2.3.11 CMIM Frame One Curriculum Analysis: Summary of Total Mean Scores for Minimal Basic Components and Specificity Pre-Kindergarten Through Grade 12 .......................................133

Exhibit 2.4.1 Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Description of Cognitive Types ..............................................136

Exhibit 2.4.2 Internal Consistency of Sample District Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations English Language Arts, Grades 3, 5, 8, and English 1 .....................................137

Exhibit 2.4.3 Summary of Analyses of English Language Arts Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations .............................................................................................................147

Exhibit 2.4.4 Internal Consistency of Sample District Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations Mathematics, Grades 3, 5, 8, and Algebra I .....................................................148

Exhibit 2.4.5 Summary of Analyses of Mathematics Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations ...........................................................................................................................156

Exhibit 2.4.6 Internal Consistency of Sample District Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations Science, Grades 3, 5, 8, and Biology ...............................................................157

Exhibit 2.4.7 Summary of Analyses of Science Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations ...........................................................................................................................168

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xi

Exhibit 2.4.8 Internal Consistency of Sample District Benchmark Assessment Items to TEKS Student Expectations Social Studies, Grade 8 and U.S. History ........................................................169

Exhibit 2.4.9 Summary of Analyses of Social Studies Assessment Items to TEKS/SE ..............................172

Exhibit 2.4.10 Summary of Analyses of Benchmark Assessment Items for Alignment to the TEKS Student Expectations ...........................................................................................................................173

Exhibit 2.4.11 Summary of Analyses of Benchmark assessment Items for Cognitive Processes .................174

Exhibit 2.4.12 Internal Consistency of Sample District Instructional Resource Activities to TEKS Student Expectations English Language Arts, Grades 3, 5, 8, and English 1 .....................................176

Exhibit 2.4.13 Summary of Analyses of English Language Arts Instructional Resource Activities to TEKS Student Expectations .............................................................................................................183

Exhibit 2.4.14 Internal Consistency of Sample District Instructional Resources to TEKS Student Expectations Mathematics, Grades 3, 5, 8, and Algebra I .....................................................184

Exhibit 2.4.15 Summary of Analyses of Mathematics Instructional Resource Activities to TEKS Student Expectations ...........................................................................................................................191

Exhibit 2.4.16 Summary of Analyses of Sample English Language Arts and Mathematics Instructional Resource Activities to TEKS Student Expectations ..............................................................192

Exhibit 2.4.17 Summary of Analyses of Resource Activities for Cognitive Processes ................................192

Exhibit 2.4.18 Teacher Survey Responses to Question About Primary Resources Used to Plan Instruction ..............................................................................................................................193

Exhibit 2.4.19 Teacher Survey Responses to Question About the Reasonableness of the Number of Objectives to Be Mastered by Students .................................................................................195

Exhibit 2.4.20 Summary of Number of TEKS Student Expectations and Subskills Algebra I .....................196

Exhibit 2.5.1 Draft of Campus Plans for Gifted and Talented Support .......................................................198

Exhibit 2.5.2 Frequency of Differentiated Instruction Observed in Classrooms with GT/AP/IB Students Present ....................................................................................................................................203

Exhibit 2.5.3 Professional Development Offerings for GT Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators .....206

Exhibit 2.5.4 Parent Responses to Whether Child’s Needs for Academic Acceleration and Cognitively Rigorous Instruction Are Being Met ......................................................................................208

Exhibit 3.1.1 Job Descriptions with Professional Development Responsibility .........................................213

Exhibit 3.1.2 Curriculum Management Improvement Model Professional Development Criteria and Auditors’ Assessment of Professional Development Program ..............................................214

Exhibit 3.2.1 Job Description Delineation of Responsibilities Relevant to Equity .....................................221

Exhibit 3.2.2 Elementary, Intermediate, High School, and Special Services Enrollment ...........................223

Exhibit 3.2.3 Student Demographics by Economic Status and Program Compared to Texas Statewide Demographics ........................................................................................................................223

Exhibit 3.2.4 Teacher, Administrator, and Student Demographics..............................................................224

Exhibit 3.2.5 Graduation Rates by High School and District ......................................................................225

Exhibit 3.2.6 Number of Disciplinary Actions by Grade Span ...................................................................227

Exhibit 3.2.7 Disciplinary Actions by Grade Spans – Highest and Lowest Percentages ............................227

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xii

Exhibit 3.2.8 Disciplinary Actions by Socioeconomic Level, ELL Status, and Special Education Enrollment .............................................................................................................................228

Exhibit 3.2.9 Disciplinary Actions and Enrollment by Ethnicity ...............................................................229

Exhibit 3.2.10 Discipline Referrals by Gender and Type ..............................................................................230

Exhibit 3.2.11 Identification of GT Students by Grade Span ........................................................................231

Exhibit 3.2.12 GT Enrollment by Gender, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status .........................................232

Exhibit 3.2.13 Comparison of GT Enrollment to Total Enrollment for High School and Intermediate Schools ...................................................................................................................................233

Exhibit 3.2.14 AP Course Offerings at District Comprehensive High Schools ............................................235

Exhibit 3.2.15 AP Enrollment and AP Exam Participation by Subpopulations Compared to Total District Enrollment of Subpopulations ...............................................................................................236

Exhibit 3.2.16 A Comparison of Enrollment, AP Exam Participation, and Qualifying Scores by High School ......................................................................................................................237

Exhibit 3.2.17 Criteria for Design Quality of Programs and Services for English Language Learners with Auditors’ Rating .....................................................................................................................238

Exhibit 3.2.18 Criteria for Delivery Quality, Connectivity, and Monitoring of Programs and Services for English Language Learners with Auditors’ Ratings ..............................................................241

Exhibit 3.3.1 Frequency of Observed Student Orientation by Category .....................................................248

Exhibit 3.3.2 Explanations of Recorded Dominant Teacher Activity .........................................................249

Exhibit 3.3.3 Frequency of Observed Dominant Teacher Activity Across Grade Levels ...........................250

Exhibit 3.3.4 Frequency of Dominant Student Activities ............................................................................251

Exhibit 3.3.5 Frequency of Observed Effective Instructional Strategies by Teacher ..................................252

Exhibit 3.3.6 The Major Types of Knowledge Dimension in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy .......................253

Exhibit 3.3.7 Auditors’ Classroom Observations of Knowledge Dimension ..............................................253

Exhibit 3.3.8 Description of Cognitive Types in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy ...........................................254

Exhibit 3.3.9 Cognitive Process Dimensions ..............................................................................................254

Exhibit 3.3.10 Percent of Frequency Observed by Cognitive Type ..............................................................255

Exhibit 3.3.11 Evidence of District-wide Differentiation of Instruction .......................................................256

Exhibit 3.3.12 Campus Leaders’ Perception of Teachers Differentiation of Instruction ...............................256

Exhibit 3.3.13 Frequency of ELL/SIOP Teacher Strategies ..........................................................................257

Exhibit 3.3.14 Campus Leaders’ Rating of Teachers Meeting ELL Students’ Needs ...................................258

Exhibit 3.3.15 Teachers’ Perception of the Number of Classroom Visits by School and District Leaders ...260

Exhibit 3.3.16 Comparison of Perceived Frequency of Classroom Visits by Teachers and Principals .......261

Exhibit 3.3.17 Classroom Instructional Support ...........................................................................................263

Exhibit 3.3.18 Principals’ Monitoring of Instructional Delivery ...................................................................263

Exhibit 3.3.19 Central Office Administrators’ Monitoring of Instructional Delivery ...................................264

Exhibit 3.4.1 Lack of Specificity in English TEKS Spiral—Drama ...........................................................267

Exhibit 3.4.2 Lack of Specificity in TEKS Spiral—Elementary Language Arts ........................................268

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xiii

Exhibit 3.4.3 Grade Level Calibration for Elementary Language Arts .......................................................269

Exhibit 3.4.4 Grade Level Calibration for Elementary Math ......................................................................270

Exhibit 3.4.5 Grade Level Calibration for Elementary Science ..................................................................271

Exhibit 3.4.6 Grade Level Calibration for Elementary Social Studies ........................................................272

Exhibit 3.4.7 Artifact Redundancy—Elementary Science ..........................................................................274

Exhibit 3.4.8 Description of Cognitive Types in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy ...........................................276

Exhibit 3.4.9 Math K-5 Cognitive Type Analysis .......................................................................................277

Exhibit 3.4.10 Language Arts K-5 Cognitive Type Analysis ........................................................................277

Exhibit 3.4.11 Science K-5 Cognitive Type Analysis ...................................................................................278

Exhibit 3.4.12 Social Studies K-5 Cognitive Type Analysis .........................................................................278

Exhibit 3.4.13 Math 6-8 Cognitive Type Analysis ........................................................................................279

Exhibit 3.4.14 Science 6-8 Cognitive Type Analysis ....................................................................................279

Exhibit 3.4.15 Language Arts 6-8 Cognitive Type Analysis .........................................................................280

Exhibit 3.4.16 Social Studies 6-8 Cognitive Type Analysis ..........................................................................280

Exhibit 3.4.17 Math 9-12 Cognitive Type Analysis ......................................................................................281

Exhibit 3.4.18 Science 9-12 Cognitive Type Analysis ..................................................................................281

Exhibit 3.4.19 Language Arts 9-12 Cognitive Type Analysis .......................................................................282

Exhibit 3.4.20 Social Studies 9-12 Cognitive Type Analysis ........................................................................282

Exhibit 3.4.21 Language Arts Higher Order Thinking Skill Proportion Comparison ...................................283

Exhibit 3.4.22 Math Higher Order Thinking Skill Proportion Comparison ..................................................284

Exhibit 3.4.23 Science Higher Order Thinking Skill Proportion Comparison ..............................................284

Exhibit 3.4.24 Social Studies Higher Order Thinking Skill Proportion Comparison ...................................285

Exhibit 3.4.25 Context Types ........................................................................................................................286

Exhibit 3.4.26 Math K-5 Context Types ........................................................................................................287

Exhibit 3.4.27 Science K-5 Context Types ....................................................................................................288

Exhibit 3.4.28 Language Arts K-5 Context Types .........................................................................................288

Exhibit 3.4.29 Social Studies K-5 Context Types .........................................................................................289

Exhibit 3.4.30 Math 6-8 Context Types ........................................................................................................290

Exhibit 3.4.31 Science 6-8 Context Types ....................................................................................................290

Exhibit 3.4.32 Language Arts 6-8 Context Types .........................................................................................291

Exhibit 3.4.33 Social Studies 6-8 Context Types ..........................................................................................292

Exhibit 3.4.34 Math 9-12 Context Types ......................................................................................................292

Exhibit 3.4.35 Science 9-12 Context Types ..................................................................................................293

Exhibit 3.4.36 Language Arts 9-12 Context Types .......................................................................................294

Exhibit 3.4.37 Social Studies 9-12 Context Types ........................................................................................294

Exhibit 3.4.38 ELA Comparison of Higher and Lower Socioeconomic Schools .........................................296

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xiv

Exhibit 3.4.39 Science Comparison of Higher and Lower Socioeconomic Schools ....................................297

Exhibit 4.1.1 Job Descriptions with Assessment and Program Evaluation Requirements ..........................305

Exhibit 4.1.2 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Assessment and Program Evaluation Plan and Auditors’ Rating .....................................................................................................................307

Exhibit 4.2.1 Formal Assessments Kindergarten through Grade 5 .............................................................314

Exhibit 4.2.2 Scope of Student Assessment by Subject Area and by Grade Level Kindergarten through Grade 5 ...................................................................................................................................316

Exhibit 4.2.3 Scope of Student Assessment by Subject Area and by Grade Level Grades 6-8 ..................317

Exhibit 4.2.4 Scope of Student Assessments by Subject Area Grades 9-12 ................................................319

Exhibit 4.2.5 Scope of the Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 12 Student Assessments by Level ................320

Exhibit 4.3.1 Texas and Klein ISD Demographics and STAAR Performance ............................................322

Exhibit 4.3.2 District Comparison Group Demographic Information .........................................................323

Exhibit 4.3.3 Percent Meeting Postsecondary Readiness: STAAR Mathematics Klein ISD and Comparison Districts .............................................................................................................324

Exhibit 4.3.4 Percent Meeting Postsecondary Readiness: STAAR Reading Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ..................................................................................................................................325

Exhibit 4.3.5 Percent Meeting Postsecondary Readiness: STAAR Writing Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ..................................................................................................................................326

Exhibit 4.3.6 Percent Meeting Postsecondary Readiness: STAAR Science Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ..................................................................................................................................327

Exhibit 4.3.7 Percent Meeting Postsecondary Readiness: STAAR Social Studies Klein ISD and Comparison Districts .............................................................................................................328

Exhibit 4.3.8 Years to Achieve Parity for Demographic Groups on All STAAR Assessments (Mathematics, English Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies) ...................................330

Exhibit 4.3.9 Years to Achieve Parity for Demographic Groups on All STAAR Mathematics Assessments ...........................................................................................................................331

Exhibit 4.3.10 Years to Achieve Parity for Demographic Groups on All STAAR English Language Arts Assessments ...........................................................................................................................332

Exhibit 4.3.11 Years to Achieve Parity for Demographic Groups on All STAAR Science Assessments .....333

Exhibit 4.3.12 Years to Achieve Parity for Demographic Groups on All STAAR Social Studies Assessments ...........................................................................................................................334

Exhibit 4.3.13 MAP Assessment Cohort Analysis ........................................................................................335

Exhibit 4.3.14 MAP Assessment Cohort Analysis ........................................................................................337

Exhibit 4.3.15 AP/IB Exam Participation and Success and CTE Completers Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ..................................................................................................................................338

Exhibit 4.3.16 College Entrance Exam Participation and Success Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ....339

Exhibit 4.3.17 College Going and First Year Completers Without Remediation Klein ISD and Comparison Districts ..................................................................................................................................340

Exhibit 4.4.1 District Documents and Data Use ..........................................................................................342

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xv

Exhibit 4.4.2 Student Assessment Instruments, Data, and Use Characteristics of an Adequate Instructional Approach .........................................................346

Exhibit 4.4.3 Frequency of Data Use by Teachers Teacher/Campus Leader/Central Administration Survey Results .........................................347

Exhibit 4.4.4 Utilization of Data by Teachers Teacher/Campus Leader/Central Administration Survey Results .........................................348

Exhibit 4.4.5 Teacher Use of Assessment Data for Instructional Planning Parent Survey Results ............................................................................................................349

Exhibit 5.1.1 Board Policies Related to Budget Development and Financial Management .......................353

Exhibit 5.1.2 Summary of Revenues by Source ..........................................................................................355

Exhibit 5.1.3 Total General Fund Expenditures by Area .............................................................................356

Exhibit 5.1.4 Total General Fund Revenues and Operating Expenditures ..................................................357

Exhibit 5.1.5 Decrease in KISD’s Net Financial Position ...........................................................................358

Exhibit 5.1.6 District’s Solvency Ratio .......................................................................................................358

Exhibit 5.1.7 Financial Forecast of Ending Fund Balances and Related Tax Rate Increases .....................359

Exhibit 5.1.8 Components of a Performance-based Budget and Adequacy of Use in the Budget Development Process .............................................................................................................361

Exhibit 5.1.9 Campuses Chosen for In-depth Productivity Analysis and Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students on Each Campus .............................................................................363

Exhibit 5.1.10 TAPR Average Proficiency Rate of All Students and All Subjects in Sample Schools and the Average Per Student Expenditure ..........................................................................................364

Exhibit 5.2.1 Facility Management and Planning Documents Reviewed by the Auditors .........................368

Exhibit 5.2.2 Comparison of Facility Planning Efforts to Audit Components of Comprehensive Long- Range Facilities Planning ......................................................................................................368

Exhibit 5.2.3 School Facilities Visited by Auditors and Ratings .................................................................371

Exhibit 5.2.4 Mileage of the District Bus Fleet ...........................................................................................373

Exhibit 5.2.5 Age of the District Bus Fleet .................................................................................................373

Exhibit 5.2.6 Mileage of the District’s White Fleet (Service Vehicles).......................................................374

Exhibit 5.2.7 Mileage of the District’s White Fleet (Service Vehicles).......................................................374

Exhibit 5.3.1 Audit Categories and Descriptions of Interventions ..............................................................378

Exhibit 5.3.2 Summary Information from the Schools’ Intervention Survey Forms ..................................379

Exhibit 5.3.3 Texas Academic Performance Reports for All Grades and All Subjects STAAR Percent Achieving Satisfactory Standard or Above .................................................381

Exhibit 5.3.4 Good to Great Program Budgets ............................................................................................382

Exhibit 5.3.5 Comparison of Good to Great to CMIM Program Intervention Criteria ...............................383

Exhibit 5.4.1 CMSi Criteria for Instructional Technology Programs ..........................................................388

Exhibit 5.4.2 Central Office Technology Survey Response ........................................................................390



Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xvi

Exhibit 5.4.5 Campus Leader Technology Survey Response ......................................................................392



Exhibit 5.4.8 Teacher Reported Use of Technology in Their Classroom ....................................................395

Exhibit 5.4.9 Observed Use of Technology by Students and Teachers .......................................................396

Exhibit 5.4.10 Observed Use of Technology by Students and Teachers .......................................................396

Exhibit 5.4.11 SAMR Model for Teacher Use ..............................................................................................397

Exhibit 5.4.12 Observed Teacher Use of Technology ...................................................................................397

Exhibit 5.4.13 Observed Students Using Technology ...................................................................................398

Exhibit 5.4.14 Observed Use of Technology by Students .............................................................................399

Exhibits R.2.1.a-e Recommended Tables of Organization ...........................................................................404Exhibit R.2.1.a: Superintendent’s Cabinet ......................................................................404Exhibit R.2.1.b.1: Teaching & Learning .........................................................................405Exhibit R.2.1.b.2: Teaching & Learning .........................................................................405Exhibit R.2.1.b.3: Teaching & Learning .........................................................................406Exhibit R.2.1.c: Campus Safety & Support ....................................................................406Exhibit R.2.1.d: Financial Services .................................................................................407Exhibit R.2.1.e: Human Resource ...................................................................................407

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xvii

Table of Photographs

Promise2Purpose.................................................................................................................................................. i

Zwink students working on English language use .............................................................................................20

Grace England Pre-K Center - Pre-K students using manipulatives .................................................................31

Zwink students doing nonfiction research .........................................................................................................35

Klenk Elementary 2nd graders Working on Reading and Writing ......................................................................72

Hassler Elementary kindergarten student working in the library’s Makerspace ...............................................90

Klein Collins students participate in a virtual reality science lesson .................................................................94

Metzler grade 1 math station ..............................................................................................................................98

Metzler Elementary 4th grade science objectives ............................................................................................174

Metzler Elementary 4th grade student doing a science soil lab .......................................................................174

Erhardt Elementary teachers working on a presentation for their peers ..........................................................218

Klein Oak art student .......................................................................................................................................232

Klein Forest High School Government small groups working on projects .....................................................236

Eiland 5th grade math project ..........................................................................................................................260

Klein HS chemistry lab setup ..........................................................................................................................262

Extremely low level work for high school students .........................................................................................275

Epps Island accountable talk ............................................................................................................................303

Erhardt Elementary teacher testing student .....................................................................................................312

Metzler Elementary summary of learning walks .............................................................................................348

Krimmel Intermediate’s Great facility for band ...............................................................................................363

KHS auto technology class ..............................................................................................................................399

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page xviii

Klein Independent School District Audit Report Page 1

A CURRICULUM AUDIT™

of the

Klein Independent School District

Klein, Texas

I. INTRODUCTIONThis document constitutes the final report of a Curriculum Audit™ of the Klein Independent School District. The audit was commissioned by the Klein Independent School District Board of Trustees within the scope of its policy-making authority. It was conducted during the time period of May 18-20, 2017. Document analysis was performed off-site, as was the detailed analysis of findings and site visit data.

A Curriculum Audit™ is designed to reveal the extent to which officials and professional staff of a school district have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system, set within the framework of adopted board policies, enables the school district to make maximum use of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. When such a system is fully operational, it assures the district taxpayers that their fiscal support is optimized under the conditions in which the school district functions.

Background

German immigrants, led by Adam Klein, settled the Klein area in 1849. In July 1928, the present boundary lines of the school district were established with the consolidation of five common school districts, and the official name became Rural High School District Number One. The total enrollment was 582. In March 1938, the school district was incorporated and renamed the Klein Independent School District (KISD). A seven-member Board of Trustees governs the district. Each member is elected to an at-large position for three years in a nonpartisan election. Klein Independent School District, encompassing approximately 87.5 square miles, is located in northwestern Harris County, Texas. Its southern portion is adjacent to the corporate limits of the City of Houston. Most of the district is located between Interstate Highway 45 (IH 45) on the east and State Highway 249 (SH 249) on the west. The southern boundary follows Cypress Creek for a considerable distance, and a portion of the northern boundary of the district is the same as the northern boundary of Harris County. The district is currently comprised of four high schools, nine intermediate schools, 31 elementary schools, one early childhood and pre-kindergarten center, one high school program, and one alternative school program for a total of 47 schools serving more than 51,000 students.

The district provides a full range of educational services appropriate to grade levels Pre-kindergarten (PK) through 12. These include regular and enriched academic education, special education, occupational education, and language training for those with limited English proficiency. The district offers a Spanish bilingual program at most of the elementary schools. These basic programs are supplemented by a wide variety of offerings in the fine arts and athletics. Klein ISD is fully accredited by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

The growth of the district is outlined below:

1849 - With an opening enrollment of 80 students, that number quickly grew to an average of 310 students who were transported daily on five school buses, 32 miles each day. The growth of the area was slow and steady; most of the residents were farmers, ranchers, and dairy farmers.

1939 - A new high school was built, opening in 1939 with only the senior class because construction was not totally complete.


1940 - In January 1940, the Rural High #1 original building was destroyed by fire, and all the students moved into the new building for the remainder of the school year. Klein Elementary School was rebuilt next to Klein High School after the fire. This building was replaced by the Network Operations Center in 2007.

1949 - The original Kohrville School founded in 1895 sold for $275 in 1949 and was rebuilt. In 1967, the Kohrville School closed and for several years, was used as a community center. Today the Kohrville School is part of the Klein Museum complex.

Recreation Acres Elementary School opened to serve elementary students in the southern part of the district. The original Recreation Acres school was built to house four classrooms.

1956 - Garden City Elementary opened on September 4 in the Garden City subdivision. It was located on West Montgomery Road just south of the present day Nitsch Elementary School and remained open until sometime in the 1970s.

1963 - Klein High School (KHS) on the corner of Louetta and Stuebner Airline opened doors to students on September 1, 1963.

1966 - In 1966, the stage was set for exciting changes in the district when thousands of acres of land, covered with beautiful oak and pine trees, were purchased for residential construction. Developers found room to expand, offering serene country living at reasonable prices. Prior to this time there were no large city-like subdivisions located within the boundaries of the district, which, because of its size and shape, is served by three different post offices: Houston, Spring, and Tomball.

1967 - The first intermediate school in the Big Cypress/Klein community was named Klein Intermediate. It was located on Stuebner Airline and served intermediate students until it closed in the spring of 1975 with a student population of 802 students. The building reopened in 1975 as the KHS 9th grade center.

1971 - When Haude Elementary School opened, a new era in school construction began in the Klein ISD. This new flexible-space school was constructed on a 10-acre site at the corner of Louetta and Haude roads. Haude Elementary School was designed to serve as a pilot school for curriculum and design for other elementary schools that would be constructed in the district.

Greenwood Elementary School is named after its location in the Greenwood Forest Subdivision.

Northampton Elementary School was named after the subdivision surrounding it. Schools were built on land donated and formerly owned by descendants of German settlers. The land was previously known as Root Pasture or Root Meadow, an area mainly covered in trees with thorns, vines, and underbrush.

Klein Elementary School was renamed Klein Middle School on March 29, 1971, and the elementary students moved to Northampton Elementary for the 1971-72 school year.

1973 - Epps Island Elementary School was built and was named for the group or “island” of trees located on the Epps’ land. “Island” was a term frequently used in the early days to designate large groves of trees on the prairie that offered shade and water to travelers. During the Civil War, a campground, or resting place, in the area was known as Epps Island. It was the stopping location for the 20th century truck farmers taking their produce into Houston. Farmers would sell their crops in Houston’s Market Square in downtown Houston.

Hildebrandt Intermediate School opened in 1973. The Hildebrandt family sold the school district the land on which Hildebrandt Intermediate School was built.

1974 - Theiss Elementary School opened on the Theiss family land.

1975 - In 1975, the Wunderlich Intermediate School was opened on the Wunderlich family land. The original Klein Intermediate School opened as the Klein High School 9th Grade building. The center opened with 657 students.

1977 - In 1977, the district opened Benfer Elementary School and Strack Intermediate School.


1978 - In 1978, Kaiser Elementary School was opened on the Kaiser family land and Brill Elementary School on the Brill family land.

1979 - In 1979, Ehrhardt Elementary School was opened. Several schools have been located on land originally purchased by Fritz Ehrhardt. The earliest was the Oak Grove School, built in the 1880s.

Klein Forest High School opened in 1979. By board policy, all senior high schools were to include the name “Klein” to commemorate that family’s significant contribution to the community. Klein Forest was the second senior high school in the district. It is located in the Greenwood Forest community.

1980 - Lemm Elementary School was opened in 1980. Nitsch Elementary School was opened the same year.

The Otis Davis Transportation Center was built off Doerre Road and opened in 1980. The school was named after Otis Davis, the Klein High School assistant football coach, track coach, and girls’ basketball coach; he also drove a school bus and taught history and government. Within three years, Davis was named principal of Klein High and had responsibility for overseeing the transportation department; when the new Klein High opened on Stuebner Airline, he served there as principal until 1968. Later that year he became assistant superintendent, also serving as interim superintendent for a short time. Otis Davis retired in 1986 but continued his service to the district and the community as a member of the Klein ISD school board from 1987 to 1992.

1981 - The Klein ISD Central Office located at 7200 Spring Cypress Road officially opened in December of 1981. This facility sits on a 10-acre plot of land purchased from Herbert Doerre with the stipulation that the land always be used for educational purposes.

1982 - Klein Oak High School, the third senior high school in the district opened in 1982. Klein Oak serves students who live in the northern portion of the district.

1983 - In 1983, the Krahn Elementary School opened as well as Roth Elementary School.

The first intermediate school in the Big Cypress/Klein community was named Klein Intermediate. However, it was not until 1984 that the fifth intermediate school in the Klein Independent School District was given this name to continue the tradition. Klein Intermediate is located in the southern part of the district.

Doerre Intermediate School was opened in 1983. This is the land where the current Klein administration offices are located. The Klein ISD Maintenance Building sits directly behind the Central Office on part of the 10 acres purchased from the Doerre family. This facility houses the maintenance department personnel and warehouse and is responsible for the upkeep of 6.5+ million square feet and 1,000 acres of grounds. The areas within the department include 1) electrical; 2) plumbing; 3) heating, ventilation, air conditioning; 4) crafts; and 5) grounds.

1985 - The Klein ISD Warehouse facility is located behind the Network Operations Center and Central Office off Robbie Road This cluster of buildings houses the central warehousing, food service warehouse, risk management, and some information technology personnel.

1989 - Kuehnle Elementary School opened in 1989 and was named after one of the historic families in the area.

1991 - Mittelstädt Elementary School opened in 1991.

1992 - Klenk Elementary School opened in 1992.

1993 - Eiland Elementary School opened in 1993. Curtis Eiland was elected to the Klein Board of Trustees in April 1959 and served 12 years.

The current Kleb Intermediate School opened in 1993 on Louetta Road, just a short distance from the former location. This school was built to house about 1,200 students.

The vacated Kleb Intermediate space became the Klein ISD Annex and housed the Discipline Alternative Education Program, the Therapeutic Education Program, and the food service, police, and plant operations departments.

1994 - Schultz Elementary School opened in 1994.

1999 - Hassler Elementary School opened in 1999.


2001 - The district’s fourth high school, Klein Collins High School, opened in 2001. The name Klein Collins High School also honors the contributions of Dr. Donald R. Collins, superintendent of the Klein Independent School District for 29 years.

2002 - The present day Kohrville Elementary School is located in the far northwest section of the Klein ISD. The school is named for a community settled by freed slaves and by German immigrants, including Paul and Agnes Tautenhahn Korhmann, who opened a general store in the 1870s. The community became known as “Kohrville” or occasionally “Korville.” The 1949 two-room school house has been relocated to the Wunderlich Farm and is completely restored and open to the public.

Schindewolf Intermediate School also opened in 2002.

2004 - In 2004, Kreinhop Elementary School opened as well as McDougle Elementary School.

In that same year, The Teaching and Learning Center opened, located on Louetta Road in a remodeled medical facility. The facility houses a majority of the curriculum and instruction (C&I) team including: 1) accountability and school improvement, 2) advanced academic services, 3) English Language Arts, 4) languages other than English, 5) mathematics, 6) multilingual programs, 7) pre-kindergarten, 8) professional development, 9) science, 10) social studies, 11) educational technology, and 12) fine arts.

2005 - Metzler Elementary School opened in 2005.

2006 - High School Program, the only “high school program of choice” in the KISD, opened in 2006. In order to achieve success, the Vistas community is committed to a relevant and rigorous curriculum and the development of relationships, responsibilities, and respect for self and others. Each of the following are Vistas components: 1) a challenging rigorous curriculum is necessary to prepare students for post-secondary education and the world of work; 2) a curriculum that has relevance to the students’ lives and personal goals will result in greater motivation for the learning; 3) small school size and small class size, a unique feature of Vistas, allows learners to form relationships with numerous adults; 4 ) students at Vistas must accept responsibility for doing whatever it takes to earn their high school diploma; and 5) an environment of respect among the staff and students is created so that students at Vistas have a sense of self-worth.

Benignus Elementary School also opened in 2006. A community committee recommended in 2004 that Elementary #24 be located in the WindRose subdivision and be named to honor the Benignus family.

2007 - Krimmel Intermediate School opened in 2007 as well as Frank Elementary School.

The Network Operations Center (NOC) was built with 2004 bond funds and houses the data and voice equipment for the district. This facility serves as the “heartbeat” of the network and all district communications and connectivity. Located behind the central office on the site of the original Klein High School, it also houses the alumni center and memorabilia from that original Klein facility. The NOC was designed to reflect the overall appearance of the original building and incorporates the original pediment. The Klein ISD Tribute Garden is adjacent to this facility and pavers and benches have been purchased in honor or memory of a Klein loved one.

2008 - The Klein ISD School Board created the first school district police department in the state of Texas in 1982. Today the department is headed by the Police Chief, two Captains, five Sergeants, and 27 Police Officers who support the district by promoting discipline, safety, and assisting in the prevention of drugs and violence on district campuses. The new building was opened in 2008.

2009 - Mueller Elementary School was opened in 2009.

2010 - Ulrich Intermediate School is named after the Ulrich family and opened in 2010. The Blackshear Elementary School opened the same year.

The South Transportation Center was built in the southern part of the district in 2010 to reduce the number of miles that buses traveled without students as no funding is provided from the state for these miles. It also reduced the payroll costs for drivers that run these southern routes as they are on their assigned routes for a shorter time period.


2012 - In 2012 the Klein ISD Multipurpose Building opened and houses staff development and educational technology training facilities, a large meeting space with a capacity of 600, an auction arena, and holding pens for the district’s agricultural program, and offices and a test kitchen for the food service department. An adjacent building holds the plant operations department and custodial products warehouse.

Also opened in 2012, were Zwink Elementary School and Grace England Early Childhood and Pre-K Center as one of the first early childhood intervention programs in the state to provide services such as speech therapy and physical therapy to infants and toddlers with disabilities to better prepare them for school. This center was Klein ISD’s first center for young learners and was designed to prepare pre-school children for school by providing readiness experiences that include a focus on communication, cognitive, motor, and social/emotional development.

2015 - French Elementary opened its doors to students in 2015. French is located in the far north portion of the Klein ISD.

2016 - Mahaffey Elementary open in 2016 and is the 31st elementary school in the Klein ISD.

2017- Klein Cain High School was under construction at the time of the auditors’ site visit with an intended opening for grade 9 and 10 students in August 2017. The school is named after former superintendent Dr. Jim Cain, and is situated in the northwest part of the district. Each year Klein Cain will add a grade level and will have its first senior class in the 2019-20 school year.

Enrollment

KISD student enrollment has continued a steady growth as evidenced in Exhibit 0.1, displaying enrollment trends over the past four years.

Exhibit 0.1

Four-Year Enrollment TrendsKlein Independent School District

2013-2017

Grade Level 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17Elementary 18,896 23,017 23,768 24,050Intermediate School 11,170 11,366 11,532 11,969High School 14,650 15,019 15,384 15,791

Total 44,716 49,402 50,684 51,810Data Source: Fall PEIMS Disaggregated reports

As indicated in Exhibit 0.1:

• Annual growth has ranged 10.5% to 2%% for the past three years.


Exhibit 0.2 displays the student demographics in the current school year.

Exhibit 0.2

District Student Enrollment by DemographicsKlein Independent School District

May 2016-17

Race2016-17

Enrollment Percentage of Total EnrollmentAmerican Indian 213 0.41Asian/Pacific Islander 4,546 8.7Black/African American 7,280 14.06Hispanic/Latino 20,903 40.35Two or More Races 1,589 3.07White 17,279 33.35Total 51,810 Low Socioeconomic Status 21,014 40.56English Language Learners 7,762 14.98Gifted and Talented 2,135 4.12Special Education 4,430 8.55Data Source: Fall 2016 PEIMS Disaggregated reports

As indicated in Exhibit 0.2:

• The largest population groups of students are Hispanic at 40% and White students at 33%. The next highest group of students is African American with 14% of the total student population.

• English language learners make up 15% of the student population.

• The population of students identified as gifted and talented is at a low of 4% with students identified as special education at 9%.

District Accountability Ratings and Distinction Designations

Campuses that receive an accountability rating of Met Standard from TEA are eligible to earn distinction designations. Distinction designations are awarded for achievement in several different areas and are based on performance relative to a group of campuses of similar type, size, grade span, and student demographics. The distinction designation indicators are typically separate from those used to assign accountability ratings. Districts that receive a Met Standard rating are eligible for a distinction designation in postsecondary readiness.

In 2016, distinction designations were awarded in the following areas:

• Academic Achievement in English Language Arts/Reading (campus only)

• Academic Achievement in Mathematics (campus only)

• Academic Achievement in Science (campus only)

• Academic Achievement in Social Studies (campus only)

• Top 25%: Student Progress (campus only)

• Top 25%: Closing Performance Gaps (campus only)

• Postsecondary Readiness (district and campus)


The Accountability Summary and Distinction Designation Reports show one of the following labels for each distinction designation:

• Distinction Earned. The district or campus is rated Met Standard and meets the criteria for the distinction designation.

• No Distinction Earned. The district or campus does not meet the distinction designation criteria or is rated Improvement Required.

• Not Eligible. The district or campus does not have results to evaluate for the distinction designation, is labeled Not Rated or Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, is evaluated by alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions, or is a campus paired with a feeder campus for accountability evaluation.

Exhibit 0.3 shows the recent accountability ratings and distinctions earned for Klein Schools.

Exhibit 0.3

TEA Accountability Ratings and Distinctions EarnedKlein Independent School District

2016

2016 Accountability Ratings Distinctions EarnedElementary SchoolsBenfer Met Standard 2Benignus Met Standard 0Bernshausen Met Standard 1Blackshear Met Standard 2Brill Met Standard 5Ehrhardt Met Standard 1Eiland Met Standard 1Epps Island Met Standard 1Frank Met Standard 0French Met Standard 4Greenwood Forest Met Standard 0Hassler Met Standard 0Haude Met Standard 0Kaiser Met Standard 0Klenk Met Standard 1Kohrville Met Standard 3Krahn Met Standard 6Kreinhop Met Standard 0Kuehnle Met Standard 0Lemm Met Standard 1Mahaffey Met Standard New SchoolMcDougle Met Standard 1Metzler Met Standard 3Mittelstadt Met Standard 0Mueller Met Standard 0Nitsch Met Standard 0Northampton Met Standard 1Roth Met Standard 0


Exhibit 0.3 (continued)TEA Accountability Ratings and Distinctions Earned

Klein Independent School District2016

2016 Accountability Ratings Distinctions EarnedElementary SchoolsSchultz Met Standard 0Theiss Met Standard 6Zwink Met Standard 0Intermediate SchoolsDoerre Met Standard 1Hildebrandt Met Standard 0Kleb Met Standard 0Klein Inter. Met Standard 1Krimmel Met Standard 0Schindewolf Met Standard 0Strack Met Standard 0Ulrich Met Standard 3Wunderlich Met Standard 1High SchoolsKlein High Met Standard 0Klein Forest Met Standard 0Klein Oak Met Standard 0Klein Collins Met Standard 0

As can be seen in Exhibit 0.3:

• Of the 30 elementary schools eligible for distinctions, 16 earned at least one distinction (53%) with 14 earning no distinction (47%).

• Of the nine intermediate schools, five earned no distinction (56%) with four (44%) earning some distinction.

• Of the four senior high schools, no distinctions (0%) were earned.

• Two elementary schools earned six distinctions, and no schools in the district earned the top ranking of seven distinctions.

Vision Statement

Klein Independent School District adopted their new strategic plan during the audit team’s on-site visit. It includes the following vision for the future:

In Klein ISD, every student enters with a promise and exits with a purpose.

We will achieve this vision by focusing on

• Pathways

• Challenge

• Equity

• Leadership

• Continuous Improvement


Audit Background and Scope of Work

The Curriculum Audit™ is a process that was developed by Dr. Fenwick W. English and first implemented in 1979 in the Columbus Public Schools, Ohio. The audit is based upon generally-accepted concepts pertaining to effective instruction and curricular design and delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as the “effective schools research.”

A Curriculum Audit™ is an independent examination of four data sources: documents, interviews, site visits, and online surveys. These are gathered and triangulated, or corroborated, to reveal the extent to which a school district is meeting its goals and objectives, whether they are internally or externally developed or imposed. A public report is issued as the final phase of the auditing process.

The audit’s scope is centered on curriculum and instruction, and any aspect of operations of a school system that enhances or hinders its design and/or delivery. The audit is an intensive, focused, “postholed” look at how well a school system such as Klein Independent School District has been able to set valid directions for pupil accomplishment and well-being, concentrate its resources to accomplish those directions, and improve its performance, however contextually defined or measured, over time.

The Curriculum Audit™ does not examine any aspect of school system operations unless it pertains to the design and delivery of curriculum. For example, auditors would not examine the cafeteria function, unless students were going hungry and, therefore, were not learning. It would not examine vehicle maintenance charts, unless buses continually broke down and children could not get to school to engage in the learning process. It would not be concerned with custodial matters, unless schools were observed to be unclean and unsafe for children to be taught.

The Curriculum Audit™ centers its focus on the main business of schools: teaching, curriculum, and learning. Its contingency focus is based upon data gathered during the audit that impinges negatively or positively on its primary focus. These data are reported along with the main findings of the audit.

In some cases, ancillary findings in a Curriculum Audit™ are so interconnected with the capability of a school system to attain its central objectives that they become major, interactive forces, which, if not addressed, will severely compromise the ability of the school system to be successful with its students.

Curriculum Audits™ have been performed in over 500 school systems in more than 41 states, the District of Columbia, and several other countries, including Canada, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Bermuda.

The methodology and assumptions of the Curriculum Audit™ have been reported in the national professional literature for more than two decades, and at a broad spectrum of national education association conventions and seminars, including the American Association of School Administrators (AASA); Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD); National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP); Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE); American Educational Research Association (AERA); National School Boards Association (NSBA); and the National Governors Association (NGA).

TASA’s Curriculum Management Audit Center has an exclusive contractual agreement with Curriculum Management Solutions, inc. (CMSi—a public corporation incorporated in the State of Iowa, and owner of the copyrights to the intellectual property of the audit process), for the purpose of conducting audits for educational institutions, providing training for auditors and others interested in the audit process, and officially assisting in the certification of TCMAC-CMSi curriculum auditors.

This audit was conducted in accordance with a contract between Klein Independent School District and the Texas Curriculum Management Audit Center (TCMAC). All members of the team were certified by Curriculum Management Solutions, inc.


Curriculum auditors for this audit were:

• Kay Coleman, M.Ed.

• Christine Anderson, Ed.D.

• Linda Atkinson, Ph.D.

• Dora Barrio, M.Ed.

• Lora Darden, Ph.D.

• Jim Ferrell, Ed.D.

• Robbin Gesch, M.Ed.

• Susan Penny Gray, Ph.D.

• John Murdoch, Ed.D.

• Michelle Tenam-Zemach, Ed.D.

• Sue Van Hoozer, M.Ed.

• Gary Zehrbach, Ph.D.

• Olivia Zepeda, M.Ed.

Off-site Auditors

• Heather Boeschen, B.A.

• Sarah McKenzie, Ph.D.

Biographical information about the auditors is found in Appendix A. This audit team has vast experience, including conducting 161 audits and serving on audit teams in 24 states and one foreign country.

System Purpose for Conducting the Audit

Klein ISD requested a curriculum audit as part of the district’s continual improvement process. During the new superintendent’s 100-day entry plan he received information that he felt the system needed to follow up on. Teachers expressed concern with many aspects of both the written and taught curriculum. As a result, he requested an external, objective evaluation of the curriculum in order to improve student achievement.

Approach of the Audit

The Curriculum Audit™ has established itself as a process of integrity and candor in assessing public school districts. It has been presented as evidence in state and federal litigation concerning matters of school finance, general resource managerial effectiveness, and school desegregation efforts in Kansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, and South Carolina. The audit served as an important data source in state-directed takeovers of school systems in New Jersey and Kentucky. The Curriculum Audit™ has become recognized internationally as an important, viable, and valid tool for the improvement of educational institutions and for the improvement of curriculum design and delivery.

The Curriculum Audit™ represents a “systems” approach to educational improvement; that is, it considers the system as a whole rather than a collection of separate, discrete parts. The interrelationships of system components and their impact on overall quality of the organization in accomplishing its purposes are examined in order to “close the loop” in curriculum and instructional improvement.


II. METHODOLOGY

The Model for the Curriculum Audit™

The model for the Curriculum Audit™ is shown in the schematic below. The model has been published widely in the national professional literature, including the best-selling book, The Curriculum Management Audit: Improving School Quality (1995, Frase, English, Poston).

A Schematic View of Curricular Quality Control

General quality control assumes that at least three elements must be present in any organizational and work-related situation for it to be functional and capable of being improved over time. These are: (1) a work standard, goal/objective, or operational mission; (2) work directed toward attaining the mission, standard, goal/objective; and (3) feedback (work measurement), which is related to or aligned with the standard, goal/objective, or mission.

When activities are repeated, there is a “learning curve,” i.e., more of the work objectives are achieved within the existing cost parameters. As a result, the organization, or a subunit of an organization, b