College Readiness of California's High School Students—The State Can Better Prepare Students for College by Adopting New Strategies and Increasing Oversight

College Readiness of California’s

High School Students

The State Can Better Prepare Students for College by

Adopting New Strategies and Increasing Oversight

Report -

February 

COMMITMENT

INTEGRITY

LEADERSHIP

For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact MargaritaFernández, Chief of Public Aﬀairs, at ..

This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternate format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports

 Capitol Mall, Suite  | Sacramento | CA | 

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

.. | TTY ..

...

For complaints of state employee misconduct,

Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at

auditor.ca.gov

Doug Cordiner Chief Deputy

Elaine M. Howle State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.0255 916.327.0019 fax www.auditor.ca.gov

February 28, 2017 2016-114

e Governor of California

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Speaker of the Assembly

State Capitol

Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this

audit report concerning access to and completion of college preparatory coursework needed for

admission to the State’s public university systems.

Our analysis suggests that students attending school districts that establish higher student expectations,

coupled with relevant tools and student support, are more likely to meet those expectations. SanFrancisco

Uniﬁed School District’s (San Francisco) college preparatory coursework completion rates (completion

rates) were signiﬁcantly higher than the other twodistricts we reviewed—Stockton Uniﬁed School District

(Stockton), and Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District (Coachella). Speciﬁcally, in2015 only 21percent

of Stockton’s students successfully completed the college preparatory coursework, while 30percentof

Coachella’s students met these requirements. In contrast, 69 percent of students in San Francisco

completed college preparatory coursework. We believe the diﬀerence in completion rates is in part because

SanFrancisco requires its students to take college preparatory courses in order to graduate and has devoted

signiﬁcant resources to assisting its students in thisendeavor.

We also found that completion rates are inﬂuenced by whether students stay on a prescribed track

each year—most notably in grade nine. At each of the three districts, we found most students who

fell oﬀ track for completing the necessary coursework did so during gradenine and only 9percent of

them went on to complete the coursework necessary to gain admittance to the State’s public university

systems. us, students’ academic preparedness upon entering high school signiﬁcantly impacts

completion rates. Funds to help kindergarten through grade eight students prepare for the rigor of

college preparatorycoursework could help keep more high school students on track to complete college

preparatory coursework requirements by their senioryear.

In addition, our review indicates that schools within our selected districts were able to provide students

with suﬃcient access to college preparatory coursework during the years that we reviewed, but we

encountered signiﬁcant barriers to assessing the level of access because of the limited data the districts

maintained. e California Department of Education and county oﬃces of education could provide

additional oversight, support, and guidance to districts to ensure they provide suﬃcient access to college

preparatory coursework and adequately assist their students in completing thosecourses.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA

State Auditor

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

vCalifornia State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Contents

Summary 1

Introduction 5

Chapter 1

School Districts May Be Able to Signiﬁcantly Improve Students’

CollegeReadiness by Oﬀering a Range of Academic Supports 13

Recommendations 39

Chapter 2

Increased State and County‑Level Guidance and Oversight

CouldImproveStudents’ College Preparedness 41

Recommendations 51

Appendix A

Our Analysis of Student Access to College Preparatory Coursework 53

Appendix B

Student Demographics of Three Selected Districts 57

Responses to the Audit

California Department of Education 61

California State Auditor’s Comments on theResponse From

the California Department of Education 65

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District 67

California State Auditor’s Comment on theResponse From

the Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District 69

Stockton Uniﬁed School District 71

vi California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

1California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

continued on next page . . .

Audit Highlights . . .

Our review of three school districts’

eﬀorts related to college preparedness

highlighted the following:

» College preparatory coursework

completion rates were signiﬁcantly

higher—69 percent—in one school

district compared to those in the other

two districts—21 and 30 percent.

» Completion rates at the three districts

we reviewed were heavily inﬂuenced by

students’ ability to complete coursework on

a prescribed track beginning in grade nine.

» The vast majority of students in two of

the three districts fell oﬀ track during

some point in their high school careers

and very few of those students went on to

complete college preparatory coursework.

» Although our analysis suggests that our

selected schools were able to provide

students with suﬃcient access to college

preparatory coursework during certain of

the years we reviewed, we encountered

signiﬁcant barriers to assessing the level

of access for all years because of the

limited data the districts maintained.

» All three districts we reviewed showed

achievement gaps in completing college

preparatory coursework between certain

subgroups of students; however even

similar subgroups of students, such

as English learners, fared better in

one district compared to the other two.

» One district has devoted signiﬁcant

resources to help its students, including

providing targeted intervention and

support for students who are not on track

to meet requirements.

Summary

Results in Brief

In recent years, California’s state and local educational agencies

have increasingly focused on the importance of preparing the

State’s students for college. e Public Policy Institute of California

projects that percent of California’s jobs will require at least a

bachelor’s degree by, while population and education trends

suggest that only percent of working-age adults in California

will have a bachelor’s degree at that time—a shortfall of .million

college graduates. To ﬁll this gap, the State will need to signiﬁcantly

increase the number of college-ready students who graduate from

its high schools each year. Onemeasure of college readiness is a

high school student’s completion of the college preparatory courses

necessary for admission to the University of California (UC) and

California State University (CSU). In – less than half of

high school students statewide completed the college preparatory

coursework that would qualify them to enroll in a UC or CSU

school upon high schoolgraduation.

Of the three districts whose eﬀorts to improve college preparedness

we reviewed—SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District (SanFrancisco),

Stockton Uniﬁed School District (Stockton), and Coachella Valley

Uniﬁed School District (Coachella), we found that SanFrancisco’s

college preparatory coursework completion rates (completion

rates) were signiﬁcantly higher than those of the other twodistricts.

Speciﬁcally, in only percent of Stockton’s students and

percent of Coachella’s students successfully completed college

preparatory coursework. In contrast, percent of students

in SanFrancisco completed college preparatory coursework.

Although a number of factors contributed to the diﬀerences

in the threedistricts’ success in preparing students for college,

SanFrancisco’s prioritization of college preparatory coursework

completion appears to have a signiﬁcant impact. In

SanFrancisco aligned its graduation coursework requirements with

the minimum coursework requirements necessary for admission to

UC andCSU.

Completion rates at the threedistricts we reviewed were also

heavily inﬂuenced by students’ abilities to complete coursework

on a prescribed track beginning in gradenine. Falling oﬀ this

track signiﬁcantly decreases students’ chances of completing

college preparatory coursework. e vast majority of students in

graduation years through in Coachella and Stockton

fell oﬀ track at some point during their high school careers and

few of those students went on to complete all the necessary

college preparatory coursework by the end of high school.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Speciﬁcally, percent and percent of Coachella and Stockton

students, respectively, fell oﬀ track and only percent of

Coachella and percent of Stockton students completed college

preparatorycoursework.

At each of the threedistricts, we found that of the students who fell

oﬀ track for completing the necessary coursework, up to percent

did so during gradenine, indicating that districts should ensure

that students enroll in and compete college preparatory coursework

beginning in their ﬁrstyear of high school. Furthermore, an average

of only percent of the students who fell oﬀ track in gradenine in the

threedistricts we reviewed graduated with the coursework necessary

to gain admission to the State’s public university systems. Moreover,

we found that on average, percent of Stockton students, percent

of Coachella students, and percent of SanFrancisco students did

not pass a college preparatory English class by the end of gradenine.

e percentage of gradenine students who were not prepared forthe

rigors of college preparatory coursework suggests that equipping

kindergarten through gradeeight students with the necessary skills

and knowledge is critical to ensuring that they will graduate from

high school having met the coursework requirements for admission

to the State’s public universitysystems.

Although our analysis suggests that the schools we selected were

able to provide students with suﬃcient access to college preparatory

coursework during certain of the years that we reviewed, we

encountered signiﬁcant barriers to assessing students’ levels

of access for all years because of the limited data the districts

maintained. For example, Coachella’s business practices have been

to mark courses which ended prior to the ﬁnal term of the school

year as inactive, which made it appear that Coachella failed to

oﬀer courses even though it did actually oﬀer them. Moreover, the

districts we reviewed do not conduct analyses that demonstrate that

they provided all students access to college preparatory coursework.

However, our analysis of available documentation indicates that

access did not signiﬁcantly hamper students’ ability to complete

required college preparatorycourses.

In addition, all threedistricts we reviewed showed achievement

gaps in completing college preparatory coursework between

certain subgroups of students. Speciﬁcally, in SanFrancisco,

underrepresented minorities’ completion rates ranged from

percent to percent, whereas white and Asian students’

completion rates ranged from percent to percent.

Similarly,Stockton’s completion rates for underrepresented

minorities ranged from percent to percent, whereas

completion rates for white and Asian students ranged from

» Even though required by state law, the

California Department of Education

provides only minimal assistance to

districts to ensure students have access

to college preparatory coursework.

» County oﬃces of education could provide

additional oversight, support, and

guidance to districts to ensure they provide

suﬃcient access to college preparatory

coursework and adequately assist their

students in completing those courses.

3California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

percent to percent.

However, other subgroups of students—

such as students who are eligible to receive free or reduced price

meals at school, English learners, and youth in foster care—

generally fared better in SanFrancisco than Coachella and Stockton.

In particular, SanFrancisco’s completion rate for these students is

threetimes that of similar students in Stockton and twotimes that

of students inCoachella.

Our analysis suggests that students attending school districts that

establish higher student expectations, coupled with relevant tools

and student support, are more likely to meet those expectations.

Although all threedistricts we reviewed have adopted best

practices to support their students during their high school

careers, SanFrancisco in particular employs a variety of tools

that have likely contributed to its high completion rates. In

addition to aligning its graduation coursework requirements with

coursework requirements necessary for admission to UC and

CSU, SanFrancisco devoted signiﬁcant resources and support

to help its students succeed. is support includes robust credit

recovery options, including options to repeat failed classes

through summer school and after school, for students who do not

meet requirements. SanFrancisco also implemented systematic,

districtwide identiﬁcation of students who are at risk of not meeting

coursework requirements and then intervenes by meeting with

those students and notifying their parents. Although Stockton and

Coachella oﬀered their own best practices, opportunities remain

for improvement, particularly with regard to identifying and

providing support for students who are struggling to meet college

preparatoryrequirements.

Further, the California Department of Education (Education) and

county oﬃces of education could provide additional oversight,

support, and guidance to districts to ensure they provide suﬃcient

access to college preparatory coursework and adequately assist

their students in completing those courses. Although each of

the threedistricts we visited stressed the importance of college

preparatory coursework completion, no clear statewide framework

exists for ensuring that districts meet that goal. State law requires the

superintendent of public instruction, who heads Education, to assist

districts to ensure that all public high school students have access

to a core curriculum that meets the admission requirements of UC

and CSU. However, Education currently provides only minimal

assistance to districts: over the last fouryears, the only guidance it

has oﬀered was oneletter.

We used the University of California’s (UC) deﬁnition for underrepresented minorities. Speciﬁcally,

the UC considers underrepresented minorities to be Chicanos/Latinos, African Americans, and

AmericanIndians.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Selected Recommendations

If the Legislature wishes to further prioritize students’ completion

of college preparatory coursework, it should ensure gradenine

students are ready for the rigors of such work by devoting

additional resources or reallocating existing resources for

educational eﬀorts beginning in kindergarten and continuing

through grade eight.

To increase students’ completion rates, districts should take the

followingactions:

• Develop and institute a model similar to SanFrancisco’s

system that will allow them to determine whether students are

completing grade-level college preparatory coursework and to

intervene asnecessary.

• Create a robust and stable network of credit recovery options

that reﬂect the needs of their student populations. ese

options—which the districts should monitor for eﬀectiveness—

should include summer school courses and eveningcourses.

To comply with existing law and ensure that students receive

suﬃcient access to college preparatory coursework, Education

should provide additional training and guidance to districts

throughout the State on the creation and application of appropriate

district and school level accessanalyses.

Agency Comments

Education did not agree with our recommendation, but stated it would

continue to provide assistance to districts as required by statelaw.

Stockton stated it is working to improve services to students in

all areas, including access to and successful completion of college

preparatory courses. Coachella stated that it will continue to build

personnel capacity and programs to help foster improvements

in both student achievement and system processes in support of

students. San Francisco did not provide a response to theaudit.

5California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Introduction

Background

ere were  high school districts and uniﬁed school districts—

that include students from kindergarten to grade —in California

with nearly .millionenrolled high school students in the –

school year. To ensure that all of these students have the skills and

knowledge necessary to succeed, districts have been increasing

the emphasis they place on college readiness. According to Higher

Education in California, a report published by the Public Policy

Institute of California (PPIC), the State’s higher education system is

not keeping up with the changing economy. e PPIC projects that

if current trends persist, percent of jobs in will require at

least a bachelor’s degree. However, population and education trends

suggest that only percent of working-age adults in California will

have bachelor’s degrees by—a shortfall of .million college

graduates. e PPIC suggests that the State needs to act now to

close this skills gap and meet futuredemand.

College Preparatory Coursework Requirements

Since  the University of California (UC) has required

highschoolsto submit for approval a list of college

preparatory courses that fulﬁll the requirements for

admission to UC. In the Legislature required of the

California State University (CSU), and requested of UC,

to establish a model set of uniform academic standards

for high school courses for admission to CSU and UC.

As Figure on the following page shows, these academic

standards encompass the high school coursework UC

and CSU require for admission. ese courses are called

the a‑g courses because of the letters assigned to each

subject area: a is for history, b is for English, and so on.

Only courses certiﬁed through the UC’s course approval

process are valid for admission purposes to both the UC

and CSU systems. e intent of college preparatory

coursework is to ensure that students attain a body of

general knowledge that will provide breadth and

perspective to new, more advancedstudy.

To qualify as an a-g course, a high school course

must be certiﬁed through the UC’s course approval

process, as we further describe in the textbox.

According toUC’s associate director of undergraduate

admissions, UC approves these courses based on the

courses meeting speciﬁc criteria. UC maintains lists

Additional Information About the

UC Course Approval Process

• All college preparatory courses must be certiﬁed by UC

for students to receive college preparatory credit. Courses

that are approved by UC meet both the UC and the CSU’s

admission requirements. UC is the only state entity that

certiﬁes college preparatory courses. CSU adopted the

same basic college preparatory curriculum and relies on

UC to approve thecourses.

• To certify a course, California high schools and online

schools submit college preparatory courses in the

sevensubject areas to UC forapproval.

• UC evaluates course submissions based on criteria

developed by UC’sfaculty.

• UC maintains lists of college preparatory courses for each

school and instructs schools to update the lists regularly.

The course lists for each school should include all courses

available to students for the upcoming academicyear.

Source: California State Auditor’s review of information from

UCand theCSU.

6 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

of each school’s college preparatory courses and instructs schools

to update lists annually. Although other states’ university systems

have general coursework requirements, only California, Georgia,

Nevada, and Kansas have statewide processes in place to centrally

approve those courses required for collegeadmission.

Figure 1

Minimum College Preparatory Coursework Necessary for Admission to California’s PublicUniversities

SUBJECT REQUIREMENTCATEGORY

HISTORY

ENGLISH

MATHEMATICS

LABORATORY SCIENCE

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS

COLLEGE PREPARATORY ELECTIVES

YEARS

YEAR

Source: The University of California (UC).

Notes: Students must complete each course with a grade of C- or better to be admitted to California’s public universities.

UC refers to Foreign Language as languages other than English.

State law requires districts to provide all qualiﬁed students with

timely opportunities to enroll in each college preparatory course

necessary to fulﬁll the requirements for admission to the State’s

public universities. Although state law sets certain minimum

graduation requirements for high school students throughout

the State, districts can adopt other coursework requirements.

For example, districts may require varying levels of math or

foreign language requirements for students to be eligible to

graduate. Similarly, school districts have the option of requiring all

students to complete college preparatory coursework to graduate.

7California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

SanFrancisco, SanDiego, and LosAngeles Uniﬁed School Districts,

among others, require students to complete a full sequence of

college preparatory courses before they cangraduate.

Educational Funding and Oversight

California’s education system involves both statewide and local

entities. e State Board of Education (State Board) is the State’s

kindergarten through grade  policy-making body; it also adopts

academic standards, assessments, and templates for local control

and accountability plans. e California Department of Education

(Education), on the other hand, is responsible for implementing the

policies created by the State Board and overseeing school districts.

Education also receives data from schools about graduation rates,

enrollments, and other statistics through a program known as

the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System.

In addition, the county oﬃces of education (county oﬃces)

are responsible for examining and approving school district

budgets. County oﬃces may also provide or help formulate

new curricula and instructional materials and training and data

processingservices.

e adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula (funding formula)

in revised the funding allocation for districts. In addition,

under this funding formula, districts receive speciﬁc funds to help

unduplicated students. State law describes an unduplicated student as

a pupil who is either classiﬁed as an English learner, eligible for free or

reduced price meals, or is a fosteryouth.

Further, the Legislature approved additional funding for districts

in when it created the College Readiness Block Grant

(Block Grant). e Block Grant allocated million to

provide additional support to high school students, particularly

unduplicated students, to increase the number who enroll in

institutions of higher education and complete bachelor’s degrees

within fouryears. Education distributed the funds to districts based

on the number of unduplicated high school students they enrolled

in –. Districts can use the funds for support activities such

as professional development for teachers, administrators, and

counselors; counseling programs; and programs to expand access to

coursework to satisfy the college preparatory courserequirements.

8 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Scope and Methodology

e Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directedthe

California State Auditor to conduct an audit of college preparatory

coursework at a selection of high schools from threeschool districts.

We list the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the

methods we used to address those objectives in Table.

Table 1

Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD

1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules,

and regulations signiﬁcant to the

auditobjectives.

Reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and other relevant background materials applicable to access

to and completion of a–gcourses.

2 Determine the percentage of a–gcourses

oﬀered by each district and selected high

school. To the extent possible, determine

how many students at the high schools

are eligible to enroll in these classes

and whether the number of available

courses is suﬃcient to oﬀer courses to all

eligiblestudents.

• Selected Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed School Districts and sixhigh

schools within those districts from among the 13potential districts noted in the audit request

based on a variety of factors, including a–g completion rate, unduplicated pupil percentage,

and geographiclocation.

• Obtained and analyzed student-level data from our selected districts and high schools for

graduation years2013 through2015 for all enrolled students to determine whether suﬃcient

access to college preparatory courseworkexisted.

• Reviewed master schedules at each of the sixhighschools.

• Obtained and analyzed certain enrollment and completion data from the California Department

of Education (Education), including the percentage of a–g courses oﬀered and statewide

completionrates.

• All of the districts we interviewed conﬁrmed that there are no eligibility requirements for college

preparatorycoursework.

3 At each district and the selected high

schools, determine the following

information, to the extent possible, and

whether barriers exist that prevent speciﬁc

populations of students from enrolling

in or completing a–g coursework at rates

comparable to those of theirpeers:

• Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts

and high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

• Interviewed district and high school personnel related to college preparatory coursework barriers

that students mayface.

a. The total number of students enrolled,

categorized by race, ethnicity,

gender, unduplicated pupil status

(as deﬁned by California Education

Code section42238.02), and English

learnerstatus.

Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and

high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

b. The percentage of students, by grade,

enrolled in a–g courses.

Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and

high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

c. Enrollment rates for a–g courses by

course, grade, race, ethnicity, gender,

unduplicated pupil status, and English

learnerstatus.

Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and

high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

9California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD

d. The percentage of students on track to

complete a–g coursework bygrade.

• Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected

districtsand high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

• Deﬁned an on track model based on University of California (UC) and California State University(CSU)

credit and course requirements and interviews with district personnel. This model does

not accountfor all of the means by which students can bypass the general a–g coursework

requirements. For example, the UC and CSU allow students to take and pass an Advanced

Placement exam instead of completing a related a–g course. Moreover, there are certain

validation rules for circumstances in which students are presumed to have completed the

lower-level coursework if they have successfully completed advanced work in an area of sequential

knowledge.Our model includes the foreign language validation rule. Finally, our model considers

students to have met the requirements if they received a C- or better in eachcourse.

e. The a–g course completion rate by

course, grade, race, ethnicity, gender,

unduplicated pupil status, and English

learnerstatus.

• Obtained and analyzed student-level enrollment and completion data from our selected

districts and high schools for graduation year2013 through2015.

• Interviewed district and high school personnel related to college preparatory

courseworkcompletion.

• Obtained and analyzed studenttranscripts.

• Identiﬁed and veriﬁed district, high school, and charter school best practices related to college

preparatory courseworkcompletion.

f. The average grade point average (GPA)

for students completing a–g coursework

by grade, race, ethnicity, gender,

unduplicated pupil status, and English

learnerstatus.

Obtained and analyzed student level enrollment and completion data, including GPAs, from our

selected districts and high schools for graduation years2013 through2015.

4 Review and assess the process that the

districts and high schools use to oﬀer

a–gcoursework tostudents.

• Interviewed district and high school personnel to determine the process used to create the

master schedule each year and to submit a–g courses for approval to theUC.

• Reviewed and assessed the UC’s a–g requirements and its process for reviewing and approving

a–gcourses.

• Compared UC approved a–g courses to courses oﬀered at our selected highschools.

• Determined the level of outreach and interaction the UC has with districts andschools.

5 Review and assess any other issues that are

related to theaudit.

• Interviewed and gathered documents from Education, County Oﬃces of Education,

theCalifornia Collaborative for Education Excellence, the State Board of Education, and the UC to

determine their role, if any, related to college preparatorycoursework.

• Obtained and analyzed the college preparedness portions of the local control and accountability

plans for each of the threedistricts.

• Interviewed personnel in the remaining 10districts noted in the audit request related to college

preparatory coursework access andcompletion.

• Reviewed other states to determine whether similar a–g requirementsexist.

• Obtained a list from the UC of all school districts in the State that did not oﬀer at least onecourse

in each a–g category. We veriﬁed that those districts all oﬀer at least one course in each a-g

category, either by correcting past master schedule errors, or by oﬀering online courses that

would satisfy therequirement.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request number2016-114, planning documents, and analysis of

information and documentation identiﬁed in the column titledMethod.

10 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we obtained electronic data ﬁles extracted

from the information systems listed in Table beginning on the

following page. e U.S.Government Accountability Oﬃce, whose

standards we are statutorily required to follow, requires us to

assess the suﬃciency and appropriateness of computer-processed

information that we use to support ﬁndings, conclusions, or

recommendations. Table describes the analyses we conducted

using data from these information systems, our methods for

testing, and the results of our assessments. Although these

determinations may aﬀect the precision of the numbers we present,

there is suﬃcient evidence in total to support our audit ﬁndings,

conclusions, andrecommendations.

Table 2

Methods Used to Assess Data Reliability

INFORMATION SYSTEM PURPOSE METHOD AND RESULT CONCLUSION

SanFrancisco Uniﬁed

School District

(SanFrancisco)

Synergy Student

Information System

(Synergy) for 2013–14

through2014–15

Student Information

System for 2009–10

through 2012–13

Horizon System National

School Lunch Program

data for 2009–10

through 2014–15

Foster Focus System

foster youth data

for 2009–10

through2014–15

To determine a–g

completion rates by

students’ race, ethnicity,

gender, unduplicated

pupil status, and

English learnerstatus.

• We performed data-set veriﬁcation and electronic testing of

key data elements and did not identify any signiﬁcant issues.

We did not perform full accuracy and completeness testing

of these data because they come from partially paperless

systems, and thus, hard-copy source documentation was

not consistently available for review. However, to gain some

assurance that SanFrancisco’s data contained information

for students applicable to our analysis, we reconciled

the total number of students included in SanFrancisco’s

data for each academic year to the enrollment data the

California Department of Education (Education) publishes on

itswebsite.

• To gain some assurance that SanFrancisco correctly

identiﬁed college preparatory coursework, we compared

a selection of course data to the University of California’s

(UC) listing of certiﬁed courses and found that SanFrancisco

had misidentiﬁed 10courses. However, these courses did

not ultimately aﬀect any students’ overall completion of

a–grequirements.

Undetermined reliability

for thispurpose.

Although this determination

may aﬀect the precision of

the numbers we present,

there is suﬃcient evidence

in total to support our

ﬁndings, conclusions,

andrecommendations.

11California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

INFORMATION SYSTEM PURPOSE METHOD AND RESULT CONCLUSION

Stockton Uniﬁed

SchoolDistrict

(Stockton)

Synergy for 2009–10

through2014–15

eOﬃceSuite National

School Lunch Program

data for 2009–10

through2012–13

Coachella Valley

Uniﬁed School District

(Coachella)

Aeries Student

Information System

for 2009–10

through2014–15

To determine a–g

completion rates by

students’ race, ethnicity,

gender, unduplicated

pupil status, and

English learnerstatus.

• We performed data-set veriﬁcation and electronic testing of

key data elements and did not identify any signiﬁcant issues.

We did not perform full accuracy and completeness testing

of these data because they come from partially paperless

systems, and thus, hard-copy source documentation was

not consistently available for review. However, to gain some

assurance that the districts’ data contained information for

students applicable to our analysis, we reconciled the total

number of students included in each district’s data for each

academic year to the enrollment data Education publishes

on itswebsite.

• To gain some assurance that the districts correctly identiﬁed

college preparatory coursework, we compared a selection

of course data to UC's listing of certiﬁed courses and

found Stockton and Coachella had misidentiﬁed a total of

60courses and 13courses, respectively. These errors resulted

in 171students appearing to meet a–g requirements when

they may not have actually met therequirements.

• We also identiﬁed limitations related to the data.

Speciﬁcally, we were unable to identify students who

attended Stockton as freshmen in 2009–10, but did not

enroll with the district in subsequent years. This is because

Stockton was still exclusively using its legacy system

for2009–10. When Stockton transitioned from the legacy

system to Synergy, it only copied data for 2009–10 over to

Synergy if the student was still enrolled with the district at

the time of the transition toSynergy.

• Further, Coachella acknowledged that its data for students’

free or reduced price meal status is incomplete. Free or

reduced price meal status is onecomponent used to

identify a student’s unduplicated pupil status. However,

using Coachella’s available free or reduced price meal

data combined with other data, we were still able to

identify 92percent or more of students in each of the

threeCoachella cohorts as having unduplicated pupilstatus.

Not suﬃciently reliable

for thispurpose.

Although this determination

may aﬀect the precision of

the numbers we present,

there is suﬃcient evidence

in total to support our

ﬁndings, conclusions,

andrecommendations

SanFrancisco

Synergy for 2013–14

through2014–15

Stockton

Synergy for 2011–12

through2014–15

To determine if there

was suﬃcient college

preparatory-level

coursework oﬀered

forstudents.

• We performed data-set veriﬁcation and electronic testing of

key data elements and did not identify any signiﬁcant issues.

We did not perform accuracy and completeness testing

of these data because they come from partially paperless

systems, and thus, hard-copy source documentation was

not consistently available for review. However, to gain some

assurance that the course data included all courses actually

oﬀered by the districts, we compared 60courses from

student transcripts to the data and did not identify anyissues.

• As discussed previously, Stockton misidentiﬁed courses as

college preparatory coursework certiﬁed, even though UC

had not certiﬁed them. However, we were able to correct for

these errors in this analysis using supplemental information

fromUC.

Undetermined reliability

for thispurpose.

Although this determination

may aﬀect the precision of

the numbers we present,

there is suﬃcient evidence

in total to support our

ﬁndings, conclusions,

andrecommendations.

Education

California Longitudinal

Pupil Achievement Data

System for2014–15

To determine

thepercent of high

school classes at each

district that satisﬁes an

a–grequirement.

We performed data-set veriﬁcation and electronic testing of

key data elements and did not identify any signiﬁcant issues.

We did not perform accuracy and completeness testing of

these data because they are submitted by local educational

agencies and any supporting documentation is maintained

throughout the State. We reconciled the total number of classes

and students included in the data to the numbers Education

reported through its website to gain some assurance that

Education provided all of its relevantdata.

Undetermined reliability

for thispurpose.

Although this determination

may aﬀect the precision of

the numbers we present,

there is suﬃcient evidence

in total to support our

ﬁndings, conclusions,

andrecommendations.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of various documents, interviews, and data from Education, Coachella, SanFrancisco, and Stockton.

12 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

13California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Chapter 1

SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY BE ABLE TO SIGNIFICANTLY

IMPROVE STUDENTS’ COLLEGE READINESS BY OFFERING

A RANGE OF ACADEMICSUPPORTS

Chapter Summary

Our review suggests that when school districts (districts) prioritize

college preparatory coursework and the support they provide to

students, they signiﬁcantly aﬀect the likelihood that students will

graduate from high school having taken the coursework necessary

for admission into the State’s public university systems. In

the SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District (SanFrancisco) aligned

its graduation coursework requirements with the minimum

coursework requirements necessary for admission to the University

of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems,

eﬀectively requiring all its students to complete college preparatory

coursework to graduate.

Of the threedistricts we reviewed—

SanFrancisco, Stockton Uniﬁed School District (Stockton), and

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District (Coachella)—we found

that SanFrancisco’s college preparatory coursework completion

rates (completion rates) were signiﬁcantly higher than those of the

other two districts. Speciﬁcally, in only percent of Stockton’s

students successfully completed the college preparatory coursework,

while percent of Coachella’s students met these requirements. In

contrast, percent of students in SanFrancisco completed college

preparatorycoursework.

Completion rates at the threedistricts we reviewed were also

heavily inﬂuenced by students’ ability to complete coursework on a

prescribed track beginning in grade nine. We found that the majority

of students who fell oﬀ track at some point during their high school

careers did so during gradenine. Although few of these students

in any of the threedistricts went on to complete the remainder of

their college preparatory coursework, we found that SanFrancisco

provided a number of resources that ensured that signiﬁcantly

more of its students met the necessary requirements. Similarly,

underrepresented minorities and English learners in all threedistricts

showed achievement gaps in completing college preparatory

coursework but fared better in SanFrancisco than in the other

districts we reviewed—another likely result of the amount of support

SanFrancisco provides.

Although SanFrancisco students must complete the full sequence of college preparatory

coursework, they only need to receive a grade of D or better in these classes to graduate.

However, to be eligible for admission to the State’s public university systems, students must

receive a grade of C- or better in theseclasses.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Completion Rates of College Preparatory Coursework Vary Widely by

School District but Can Be Improved With Increased Expectations and

AppropriateInterventions

School districts statewide, and the three school districts we selected

for review, varied widely in the rates at which their students completed

college preparatory coursework. However, the data show that school

districts, such as SanFrancisco, can increase completion rates when

they increase expectations and corresponding interventions and

support. According to data maintained by the California Department

of Education (Education), completion rates for districts within

the State ranged from percent to percent in –, with

percent of students completing college preparatory coursework

requirement statewide. Education’s data also indicated that Stockton’s

and Coachella’s completion rates were percent and percent,

respectively, in–. In contrast, Education’s data indicated that

SanFrancisco’s completion rate was  percent—the second-highest

averagestatewide.

Using a diﬀerent methodology, which yielded similar results,

we conducted a detailed analysis of student-level cohort data to

determine the completion rates for students who were enrolled in

gradenine in each of the districts we reviewed.

As Figure illustrates,

the completion rates for students in the through graduating

classes ranged from percent to percent in Stockton, percent to

percent in Coachella, and percent to percent in SanFrancisco.

Students’ ability to stay on a prescribed track is critical to their

completing college preparatory coursework. For students to complete

college preparatory coursework necessary for admission into UC or

CSU by the end of grade, they must enroll in and complete—with

a grade of C- or better—courses across several subjects, as we

show in Figure on page.

We considered students who enrolled

in and completed the minimum number of courses with a grade of

C- or better each year in the prescribed sequence to be on track.

Students must complete multiple courses for many of these subjects.

For example, students must take fouryears of English; thus, most

students who wish to meet the State’s public university systems’

admission standards will need to complete a college preparatory

English course during each of their four high schoolyears.

Each cohort is composed of students who were enrolled in the ninth grade in a given district

for the ﬁrst time in –, took a class for credit at a high school within the respective

audited district, and received a valid mark. Subsequent cohorts reﬂected a similar methodology

for– and–. Students remained in the cohort until they left thedistrict.

UC and CSU require applicants to receive a C or better in all college preparatory courses to be

eligible for admission. Because UC and CSU do not calculate minuses or pluses (such as a C- or

C+), a student who receives a C- would still be eligible foradmission.

Students’ ability to stay on

a prescribed track is critical

to their completing college

preparatorycoursework.

15California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 2

College Preparatory Coursework Completion Rates Vary Signiﬁcantly in the

ThreeDistricts WeReviewed

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

Graduation Year

201520142013

College Preparatory Coursework

Completion Rate

100%

61%

63%

69%

25%

31%

30%

19%

22%

21%

San Francisco

Coachella Valley

Stockton

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left thedistrict.

As Table  on page  shows, the majority of students in graduation

years through in Coachella and Stockton fell oﬀ track

at some point during their high school careers and few of those

students went on to complete all the necessary college preparatory

coursework by the end of high school. Speciﬁcally, percent and

percent of Coachella and Stockton students, respectively, fell oﬀ

track at some point during their fouryears of high school, and only

percent and percent of those students were able to eventually get

back on track and meet all coursework requirements. SanFrancisco

was more successful at keeping students on the prescribed track:

percent fell oﬀ track at some point during their high school

careers and the district helped a higher percentage—percent—of

oﬀ-track students to eventually complete all the college preparatory

coursework requirements. ese data suggest that districts should

focus resources, when limited, on keeping students on track and,

in particular, on helping students successfully complete gradenine

requiredcoursework.

16 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 3

Students Must Complete a General Sequence of Courses to Be On Track to Complete College Preparatory

Requirements by the End of Their Fourth Year



credits

English 4 (b)

Spanish 2 (e)

Chemistry (d)

Psychology (g)

Grade



credits

English 3 (b)

Algebra 2 (c)

Spanish 1 (e)

US History (a)

Grade



credits

English 2 (b)

Geometry (c)

World History (a)

Ceramics (f)

Grade



credits

English 1 (b)

Algebra 1 (c)

Biology (d)

Grade

EXAMPLE OF THE

COLLEGE PREPARATORY PORTION OF A

COURSE SCHEDULE FOR A STUDENT WHO

COMPLETES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

4 English (b) 2 Foreign Language

†

3 Math (c) 1 Visual and Performing Arts

2 History (a) 1 College Preparatory Elective

2 Lab Science (d)

Year 4

150 cumulative credits

3 English (b) 1 History

2 Math (c) 1 Lab Science

3 Any a–g* 1 Foreign Language

Year 3

110 cumulative credits

2 English (b)

1 Math (c)

4 Any a–g*

Year 2

70 cumulative credits

1 English (b)

2 Any a–g*

Year 1

30 credits

MINIMUM COLLEGE PREPARATORY

COURSEWORK REQUIREMENTS

TO BE CONSIDERED ON TRACK



courses

150

credits

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of policies provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco, and StocktonUniﬁed School Districts, and the

University ofCalifornia (UC).

Notes: Students must pass all courses with a grade of C- orbetter.

Credits for courses attended during summer school count toward the prior schoolyear.

* a–g = History (a), English (b), Math (c), Science (d), Foreign Language (e), Visual and Performing Arts (f), College Preparatory Elective (g).

†

Although students must complete two years of foreign language courses, validation rules can be applied to meet these requirements by

successfully completing the second semester of a level2 or higher foreign languagecourse. This could reduce the number ofcumulative

creditsrequired.

17California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Table 3

Students Who Fell Oﬀ Track at Any Point During High School Were Not Likely to Complete College

PreparatoryRequirements

Graduation Years 2013 Through2015

RESULTS OF THE STUDENTS WHO FELL OFF TRACK

UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT

TOTAL NUMBER OF

STUDENTS WHO

FELL OFF TRACK

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL STUDENT

POPULATION WHO

FELL OFF TRACK

MET REQUIREMENTS

BY THE END OF HIGHSCHOOL

DID NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS

BY THE END OF HIGHSCHOOL

NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Coachella Valley 2,459 79% 245 10% 2,214 90%

SanFrancisco 3,706 41 482 13 3,224 87

Stockton 3,904 84 212 5 3,692 95

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of data provided by Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left thedistrict.

Students Who Fail to Meet College Preparatory Requirements

as Freshman Are Unlikely to Complete Coursework Needed for

Admission to the State’s Public UniversitySystems

Completion rates at the threedistricts we reviewed depended

heavily on students’ ability to complete coursework on a prescribed

track beginning in gradenine. At each of the threedistricts,

we found that the majority of students who fell oﬀ this track

did so during gradenine and few of them went on to complete

the remainder of their college preparatory coursework. us, it

is imperative that districts ensure students’ enrollment in and

successful completion of college preparatory coursework beginning

in their ﬁrstyear of highschool.

Seventy-twopercent of students who fell oﬀ track in Stockton,

percent of those who did so in Coachella, and percent

of those who fell of track in SanFrancisco, fell oﬀ track during

gradenine, as Figure on the following pageshows. Of concern

is that an average of only percent of the students who fell oﬀ

track in gradenine in the threedistricts we reviewed completed

the coursework necessary to gain admission to the State’s

public university systems, which highlights the importance of

that ﬁrstyear of high school. Moreover, as Figure on page

shows, students in SanFrancisco who fell oﬀ track in gradenine

had slightly better success—percent—in completing college

preparatory coursework than comparable students in Coachella

and Stockton—at percent and percent, respectively. Falling oﬀ

track during gradenine likely presents the greatest challenge for

students because getting back on track requires them to successfully

complete an even more demanding course load than their peers

18 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

who did not fall oﬀ track. For example, if a ninth-grade student

receives an F in English, that student would need to receive a C-or

better in both English and in a subsequent year, in addition to

passing their other necessary classes, to get back ontrack.

Figure 4

Most Students Who Fell Oﬀ Track Did So in Grade Nine

Graduation Years2013Through2015

Year of High School

12th Grade11th Grade10th Grade9th Grade

Percentage of Students

Who Fell Oﬀ Track

100%

16%

13%

11%

15%

72%

56%

80%

Coachella Valley

San Francisco

Stockton

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed School Districts.

Notes: We calculated the number of students who fell oﬀ track to meet college preparatory requirements during each year of school for students in

graduation years2013 through2015.

We excluded students who left the district.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Our analysis shows that students struggled most signiﬁcantly

with English and math courses—the twosubject areas which

CSU and UC require be taken for the most years. As Figure on

page shows, we found that for students in graduation years

through, about percent of students in Stockton and

Coachella did not meet the English and math college preparatory

course requirements. In SanFrancisco, about percent of students

didnot meet these requirements. We found that, on average,

percent of Stockton students, percent of Coachella students,

and percent of SanFrancisco students did not pass a college

preparatory English class by the end of gradenine. Further, on

average, about percent of students in Stockton, percent of

students in Coachella, and percent of students in SanFrancisco

had not passed a college preparatory math class by grade.

19California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 5

Most Students Who Fell Oﬀ Track in Grade Nine Did Not Complete College PreparatoryCoursework

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

48%

38%

14%

11%

29%

74%

20%

64%

28%

60%

32%

65%

32%

60%

38%

59%

56%

34%

10%

22%

72%

Met requirements

Did not meet

requirements

Left district

Results of Students Who Were

On Track in Ninth Grade

at the End of High School

On track

Oﬀ track

Left district

Percentage of Students

On or Oﬀ Track at the

End of Ninth Grade

Met requirements

Did not meet

requirements

Left district

Results of Students Who Were

Oﬀ Track in Ninth Grade

at the End of High School

Stockton

Uniﬁed School District

San Francisco

Uniﬁed School District

Coachella Valley

Uniﬁed School District

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Many Stockton and Coachella students needed additional assistance

in gradenine to pass some college preparatory courses. Districts

oﬀer support classes to provide supplementary or preventative

assistance to help students successfully complete college preparatory

coursework. Districts enroll students in these support courses when

they determine that students are not academically prepared for

college preparatory coursework. ese classes can be taken before

enrolling in a college preparatory course or simultaneously. We

reviewed districts’ enrollment ﬁgures for support classes and found

that an average of percent of Coachella’s gradenine students

enrolled in a math support class and percent of gradenine

students enrolled in an English support class. e executive

curriculum director at Stockton indicated that a barrier to college

preparatory coursework completion is a lack of students adequately

prepared for grade level coursework as freshmen. In Stockton, the

district identiﬁed math support courses in which percent of its

gradenine students were enrolled. In contrast, SanFrancisco’s policy

is to automatically enroll students in college preparatory courses,

rather than supportcourses.

e percentage of students enrolled in college preparatory courses

does not appear to have a signiﬁcant impact on completion rates.

ere is not a noteworthy gap between districts related to the

percentage of students enrolled in college preparatory courses.

As Figure on page shows, SanFrancisco enrolled an average

of only percent more of its gradenine students in college

preparatory English courses than did Stockton for graduating years

 through. Given that SanFrancisco’s completion rate is

considerably higher than Coachella’s and Stockton’s, it appears that

factors other than the enrollment rates in those courses inﬂuenced

completionrates.

Funds to help kindergarten through gradeeight students prepare

for the rigor of college preparatory coursework could help keep

more high school students on track to complete the coursework

requirements by their senior year. In the Legislature approved

a similar funding strategy for high school students. e College

Readiness Block Grant (Block Grant) allocated million to

provide additional support to high school students, particularly

unduplicated students, to increase the number of students who

enroll in institutions of higher education and complete a bachelor’s

degree within fouryears. Districts could use those funds for

support activities such as professional development, counseling

programs, and programs to expand access to classes to satisfy the

college preparatory courseworkrequirements.

Many Stockton and Coachella

students needed additional

assistance in grade nine to pass

some college preparatorycourses.

21California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 6

English and Math Requirements Presented the Greatest Challenge to Students

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

Subject Area

College

Preparatory

Elective

Visual and

Performing

Arts

Foreign

Language

Lab

Science

MathEnglishHistory

GFEDCBA

Percentage of Students

100%

Subject Area

College

Preparatory

Elective

Visual and

Performing

Arts

Foreign

Language

Lab

Science

MathEnglishHistory

GFEDCBA

Percentage of Students

100%

Subject Area

College

Preparatory

Elective

Visual and

Performing

Arts

Foreign

Language

Lab

Science

MathEnglishHistory

GFEDCBA

Percentage of Students

100%

31% 58% 59% 48% 45% 25% 25%

69% 42% 41% 52% 55% 75% 75%

Not Met

Met

COLLEGE PREPARATORY

COURSEWORK REQUIREMENTS

10% 23% 24% 13% 17%

90% 77% 76% 87% 83% 94% 96%

31% 61% 64% 49% 46% 25% 14%

69% 39% 36% 51% 54% 75% 86%

Stockton

Unied School District

San Francisco

Unied School District

Coachella Valley

Unied School District

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left the district.

22 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 7

Average Enrollment Rates in College Preparatory Math and English Courses in Grade Nine Did Not Vary

Signiﬁcantly

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

Uniﬁed School District

StocktonSan FranciscoCoachella Valley

Percentage of Students Enrolled

100%

92%

97%

95%

83%

88%

English

Math

SUBJECT AREA

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

SanFrancisco presented a plan for its Block Grant that focused on

college counseling, city college dual enrollment eﬀorts, and using

micro funding tailored to meet individual school needs. Stockton’s

approach included increasing services to high school students,

speciﬁcally its unduplicated students, through increased staﬃng

oversight, covering assessment fees for standardized tests for

college admission, and assigning a dedicated mentor to incoming

students to support them throughout their high school experience.

Stockton plans to establish a freshman boot camp to support

incoming students, followed by ﬁeld trips to colleges. Students

would have the opportunity to meet with counselors who review

assessments and transcripts. Stockton also plans to enhance its

data collection eﬀorts to measure the eﬀectiveness of its plans.

According to the director of state and federal projects at Coachella,

the district has yet to submit its plan to Education, but plans to do

so in February. We believe that similar funding and support

strategies targeted at kindergarten through gradeeight students

could help prepare California’s students for meeting the minimum

coursework requirements needed for admission to UC andCSU.

23California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Although the Schools We Reviewed Appear to Have Provided

Suﬃcient Access to College Preparatory Coursework for Certain Years,

the Data Were SigniﬁcantlyLimited for Other Years

State law requires school districts that maintain any grades

fromseven to inclusive to oﬀer all of their students coursework

that will allow them to meet the minimum requirements for

admission to California’s public postsecondary educational

institutions. To evaluate whether suﬃcient access existed, we

reviewed the percentage of total courses oﬀered at each of the

threedistricts we visited, and found that the percentages did not

vary signiﬁcantly among the districts. Speciﬁcally, in–,

percent and percent of all the courses oﬀered at Coachella

and Stockton, respectively, were college preparatory courses. In

SanFrancisco, this percentagewas. We also conducted a detailed

course-by-course analysis by reviewing the schedules of courses

oﬀered at two high schools in each of threeschool districts and

compared the courses oﬀered to the schools’ enrollments. When

the schools had maintained the information we needed, we found

that they had provided students with suﬃcient access to college

preparatory coursework. is ﬁnding suggests that access did not

present a signiﬁcant barrier to the completion of college preparatory

courses. However, fourof the sixhigh schools were unable to supply

us with the data necessary to determine that they had provided

suﬃcient access for all years in our auditperiod.

e data available suggests that adequate capacity existed to allow

students to take the full range of college preparatory requirements

during gradesnine through at the sixschools we selected. For

example, to allow students to take the required fouryears of college

preparatory English, traditional semester-based high schools

should oﬀer access to these classes for percent of their students

every year. e twoschools in Coachella exceeded this obligation

during the years for which data were available: Coachella Valley

High School provided a suﬃcient number of seats for percent

of its students in –, and Desert Mirage High School

provided enough seats for percent of its students in –

as AppendixA beginning on page demonstrates. Likewise,

SanFrancisco oﬀered seats for more than percent of its

students at Mission and Washington high schools during –

and –—the years for which the schools were able to provide

usabledata.

In Stockton, however, Franklin High School satisﬁed the minimum

English access requirement by enrolling students past the maximum

capacity of students per section. For example, Franklin High

School overenrolled students in diﬀerent English sections.

e Franklin High School principal did not respond to our

numerous requests for perspective on this issue. Moreover, during

When the schools had maintained

the information we needed, we

found that they had provided

students with suﬃcient access to

college preparatorycoursework.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

that same period, Franklin High School enrolled students in other

college preparatory courses, such as chemistry and earth science,

beyond the maximum capacity for sections of those courses. We also

reviewed course enrollments during – at George Washington

High School in SanFrancisco and Desert Mirage High School in

Coachella. At George Washington High School, we found students

overenrolled in college preparatory sections, and at Desert Mirage

High School we identiﬁed fourstudents who were overenrolled. us,

although these high schools technically met the access requirement—

Franklin High School in particular—they did so in a manner that

may have negatively aﬀected the success of all the students in those

overenrolledsections.

Furthermore, although each high school we reviewed did not meet

the minimum access requirements in every category for every

year, as TableA beginning on page in Appendix A shows, these

deﬁciencies were unlikely to have aﬀected students’ opportunities

to complete all of the college preparatory requirements. For

example, several schools failed to meet the minimum two-year

foreign language requirement. However, admissions criteria allow

students to take only oneyear of a foreign language if it is a higher

level course, potentially decreasing the number of foreign language

courses that schools need to oﬀer.

In other instances, schools

that did not oﬀer enough college preparatory elective classes had

excess capacity in other course categories such as English or foreign

language, so students could take those courses to satisfy their elective

requirements. TableA includes explanations for why some schools’

failure to meet certain access targets likely did not harmstudents.

Additionally, we veriﬁed that all of our selected schools other than

Coachella Valley High School oﬀered courses with suﬃcient frequency

so that students had the ability to take the courses they needed during

the school day in –. In other words, we did not identify any cases

in which a school oﬀered all courses for multiple categories—such as

English and math—during the same period of the day. us, the times

at which schools oﬀered courses did not present a barrier to students’

access to those classes for–. We were unable to verify that

Coachella Valley High School oﬀered courses with suﬃcient frequency

throughout the school day because it did not retain thisinformation.

e manner in which our selected schools built their course schedules

likely resulted in them oﬀering suﬃcient access to college preparatory

courses for the years we were able to review. e schools within

our selected districts asserted that each year they used a number

of factors to build their course schedules, including schedule types,

There are several other ways to validate the foreign language requirement, including certiﬁcation

by a high school principal and assessment by a college oruniversity.

We did not identify any cases in

which a school oﬀered all courses

for multiple categories—such as

English and math—during the

same period of theday.

25California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

graduation requirements, and student requests. ese factors enabled

the schools to determine which college preparatory courses students

wanted or needed each year. When we spoke with other districts,

including SanDiego Uniﬁed and Vallejo City Uniﬁed, they stated

that—similar to SanFrancisco—they provide suﬃcient access based

on college preparatory-aligned graduationrequirements.

Although we were able to reach certain conclusions about

course access at the sixhigh schools we selected, signiﬁcant data

limitations impeded our ability to deﬁnitively determine whether

the schools in the districts we reviewed provided adequate course

access for each year we reviewed from– through–.

For example, SanFrancisco’s former data system, which it used

through–, did not track whether the courses it oﬀered

were for a semester or a full year. Coachella’s practice has been to

mark courses that ended before the ﬁnal term of the school year as

inactive, which made it appear that Coachella failed to oﬀer courses

even though it did actually oﬀer them. Stockton, as we discuss later,

incorrectly marked courses as college preparatory coursework

certiﬁed, even though UC had not certiﬁed them. However, our

review did not address whether the districts as a whole were

oﬀering appropriate levels of access to college preparatory courses

because that would require evaluating every high school in

thedistrict.

Districts would need to conduct analyses similar to what we

performed to demonstrate they are oﬀering appropriate levels of

access; however, none of the three we reviewed have done so. e

data limitations we identiﬁed serve to illustrate the improvements

in data retention and analysis that would be necessary for districts

to demonstrate whether they provide all students with required

access to college preparatory coursework. Without the proper data

systems and processes in place, the districts cannot demonstrate to

their stakeholders that they are complying with statelaw.

Although Achievement Gaps Exist in All Three Districts We Reviewed,

Certain Subgroups of Students Fared Better in SanFrancisco Than in

Coachella andStockton

In all threedistricts we reviewed, we identiﬁed achievement gapsin

completing college preparatory coursework; however, certain

subgroups of students—such as underrepresented minorities,

and English learners—generally fared better in SanFrancisco

than in Coachella or Stockton.

As we show in Figure, on the

We used UC’s deﬁnition for underrepresented minorities. Speciﬁcally, UC considers

underrepresented minorities to be Chicanos/Latinos, African Americans, and AmericanIndians.

Signiﬁcant data limitations impeded

our ability to deﬁnitively determine

whether the high schools in the

districts we reviewed provided

adequate course access for each year

wereviewed.

26 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

following page, for students in graduation years through,

underrepresented minorities’ completion rates in SanFrancisco

ranged from percent to percent.

ese rates were generally

less than half of those of white and Asian students, ranging from

percent to percent. Stockton’s achievement gap narrowed for

students in graduation years through due to the declining

completion rate among white and Asian students. Stockton’s

underrepresented minorities’ completion rates ranged from

percent to percent, whereas completion rates for white and

Asian students ranged from percent to percent. In Coachella,

the completion rates for underrepresented minorities ranged from

percent to percent.

Figure 8

Completion Rate Achievement GapsExist Among Demographic Subgroups

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

San Francisco—White/Asian

San Francisco—Underrepresented Minorities

Coachella Valley—Underrepresented Minorities

Stockton—White/Asian

Stockton—Underrepresented Minorities

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC

Graduation Year

201520142013

College Preparatory Coursework

Completion Rate

80%

72%

73%

78%

25%

31%

29%

26%

31%

41%

26%

29%

25%

17%

19% 19%

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Notes: We did not include students who identiﬁed as white or Asian in Coachella because the subgroup is made up of fewer than 50students.

State law instructs the California Department of Education to report completion rates only for subgroups whose population exceeds

50students.

For the purpose of this analysis, we used the University of California’s (UC) deﬁnition for underrepresented minorities. Speciﬁcally, UC considers

underrepresented minorities to be Chicano/Latino, African American, and AmericanIndian.

We excluded students who left the district.

We did not include students who identiﬁed as white or Asian in Coachella because the subgroup

is made up of fewer than students. State law instructs Education to report completion rates

only for subgroups whose population exceeds students.

27California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Moreover, an appreciably higher percentage of Chicano/Latino

students in SanFrancisco completed college preparatory

requirements than did so in the other twodistricts we

reviewed. Speciﬁcally, percent of Chicano/Latino students

in SanFrancisco’s graduating class completed all college

preparatory coursework, compared to only percent in Coachella

and percent in Stockton, as Figure shows. Chicano/Latino

students averaged percent of the student population in

Coachella, percent of the student population in Stockton, and

percent of the student population in SanFrancisco from–

through–.

Figure 9

Chicano/Latino Students in SanFrancisco Completed College Preparatory

Coursework at Higher Rates Than in Coachella Valley or Stockton

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

Graduation Year

201520142013

College Preparatory Coursework

Completion Rate

100%

San Francisco

Coachella Valley

Stockton

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

29%

34%

42%

25%

32%

29%

16%

20% 20%

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left the district.

Furthermore, SanFrancisco’s completion rate for unduplicated

students—students who are eligible to receive free or reduced price

meals at school, English learners, and youth in foster care—was

threetimes that of similar students in Stockton and twotimes

that of students in Coachella, as Figure on the following page

illustrates. English learners—a subgroup of unduplicated students—

in SanFrancisco also had signiﬁcantly higher completion rates than

those in Stockton and Coachella, as we show in Figure on page.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

However, English learners had the lowest completion rate out of

any subgroup we evaluated across all districts. Interestingly, we

found that reclassiﬁed English learners had higher completion rates

than English-ﬂuent students across all threedistricts as TableB.

on page  in Appendix B shows. Reclassiﬁed English learners are

students who were initially classiﬁed as English learners but who

subsequently met criteria for English proﬁciency. Completion

rates for reclassiﬁed English learners in graduation years

through ranged from percent to percent in SanFrancisco,

from percent to percent in Coachella, and from percent

to percent in Stockton. ese completion rates ranged from

percent to percent higher than those of English-ﬂuent students

within the same districts over the same timeperiod.

Figure 10

Completion Rate for Unduplicated Pupils in SanFrancisco Was Notably Higher

Than in CoachellaValley orStockton

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

San Francisco

Coachella Valley

Stockton

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Graduation Year

201520142013

College Preparatory Coursework

Completion Rate

100%

55%

58%

64%

24%

31%

29%

19%

21% 21%

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Notes: State law deﬁnes unduplicated pupils as youth in foster care, students eligible to receive free

or reduced price meals, and Englishlearners.

We excluded students who left the district.

When we questioned staﬀ at the threedistricts, we received

disparate opinions regarding the reasons for the achievement gaps.

e assistant superintendent of SanFrancisco indicated that he was

aware of the achievement gaps and was pleased that they appeared

to be narrowing; however, he does not have perspective about

why they exist. e executive director of curriculum for Stockton

29California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

contended that multiple factors may aﬀect outcomes for students

of diﬀerent ethnic backgrounds, including cultural expectations as

reﬂected in the UC enrollment data. Principals from SanFrancisco

and Stockton, and counselors from Coachella, indicated that

English learners face challenges to completing college preparatory

coursework. Onestated that this is in part because they are learning

the English language while at the same time they are expected to

learn the curriculum in English. However, staﬀ from Coachella

indicated that reclassiﬁed English learners have higher completion

rates because these students receive signiﬁcant support from their

districts and schools, and staﬀ from Stockton and SanFrancisco

indicated that meeting the high reclassiﬁcation standards requires

enormous eﬀort on the part of thestudents.

Figure 11

English Learners in SanFrancisco Had Signiﬁcantly Better College

PreparatoryCourse Outcomes

Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

Graduation Year

201520142013

College Preparatory Coursework

Completion Rate

100%

San Francisco

Coachella Valley

Stockton

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

39%

41%

51%

11%

12%

13%

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left the district.

By Implementing Best Practices, Districts May Be Able to Improve

Students’ College Preparedness

As we discuss throughout this chapter, SanFrancisco has been

consistently more successful than the other twodistricts we reviewed

in ensuring that students complete college preparatory coursework.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Not only has SanFrancisco aligned its coursework graduation

requirements with the minimum coursework necessary for admission

to UC and the CSU, it also employs a variety of best practices to

provide students with suﬃcient support during their high school

careers. ese practices include a process to identify students who

have fallen oﬀ track to complete college preparatory coursework

requirements, targeted interventions for students who do not

meet college preparatory coursework requirements, various credit

recovery options, and a robust centralized process to ensure course

certiﬁcation. Although Stockton and Coachella oﬀered their own

best practices, opportunities remain for improvement, particularly

with regard to course certiﬁcation processes and to providing more

consistent identiﬁcation of and assistance to students who are

struggling to meet college preparatoryrequirements.

SanFrancisco Has Implemented a System to Provide Timely Interventions for

Students Who Fall Oﬀ Track for Completing College Preparatory Coursework

e districts we visited have implemented support services to

assist students who are struggling to complete college preparatory

coursework, and they have established pathways for students to

recover credits. However, SanFrancisco has taken the additional

step of implementing a systematic districtwide identiﬁcation

and intervention for students who are at risk of not meeting the

coursework requirements for admissions eligibility to the State’s public

universities. According to SanFrancisco’s executive director of the

oﬃce of college and career readiness, the district’s high completion

rates are due to several factors. In addition to its alignment of

its graduation coursework requirements with college preparatory

coursework requirements, SanFrancisco attributes its success to its

centralized process and ongoing identiﬁcation of oﬀ track students

coupled with targeted interventions for thosestudents.

SanFrancisco implemented a process to identify students who

have fallen oﬀ track to completing college preparatory coursework

requirements. SanFrancisco’s executive director of the oﬃce of college

and career readiness explained that the district began identifying

students who were oﬀ track to complete college preparatory

requirements in– after working with Stanford University to

develop its oﬀ track deﬁnitions. SanFrancisco’s policy deﬁnes students

as oﬀ track if they do not receive a grade of D or better in college

preparatory courses or do not complete a speciﬁc number of credits

dependent on their grade level.

Although SanFrancisco students must complete the full sequence of college preparatory

coursework, they only need to receive a grade of D or better in these classes to graduate.

However, to be eligible for admission to the State’s public university systems, students must

receive a grade of C- or better in theseclasses.

Although all the districts we

visited have implemented some

support services, SanFrancisco

has taken the additional step

of implementing a systematic

districtwide identiﬁcation and

intervention for students who

are at risk of not meeting the

courseworkrequirements.

31California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

SanFrancisco’s policy involves both districtwide and local eﬀorts

during fall and spring semesters. e district creates a list of

students who have fallen oﬀ track. Although school counselors

in the other districts we reviewed meet with students at various

times throughout the school year and document those meetings

in diﬀerent ways, SanFrancisco school counselors are required to

meet with the oﬀ track students, discuss credit recovery options

such as summer and evening school, and document the conference

using academic review plans that record student progress toward

completion of coursework requirements. Further, SanFrancisco

sends a letter to the parents of students who have fallen oﬀ track

and conducts a series of community meetings to meet with

families of students who are not meeting grade-levelrequirements.

ese targeted interventions are an important component

of SanFrancisco’s high college preparatory coursework

completionrates.

Coachella lacks similarly robust processes to intervene with

students who have fallen oﬀ track to complete college preparatory

coursework. Beginning in –, Coachella contracted with the

Riverside County Oﬃce of Education (Riverside County) to conduct

a college preparatory transcript analysis. Riverside County’s analysis

identiﬁes whether students are oﬀ track, on track, or potentially on

track to meeting college preparatory requirements. However, the

analysis only recommends course schedule alterations for students

who are close to meeting or are already meeting requirements,

but not for students determined to be oﬀ track. ere is no policy

requiring counselors to meet with all students who are identiﬁed

as not meeting college preparatory requirements. e director of

secondaryeducation said it would not be eﬀective to alter course

schedules for students who do not have a possibility of getting back

on track to meet the college preparatory courseworkrequirements.

Stockton has no process in place to identify whether a student

has fallen oﬀ track or to intervene when students are not on track

to meet college preparatory requirements. Instead, the executive

director of curriculum explained that the district expects counselors

to review graduation progress with students and to discuss their

college preparatory coursework completion progress as part of

those meetings. However, the lack of a formal process means that

the district has no way of ensuring that all aﬀected students receive

such meetings or that the meetings include discussions of the

actions the students should take to ensure they complete the college

preparatory coursework. We believe districts without criteria for

determining whether students are meeting college preparatory

requirements and formal processes for intervening when students

fall oﬀ track may not be adequately supporting students at a critical

point in their academiccareers.

Unlike San Francisco, Coachella and

Stockton have no policy requiring

counselors to meet with all students

who are identiﬁed as not meeting

college preparatoryrequirements.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

SanFrancisco Oﬀers More Comprehensive Programs to Assist Struggling

Students Than the Other Districts We Reviewed

We met with personnel in each district we reviewed to discuss best

practices and found that the approaches the three districts employed

in achieving college readiness for their students varied signiﬁcantly,

as we show in Table. Reported practices ranged from district-level

physical and mental wellness centers to school-speciﬁc eﬀorts, such

as freshman mentoring groups led by faculty and administrators. We

found that SanFrancisco oﬀered a more comprehensive selection of

programs to assist students than did either Coachella or Stockton,

which likely contributes to its higher completionrates.

Table 4

Districts and Schools Employ a Variety of Best Practices

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

BEST PRACTICES COACHELLA VALLEY SANFRANCISCO STOCKTON

Robust centralized process for college

preparatory coursework certiﬁcation



Credit recovery—Saturday school



Credit recovery—evening school/

extended school day

 

Credit recovery—online courses

  

Credit recovery—summer school

  

Robust district level college preparatory

coursework oﬀ track reports



City college dual enrollment

 

Fifth year graduation option

  

After school tutoring

  

Academies/special programs within

comprehensive high schools

  

District counseling handbook



Source: California State Auditor’s interviews with school and district personnel from

CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We asked each district to provide a list of practices that they asserted helped them in

improving college preparatory completion rates and supportingstudents.



= Best practice present throughout district.

= Best practice reported as present throughout district, but support not provided.

SanFrancisco attributes its student college preparatory success in

part to intervention systems such as credit recovery options for

students who need to retake courses. For example, although all

threedistricts reported oﬀering several credit recovery options for

students, SanFrancisco provided the greatest variety of options. Its

oﬀerings included Saturday school, summer school, extended day,

evening, online courses, enrollment in community colleges, and a

ﬁfthyear graduation option.

33California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Stockton’s and Coachella’s credit recovery oﬀerings were inconsistent

from year to year. For example, Edison High School in Stockton at

onepoint provided Saturday school; however, it stopped oﬀering the

program when the grant that funded it was discontinued. Similarly,

Coachella currently oﬀers credit recovery by providing summer

school; however, this option has only been available for the past

twoyears. Moreover, SanFrancisco enrolled more students in its credit

recovery options than Coachella—percent compared to percent,

respectively. SanFrancisco provided data showing that more than

,students enrolled in credit recovery oﬀerings in–. e

largest of these programs were evening and summer school. Stockton

was not able to provide data related to enrollment in its credit

recoveryoptions.

SanFrancisco is able to provide additional credit recovery

options in part using supplemental local funding through a grant

program it calls Sprout. According to the executive director of

the oﬃce of college and career readiness, these grants range from

about, to ,per school and their purpose is to provide

an equitable distribution of additional funds to schools regardless

of the population served, location, or size. SanFrancisco describes

Sprout grants as providing critical micro funding to local school

sites to support a variety of intervention and credit recovery

programs, which the schools propose to the district for funding

approval. For example, in fall, the district reported that oneof

its schools used Sprout funding to oﬀer an additional literature

course after school, which was opened to all district students

who wished to attend. According to a case analysis provided by

SanFrancisco, participants included a high percentage of Latino or

African-American students, and more than half were identiﬁed as

oﬀ track to graduate by onesemester. e case analysis concluded

that more than percent of students who attended the course

completed it with a grade of D or higher at a total cost of,.

SanFrancisco’s Centralized Course Certiﬁcation Process Helps to Ensure

the Accuracy of Its College PreparatoryEﬀorts

As we discussed in the Introduction, districts must submit potential

college preparatory courses to UC for approval. To ensure that this

process works smoothly, SanFrancisco has established a strong

centralized course certiﬁcation and management process, which

beneﬁts both students and educators. is system could provide

similar beneﬁts not only in Coachella and Stockton but throughout

the State. As Figure on page illustrates, SanFrancisco’s

process for developing a new college preparatory course involves

a school working with the district course manager (manager).

e supervisor of secondary programs stated that the manager

writes all or a substantial portion of the documents SanFrancisco

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

eventually submits to UC for certiﬁcation, thus lessening the load

on educators. e manager also meets with the administration

at each school on a biannual basis to check the accuracy of the

school’s master schedule compared to UC’s approved course

lists. e robust nature of SanFrancisco’s certiﬁcation process

has reduced instances of misidentiﬁed courses, which—as

we discuss below—can disadvantage students. Furthermore,

the manager’s detailed knowledge of the certiﬁcation process

can assist educators by reducing the work associated with

coursecreation.

In contrast, Stockton and Coachella lack strong centralized

college preparatory coursework certiﬁcation processes. For

instance, although Stockton had a staﬀ member who acts as

a centralized coordinator, the district misidentiﬁed a total of

courses over fouracademic years in the twoschools we

reviewed. Based on the number of incorrectly identiﬁed courses,

Stockton has not implemented an eﬀective review with all high

schools to reconcile their master schedules with UC’s college

preparatory course listings. Coachella does not have a dedicated,

centralized coordinator, other than the director of secondary

education, who oversees administrators at each school site. Each

site-speciﬁc administrator manages the college preparatory

submission for that particularschool.

e impact of poor processes is that districts incorrectly identify

college preparatory courses as certiﬁed by UC, and students

could enroll in those courses believing that they are certiﬁed,

even though they are not. Our review of Stockton’s database

identiﬁed numerous errors in the master schedules of our

selected schools. Speciﬁcally, from through, Stockton

incorrectly identiﬁed courses as having been approved by

UC, when they had not been certiﬁed, as shown in Table on

page. ese classes included Spanish, Biology, and French

and likely should have been college preparatory certiﬁed, but

were not. Similarly, Coachella misidentiﬁed at least courses;

however, problems with its database prevented us from

reviewing all potentially incorrectly certiﬁed courses. Although

SanFrancisco incorrectly identiﬁed courses, no students were

adverselyaﬀected.

Because districts incorrectly identify

college preparatory courses as

certiﬁed by UC, students could

enroll in those courses believing

that they are certiﬁed, even though

they arenot.

35California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 12

School Districts Should Adopt a Strong Centralized Process Similar to SanFrancisco’s for College Preparatory

CourseSubmission and Maintenance

The manager conducts biannual meetings with all high schools to determine future

course needs and updates the UC listings based on master schedules.

After certiﬁcation by UC and approval by the district’s

curriculum and instruction department, the manager adds the

course to the district list of approved courses.

COLLEGE

PREPARATORY

COURSE

The manager submits the course certiﬁcation request

to the University of California (UC).

The manager provides

substantial support, up to

or including writing all

supporting documents.

The manager provides

limited support related

to the process and

course requirements.

Either

The manager adjusts the level of

support based on educator

familiarity with drafting

college preparatory courses.

The educator meets with the district course manager

(manager) to determine the level of support needed

to develop the course and submission documents.

The educator meets with a school

administrator for initial approval.

An educator decides to create

a new college preparatory course.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District’s centralized process documentation andinterviews.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Table 5

Students’ Abilities to Meet College Preparatory Coursework Requirements

May Be Negatively Aﬀected if Districts MisidentifyCourses

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

COURSES MISIDENTIFIED

AT SELECTED SCHOOLS

STUDENTS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN

AFFECTED BY MISIDENTIFIED COURSES

Coachella Valley 13 118

SanFrancisco 10 0

Stockton 60 53

Totals 83 171

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of data obtained from CoachellaValley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed School Districts’ master schedules, transcript data, and the University

ofCalifornia Course ManagementPortal.

Note: In Coachella and Stockton, these course misidentiﬁcations took place in 2011 through2015.

In SanFrancisco, the course misidentiﬁcations took place in 2013 through2015.

Table illustrates that Stockton’s and Coachella’s misidentiﬁed

courses from– through– resulted in at least

students who would have otherwise completed all college

preparatory coursework and may have been unable to meet UC

and CSU coursework admission requirements. Moreover, Stockton

provided a student handbook, which listed several courses as

certiﬁed when the UC had not actually certiﬁed them. is mistake

may have caused students who planned to attend a UC or CSU

school to select courses that would not have met the eligibility

requirements for these institutions. We do not know whether UC

or CSU would have actually denied admission to the students who

took these courses; nevertheless, the potential eﬀect of these errors

on students serves to demonstrate the importance of a strong

centralizedprocess.

When asked for perspective about why these errors occurred,

Coachella’s director of secondary education noted that the district

was aware of the problems and that the majority of courses that

were listed incorrectly had been removed or were in the process of

being certiﬁed by the district. Stockton’s curriculum specialist, who

acts as the manager of college preparatory courses for the district,

provided twodiﬀerent reasons for the errors, including a lack of

understanding of the UC’s update and submission process when

she initially took on the role in and the district’s process used

to update UC’s college preparatory database. Although all districts

misidentiﬁed some courses as certiﬁed, the number of misidentiﬁed

courses and the resulting number of aﬀected students in Stockton

and Coachella demonstrate ﬂawed district processes. If the districts

did not correct the processes, they run the risk that there are a far

greater number of misidentiﬁed courses aﬀecting students at the

remaining high schools in thedistricts.

37California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Some Charter High Schools Employ Best Practices to Improve College

Readiness That Other Districts and Schools in the State Could AlsoUse

e charter high schools we reviewed in the cities of Coachella,

Stockton, and SanFrancisco, respectively, reported college

preparatory completion rates that exceeded the results of the State, as

we show in Table. Although charter schools in general have varied

academic goals and missions, the three charter schools we selected

each focus on preparing students to excel in college. us, during our

audit period, they employed a variety of methods and practices to

support their students in completing college preparatorycoursework.

Table 6

Charter Schools Reported College Preparatory Completion Rates That

Exceeded the StateAverage

ACADEMIC

YEAR

COMPLETION RATE OF GRADUATING SENIORS

NOVA ACADEMY*

(COACHELLA)

GATEWAY CHARTER

HIGH SCHOOL

(SANFRANCISCO)

STOCKTON EARLY

COLLEGE ACADEMY

STATE

AVERAGE

2012–13

†

86%

†

39%

2013–14 55% 75 53% 42

2014–15 60 75 73 43

Sources: Unaudited data provided by Nova Academy, Gateway Charter High School, and Stockton

Early CollegeAcademy.

* Nova Academy is an independent charter school.

†

Nova Academy and Stockton Early College Academy did not have a graduating class of seniors

in2012–13.

For example, all three charter high schools we reviewed require

students to enroll in classes that stress skills needed to excel in

both high school and college. In particular, Gateway Charter

High School (Gateway) in the city of SanFrancisco makes use

of a programcalled College Counseling that educates students

about both four- and two-year colleges similar to another program

implemented throughout the district. As part of this program,

Gateway designed its curriculum to create a culture that encourages

students to attend college. Further, it takes its students to visit

colleges, and it assists them with applications, ﬁnancial aid, and test

preparation for college admissions. Similarly, Nova Academy—an

independent charter school operating in the city of Coachella—

oﬀers seminar courses that focus on the skills necessary for college

admission. ese seminars culminate with the students’ creating

senior portfolios. Stockton Early College Academy concentrates its

eﬀorts on a high school success class that it provides to all incoming

gradenine students. In this course, students learn goal-setting,

the use of planners, study skills, and note-taking. All threecharter

schools reported that these courses are important parts of their

bestpractices.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

e threecharter high schools also use some other best practices.

For example, Gateway delivers targeted interventions by using a

process it calls Response to Intervention. is process implements

escalating levels of individual support to students who have

truancy problems or fail to meet grade expectations. e support

it provides to students who do not meet grade expectations varies

based on student needs, but it may include alternatives such as

tutoring, course-speciﬁc conferences, or referrals for assessments of

attention and learning diﬃculties. Similarly, Stockton Early College

Academy stated that it oﬀers support through staﬀ-supervised peer

tutoring fourdays a week in both math and science. is program

uses students as peer tutors, which bolsters support to students

who receive tutoring while providing experience to the peertutors.

Finally, Nova Academy oﬀers several best practices, including a

Summer Advantage program that prepares its incoming gradenine

students by providing placement exams and activities related to

math and English. Students at Nova Academy are also evaluated

on a monthly basis for potential referral to an additional support

program called LINK, which includes after school tutoring

conducted twodays a week. e school evaluated students for

referral to LINK based on criteria including failure of any class or

missing assignments in one or more classes. All of the programs

noted in this section provide additional support to students and

may increase college preparatory completionrates.

Districts Risk Leaving Students Behind When They Align Their

Graduation Requirements With the College Preparatory Requirements,

But Do Not Provide AdditionalSupport

As we demonstrated in the previous sections, SanFrancisco’s

completion rates have risen in recent years not only because it

aligned its graduation requirements with the college preparatory

coursework the State’s public university systems require, but also

because it devoted signiﬁcant resources to ensuring students

had the support necessary to complete that coursework. As

SanFrancisco’s eﬀorts have shown, the alignment of graduation

requirements with college preparatory coursework requirements

coupled with the application of suﬃcient resources can yield

signiﬁcant successes for California’s college-boundstudents.

SanFrancisco’s executive director of college and career readiness

stated that the district aligned its graduation requirements with

college preparatory coursework requirements in conjunction

withcarefully thought-out and adequately funded systems of support.

Beginning in ﬁscal year– and continuing through ﬁscal

year–, SanFrancisco dedicated .million to .million

from the Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF)—a local fund

Stockton Early College Academy’s

peer tutoring program uses

students as peer tutors, which

bolsters support to students who

receive tutoring while providing

experience to the peertutors.

39California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

that the city of SanFrancisco voters established in—speciﬁcally

toward college preparatory coursework support. It used these funds

to expand course options for oﬀ track students by adding evening and

after school courses and to support sixfull-time and onehalf-time

positions for data analysis, counseling, and districtwide coordination.

SanFrancisco increased its completion rate by percent in the

ﬁrstyear it devoted resources from the PEEF for college preparatory

coursework support. SanFrancisco plans to continue spending these

funds to support college preparatory coursework completion for the

foreseeablefuture.

In addition to SanFrancisco, a number of other school districts

throughout the State have also recently aligned their graduation

requirements with the college preparatory coursework requirements,

including both LosAngeles Uniﬁed School District (LosAngeles)

and SanDiego Uniﬁed School District. However, LosAngeles’ recent

eﬀorts to transition to college preparatory requirements as a condition

of graduation demonstrates that unless the districts that make this

transition also dedicate suﬃcient resources to assist students with

the increased challenges these courses present, they may put many of

their students at risk not only of failing to meet college preparatory

requirements, but also of failing to graduate from highschool.

Speciﬁcally, Los Angeles aligned its graduation requirementswith

the college preparatory coursework requirements beginning withthe

class of. However, in the Board of Education of the city of

Los Angeles (board) projected that only percent of the classof

would meet the requirement and thus graduate from high school. In

response, the board renewed its commitment to college preparatory

coursework completion by passing a resolution to focus on supporting

those students most at risk of not successfully completing the

sequence of college preparatory courses by expanding course access

outside of the regular school day through summer school, community

college dual enrollment, and online courses. In addition, the board

directed LosAngeles’ Superintendent to eliminate the requirement

for a Cgrade or better in college preparatory courses as a condition of

graduation. LosAngeles also reported that it spent .million on an

immediate intervention plan to provide students withvarious credit

recovery options, tutorial services, tiered interventions, and training in

college preparatory courses for all itsteachers.

Recommendations

If the Legislature wishes to further prioritize students’ completion

of college preparatory coursework, it should help ensure gradenine

students are ready for the challenge of such work by devoting

additional resources or reallocating existing resources for educational

eﬀorts beginning in kindergarten and continuing through gradeeight,

Unless the districts also dedicate

suﬃcient resources to assist students

with the increased challenges

these courses present, they may

put many of their students at

risk of failing to meet college

preparatoryrequirements.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

particularly to support math and English college readiness. Funding

mechanisms similar to the College Readiness Block Grant could help

better prepare kindergarten through gradeeight students for the

rigors of college preparatory coursework in highschool.

To ensure that districts throughout the State comply with existing

law, the Legislature should require districts to conduct analyses

to verify that all high school students receive acceptable levels

of access to the full range of college preparatory coursework. If

the Legislature decides to require these analyses, it should also

consider whether additional funding may be necessary to support

the districts’ associated administrative costs. If implemented, the

analyses should require the followingcomponents:

• Districts should report the results of their analyses toEducation.

• Education should issue an annual report to the Legislature

detailing all districts with high schools that have failed to

demonstrate suﬃcientaccess.

To increase students’ access to and completion rates of college

preparatory coursework, districts should take the followingactions:

• Develop and institute an on track/oﬀ track student identiﬁcation

model similar to SanFrancisco’s model that will allow them to

determine whether students are completing grade-level college

preparatory coursework. e districts should notify parents

when they identify students as falling oﬀ track and should advise

the parents and students of available support and credit recovery

options. Furthermore, school staﬀ should be required to meet

with and document the support they provide to thesestudents.

• Create a robust and stable network of credit recovery options

that reﬂect the needs of their student populations. ese

options—which the districts should monitor for eﬀectiveness—

should include summer school courses and evening courses.

• Create and institute a centralized process for submitting,

managing, and tracking college preparatory courses and

certiﬁcation requests. is process should maximize the number

of certiﬁed courses that the district oﬀers. Further, to ensure that

students receive appropriate credit for their college preparatory

coursework, this process should match the UC’s course listings

with each school’s master schedule ofcourses.

41California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Chapter 2

INCREASED STATE AND COUNTY‑LEVEL GUIDANCE

AND OVERSIGHT COULD IMPROVE STUDENTS’

COLLEGEPREPAREDNESS

Chapter Summary

Although the State has emphasized the importance of ensuring

that high school graduates meet the admission standards for its

public university systems, it has not established a clear statewide

framework to make certain that school districts (districts) provide

suﬃcient access to college preparatory coursework. Perhaps as a

consequence, each of the three districts we reviewed have adopted

diﬀerent priorities and strategies related to college preparatory

coursework completion, as we discuss in Chapter. By increasing

the assistance they provide to districts, state and local entities

could better ensure students have suﬃcient access to college

preparatory coursework and consistent support to enable them

to successfully complete that coursework. For example, despite

the statutory responsibility that the state superintendent of public

instruction (superintendent) has to assist districts, the California

Department of Education (Education) did little to help them

during our three-year audit period. Further, county oﬃces of

education (county oﬃces) could provide additional oversight and

support to districts to ensure they oﬀer suﬃcient access to college

preparatory coursework. Although other entities are also involved

in activities related to increasing college readiness, they have no

oversightresponsibilities.

In addition, local communities have little ability to assess districts’

success in preparing students for admission to the State’s public

university systems because districts’ current method for reporting

their outcomes related to college preparatory coursework activities

is inadequate. State law requires districts to include speciﬁc metrics

in their local control and accountability plans (accountability

plans), such as college preparatory coursework completion rates

(completion rates), to measure student achievement. However,

the accountability plans for the three districts we reviewed were

inaccurate, uninformative, and did not aid in our understanding of

whether the districts met their goals of improved college readiness.

Further, the districts reported outdated completion rates that did

not measure the eﬀectiveness of their recent actions, making it

diﬃcult to determine whether the actions they took in any given

year had a direct eﬀect upon their completionrates.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Education and County Oﬃces Have Provided Little Oversight Related

to College PreparatoryCoursework

Under current law, no single state or local entity is speciﬁcally

responsible for overseeing whether districts provide suﬃcient access

to college preparatory coursework and adequately assist their students

in completing that coursework. Many entities play a role in college

preparatory coursework and accountability plans. However, of these

entities, Education and county oﬃces are best positioned to provide

guidance and oversight to districts to improve college readiness—we

recommend speciﬁc additional responsibilities for these entities in

Figure . As of December, neither of these entities had veriﬁed

that high schools throughout the State provide students with suﬃcient

access to college preparatory coursework. e lack of such an analysis

demonstrates the need for additional oversight. Although entities

such as the State Board of Education (State Board), the California

Collaborative for Educational Excellence (Educational Collaborative),

and the University of California (UC) play important roles in college

preparedness, they have no oversightresponsibilities.

Education Provides Minimal Assistance to Districts to Ensure That

Students Have Access to College Preparatory Coursework

State law places few speciﬁc requirements on Education related to

college preparatory coursework. For example, state law requires

the superintendent, who heads Education, to assist districts in

ensuringthat all public high school students have access to a core

curriculum that meets the admission requirements of UC and

the California State University. In addition, state law requires the

superintendent to advise districts that maintain high schools about

the importance of making readily available to each high school

student the current list of courses oﬀered by the student’s high

schoolthat are certiﬁed by UC as meeting admissionsrequirements.

Although Education asserts it has partnered with and supports a

number of organizations that promote college readiness, it could

only provide oneinstance in the threeyears from through

in which it or the superintendent provided guidance or assistance

to districts regarding college preparatory coursework. Speciﬁcally,

in September, after we began our audit, Education distributed

a letter to county oﬃces, school districts, charter schools, and

high school principals to provide information and resources about

Advanced Placement (AP) and other rigorous course options. Attached

to the letter was a three-page list that included websites oﬀering

information about these course options. Education’s letter speciﬁed

that it provided these resources only as a convenience, and that their

inclusion did not imply its endorsement. Among these websites, the

letter referred districts to the UC’s college preparatory coursewebsite.

State law places few speciﬁc

requirements on Education related

to college preparatorycoursework.

43California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Figure 13

Recommendations for Improving State and Local Responsibilities Related to College Preparatory Coursework

STATE

California State Auditor’s

Recommendations

Current

LOCAL

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

(STATE BOARD)

COUNTY OFFICES OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICTS

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

(UC)

• Decides the coursework that applicants

need for admission.

• Reviews and approves college preparatory

coursework submitted by schools.

• Maintains a list of approved courses for

each high school on its website.

• Policy-making body for Education.

• Adopts evaluation rubrics to

measure district performance.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(EDUCATION)

• Administers state and federal education programs.

• Disseminates information.

• Collects data from the districts.

• Publishes ocial data.

• Would provide training and guidance to districts on the creation and

application of appropriate district- and school-level access analyses.

• Would issue an annual report to the Legislature detailing all districts

with high schools that have failed to demonstrate sucient access.

• Education (or other state-level entity) would coordinate statewide

college readiness eorts to increase college preparatory completion

rates throughout the State.

California State Auditor’s

Recommendations

Current

• Oers assistance to districts through ad hoc contracts.

• Approves local control and accountability plans

(accountability plans).

• Would monitor districts to determine whether they oer students

adequate access to college preparatory courses.

• Would review districts' accountability plans and monitor the

actions the districts take to implement the goals in those plans.

• Would determine if all its high school students receive acceptable levels of access to

the full range of college preparatory courses and submit that data to Education and

its respective county oce of education.

• Would have an on track/o track model that allows it to determine whether students

are completing grade-level appropriate college preparatory coursework. It would

notify parents when it identies students as falling o track and advise parents and

students of available credit recovery and support options available. School sta

would meet with these students and document the support they provide to students.

• Would have a robust and stable network of credit recovery options, monitor their

eectiveness, and provide appropriate support oerings.

• Would have a centralized process for submitting, managing, and tracking college

preparatory courses and certication requests.

• Establishes graduation requirements above the state minimum.

• Self-reports student data.

• Submits college preparatory courses to the UC for approval.

• Adopts accountability plan annually.

• Oers to all otherwise qualied students a course of study fullling the requirements

for admission to UC and the California State University and provides a timely

opportunity to each of those students to enroll within a four-year period in each

course necessary to fulll those requirements prior to graduation from high school.

Sources: State law and information available from Education, State Board, UC, county oﬃces of education, and schooldistricts.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

We do not believe that oneletter about AP courses with an attached

list of web addresses constitutes adequate assistance to districts to

ensure they provide suﬃcient access to college preparatory courses,

especially given that—as we discuss in Chapter—each of the

threedistricts we reviewed lacked data and processes to ensure they

oﬀered enough college preparatory courses. For Education to fulﬁll its

statutory responsibility to assist districts, we believe it should develop

recommended methods that districts could use to track the college

preparatory courses they oﬀer and to ensure they oﬀer enough of

these courses. ese methods and processes could mirror those that

we used when analyzing access at the threedistricts wereviewed.

According to Education’s administrator of the college preparation

and postsecondary programs oﬃce (administrator), Educationdoes

not oﬀer formal assistance to districts related to access to college

preparatory coursework; instead, it directs the districts to UC. e

administrator stated that Education could have a role in assessing

the suﬃciency of the access that districts provide; however, he

explained that Education currently has no guidelines and no

resources associated with this issue. Education is aware of some

high schools that oﬀer limited rigorous courses. For instance, in the

September letter that the superintendent sent to the districts,

Education recognized that percent of high schools (of,)

oﬀered AP courses in fewer than ﬁvesubjects in–. However,

the administrator believes that the state law is not clear about

Education’s role in addressing this problem, in part because state law

does not specify what the word assist means orentails.

Nonetheless, we expect Education—charged with oversight

responsibility for California’s kindergarten through grade  public

education—to have the expertise necessary to deﬁne what assisting

districts means. Although the districts are ultimately responsible

for ensuring they provide suﬃcient access for all their students,

Education should—as state law requires—assist them in meeting

thisresponsibility.

Although County Oﬃces Are Not Speciﬁcally Responsible for Overseeing

Access to College Preparatory Coursework, They Could Fulﬁll This

OversightFunction

Although school districts, rather than county oﬃces, are required

by state law to ensure students’ access to college preparatory

coursework, county oﬃces are positioned well to assist with

this responsibility because of the oversight functions they

already perform. For example, state law requires county oﬃce

superintendents to examine and approve district budgets. In

addition, under state law, county oﬃces are responsible for

monitoring districts for suﬃcient textbooks, the condition of their

Although the districts are responsible

for ensuring they provide suﬃcient

access for all their students,

Education should assist them in

meeting thisresponsibility.

45California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

facilities, and their teacher misassignments and vacancies. Further,

county oﬃces can help districts formulate new curricula and enter

into agreements with them to provide trainingprograms.

e county oﬃces we spoke to seem willing to assume additional

responsibilities related to overseeing course access. In fact, as we

discuss in Chapter, onecounty oﬃce already provides services

related to college preparatory coursework completion through

contracts it entered into with an individual district. Speciﬁcally,

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District (Coachella) entered into

a contract with Riverside County Oﬃce of Education (Riverside

County) to provide training to district and school personnel on

implementing a systematic approach to college preparatory course

management and transcript evaluation. e executive director

of instructional services for Riverside County stated that county

oﬃces statewide could assist districts by advising them on how to

verify the suﬃciency of their college preparatory courses. Further,

the assistant superintendent of educational services from the

SanJoaquin County Oﬃce of Education, of which Stockton Uniﬁed

School District (Stockton) is a part, stated that county oﬃces

could oﬀer in-person visits to verify suﬃcient access to college

preparatorycoursework.

However, to provide specialized oversight and guidance to districts,

county oﬃces would need to obtain not just the legal ability to

oversee districts but also the funding necessary to support these

eﬀorts. For example, Riverside County is currently able to provide

services to Coachella only because of the funding it receives from

the district as a result of the contract. Similarly, the assistant

superintendent of educational services from the SanJoaquin County

Oﬃce of Education stated that if funding existed to support these

eﬀorts, county oﬃces could oﬀer help to districts regarding college

preparatory coursework through in-person visits to verify access to

thosecourses.

State Law Does Not Require the State Board or the Educational

Collaborative to Assess Whether Districts Give Students the Opportunity

to Enroll in College PreparatoryCourses

Although state law assigns the State Board the responsibility

to adopt rules and regulations to govern kindergarten through

grade  schools, it does not clearly assign it direct responsibility

regarding college preparatory coursework. e State Board

is responsible for approving academic content standards, for

adopting statewide assessments and curriculum frameworks, and

for establishing rules and regulations for the allocation of federal

funds to districts. However, according to the State Board’s chief

counsel, the State Board has no role related to the provision of

The county oﬃces we spoke to

seem willing to assume additional

responsibilities related to

overseeing courseaccess.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

college preparatory coursework nor is it responsible for providing

direct assistance to districts to ensure students have access to

college preparatory courses. us, the State Board would not be in a

position to provide districts with speciﬁc guidance on standards or

mechanisms to ensure that students have suﬃcient access to college

preparatorycoursework.

e Educational Collaborative is a public agency the Legislature

created in conjunction with its adoption of the local control funding

formula (funding formula) in. e Educational Collaborative’s

purpose is to advise and assist districts, county superintendents of

schools, and charter schools in achieving the goals they establish

in their accountability plans. According to the Educational

Collaborative’s director of training and outreach, the agency is in the

pilot stage and thus had not fully implemented services statewide

as of December. He stated that the Educational Collaborative

has not established a particular date by which the pilot stage will end

and that it could continue until–. e director of trainingand

outreach asserted that the Educational Collaborative could

participate in the districts’ college readiness eﬀorts by providing

trainings and surveys during annual workshops and by creating

professional learning community networks in which districts could

obtain peer-to-peer help. However, he also explained that he is not

aware of district demand for assistance related to college preparatory

coursework issues or collegereadiness.

UC Has Substantially Increased the Rate at Which It Approves Courses

As discussed in the Introduction, UC is responsible for certifying

courses as college preparatory. In the fouryears from–

through–, UC has improved its process of approving

college preparatory courses and has increased the percentage of

new courses it approved from percent in– to percent

in–. During that same period, UC also substantially lowered

the average time it took to issue certiﬁcation decisions from

days to days. In addition, in UC changed the format

forcourse submissions and, according to UC’s associate directorfor

undergraduate admissions, the new format reduced the length

of most course proposals it receives from to pages to about

ﬁvepages. We asked districts whether they had any trouble

getting courses approved: ninedistricts reported no problems

and twoexperienced minor issues that were not related to UC’s

performance in approvingcourses.

UC also provided outreach to districts and schools during–

through–. State law requests, but does not require, UC to

assist each district that maintains a high school in order to ensure

that school administrators and educators understand how to

Nine districts reported no problem

in getting courses approved and

twoexperienced minor issues

that were not related to UC’s

performance in approvingcourses.

47California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

submit courses for approval, have processes for developing and

submitting courses, and maintain accurate lists of courses. To

meet that request, UC maintains a website that provides guidance

on submitting courses for approval and annually updating course

lists. Further, to help districts keep accurate course lists across

their multiple high schools, the associate director of undergraduate

admissions indicates that UC will further enhance its web portal

in February, allowing districts to consolidate courses taught

at diﬀerent high schools into oneversion of that course. UC also

holds a variety of events each year that provide guidance on college

preparatory coursework requirements and the course submission

process. e associate director of undergraduate admissions

conﬁrmed that UC will continue to oﬀer this guidance in thefuture.

The Accountability Plans Make It Diﬃcult for Communities to Assess

Districts’ Progress Toward Improved CollegePreparedness

When it adopted the new funding formula in, the

State created a process for monitoring the performance

of local educational agencies, including districts,

through twokey oversight elements. e ﬁrstelement

is the three-year accountability plans that districts

must complete and update annually. In addition to

objectives and strategies, the accountability plans

must list speciﬁc actions the districts intend to take to

achieve those objectives. Further, state law requires the

districts’ accountability plans to use certain metrics—

such as college preparatory completion rates—to

measure the students’ achievements. Asthe textbox

describes, county oﬃces must approve thedistricts’

accountability plan. e secondoversight element

state law requires is an evaluation tool that the State

Board approved in that will assist districts in

evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and areas that

require improvement. e evaluation tool will also

help identify districts in need of technical assistance

orintervention.

e college readiness portions of the accountability plans for the

threedistricts we reviewed were inaccurate and uninformative.

Further, the three accountability plans were not useful in

determining whether the districts had increased students’

completion rates or whether the steps they had taken to improve

college readiness had positiveeﬀects.

The accountability plan process requires each

school district to do the following:

• Consult with teachers, parents, students, and

otherstakeholders.

• Develop and adopt the accountability plan.

• File the plan with their respective county superintendents

for approval.

• Update the plan each year, which includes reviewing

the progress toward meeting its goals and assessingthe

eﬀectiveness of the speciﬁc actions used to achieve

thosegoals.

Source: California State Auditor’s review of information

obtained from state law.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

The Accountability Plans We Reviewed Contained Numerous Errors and

Could Not Be Used to Assess CompletionRates

When reviewing accountability plans, we found that districts reported

incorrect data or data that were not useful in determining whether

the districts met their completion rate goals. For example, Stockton

reported a completion rate of .percent in its –accountability

plan—a percent drop from its – baseline. However, Stockton

acknowledged to us that this completion rate was incorrect and

was the result of an internal data processing error; in fact, its actual

completion rate was closer to percent. Moreover, Stockton

included conﬂicting information in threediﬀerent sections of its

–accountability plan update: its metric results showed that it

was not meeting its targeted completion rate of .percent; it stated

elsewhere in the plan that it had successfully met its goal of ensuring

that every student would graduate ready for college or a career; and

it stated in yet another section of the plan that it was too early to

determine if its actions related to college preparatory coursework

had been eﬀective. Stockton also admitted in the same document

that its accountability plan included circular references and included

extremely vague descriptions of its plannedactions.

e accountability plans for the other two districts also were

inaccurate and vague, making it diﬃcult for a reader to determine

what, if any, progress they had made in increasing students’

completion rates. Coachella reported a completion rate of

.percent—.percent less than its goal—yet also reported

that it met or exceeded its planned outcome. In SanFrancisco

Uniﬁed School District’s – accountability plan, it stated

that it planned to increase its previous year’s completion rate by

percent, but it did not include the previous year’s completion

rate in the accountability plan. Coachella and SanFrancisco had

various perspectives regarding the issues we identiﬁed with the

accountability plans, including diﬃculty in identifying which

resources the district used on speciﬁc actions and problems with

establishing realistic targets and metrics. Because of staﬀ turnover,

Stockton did not know the basis for staﬀ decisions related to

accountabilityplans.

In many instances, we could not ﬁnd a clear link between the

college readiness goals Stockton and Coachella articulated in

their accountability plans and the actions included in the plans

they intended to take to achieve those goals. State law requires

districts to describe in their accountability plans the speciﬁc actions

they will perform during each year to achieve their stated goals.

However, many of the actions and services Stockton attached to

its college and career readiness goal in its – accountability

plan did not directly relate to either college or career readiness.

ese actions included increasing anti-bullying eﬀorts and adding

The accountability plans we

reviewed were inaccurate and

vague, making it diﬃcult for

a reader to determine what, if

any, progress the districts had

made in increasing students’

completionrates.

49California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

district behavioral support staﬀ. Moreover, combining college

readiness goals with other goals makes it diﬃcult to assess what

activities will implement each element of the goal. For example,

in its –accountability plan, Coachella stated that its goal

was to “increase student achievement and other pupil outcomes

to prepare all students for college, career, and citizenship in

the 

century.” Oneof the related activities was purchasing

equipment for its kindergarten through gradeeight physical

education program. When districts use overly broad goals or

include activities unrelated or only marginally related to their

goals, they impede the ability of stakeholders to determine which

actions aﬀect their completionrates.

County oﬃces could provide districts with additional guidance

and oversight to make their districts’ accountability plans more

eﬀective, but a statutory change might be necessary to give

thecounty oﬃces increased authority. State law currently requires

county oﬃces to ensure that the districts’ accountability plans

adhere to the template, that their budgets include suﬃcient funds

to implement the actions and strategies in their plans, and that

the plans identifythe expenditures for unduplicated students—

English learners, students who are classiﬁed as eligible for free

or reduced price meals, or students in foster care. However, state

law does not require county oﬃces to evaluate the content of

districts’ accountability plans to ensure they are accurate or useful,

nor does it require the districtsto implement county oﬃces’

suggestedchanges.

One county oﬃce we visited has taken an active role in

assistingoneof its districts in completing the accountability

plan template and reviewing the content of its plan. Speciﬁcally,

Riverside County performed a comprehensive assessment of

Coachella’s – and – accountability plans and made

suggestions for improvement. For example, Riverside County

recommended Coachella consider including completion rate

targets for unduplicated students and include appropriate actions

to close those achievement gaps. In its –accountability

plan, Coachella implemented the recommendation and included

separate targets and actions for unduplicatedstudents.

Conversely, the assistant superintendent of educational services

of the SanJoaquin County Oﬃce of Education explained that

the county oﬃce helps districts focus on the eightstate priorities

outlined in state law but does not assist in setting districts’ goals,

creating any other content related to the accountability plan, or

overseeing the quality of the district’s accountabilityplans.

One county oﬃce we visited has

taken an active role in assisting

oneof its districts in completing the

accountability plan template and

reviewing the content of itsplan.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

The Districts We Reviewed Reported Outdated Completion Rates That

Did Not Measure the Eﬀectiveness of Their Actions

e districts we reviewed reported completion rates in their

accountability plans that were from prior years and thus did

not correspond with the activities and services the districts had

implemented to improve students’ college preparedness. For example,

the threedistricts we reviewed developed their –accountability

plans using either – or –completion rates or did not

include a baseline year. In the updates to the –plans, they

reported –completion rates when attempting to measure

whether they had met the stated goals of their –accountability

plans. However, because the activities the districts reported performing

in the –accountability plan took place after–, we cannot

attribute those activities performed to an increase or decrease in their

completion rates. To gauge the eﬀectiveness of activities meant to

increase college preparedness, districts should use the outcome data

that corresponds with the time the activities tookplace.

e districts use prior years’ data because Education provides the

districts with the annual college preparatory completion data nearly

a year after the end of the school year. Each year, districts submit

data between October and December, including college preparatory

completion data from the prior school year. e administrator

of Education’s data reporting oﬃce stated that Education begins

compiling the data in lateJanuary or earlyFebruary and that the

process typically takes a minimum of twoto threemonths. Further,

the timing is highly dependent on other competing priorities.

Education typically publishes the information for use by the districts

in April. State law requires the districts to issue their accountability

plans to county oﬃces for approval no later than July, which

means that districts have a maximum of twomonths to amend their

plans with the new information and submit the revised documents

to stakeholders. For instance, Coachella’s director of state and

federal projects said that Coachella’s district board approved the

accountability plan in June and sent it for approval to the county

oﬃce in July. Further emphasizing the districts’ time constraints,

SanFrancisco’s executive director of budget services asserted that

stakeholder engagement begins earlier and earlier each year. us,

districts are using outdated completion rates because of the short

window between when Education issues graduation data and the

districts’ boards adopt their accountabilityplans.

e State Board has revised the – accountability plan template,

which will partially alleviate the diﬃculty of evaluating the eﬀectiveness

of the district’s actions. e State Board modiﬁed the accountability

plan template to include the goals, activities, and outcomes that

span a three-year window. e modiﬁed template will partially

Districts are using outdated

completion rates because of the

short window between when

Education issues graduation data

and the districts’ boards adopt their

accountability plans.

51California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

address the issue of outdated metrics by including at least oneyear of

completion rates that pertain to the actions taken in the corresponding

timeperiod.

Recommendations

To increase college preparatory completion rates, the Legislature

should require Education or another state entity to coordinate

statewide college readiness eﬀorts focusing on increasing college

preparatory completionrates.

To comply with existing law and ensure that students receive

suﬃcient access to college preparatory coursework, Education

should provide training and guidance to districts throughout the

State on the creation and application of appropriate district- and

school-level accessanalyses.

To ensure that high school graduates are eligible for admission to

the State’s public university systems, the Legislature should require

county oﬃces to monitor districts to determine whether they oﬀer

students adequate access to college preparatorycoursework.

To ensure districts’ accountability plans are accurate and informative,

the Legislature should require county oﬃces to review districts’

accountability plans and monitor the actions the districts take to

implement the goals in thoseplans.

52 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

We conducted this audit under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section

etseq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing

standards. ose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain suﬃcient, appropriate

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our ﬁndings and conclusions based on our audit objectives

speciﬁed in the Scope and Methodology section of the report. We believe that the evidence obtained

provides a reasonable basis for our ﬁndings and conclusions based on our auditobjectives.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA

State Auditor

Date: February , 

Staﬀ: Kathleen Klein Fullerton, MPA, Audit Principal

Aaron E. Fellner, MPP

Nicholas B. Phelps, JD

Inna A. Prigodin, CFE

Cecilia White, MPPA

IT Audits: Michelle J. Baur, CISA, Audit Principal

Ben Ward, CISA, ACDA

Sarah Rachael Black, MBA, CISA

Ryan P. Coe, MBA, CISA

Grant Volk, MA, CFE

Legal Counsel: J. Christopher Dawson, Sr. Staﬀ Counsel

For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact

Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Aﬀairs, at ...

53California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Appendix A

OUR ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ACCESS TO COLLEGE

PREPARATORYCOURSEWORK

Table A, beginning on the following page, summarizes the results

of our analysis of college preparatory coursework access. We

reviewed schedules of courses oﬀered at two high schools in each

of the threeschool districts we visited and compared the courses

oﬀered to the schools’ enrollments. Although there were signiﬁcant

limitations to the data, when such data was available, our analysis

suggests that the schools provided students with suﬃcient access

to college preparatory coursework. Each school we reviewed did

not meet the minimum access requirements in every category for

every year; however, the deﬁciencies we noted were unlikely to

have aﬀected students’ opportunities to complete all of the college

preparatory courseworkrequirements.

54 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Table A

Access to College Preparatory Coursework at the Six High Schools WeReviewed

HIGH SCHOOL /

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSEWORK REQUIREMENTS

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO HAD

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSEWORK ACCESS

PER ACADEMIC YEAR

TARGET ACCESS PERCENTAGE

NECESSARY FOR STUDENTS TO

MEET REQUIREMENT OVER A FOUR‑YEAR PERIOD2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District

Coachella Valley High School Based on trimester schedule

(a) History—2 years 73% * * * 50%

(b) English—4 years 169 * * * 100

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years 62 * * * 50

(e) Foreign Language—2 years 37

†

* * * 50

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year 36 * * * 25

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year 32 * * *

or excess capacity in other subcategory

Desert Mirage High School Based on semester schedule

(a) History—2 years * * * 54% 50%

(b) English—4 years * * * 119 100

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years * * * 48

‡

(e) Foreign Language—2 years * * * 33

†

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year * * * 40 25

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year * * * 8

or excess capacity in other subcategory

SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District

Mission High School Based on semester schedule

(a) History—2 years

^ ^

80% 95% 50%

(b) English—4 years

^ ^

125 147 100

^ ^

116 130 75

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years

^ ^

109 109 50

(e) Foreign Language—2 years

^ ^

56 58 50

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year

^ ^

50 59 25

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year

^ ^

or excess capacity in other subcategory

Washington High School Based on semester schedule

(a) History—2 years

^ ^

83% 61% 50%

(b) English—4 years

^ ^

128 113 100

^ ^

119 122 75

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years

^ ^

107 108 50

(e) Foreign Language—2 years

^ ^

70 71 50

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year

^ ^

51 53 25

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year

^ ^

or excess capacity in other subcategory

55California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

HIGH SCHOOL /

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSEWORK REQUIREMENTS

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO HAD

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSEWORK ACCESS

PER ACADEMIC YEAR

TARGET ACCESS PERCENTAGE

NECESSARY FOR STUDENTS TO

MEET REQUIREMENT OVER A FOUR‑YEAR PERIOD2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15

Stockton Uniﬁed School District

Edison High School Based on block schedule

(a) History—2 years 75% 80% 68% 67% 25%

(b) English—4 years 110 111 111 102 50

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years 48 72 60 57 25

(e) Foreign Language—2 years 64 57 56 63 25

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year 54 52 54 51 12.5

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year 25 31 23 5

12.5

or excess capacity in other subcategory

Franklin High School Based on semester schedule

(a) History—2 years 68% 66% 79% 57% 50%

(b) English—4 years 100 94

101 92** 100

(d) Laboratory Science—2 years 52 60 64 65 50

(e) Foreign Language—2 years 48

††

56 50

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—1 year 42 39 33 30 25

(g) College Preparatory Elective—1 year 18

35 18

or excess capacity in other subcategory

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of course schedule and enrollment data from Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed

SchoolDistricts.

Note: Target percentages vary based on school schedule type. For example, the (a) category requires twoyears of various combinations of history

courses. For a school based on a semester schedule to provide 100percent access in the (a) category, it would need to ensure that adequate seats

existed for 50percent of the students to take an (a) course in any given year. This would allow half the students to complete 10credits in a given

year, thereby allowing the potential for all students to satisfy the 20-credit or two-year requirement within fouryears. However, other schedule

types, such as Edison High School’s four-period block schedule, allowed students to take 10credits in a given course in the span of time it would

usually take a student to receive ﬁvecredits in a traditional semester schedule. This ability to take more credits across fewer periods changes the

yearly targetpercentage.

* We did not conduct an analysis related to Coachella Valley High School in 2012 through 2015 and Desert Mirage High School in 2011 through2014

due to district business practices, which resulted in courses being labeled as inactive. These business practices prevented us from determining

whether courses listed in the district’s database reﬂected courses that were actually taught or merely courses that were planned but nottaught.

†

Although Coachella Valley High School and Desert Mirage High School are below the target percentage in their respective foreign language levels,

the enrolled population is primarily composed of native Spanish speakers who would likely qualify to take higher-level foreign language courses.

UC and CSU policy allows for validations based on higher-level foreign language courses, thus satisfying therequirement.

‡

Although laboratory science is deﬁcient by 2percent, the eﬀect would be limited to a potential of approximately 40students and could have

been resolved by excess capacity in other years.

A lack of capacity in the (g) category can be made up by using excess capacity in any other subcategory. Suﬃcient additional capacity existed

within other college preparatorysubcategories.

We did not conduct an analysis for SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District related to 2011–12 and 2012–13 due to data limitations that prevented

us from determining course length and maximumcredits.

Franklin High School had suﬃcient capacity in college preparatory English when we adjusted for students enrolled in English resourcecourses.

** Although Franklin High School appears deﬁcient in 2014–15, students were actually enrolled in grade-level appropriate courses that provided

access, although this action required the school to enroll students past the maximum capacity of the individualsections.

††

In 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14, this potential deﬁciency was caused by uncertiﬁed courses misidentiﬁed by the district as certiﬁed by UC.

The UC and CSU allow higher-level foreign language courses to validate lower-level requirements. Higher-level foreign language courses in the

prior year would have satisﬁed the access requirement for students enrolled in the aﬀectedclasses.

56 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

57California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Appendix B

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS OF THREESELECTEDDISTRICTS

AND COMPLETION RATES BY ENGLISH LEARNER STATUS

We were asked to provide the number of students enrolled by race

for each of the three districts we selected for review and the average

completion rate by English learner status, among other things.

TableB. on the following page summarizes student demographics

in our threeselected districts from our threecohorts in graduation

years through. As we indicated in Chapter, Chicano/Latino

students averaged percent of the student population in Coachella

Valley Uniﬁed SchoolDistrict.

Table B. on page summarizes completion rates by English

learner status in our threeselected districts from our threecohorts

that completed high school from through. is analysis

shows, for example, that the percentage of English learners in

Stockton Uniﬁed School District who completed college preparatory

coursework ranged from percent to percent.

58 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Table B.1

Enrollment in Cohorts for Graduation Years 2013 Through 2015

STUDENT ENROLLMENT BY GRADUATION YEAR

2013 2014 2015

GENDER TOTALS GENDER TOTALS GENDER TOTALS

ETHNICITY/RACE FEMALE MALE NUMBER PERCENTAGE FEMALE MALE NUMBER PERCENTAGE FEMALE MALE NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District

American Indian * * * * * * * * * * * *

Asian * * * * * * * * * * * *

Black/African American * * * * * * * * * * * *

Chicano/Latino 593 652 1,245 96% 605 649 1,254 97% 540 663 1,203 97%

Not speciﬁed * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paciﬁc Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Two or more races * * * * * * * * * * * *

White 19 16 35 3 * * * * * * * *

Totals * * * 100% * * * 100% * * * 100%

SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District

American Indian * * * * * * * * * * * *

Asian 1,016 1,046 2,062 54 1,061 1,138 2,199 58 973 1,108 2,081 56

Black/African American 196 193 389 10 169 170 339 9 151 165 316 8

Chicano/Latino 380 406 786 21 372 397 769 20 379 421 800 22

Not speciﬁed 85 92 177 5 60 53 113 3 62 49 111 3

Paciﬁc Islander 25 30 55 1 22 16 38 1 29 22 51 1

Two or more races 23 24 47 1 27 22 49 1 35 26 61 2

White 154 149 303 8 141 157 298 8 146 146 292 8

Totals * * * 100% * * * 100% * * * 100%

Stockton Uniﬁed School District

American Indian 62 73 135 6% 69 66 135 6% 49 43 92 4%

Asian 209 236 445 18 201 211 412 17 199 212 411 16

Black/African American 157 152 309 12 138 154 292 12 147 157 304 12

Chicano/Latino 692 693 1,385 55 683 658 1,341 56 761 781 1,542 60

Not speciﬁed * * * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Paciﬁc Islander * * * * * * * * * * * *

Two or more races * * * * * * * * 11 12 23 1

White 109 121 230 9 91 112 203 9 100 89 189 7

Totals * * * 100% * * * 100% * * * 100%

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco, and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

* To protect individual privacy, we omitted this number because it would identify 10 or fewer students. Such omission is in accordance with aggregate

data reporting guidelines issued by the California and United States Department of Education.

59California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Table B.2

College Preparatory Coursework Completion by English Learner Status

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSEWORK

COMPLETIONBY GRADUATION YEAR

ENGLISH LEARNER STATUS

2013 2014 2015

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District

English learner 11% 12% 13%

Reclassiﬁed as ﬂuent 43 51 48

Initially ﬂuent/English native 22 28 30

SanFrancisco Uniﬁed School District

English learner 39% 41% 51%

Reclassiﬁed as ﬂuent 74 77 78

Initially ﬂuent/English native 60 63 71

Stockton Uniﬁed School District

English learner 4% 6% 9%

Reclassiﬁed as ﬂuent 27 29 26

Initially ﬂuent/English native 20 22 21

Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of student data provided by Coachella Valley, SanFrancisco,

and Stockton Uniﬁed SchoolDistricts.

Note: We excluded students who left thedistrict.

60 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

61California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

* California State Auditor’s comments begin on page65.

62 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

63California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

64 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

65California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Comments

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE

RESPONSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OFEDUCATION

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the

response to our audit report from the California Department of

Education (Education). e numbers below correspond with the

numbers we have placed in the margin of Education’sresponse.

Education misunderstands our recommendation. As Education

acknowledges, the superintendent of public instruction has a

speciﬁed duty in assisting school districts in ensuring that all public

high school pupils have access to college preparatory coursework.

Moreover, as we describe on page, as part of the change to

school funding framework established by the local control funding

formula (funding formula), local educational agencies (LEAs) must

complete and update annually Local Control and Accountability

Plans (accountability plans). ese accountability plans must

include speciﬁc information regarding student achievement

as measured by the rate of college preparatory coursework

completion, among other metrics, as we state on the same page.

However, there is nothing in state law or regulation relating to the

funding formula that precludes Education from implementing

our recommendation. Indeed, rather than being “inconsistent

with the framework,” we think our recommendation furthers the

Legislature’s intent in supporting this statepriority.

Education has subjectively omitted the second portion of our

statement. Speciﬁcally, on page, we state that Education provides

minimal assistance to districts to ensure that students have access

to college preparatory coursework. None of the examples that

Education cites relate to ensuring that districts provide suﬃcient

college preparatory courseworkaccess.

On page we note that Education’s own administrator of

the college preparation and postsecondary programs oﬃce

acknowledged Education does not oﬀer formal assistance to districts

related to access to college preparatory coursework; instead, it

directs the districts to contact the University of California. e

administrator further stated that Education could have a role

in assessing the suﬃciency of the access that districts provide;

however, he explained Education currently has no guidelines and no

resources associated with this issue. us, even though Education

indicates that it has staﬀ assigned to provide districts with ongoing

assistance, this assistance does not relate to college preparatory

courseworkaccess.

California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

We fail to see the merit of Education’s argument. e information

provided to LEAs related to the California Assessment of

Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) does not relate

to assisting districts to ensure they provide suﬃcient access to

college preparatory coursework. According to Education’s website,

CAASPP identiﬁes a student’s ability to perform college-level work

in English and mathematics. It is unclear how this examination

or the resulting achievement level given to each student in these

subject areas helps ensure that districts are providing access to

college preparatory coursework needed to enter the State’s public

universitysytems.

As we state on page, Education speciﬁed in its September,

letter that it provided these websites only as a convenience,

andthat their inclusion did not imply its endorsement. We maintain

thatoneletter, which Education sent after our audit began, about

advanced placement courses with an attached list of web addresses

does not constitute adequate assistance to districts to ensure they

provide suﬃcient access to college preparatory courses, especially

given that each of the three districts we reviewed lacked data and

processes to demonstrate they oﬀered enough college preparatory

courses in each of the years wereviewed.

67California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

EMAILED RESPONSE FROM COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT*

CVUSD has taken stringent measures in the past 3years to address not only graduation, but

A‑G access to give rise to improving completion rates. Our graduation requirements, processes,

and coursework has seen signiﬁcant changes to grant our students with access and opportunities

to establish A‑G status. CVUSD does not have an access issue but does continue to work on

academic achievement issues which are eﬀecting students’ success in A‑G completion. e audit

focused primarily on past practices before the aforementioned changes came to practice. CVUSD

will continue to build personnel capacity and programs to help foster improvements in both

student achievement and system processes in support ofstudents.

ank you.

Jason B. Angle, Ed.D.

Assistant Superintendent

Educational Services Division

Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School District

(760)848‑1039

Jason.Angle@cvusd.us

* California State Auditor’s comment appears on page69.

68 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

69California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Comment

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE

RESPONSE FROM THE COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOLDISTRICT

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the

response to our audit report from Coachella Valley Uniﬁed School

District (Coachella). e number below corresponds with the

number we have placed in the margin of Coachella’sresponse.

Although the audit found various issues with Coachella’s past

practices, our recommendations will help ensure ongoing success

related to college preparatory coursework access andcompletion.

We look forward to reviewing the evidence of the improvements

that Coachella asserts it has made in itsresponse.

70 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

71California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CURRICULUM • PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1503 St. Mark’s Plaza, Suite B, Stockton, California 95207

Phone (209) 933-7030

February 15, 2017

TO:

FROM:

Ms. Elaine Howle

California State Auditor

Robert Sahli

Executive Director, Curriculum and Professional Development

SUBJECT: A-G Audit Response

Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) is continually working to improve services to students in all

areas including access to and successful completion of A-G courses. SUSD has course offerings at all of

its high schools that will provide a complete menu of courses necessary to qualify for UC/CSU

admission provided the students successfully pass their courses in timelines established or commit to

successful completion of credit recovery options.

SUSD’s graduation requirements, at the minimum level, do not meet the requirements of A-G in the

areas of Mathematics, World Language and Visual and Performing Arts. However, all students are

encouraged to pursue meeting A-G. Since many students fall short in the areas listed above, the SUSD

overall completion of A-G is negatively impacted. The graduation requirements do meet criteria for

admission to community colleges and the majority of SUSD graduates who continue in an academic

postsecondary pathway choose to attend the local college, Delta Community College. SUSD could

choose to have graduation requirements mirror A-G requirements, but this would negatively impact

graduation rates and those who do not choose to pursue a four year college pathway immediately after

high school.

Over the course of the past five years, since implementation of a new Student Information System

(Synergy), much work has been completed to correct errors in course codes, titles, and the related

flagging of courses for A-G. During this timeframe, UCOP has also modified its processes from

decentralized submission to centralized which will reduce errors. While there is a process in place at all

schools for counselors to assist students in building their high school course pathways, SUSD is

formulating a more formal process of documenting students’ progress through their battery of courses to

graduation. This process includes the creation of a new comprehensive counseling handbook and the use

of an on-track to graduate software application. SUSD recently received a college and career block

grant that will allow for hiring of a staff member to oversee district college and career efforts.

SUSD has undertaken several LCAP changes since the 2014-2015 LCAP plan year. In 2015, new staff

was assigned specifically to the LCAP. There are issues with the LCAP system established by the State

of California that SUSD must work under. Actions and services instituted through the LCAP cannot be

fully measured for effectiveness until the students receiving the services graduate. Information to

determine if an action or service is “effective” is dependent on last year’s data for this year’s activities

and the determination of effectiveness is therefore skewed. SUSD is proactive in assessing previous

72 California State Auditor Report 2016-114

February 2017

LCAPs to gain insight to better plan and implement services to ensure all students, including

unduplicated populations, are receiving services to be college and career ready.

SUSD will continue to remove obstacles and improve opportunities for students as they negotiate a

pathway to gradation and their choice of a college or career.

Cc: Eliseo Dávalos, Superintendent

Tom Anderson, Assistant Superintendent