Study: Richland District 2 Organizational Effectiveness

Richland Two School District
Organizational Effectiveness
and Efficiency Study
FINAL REPORT
April 1, 2011
Organizational Effectiveness
and Efficiency Study

FINAL REPORT
Submitted by:
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

2852 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
April 1, 2011
Table of Contents Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Scope of the Study..............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Methodology.......................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Overview of the Report ......................................................................................................1-3
2.0 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 2-1
2.1 Governance and Board Issues ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3 District Organization and Management ...................................................................... 2-13
2.4 School Management and Staffing............................................................................... 2-19
2.5 Planning ...................................................................................................................... 2-26
2.6 Legal Services............................................................................................................. 2-33
2.7 Public Information and Community Relations ........................................................... 2-37
3.0 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DELIVERY .......................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Organization and Management of Curriculum and Instruction .................................... 3-1

3.2 Instructional Delivery and Student Performance ........................................................ 3-30
3.3 Special Education ....................................................................................................... 3-42
3.4 Student Support Services ............................................................................................ 3-55
3.5 Instructional Professional Development .................................................................... 3-67
4.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Financial Organization and Management ..................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Budgeting ................................................................................................................... 4-14
4.3 Purchasing .................................................................................................................. 4-26
4.4 Payroll and Accounts Payable .................................................................................... 4-34
4.5 Cash, Investments, and Bond Management ................................................................ 4-39
4.6 Asset and Risk Management ...................................................................................... 4-46
4.7 Food Services Financial Operations ........................................................................... 4-54
5.0 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Organization and Management ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Personnel Policies and Procedures ............................................................................ 5-10
5.3 Human Resources Records ......................................................................................... 5-17
5.4 Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention ............................................................................ 5-19
5.5 Compensation and Classification ............................................................................... 5-25
5.6 Performance Management ......................................................................................... 5-32
5.7 Human Resources Technology .................................................................................. 5-38

Table of Contents Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
PAGE
6.0 FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Facilities Planning ........................................................................................................ 6-7

6.2 Facilities Maintenance ................................................................................................. 6-17
6.3 Custodial and Grounds Operations .............................................................................. 6-27
6.4 Energy Management ................................................................................................... 6-31
6.5 Community Use of Facilities ...........................................................................................6-37
7.0 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Organization and Staffing ............................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Technology Planning and Management ..................................................................... 7-23
7.3 Instructional Technology ............................................................................................ 7-33
7.4 Staff Development ...................................................................................................... 7-42
8.0 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Organization and Management ..................................................................................... 8-8

8.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness ...................................................................................... 8-13
8.3 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................................. 8-16
8.4 Routing ....................................................................................................................... 8-24
8.5 Maintenance and Fuel ................................................................................................. 8-27
8.6 Student Discipline....................................................................................................... 8-30
8.7 Recognition................................................................................................................. 8-31
9.0 SAFETY AND SECURITY .................................................................................................... 9-1
10.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 10-1
APPENDIX: SURVEY RESULTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2011, the Richland Two School District contracted with Evergreen Solutions, LLC to
conduct an Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study in all functional areas, including
district administration, educational services, human resources, financial management, facilities,
transportation, technology, and safety and security. The study concluded in April 2011, when
recommendations and findings were submitted to the Superintendent and School Board by
Evergreen in the form of a comprehensive report.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to conduct an external review of the effectiveness and efficiency
of all departments and operations within Richland Two, and to present a final report of the
findings, commendations, recommendations and projected costs or cost savings associated with
the recommendations. For each operational area, Evergreen reviewed the overall structure,
staffing, processes, practices, and organizational culture in order to ensure services have been
optimized by the district in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and customer service. Working
on-site with district staff, faculty, and administrators, Evergreen was able to capture and present
a complete picture of the district; identify gaps in performance efficiencies; and offer solutions
to increase the performance of the district overall to improve in its primary goal of educating
children.
Furthermore, the study did not simply aim to identify immediate cost savings and improve
short-term operations, but focused on identifying appropriate means by which to increase
district efficiency well into the future. Recommended improvements are realized through the
implementation of best practices⎯including reorganization, economies of scale, and long-term
investment to the district’s infrastructure. These improvements were identified through the
careful review of district operations as well as through the tedious review of instructional
services and delivery. The results of the instructional efficiency review provide guidance to
Richland Two in determining whether educational dollars are being used to the fullest extent
possible; and when indicated, provide recommendations to reduce costs while maintaining or
improving the quality of education.
Leaders in the Richland Two School District outlined specific objectives for the Organizational
Effectiveness and Efficiency Study prior to engaging services. Requirements included reviewing
existing documents, data, and reports available to the district. Evergreen reviewed these
documents to ensure that work was not replicated and that findings in past reports were
integrated into or addressed, and study recommendations where applicable.
In addition to data available at the district level, Evergreen collected data on Richland Two
available at the state level.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page i

Executive Summary Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
METHODOLOGY
Evergreen’s approach to conducting the Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study for
Richland Two was designed to evaluate district operations at the macro level (the school district as
a whole) as well as at the micro level (by specific department and operational area). That is, the
Evergreen Team examined how the district and individual departments or operational areas
function individually, as well as how they work together to create synergies and enforce
coordination with other operational areas and the community. At both levels, Evergreen
consultants conducted internal and external analyses to increase and ensure validity of outcomes.
This approach ensures that a comprehensive study is conducted, and that the district is evaluated as
the sum of its parts and as a whole.
Evergreen’s process includes a variety of quantitative and qualitative data analyses in order to
ensure information is sufficiently validated and also to ensure data reflect actual stakeholder
perceptions, operational occurrences, and overall operations. As such, throughout the report,
Evergreen shares both nationally recognized research data collected by our expert consultants, as
well as feedback from teacher and administrator surveys, focus groups, and interviews. This mix of
best practice research data, data collected from the district and the state, and stakeholder feedback
solidifies the findings and recommendations developed by the Evergreen Team.
Evergreen’s methodology for this study followed a four-phase, 15-task work plan as shown in
Exhibit 1, which included the following components:
• reviewing existing studies, reports, and databases of Richland Two;
• obtaining data on student achievement, revenues and expenditures, staffing, etc., from
district, state, and national sources;
• conducting a diagnostic review and interviews with district leaders, principals, teachers,
students, and parents;
• conducting employee surveys;
• making comparisons with national benchmark and best practices databases;
• making comparisons to peer school districts;
• conducting the formal on-site review;
• visiting 14 schools in Richland Two; and
• preparing the draft and final reports.
Review of Existing Records and Data Sources
Initially, Evergreen consultants collected existing reports and data sources that provided the team
with information related to the various administrative functions, instructional delivery processes,
and operations to be reviewed in the school district. This process ensured that the consultants not
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page ii

Exhibit 1
Work Plan for the Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
of Richland Two School District
Project Initiation Information Technology

Phase I:
TASK 1: TASK 2:
Initiate Project Develop Preliminary Profile of the
Diagnostic Review
TASK 3: TASK 4: TASK 5:

Phase II:
Conduct Diagnostic Conduct Surveys of Conduct Benchmarking

Review of Operations Central Office and Best Practices
Administrators, Principals, Review
and Teachers
Comprehensive Operational Review/Staffing Study

Review Central Office Review Human Review Curriculum and
Management Resources and Instruction
Personnel Management
Phase III:

Review Facilities Use Review Financial Review
and Management Management Transportation

Review Review Review
Food Services Information Technology Safety and Security
Project Reporting
TASK 15:
Phase IV:
Prepare Draft and Final Report
TASK 13:
Prepare Draft and Final Reports
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, 2011.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iii

only understood past events at Richland Two, but also that this information was integrated within
the study. In addition, this information helped the team to conduct a preliminary assessment of
district reporting standards, ultimately identifying any shortfalls in data collection and
dissemination at Richland Two.
Over 200 items were requested prior to beginning the study, and ranged from finance-related
information to safety and security documents. Examples of materials Evergreen requested
included, but were not limited to, the following:
• Board of Trustees policies and administrative procedures;

• organizational charts;
• program and compliance reports;
• staffing information and standards;
• annual performance reports;
• annual budget and expenditure reports;
• job descriptions;
• salary schedules;
• past reports created by third-party contractors; and
• procedural handbooks.
District leaders played an integral role in this process, and successfully facilitated the
collection of the majority of available documents. However, as in most school districts,
there were documents and data not available. Data and reports were analyzed from each
of the above sources and the information was used as a starting point for collecting
additional data during our on-site visits. Many of the documents and data sets collected
were integrated into various chapters of this report, and used to support Evergreen’s
findings and recommendations.
Diagnostic Review
A diagnostic review of Richland Two School District was conducted from February 1 through
February 4, 2011. Evergreen consultants interviewed Board members, central office
administrators, and staff concerning the management and operations of Richland Two. The
diagnostic review provided the overview and baseline necessary for conducting a successful and
comprehensive Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study.
Employee Surveys
To secure the involvement of employees in the study, online surveys were disseminated on
January 28, 2011⎯one for central office administrators, one for principals/assistant principals,
and one for teachers. To access the surveys, group participants were provided with a unique
URL which directed them to instructions on how to complete the survey. On February 10, 2011,
the surveys were closed for participation so that data could be analyzed.
Overall survey participation rates for district employees were outstanding. Specifically, both the
central office and school administrator survey groups boasted a survey completion rate of over
95 percent⎯98.1 percent and 95.9 percent, respectively. The teacher survey group realized a
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iv

survey response rate of 72.8 percent. While the teacher response rate is significantly lower than
the other survey groups, it is important to understand that there are over 1,700 teachers in the
district. Taken together, Richland Two realized an 88.9 percent average survey response rate.
Through the use of this anonymous survey, central administrators, school administrators, and
teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations
in Richland Two. Many survey items were similar in format and content to provide a database
for determining how the opinions and perceptions of these groups vary. The survey contained
104 unique items and asked stakeholder opinion and informative questions pertaining to:
• district administration;
• instruction;
• human resources;
• community involvement;
• facilities use and management;
• financial management;
• purchasing;
• transportation;
• food services;
• technology management;
• overall operations; and
• general questions.
Richland Two survey results were compared to administrators and teachers in Evergreen’s
survey database. This database is a culmination of recent responses and feedback from a mix of
large and small school districts across the nation. Evergreen’s data, collected in-house by our
team, is constantly updated with new school district feedback. This practice allows Evergreen to
benchmark Richland Two against current trends in school districts operating in the same context
of today’s dynamic economic, political, and cultural environment.
The survey results are provided in the Appendix of the full report. Specific survey items
pertinent to findings in the functional areas are presented within each chapter as appropriate to
support study findings.
Moving forward, it may be beneficial for Richland Two leaders to use these surveys on an
annual basis to assess stakeholder perception, and use Evergreen’s results as a baseline
benchmark to measure yearly improvements.
Peer School Districts
Peer school districts are generally neighboring or regionally located districts that are comparable
in size, demographics, budget, and a number of other features. In most effectiveness and
efficiency studies, peers are chosen in order to provide a group average for comparison with the
district under review. For the Richland Two study, peer school districts were chosen in
collaboration with district leaders.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page v

The five comparison school districts for this study include:
• Beaufort
• Berkeley
• Dorchester Two
• Richland One
• Rock Hill (York Three)
Our research on these districts included the aggregation of state-level data, district-level data
(generally found on each district’s website), and direct contact with leaders of the peer districts
to solicit additional data not available through other means. The third option is usually exercised
when highly specific data are necessary. Collected information was essential to an effective
study of Richland Two operations, and throughout the report, a number of exhibits share
Richland Two data compared to peer school district data.
On-Site Review
Evergreen consultants conducted the formal on-site audit of Richland Two during the week of
February 21, 2011. Prior to conducting the on-site review, each team member was provided
with an extensive set of information about Richland Two operations, pertaining to both the
district as a whole and their specific area of assignment. During the on-site work, team members
conducted a detailed review of the structure and operations in their assigned areas of
responsibility. Richland Two school facilities were visited during this on-site review; the 14
schools visited included:
• Windsor Elementary School

• Summit Parkway Middle School
• Spring Valley High School
• Muller Road Elementary
• Blythewood High School
• Blythewood Middle School
• Langford Elementary School
• Bethel-Hanberry Elementary School
• Richland Northeast High School
• Sandlapper Elementary School
• Longleaf Middle School
• Dent Middle School
• Joseph Keels Elementary School
• Kelly Mill Middle School
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

The final report for the Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study consists of the following
ten chapters:
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vi

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: District Organization and Management
• Chapter 3: Educational Services Delivery
• Chapter 4: Financial Management
• Chapter 5: Human Resources Management
• Chapter 6: Facilities
• Chapter 7: Technology Management
• Chapter 8: Transportation
• Chapter 9: Safety and Security
• Chapter 10: Fiscal Impact of Recommendations
Chapters 2 through 9 contain findings, commendations, and recommendations for each operational
area, provided in the following sequence:
• a description of the operation in Richland Two;

• a summary of Evergreen’s study findings;
• a commendation or recommendation for each finding; and
• estimated costs or cost savings over a five-year period which are stated in 2011 dollars.
We conclude this report with a summary of the fiscal impact of our recommendations in Chapter
10, which is also included at the end of this Executive Summary.
MAJOR FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section we include the major findings, commendations, and recommendations for each
operational area as found in Chapters 2 through 9 of the full report.
District Organization and Management
Leaders of school districts are typically at the forefront of decision-making processes and must
constantly decide on actions that impact the overall direction of the district as a whole. A sound
organizational structure can assist in facilitating communications and increasing efficiency in
providing guidance. This responsibility is met with the challenge of consistently adhering to
policies and procedures to ensure decisions are made in an equitable and effective manner.
Additionally, the organization and management of a school district involve cooperation between
elected members of the school board and district administrators.
Evergreen commends Richland Two for:
• maintaining a model school board, and receiving high ratings from central office and
school administrators regarding its important governance and leadership roles;
• its paperless school board agenda and meeting operation;
• its comprehensive policy manual and making the manual available online; and
• multiple avenues of positive communication with its internal and external stakeholders.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vii

Major recommendations on District Organization and Management include:
• Conduct a comprehensive review of administrative rules to determine where these

important procedures are missing.
• Email Richland Two administrators policy updates following each Board meeting at
which policy changes are adopted by the Board.
• Reorganize the central office of Richland Two.
• Significantly reduce staffing at the school administrator and clerical levels.
• Evaluate principals and central office administrators annually.
• Reorganize the Planning Office and rename it the Planning and Accountability Office.
• Expedite plans to develop a new Strategic Plan for Richland Two.
• Hold legal firms accountable.
• Merge the public information and community relations under a Director of Public
Information and Community Relations.
• Restructure the Richland Two Education Foundation.
Educational Services Delivery
The educational service delivery of a school district depends on central office administrators and
staff to serve as the support system, and provide leadership and coordination for education that is
provided in the district’s schools. The effectiveness of instructional delivery depends on factors such
as organization, staffing, and procedures that have been created and monitored in order to ensure
consistency of instruction and student assessment. The way in which these central office operations
are designed can either support or prevent progress towards high achievement for students.
• encouraging its administrators to be active in professional organizations;
• consistent high percentages of students meeting or exceeding standards across all grades
in Math and English/Language Arts;
• integrating technology into district meetings and communications;
• the depth and breadth of enriching learning experiences for its elementary gifted and
talented students;
• its strong program of induction of new teachers into the district; and
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page viii

• for recognizing and supporting the merits of teachers becoming accomplished to equip
students with 21st Century skills through National Board Certification.
Major recommendations for Educational Services Delivery include:
• Revise the organizational structure for the curricular and instructional offices of Richland
Two.
• More equitably allocate clerical support staff among instructional administrators.
• Continue the district direction of focusing on student needs to develop uniform

expectations and capacity among all teachers wherever they teach.
• Systematize the use of student data for decisions regarding program and instructional
effectiveness, staffing, and professional development.
• Make program evaluation a core underpinning district actions and effectiveness.
• Reduce school staffing positions to levels closer to those recommended by AdvancED

and/or in line with peer district staffing, and centralize some school-based functions.
• Identify and replicate successful processes, procedures, and best practices where
standards-driven curriculum is operationalized and student performance is improving.
• Expand magnet applications and alternative education assignment processes to collect

data on transportation barriers to student access to programs.
• Revise the organizational structure for the Richland Two Special Education Department.
• Maintain staffing levels for psychologists and nurses, and move towards recommended
staffing levels for school social workers.
• Establish uniform transition procedures among schools to ensure that special education
and alternative student needs are clearly communicated.
• Integrate components of effective alternative programs into a district plan to strengthen

the Richland Two alternative school by more concertedly basing its staffing, instruction,
and operations on best practices.
• Formalize the district’s approach to instructional professional development and set aside
additional time for adult learning.
Financial Management
Financial management in any school district must ensure that resources are properly aligned with
district goals and objectives. When this equation is balanced, school districts realize the optimum
amount of success based on the resources available. With recent fluctuations in economic
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page ix

conditions, it has become even more imperative to ensure that financial management policies,
procedures, and practices used foster optimized gain. The planning and budgeting process must
support district goals.
In addition, an effective purchasing program provides districts with quality materials, supplies,
services and equipment in a timely manner at the lowest price. Proper accounting reduces the
risk of lost assets and ensures their appropriate use. The district must provide the Board,
administrators, and interested external stakeholders with timely, accurate, and useful reports
concerning the district’s financial condition.
• receiving Certificates of Excellence for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports that
indicate the district is adhering to the highest standards in government accounting and
financial reporting;
• maintaining an unrestricted general fund balance of between 7 to 12 percent of the annual

operating budget which has resulted in strong bond ratings;
• its safety training and awareness programs, which have significantly reduced the number
of workers’ compensation claims throughout the district;
• requiring cafeterias to perform at least four different collection activities before turning
the account over to the central office for collections; and
• its universal free breakfast program at the district’s four high-poverty schools which is
cost-effectively providing a nutritious breakfast to all students on those campuses.
Major recommendations in Financial Management include:
• Reorganize the Business Services Division/Finance Office to focus and align functions
and create a succession plan for key finance positions, particularly those where the
incumbent is eligible for retirement within the next five years.
• Develop a comprehensive procedural manual to guide and institute appropriate levels of

controls over finance-related functions carried out by principals, bookkeepers, and other
departments throughout the district.
• Adopt the GFOA Budgeting Standards for budget preparation, including the adoption of
a formal budget calendar, and apply for the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation
Award.
• Work with the Alio support team and the campuses to develop a way to enter all budgets
into the accounting system at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page x

• Reduce and consolidate the number and type of fees collected, establish an accurate and
dependable system for assessing the fees, and provide online payment options to reduce
the amount of cash handled by staff.
• Reorganize warehouse operations and eliminate the supply function by implementing

campus-level supply ordering and delivery direct from vendors.
• Implement a standard practice of requesting an annual legal review of the district’s

purchasing templates, including the standard RFP template, to ensure that the district
continues to comply with state and federal guidelines.
• Implement an automated time accounting system that has an automated interface with
Alio to ensure that time worked is accurately recorded and paid for all groups and
categories of employees.
• Enlist the services of a financial or investment analyst to assist Richland Two in making
investment decisions.
• Engage the services of an actuary to determine the amount of annual contribution

required to cover past and future workers’ compensation claims.
• Contract with a third-party administrator to administer the district’s §403 (b) Plan, and
share the cost of these services with plan participants.
• Create a centralized fixed and controlled asset accounting system that not only fulfills
financial and accounting requirements, but also protects the district assets and enhances
accountability.
• Collaboratively develop a plan for increasing high school meal participation, including an
examination of the number and length of lunch hours.
Human Resources Management
The Human Resources function has evolved significantly in the last quarter century. As an
increased need for competitive compensation, resolving work place issues, and administering
complex benefits programs has emerged, human resources has changed from a once minimal
task, to a full-fledged and crucial operation. Managing a public education agency is a labor-
intensive undertaking; personnel costs typically consume the largest portion of the average
school district budget. Consequently, successful and effective school districts place a major
emphasis on human resources management.
The employees of any school district are its most valuable asset. They possess distinctive
institutional knowledge and experience that can be difficult and costly to replace. The
recruitment, selection, orientation, training, salary, and benefits provided to the workforce
contribute greatly to the effectiveness of the district.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xi

In Human Resources, Evergreen commends Richland Two for:
• focusing on and delivering high quality customer service in its Human Resources
Department as evidenced by Evergreen survey results;
• developing a procedures manual for its human resources operations;
• making a commitment to transition to electronic personnel files; and
• the implementation of the Alio ERP for human resources.
Major recommendations on Human Resources include:
• Remove the Administrative Services unit from the Human Resources Department.
• Terminate the relationship with the Human Resources Consultant and distribute any
related position control tasks to existing staff.
• Reorganize the Human Resources Department in the context of a classification and

compensation study with the goal to flatten the organizational structure and identify any
unnecessary management titles or misclassified employees.
• Develop key performance indicators, monitor performance results on a quarterly or semi-

annual basis, and provide an annual report of accomplishments to the Superintendent and
School Board for the human resources function.
• Adopt a clear and well-defined administrative rule on salary supplements, and create
specific parameters for each supplement provided.
• Develop a policy and administrative procedure on electronic and school-based personnel

records that ensures security of access, confidentiality, consistency of contents, legal
compliance, and a process for purging of these personnel records.
• Standardize school handbooks to ensure that they are consistent in format and content,
and that they contain information which applies only to the individual school.
• Develop a succession plan to ensure continuity of services in Richland Two.
• Review, revise, and create job class descriptions that accurately reflect Richland Two job
duties and requirements with consistent and legally defensible content and formatting.
• Conduct a comprehensive compensation and classification study at least every five years.
• Implement a plan to phase out working retirees.
• Set a goal of reducing summer extra duty pay by 50 percent for teachers in the coming
fiscal year.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xii

Facilities
Effective facilities management inevitably leads to the success of many other functions in the school
district. Useful, well-maintained, up-to-date, and cheerful learning environments can help reinforce
positive attitudes and performance by students, teachers, and administrators. In addition, these
conditions lead to a sense of pride and passion in both students and staff. Aside from these results,
facilities that are optimized lead to a safe environment, as well as promote savings and revenue for
the district.
• its steadfast use of a facility master planning process with a ten-year horizon and annual
updates;
• its traditional commitment to soliciting input from building users during the early
programming and design phases;
• its detailed design standards;
• its excellent management of change orders, resulting in a typical performance below two
percent of construction cost;
• its commitment to preventive maintenance by operating two Preventive Management

(PM) Teams that have saved the district millions of dollars;
• the consistent state of cleanliness in its school facilities; and
• its efforts to keep energy use below nationally accepted ratios and benchmarks.
Major recommendations on Facilities include:
• Establish an Agency Selection Committee for the qualification-based selection of

Architectural Engineering (A/E) and Construction Management (CM) firms.
• Reduce the number of portable classrooms and replace the remaining portables with more
energy-efficient, better-constructed units.
• Change the work request process to require the generation of work orders reflecting
accurately the work that was accomplished, the time spent, and any equipment or
supplies purchased for completion.
• Restructure its Community Use of Facilities policies and procedures to significantly

increase income to the district.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xiii

Technology
Technology is one area of a school district that supports all administrative and instructional
personnel, allowing employees to conduct business in a way that maximizes resource utilization.
Organizing technology resources to effectively achieve this outcome can be challenging, but is
essential for operational success. Accomplishing this goal not only requires optional staffing levels,
but also necessary skills, tools, and leadership.
• the integration of technology into the curriculum, reliable performance of major

applications, networking infrastructure, technology standards, best practice processes,
and timely infrastructure support for schools and district programs;
• having a comprehensive, strategic Technology Plan that provides direction in terms of

overall vision, action planning, monitoring progress, and focusing of efforts and
resources at both the district and school levels;
• having technology hardware and software standards and procurement controls/support in

place;
• bringing the student and ERP systems online, at the pace this was done, and with the
level of success as reported by users and administrators; and
• using contracted services for project development and implementation support on an as-
needed basis, and using staff augmentation resources effectively to provide training and
support for specific projects.
Major recommendations on Technology include:
• Restructure the current Project Leadership Team to be more proactive and involve all key
stakeholders in planning for new or upgraded system implementations and integrations.
• Maintain technology assignments to specific schools for longer periods (at least 3-6
months), and cluster the sites to minimize mileage and travel.
• Implement multi-tier technical support positions and advanced/continuing training

incentives.
• Purchase and implement a unified, comprehensive, network-based system for managing

hardware and software⎯including asset management, imaging, software and security
updates, wired and wireless network management, desktop servicing, knowledgebase,
help desk and service tracking, and energy management programs.
• Relocate the Accountability and Evaluation Unit to the Planning Office and Student
Assessment to the Academics Office.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xiv

• Develop a formal, IT disaster recovery/business recovery document to provide specific

guidance on steps necessary to limit the impact of a disaster.
• Establish a process for re-use, re-deployment, or re-sale of computer and other

technology equipment no longer used, but fully functioning.
• Standardize SharePoint web development and templates for school, department, and
services websites, including teacher and curriculum resource/learner support websites.
• Schedule IT services during the summer for start-of-school preparations and support.
• Create consistent districtwide teacher course websites.
• Provide regular training and direct access to network-based imaging and desktop
management tools, as well as access to knowledgebase documentation and Help
Desk/work order systems, to both district and school-based technology staff.
Transportation
The safe and timely transportation of students is important to every school district. However, when
faced with budget cuts or increased ridership, it can be extremely difficult to balance these factors.
When looking to increase efficiency in transportation, safety is the number one priority, followed by
a strategic approach to planning routes and driver times to most cost effectively transport students to
and from school. In addition, activities requiring additional transportation needs (such as field trips,
athletic events, and summer school programs) must be analyzed.
Evergreen commends Richland Two Transportation for:
• maintaining school bus drivers and other transportation personnel as full-time employees
with benefits;
• an innovative and responsive program enhancing activity buses and bus driver
availability to support field trips and extracurricular activities;
• maintaining an excellent training and safety program for transportation employees;
• assigning an adequate number of students on school buses and making prudent use of
passenger seating on school buses; and
• the installation and use of radios and cameras on school buses.
Major recommendations on Transportation include:
• Provide a more timely response to the transportation of special education students.
• Ensure that issues involving workers’ compensation are imbedded in standard operating
procedures, and provide transportation managers with the procedures for workers’
compensation.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xv

• Initiate a dialogue with the South Carolina Department of Education regarding bus
replacement in Richland Two.
• Examine each school’s loading and unloading plan, and determine if it meets safety and
efficiency standards set by the district.
• Enforce pre- and post-operations maintenance checks by bus drivers at the Spring Valley
hub; emphasize the importance to conduct this required procedure and not to leave busses
running unattended.
• Secure fuel operations and security at the Spring Valley fuel pump used by warehouse
and ground support personnel.
• Install oil-water separators at all three vehicle parking hub facilities.
• Improve student discipline on school buses.
Safety and Security
Maintaining school safety and security has unfortunately become an increasingly complicated
part of school operations. Traditionally, most school safety actions involve surrounding schools
with fences to create safe zones and creating alternative education programs for violent or
disruptive students. However, in today’s environment, school districts need a more
comprehensive approach that involves awareness, prevention and intervention, and recognizes
school violence as part of a community problem that requires community involvement.
Recognizing this, more opportunities and resources than ever exist to supplement and improve
school safety. School leaders must look to these resources to maximize campus safety while
ensuring that an appropriate level of student privacy is maintained.
• its design and operation of a highly effective safety program;
• installing and maintaining cameras in its schools and school grounds, and improving its
inventory of cameras;
• using its state-of-the-art entry screening technology;
• the pro-active security at large sporting events attracting many students and visitors from
other districts; and
• maintaining a Security Officer Program to keep schools secure and safe.
Major recommendations on Safety and Security include:
• Expand the Safety Officer’s position to full-time status and prepare a succession plan.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xvi

• Train all building users to be safety conscious.
• Install intrusion and fire alarms in portables.
• Apply for grant funds to help fund new surveillance technologies and police personnel.
• Secure and alarm secondary exterior doors at all schools, or reconfigure side and back
doors if they are used as major access and egress points to match the existing front door
security.
• Reconfigure the Support Service Center lobby to create a secure entry with a screening
device identical to those found in schools.
• Outsource security services to a private security company.
• Identify specific needs and reasons for non-uniformity in emergency responses at certain
school locations in the next update of the Richland Two Emergency Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the analyses of data obtained from interviews, surveys, community input, Richland Two
documents, and first-hand observations, the Evergreen Team developed 161 recommendations in
this report; 59 recommendations have fiscal implications.
Exhibit 2 shows the total costs and savings summary for all study recommendations that have a
fiscal impact. As can be seen, the total net savings is about $57.3 million over five years.
The five-year costs and savings are shown in 2011 dollars. It is important to keep in mind that
the identified savings and costs are incremental.
Exhibit 2
Summary of Annual Costs and Savings by Year
Over Five Years Recommendations
Total 5-
Years Year One-Time
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 (Costs) or (Costs) or
Costs/Savings Savings Savings
TOTAL COSTS ($500,986) ($771,901) ($1,052,816) ($2,243,731) ($2,475,463) ($7,044,897) ($546,500)
TOTAL SAVINGS $9,362,875 $12,722,432 $13,668,957 $14,086,815 $14,796,532 $64,637,611 $214,000
TOTAL NET SAVINGS $8,861,889 $11,950,531 $12,616,141 $11,843,084 $12,321,069 $57,592,714 ($332,500)
TOTAL FIVE-YEAR NET SAVINGS MINUS ONE-TIME COSTS $57,260,214
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page xvii

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Evergreen Solutions, LLC, was retained by the Richland Two School District to complete an
Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study beginning in January 2011. The study
included a comprehensive analysis of instructional programs and non-instructional operations
with the overall goal of identifying areas for improvement in efficiency and effectiveness. In
March 2011, Evergreen Solutions presented the findings and recommendations contained in the
report to Richland Two School District.
Richland Two consists of 36 schools and centers, enrolling over 25,000 students. Over 2,000
staff support the district in carrying out day-to-day activities. The district’s total general fund
budget for FY 2011 is $191 million.
1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The comprehensive Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Study conducted at Richland Two
School District included review of the following eight functional areas:
• District Administration
• Instruction
• Finance
• Personnel and Human Resources Management
• Facilities
• Technology Management
• Transportation
• Safety and Security
For each function, Evergreen was tasked with identifying areas for improvement in efficiency and
effectiveness through careful review of available data, benchmarking, interviews, and survey
feedback. Further explanation on the methodology used can be found in the following section.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Evergreen’s approach methodology for conducting this organizational study included the following
steps:
• reviewing existing reports and data sources⎯including independent financial audits,

annual budget and expenditure reports, budget guidelines and procedures, accounting
procedures, salary schedules, organizational charts, staffing ratios, board policies, strategic
plan, technology plan, facilities data, safety and security data, transportation data, student
achievement data, and annual performance reports;
• conducting surveys with Richland Two employees, including central office administrators,
school administrators, and teachers;
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1

Introduction Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
• generating comparisons to peer school districts⎯the peer group of South Carolina school
districts included:
- Beaufort
- Berkeley
- Dorchester Two
- Richland One
- Rock Hill (York Three)
• conducting a diagnostic review and interviews with board members, the Richland Two
Superintendent, and other Richland Two administrators and staff;
• providing a channel for members of the community to provide input;
• collecting additional reports and data from sources inside and outside Richland Two;
• conducting the formal on-site review with a team of seven consultants; and
• preparing draft and final reports.
Diagnostic Review
A diagnostic review of Richland Two School District was conducted in the second week of
February 2011. Evergreen consultants interviewed central office administrators and board
members concerning the management and operations of the district.
On-Site Review
A team of seven consultants conducted the formal on-site review of Richland Two School
District during the week of February 20, 2011.* Prior to conducting the on-site review, each
team member was provided with an extensive set of information about Richland Two operations.
During the on-site work, team members conducted a detailed review of the structure and
operations in their assigned functional areas.
In addition to central office locations, Evergreen visited 14 Richland Two schools during this on-
site review, including:
• Bethel-Hanberry Elementary School

• Blythewood High School
• Blythewood Middle School
• Dent Middle School
• Joseph Keels Elementary School
• Kelly Mill Middle School
• Langford Elementary School
• Longleaf Middle School
*one consultant conducted the review early in February.

Introduction Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
• Muller Road Elementary

• Richland Northeast High School
• Sandlapper Elementary School
• Spring Valley High School
• Summit Parkway Middle School
• Windsor Elementary School
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

The final report for this study consists of the following 10 chapters:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: District Organization and Management
• Chapter 3: Educational Services Delivery
• Chapter 4: Financial Management
• Chapter 5: Human Resources Management
• Chapter 6: Facilities
• Chapter 7: Technology Management
• Chapter 8: Transportation
• Chapter 9: Safety and Security
• Chapter 10: Fiscal Impact of Recommendations
Chapters 2 through 9 contain findings, commendations, and recommendations for specific

operational areas, and are organized in the following sequence:
• a description of the operation in the Richland Two;

• a summary of our study findings;
• a commendation or recommendation for each finding; and
• estimated costs or cost savings over a five-year period which are stated in 2011 dollars.

CHAPTER 2:
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

2.0 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
This chapter reviews the staffing, organization, and management of Richland School District
Two, and includes seven major sections:
2.1 Governance and Board Issues

2.2 Policies and Procedures
2.3 District Organization and Management
2.4 School Management and Staffing
2.5 Planning
2.6 Legal Services
2.7 Public Information and Community Relations
2.1 GOVERNANCE AND BOARD ISSUES

Local school boards have traditionally governed public education in the United States with
authority vested in them by the state. From the mid 1800s through the early 1900s, the number
of school boards increased dramatically. The last major reform of school boards involved a shift
to smaller elected school boards comprised of community members with a professional
superintendent as the CEO. There are approximately 95,000 school board members on 15,000
local boards across the nation. Most boards have five to seven members. Eighty (80) percent of
school districts across the country have fewer than 3,000 students.
In a widely cited report (entitled “Recommendations for 21st Century School Board/
Superintendent Leadership, Governance and Teamwork for High School Achievement”),
Goodman and Zimmerman found that school districts with quality governance had, among other
things:
• a focus on student achievement and policy making;
• effective management without micromanagement;
• a trusting and collaborative relationship with the superintendent;
• a yearly evaluation of the superintendent, according to mutually agreed upon goals and
procedures;
• governance retreats for evaluation and goal setting;
• long-term service of board members and the superintendent; and
• a budget that provides needed resources.

District Organization and Management Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
As stated in the Richland Two Policy Manual,
The law of the state requires district boards to discharge certain duties and confers upon
them many legislative, judicial and executive powers including the following (statutory
references to sections of the S.C. Code, 1976, as amended).
• Legislative (rule-making powers)
- General: Boards...may prescribe such rules and regulations not inconsistent with
the law as they deem necessary or advisable. (59-19-110)
- Specific: The board shall promulgate rules prescribing the scholastic standards of
achievement and standards of conduct and behavior that must be met by all pupils
as a condition to the right of the such pupils to attend the public schools. (59-19-
90[3])
• Judicial powers
The board may conduct hearings to delegate this power to one or more members
who will report to the board. (59-19-110)
• Executive powers
In the executive area, the board's powers include, but are limited to the following:
- managing and controlling the district, subject to legal requirements (59-19-

90[7]);
- controlling the educational interests of the district, with the right to operate or not
operate any school or schools (59-19-90[7]);
- suspending or dismissing pupils when the best interest of the schools makes it
necessary (59-19-90[3]);
- transferring and assigning pupils (59-19-90[9]);
- prescribing conditions of attendance for children not meeting eligibility

requirements, subjects to certain conditions (59-19-90[10]);
- providing school-age child care programs or facilities (59-19-90[11]);
- controlling school property of the district (59-19-90[5]);
- acquiring land by condemnation (59-19-180, 59-19-200);
- providing suitable school houses (59-19-90[1]); and
- selling or leasing school property, with a report to county board or county

council (59-19-250).

The School Board has four major goals relating to the governance of Richland Two (as stated in
the Richland Two Board Policy Manual):
• Setting the long-range vision (examples include strategic planning, budget planning,
other planning procedures such as facilities planning or curriculum audit, inclusion of
all community groups, and taking proactive stance for education).
• Establishing the basic structure (examples include personnel, quality of staffing and
staffing patterns, budget development, curriculum and instruction, appropriate
environment such as facilities and behaviors, and district operations).
• Ensuring accountability (examples include budget; legal requirements; student

performance; community/parental involvement; community/parental support; dealing
with pressure groups; recognizing the difference between private citizen and public
official role/responsibility; working together as an effective team; and evaluating all
aspects of district including the board, superintendent, staff, student and community).
• Engaging in advocacy (examples include working with elected and appointed officials;
cooperating with agencies serving children; being advocates for children; and promoting
the value of public education with business, retired persons, and other groups).
FINDING
The Richland Two Board of Trustees is comprised of seven members. As can be seen in Exhibit
2-1, five of the seven board members have served for five years or more; the range in tenure of
board members is from less than a year to over 20 years.
Exhibit 2-1
Members, Board of Trustees
Richland School District Two
2010-11 School Year
Current
Position on Year First Term
School Board Member School Board Profession Elected Expires
Melinda Anderson, R.N. Member Retired Nurse 1990 2014
Susan A. Brill Member Former County Council 2006 2012
Member
Stephanie Burgess, Ph.D. Chair USC Faculty 2004 2012
William Flemming, Jr., D.M.D. Member Dentist 1994 2014
Calvin "Chip" Jackson Vice Chair Retired Educator 2008 2012
James Manning, M.A.T. Member IT Network Security 2010 2014
Administrator
Barbara Specter Secretary Marketing for Southern 2002 2014
Wesleyan University

The Superintendent, in consultation with the Board Chairman and Vice Chairman, develops an
agenda and background information for each meeting. This information is provided to Board
members on the Friday before the Tuesday Board meeting. Meetings are held twice a month on
the second and fourth Tuesday of the month commencing at 6:00 p.m. The public is welcome to
attend, and there is time on the agenda for citizen comments.
Richland Two Board members are well-informed and highly regarded by the school staff and
community. Survey results indicate that Board members receive high marks when compared to
survey respondents in other school districts.
• 84 percent of Richland Two principals/assistant principals agree with the statement that
“school board members know and understand the operations of the school district”,
compared to fewer than 61 percent in the comparison group of building administrators.
• 81 percent of Richland Two central office administrators agree with the statement that
“school board members know and understand the operations of the school district,”
compared to fewer than 72 percent of the comparison group of central office
administrators.
These results were reinforced in Evergreen consultant interviews in Richland Two. Comments
included the following:
• The Board does not micromanage.

• The Richland Two Board of Trustees is a model school board for others to emulate.
• The Board is trustworthy and honest.
• The School Board is supportive of administrators.
• The School Board has no political agenda.
As stated in Board Policy BBAA:
Because all powers of the board of trustees lie in its action as a group. Individual board
members exercise their authority over district affairs only as they vote to take action at a
legal meeting of the board.
In other instances, an individual board member, including the chairman, will have power
only when the board, by vote, has delegated authority to him/her. The board will not be
bound in any way by any action or statement on the part of any individual board member not
delegated that authority by the board.
The board and its members will deal with administrative services through the superintendent
and will not give orders to any subordinates of the superintendent either publicly or
privately, but may make suggestions and recommendations.
The board will make its members, the district staff and the public aware through its actions
and policies that only the board acting as a whole has authority to take official action.

Policy BC further states that it is the responsibility of each Board member to:
• become familiar with district policies, rules and regulations, state and federal school
laws, and regulations of the state department of education;
• have a general knowledge of educational aims and objectives of the district;
• work harmoniously with other board members without trying either to dominate the
board or neglect one's share of the work;
• vote and act in the board meetings impartially for the good for the district;
• accept the will of the majority vote in all cases and give wholehearted support to the
resulting policy;
• represent the board and district to the public in such a way as to promote both interest
and support; and
• refer complaints to the proper school authorities and abstain from individual counsel and
action.
The Richland Two School Board fully complies with its roles and responsibilities as stated in its
policy manual and commensurate with best practice standards for boards of education.
COMMENDATION
The Richland Two Board of Trustees is commended for being a model school board,
receiving high ratings from central office and school administrators regarding its
important governance and leadership roles.
FINDING
Richland Two is the first school district in which Evergreen consultants have found the Board
meetings and agenda are completely paperless.
Richland Two uses Electronic School Board Perpetual as its electronic software system for the
Board. The district maintains the following modules:
• agenda manager;
• meeting manager;
• closed session manager; and
• virtual board packet.
The use of this software has saved the district significant dollars in printing and mailing costs.

COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its paperless school board agenda and meeting operation.
FINDING
School board meetings are rotated among schools. This best practice enables schools to
showcase exemplary programs. This practice also enables parents to attend Board meetings
located in geographic proximately to their children’s schools, and the public to attend meetings
closer to home.
COMMENDATION
The Richland Two School Board conducts board meetings in schools throughout the
district.
FINDING
Richland Two convey background information to the Board through the use of a cover page
which is part of the Board’s software package. This cover page is displayed in Exhibit 2-2.
Evergreen’s review of several agenda items found that two important aspects are rarely
completed on this cover page: the funding and strategic plan components.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-1:
Complete the cover page for each meeting agenda item requiring Board action.
Senior administrators are not providing important information to the Board for “Action
Requested” items. Most critical among these are information on funding source and linkage to
the district’s strategic plan. Such information is critical so that the Board has all the information,
including fiscal data, needed to support the action it is being asked to take.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
2.2 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

All states require school boards to develop policies to ensure the efficient operation of school
districts. Commonly, policies are drafted by staff and adopted by the school board at a public
meeting.

Exhibit 2-2
Example Richland Two Cover Page
for Board Materials Package
Source: Richland School District Two, 2011
Policies reflect the rules that govern the implementation of district operations. Administrative
procedures or regulations, on the other hand, relate to the implementation of Board policies. As
new processes change over time, so should Board policies and administrative procedures (rules).
Policies and procedures must be continually reviewed for currency, accuracy, and
appropriateness.
There is a definite distinction between governing the school district and administering its daily
activities. While school boards are ultimately responsible for major decisions concerning the
school district, they employ a professional staff of administrators (led by the school
superintendent) to manage day-to-day functions.
The National School Boards Association’s (NSBA) definition includes the following statement:
Like Congress, state legislatures, and city or county councils, school boards establish
the direction and structure of their school districts by adopting policies through the

authority granted by state legislatures. Policies are the means by which educators
are accountable to the public.
NSBA provides the following distinction between board policies and administrative
procedures/regulations/rules.
Policies are principles adopted by the board to chart a course of action. They tell
what is and may include why and how much. They are broad enough to indicate a
line of action to be taken by the administration in meeting a number of day-to-day
problems; they need to be narrow enough to give the administration clear guidance.
Regulations (or administrative rules) are the detailed directions developed by the
administration to put the board’s policy into practice. They tell how, by whom,
where, and when things are to be done. Often the state and federal governments
require school boards to make detailed rules. Included in this category would be
federally funded programs, such as Title I.
Policies and procedures are an important vehicle for communicating expectations to students and
employees. In addition, policies and procedures provide a way to:
• establish a distinction between board policymaking and procedures development by the

administration;
• provide guidelines for personnel and students to use;
• provide some assurance of consistency and continuity in decision making by staff;
• help orient board members and employees to the school district; and
• assist the general public in understanding how decisions are made.
Board policies are an important tool for a school board, and they should be stated clearly enough
to provide appropriate direction to staff.
FINDING
In Richland Two, Policy BG/BGD establishes the basic structure for the development of policy
by the Board of Trustees.
This policy on the creation of policies states:
The board considers policy development one of its chief functions. The board will develop
written policies to serve as guidelines for its own operations and for the successful and
efficient functioning of the public schools. Written policies are guides for the discretionary
action of those to whom the board delegates authority and are a source of information and
guidance for all those who are interested in and affected by the district schools.

Proposals regarding policies may originate with a member of the board, the superintendent,
a staff member, parent, student, consultant, civic group, advisory committee or any resident
of the district. The board will use a careful and orderly process in examining such proposals
prior to action upon them by the board.
The board will continually study and evaluate the written policies and the reports concerning
the execution of its written policies to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of those
policies. Changes in needs, conditions, purposes and objectives will require revisions,
deletions and additions to the policies of present and future boards.
Each proposed policy will require two readings at regular meetings of the board. The formal
adoption of the policies will be recorded in the minutes of the board. Only those written
statements so adopted and so recorded will be regarded as official board policy.
The Richland Two Board Policy Manual is organized according to the classification system
developed by the National Education Policy Network for the National School Boards
Association. This classification system has been adopted by the South Carolina School Boards
Association. The system provides an efficient means for coding, filing and finding board
policies, administrative rules and other documents. The Policy Manual addresses the provisions
specified in state code.
There are 12 major classifications, each bearing an alphabetical code. These are listed below:
A. Foundations and Basic Commitments

B. School Board Governance and Operations
C. General School Administration
D. Fiscal Management
E. Support Services
F. Facilities Planning and Development
G. Personnel
H. Negotiations (no policies used in S.C. manuals)
I. Instructional
J. Students
K. School-Community-Home Relations
L. Education Agency Relations
The coordination of policy development in Richland Two is managed through the Office of the
Deputy Superintendent.
The Richland Two Policy Manual was completely revised, in a comprehensive manner, and
adopted by the Board in March 2003. The South Carolina School Board Association (SCSBA)
provided and continues to provide this service to Richland Two. Since 2003, the manual has
been updated on a regular basis, using SCSBA as a source.
A review of board agenda minutes found that policies are routinely revised and adopted at board
meetings. In addition, as needed, new policies are added. For example, five policies were
presented for a first reading at the February 22, 2011 Board meeting. These include:

• AC (Nondiscrimination/Equal Opportunity);
• JB (Equal Educational Opportunity/ Nondiscrimination);
• JFAA (Admission of Resident Students);
• JI (Student Rights and Responsibilities); and
• JII (Student Concerns, Complaints and Grievance).
After the Board meeting at which new or revised policies are presented for the first reading, they
are then usually adopted by the Board at the following meeting. Following adoption, the new/
revised policy is placed on the Richland Two website.
While the manual is comprehensive, a few policies need to be revised (i.e., use of a 2003
organizational chart).
Some policies have administrative rules (yellow pages; coded as R) within the policy manual
(see Recommendations 2-2 and 2-3).
COMMENDATION
The Richland School District Two is commended for its comprehensive policy manual, and
for making the manual available online.
FINDING
The Richland Two Board Policy Manual has many policies that require consistent regulations
and/or guidelines for administrators to use during the implementation of the policy. As stated,
there are some administrative rules incorporated into the Richland Two Board Policy Manual as
yellow pages and labeled “R”. However, the user must read through a comprehensive manual to
find these administrative rules, which can be a time-consuming task. Exhibit 2-3 shows a list of
these rules which was prepared for Evergreen by the Office of the Deputy Superintendent. This
list is not contained in the policy manual, yet should be.
While effective administrative rules are in use, and while some departments have developed their
own procedures, there is no central listing of these administrative procedures or rules. As stated,
a central listing of these documents would also be helpful.
SB Policy BG-BGD addresses the review of administrative rules by the Board. This part of the
policy states:
Often policies of the board are accomplished by rules and exhibits and are referred to as
administrative rules. These rules are generally drawn up by the administration to execute
the policies of the board.
The board will approve administrative rules when such approval is required by law or
otherwise advisable. The superintendent will have freedom, however, to issue additional
rules and procedures consistent with board policies.
The board may nullify any administrative rules determined to be inconsistent with the
policies adopted by the board.

Exhibit 2-3
Administrative Rules for Richland School District Two
Section A Section I
ADA-R School District Goals and Objectives IHBG-R Home Schooling

ADF-R School Wellness IHBIB-R Primary/Pre-Primary Education
IHCD-R Advanced College Placement
Section B IJJ-R Textbook Selection & Adoption
IJND-R Electronic Communications & Data
BDF-R Advisory Committees Management
BDG-R School Attorney/Legal Services IJOA-R School-Sponsored Field Studies
IJOC-R School Volunteers
Section D IKA-R Grading/Assessment Systems
IKF-R Graduation Requirements
DI-R Fiscal Accounting and Reporting ILB-R Test/Assessment Administration
DIE-R Audits/Financial Monitoring ILBB-R State Program Assessments
DKC-R Expense Authorization Reimbursement
Section J
Section E
JEB-R Entrance Age
EBAB-R Acceptable Use of Pesticides JFAA-R Admission of Resident Students
ECA-R Security JFAB-R Non-Resident Students
EGAD-R Copyright Compliance JFABD-R Admission of Homeless Students
JH-R Student Absences & Excuses
Section F JI-R Student Rights and Responsibilities
FF-R Naming New Facilities JICA-R Student Dress
JICDA-R Code of Conduct
Section G JICFAA-R Harassment, Intimidation or Bullying
JICH-R Drug & Alcohol Use by Students
GBAA-R Sexual Discrimination and Harassment JIH-R Student Interrogations & Searches
GBEC-R Drug-Free Schools JIHC-R Use of Metal Detectors
GBGA-R Staff Health JJ-R Student Activities
GBGAA-R Medicines JJE-R Student Fund-Raising Activities
GBK-R Complaints and Grievances JKD-R Suspension of Students
GCC/GDC-R Employee Personal Leaves & Absences JKE-R Expulsion of Students
GCK-R Professional Staff Assignments & Transfers JKEE*-R Urinalysis Drug & Alcohol Testing for
GCOA-R Evaluation of Instructional Staff Certain Expelled Students
GCQF-R Discipline, Suspension & Dismissal of JLCC-R Communicable/Infectious Diseases
Professional Staff JLCD-R Assisting Students with Medicines
GDBC-R Support Staff Supplementary Pay/Overtime JRA-R Student Records
GDJ-R Support Staff Assignments and Transfers
Section K
KD-R Public Information & Communication

KEC-R Public Concerns & Complaints About
Instructional Resources
KF-R Community Use of School & District
Facilities
Source: Office of the Deputy Superintendent, 2011.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 2-2:
Conduct a comprehensive review of administrative rules to determine where these

important procedures are missing.
The administrative rules shown in Exhibit 2-3 are an important first step to the process of
creating necessary administrative rules/procedures. Throughout this report, reference will be
made to additional administrative rules/procedures which do not exist, and which are considered
critical for the effective implementation of Board policies for many programs and operations.
Recommendation 2-3:
Develop a comprehensive Administrative Procedures (Rules) Manual that contains

administrative rules, and which can be used by school and central office administrators to
ensure consistency in implementation by Richland Two employees.
The Administrative Rules Manual can remain a part of the policy manual (with a clear index) or
be a separate document. The Rules Manual should include information that reflects various
board policies and appropriate departmental procedures which have been developed to
implement board policy. The manual would be an important reference tool that would be readily
accessible to administrators.
Sections should include, but are not limited to the following:
• General Information
• Instruction
• Records Management
• Student Services
• Special Education
• Health Services
• Financial Procedures
• Technology
• Human Resources
• Transportation
• Maintenance
• Food Services
The Rules Manual should be cross-referenced to board policy and also available online.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
Following Board approval of new and revised policies, there is no formal nor consistent process
in place to inform central office and school administrators that policy updates have been adopted
by the Board. Therefore, unless an administrator attends the Board meeting or reads Board
minutes, he/she would not be aware of important changes in Board policy.
The changes are merely put online by the Deputy Superintendent’s Office.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-4:
Email Richland Two administrators of policy updates following each Board meeting at
which policy changes are adopted by the Board.
Effective communication of changes in Board policy is essential to ensure that district managers
are aware of the need to implement policy changes, and also to alert managers to any needed
change in administrative rules as the result of policy changes.
FISCAL IMPACT
2.3 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The organizational structure and management system of a large public school district are key
factors in determining the district’s ability to meet its goals and to operate in an effective and
efficient manner. An effective organizational structure systematically arranges the functional
areas of the school district in a manner that supports the mission and goals of the local education
agency. A successful organization has the capacity to alter its structure to meet the changing
needs of its customers. The management system of a organization⎯including the ability to make
informed decisions, communicate effectively, and provide appropriate planning and
accountability functions⎯ultimately determines the extent to which the school district can
successfully carry out its mission and accomplish its goals.
The development and maintenance of an effective organizational structure for a large school
district is a formidable task. Fundamentally, an organizational structure is a support system,
designed to facilitate the primary mission of the district and sustain its efforts to accomplish its
goals. To the extent that the mission of the school district does not drive its organizational
structure, the support system is weakened, and consequently the organization's ability to
accomplish its primary mission is compromised.
A large school district, like any big organization, is often bureaucratic and subject to the inertia
created by tradition and size. In many instances, the organizational structure of the system
evolves based more upon tradition and the special interests of the Superintendent, rather than
being developed systematically. Often times, little organizational analysis is done and the school

district continues, in large part, to resemble its predecessors. Nonetheless, to maintain

effectiveness, a school district must continue to focus its energy on the needs of its students and
constantly adapt the organization to serve student needs.
While maintaining an effective organizational structure is a challenging task, the end results can
yield enormous benefits for the system, the schools, and the students that the system supports. As
Carter McNamara said in Basic Context For Organizational Change, “Typically, organizations
must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle.”
FINDING
The timing is right for organizational change in Richland Two. A new Superintendent is at the
helm after over 16 years of service by the previous Superintendent. Since July 2010, Dr. Brochu
has been carefully studying the organizational structure to determine where change might be
warranted.
The current organizational structure of Richland Two, and the structure inherited by Dr. Brochu,
reflect a traditional pyramidal organization, often characteristic of medium to large school
districts. Executive and administrative functions are organized into line and staff relationships
based on the major functions of the organization as shown in Exhibit 2-4. Authority emanates
from the Superintendent and flows down through departments, divisions, and sections. As can
be seen in the exhibit, the current executive level of the school district is comprised of a deputy
superintendent and five chiefs.
As the chief executive officer, the Superintendent is responsible for providing leadership and
overall management of the school district. The Superintendent, in keeping with her role as the
school district’s chief executive, spends a considerable amount of time promoting the system's
goals, programs, and initiatives with a wide variety of community organizations and municipal
officials. Her visibility and participation in the broader school community are well received by
the public and school employees.
Evergreen consultants found, in reviewing the senior staffing structure of Richland Two
executive management with specific reference to the number of senior managers who supervise
and oversee departments, that the senior staffing level is not excessive and compares favorably to
other school districts of comparable size that Evergreen has studied.
Exhibit 2-4, depicting the current organizational structure of Richland Two, shows that:
• The Superintendent has nine direct administrative reports including the Deputy, Public
Information Officer, an Assistant to the Superintendent, an Internal Analyst, and five
chiefs.
• The current organizational chart shows all senior managers reporting to both the
Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent.
• Until the current year, principals reported to the Deputy, and were only evaluated by the
Deputy Superintendent on a reported three-year cycle.

Exhibit 2-4
Current Organizational Structure
2010-11 School Year
School Board
Office of the
Public Information Assistant to the
Superintendent
Officer Superintendent
Superintendent School
Principals
Deputy
Internal Analyst Superintendent
Chief Academic Chief Human Chief Planning Chief Information Chief Financial
Officer Resources Officer Officer Officer Officer
Executive Director of Executive Executive Executive Director Executive Director of District Executive Controller Executive
Curriculum Instruction & Director of Director of of Administrative Community Relations Registrar Director of Info Director of
Professional Development Special Services Personnel Services and Partnerships Technology Operations
Director of Director of Director of Lead Social Lead HR Director for HR Director Director of Director of Director of Director of
Academic State & Federal Psychological Worker Nurse Classified Personnel for Teacher Student Athletics Accountability IT
Initiatives Programs Services & Employee Services Quality Services & Evaluation Operations
Career & Tech Senior Senior Systems Manager of Transportation

Education Curriculum Engineer Financial Manager
Coordinator Coordinator Services
Early Childhood Mathematics Curriculum Internal District Testing Manager of Emergency

Coordinator Coordinator Coordinator Communications Coordinator Accounting Services
Manager Manager
Instructional Science Intervention Grants Payroll & Maintenance &

Programs Coordinator Programs Coordinator Accounts Energy
Coordinator Coordinator Payable Supervisor
Development
Senior Research Social Studies Procurement New Design &

Associate Coordinator Specialist Construction
Management
Source: Richland County Two Superintendent’s Office, January 2011.

• The Chief Academic Officer is responsible for curriculum and instruction, professional
development, state and federal programs, special services, and subject matter
coordinators.
• The Chief Human Resources Officer is responsible for classified and certified employee
services, teacher quality, retirement and retention, hiring, personnel records, student
services, and athletics.
• The Chief Planning Officer is over community relations and partnerships, the registrar,
parts of facilities planning, and some special projects.
• The Chief Information Officer is responsible for information and instructional

technology, as well as accountability, evaluation, and testing/assessment.
• The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for all fiscal services, including accounting,
payroll, asset and risk management, and procurement. In addition, the CFO is over all
business operations, including food services, transportation, facilities, safety and security
and energy management.
A comprehensive review of the current organizational structure by Evergreen consultants found

that the placement of several programs and services within departments is not consistent with
ensuring the efficient coordination and control of certain functions. There are also some existing
imbalances in the span of control of some managers. For example:
• The Chief Financial Officer has control over all finance and business operations, while
the Chief Planning Officer has many fewer responsibilities.
• The Chief Information Officer is responsible for accountability and assessment (because
of her personal background), but this is clearly not an IT function.
• The Chief Human Resources Officer has certain functions that are more academic in
nature.
In addition, very little activity has taken place for succession planning for senior administrators
who will soon retire.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-5:
Reorganize the central office of Richland Two.
The proposed reorganization in the central office should include the following changes:
• Eliminate the position of Executive Director of Operations and create a Chief of

Operations who will report to the Superintendent. The position should be advertised.
• Combine the public information and community relations offices, delete the positions of
Public Information Officer and Executive Director of Communications, and create a

Director of Public Information and Community Relations (see cost implications in

Section 2.7). The proposed position should be advertised.
• Eliminate the Administrative Services Unit, including the Executive Director’s position.
Abolish the position of Richland Two districtwide Athletic Director;* eliminate an
administrative assistant, two secretaries, and move the Director of Student Services and
the Legal Secretary to the Academic Department under the Executive Director of Special
Services.
• Reorganize the Finance Department (see Chapter 4, Financial Management).
• Delete position of Internal Analyst and create Internal Auditor (see Chapter 4, Financial
Management, Section 4.1 for creation of Internal Auditor’s position).
• Reorganize the Department of Academics (see Chapter 3, Educational Services

Delivery).
• Reorganize the Human Resources Department (see Chapter 5, Human Resources

Management).
• Reorganize the Planning Department by moving Accountability and Evaluation from IT

to Planning (see Section 2.5).
The proposed reorganizational chart is shown in Exhibit 2-5. Succession Planning is addressed
in Chapter 5.
FISCAL IMPACT
This fiscal impact is shown below. In summary:
• The proposed position of Chief of Operations will not have a fiscal impact as the
Executive Director of Operation’s salary is at a Chief’s level.
• The elimination of the Internal Analyst with a salary of $84,109 plus benefits is
$111,856.
• The elimination of the districtwide Athletics Director with a salary of $88,457 plus
benefits is $117,648.
• The elimination of the Executive Director of Administrative Services at a salary of

$104,417 plus benefits is $138,875.
• The elimination of two secretaries in Administrative Services with a combined salaries of

$60,939 with benefits is $81,049
• The elimination of the Administrative Assistant in Administrative Services at a salary of

$40,209 plus benefits is $53,478.
*A phone survey of peer school districts found no district had a full-time athletic director, yet most peer districts, and including
Richland Two, have school-based high school athletic directors.

Exhibit 2-5
Proposed Reorganizational Chart
for Richland Two
School Board
Director of Public Assistant to the Superintendent Deputy

Information and Superintendent Superintendent
Community Relations
Internal Auditor School

Principals
Chief Academic Chief Human Chief Planning Chief Information Chief Financial Chief
Officer Resources Officer Officer Officer Officer of Operations
See Chapter 3 See Chapter 5 See Chapter 7 See Chapter 4

Transportation
• Add District • Delete Manager
Testing Administrative Director of

Accountability
District
Registrar
Coordinator Services Unit & Evaluation Emergency
Services
Manager
• Add Director See Section 2.5
of Student Maintenance &
Energy
Services Supervisor
• Add Grants New Design &

Construction
Coordinator Management
Food Services

Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Internal
$111,856 $111,856 $111,856 $111,856 $111,856
Analyst
Eliminate Athletic
$117,648 $117,648 $117,648 $117,648 $117,648
Director
Eliminate the
Executive Director
$138,875 $138,875 $138,875 $138,875 $138,875
of Administrative
Services
Eliminate Two
Secretaries in
$81,049 $81,049 $81,049 $81,049 $81,049
Administrative
Services
Eliminate an
Administrative
Assistant in $53,478 $53,478 $53,478 $53,478 $53,478
Administrative
Services
TOTAL SAVINGS $502,906 $502,906 $502,906 $502,906 $502,906
2.4 SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING

The primary focus in any school district is on the education of its students. The delivery of
educational services occurs at the school level through prescribed curricula and programs.
School-level management is critical to the success of a school system. The parameters for
school-level management decisions typically include scheduling, safety and security, student
discipline, employee retention, and school climate. In order to support schools as they strive to
achieve their goals, school districts typically adopt standards to determine how positions should
be budgeted and assigned⎯often called the position control function. Having appropriate
staffing in place is critical to ensure schools are managed effectively and efficiently.
A well-known organizational model in both the public and private sectors is called site-based
management. In this model, teams of individuals who actually provide the services are given
decision-making authority and are held accountable for the results. The rationale for this model
includes the following:
• The school is the primary unit of change; those who work directly with students have
the most informed opinions about what will be most beneficial.
• Significant and lasting improvements take considerable time; local school personnel
are in the best position to sustain improvements over time.
• Site-based management supports the professionalization of the teaching profession,

which leads to more desirable outcomes.

• The school principal is the key figure in school improvement.
Site-based management is expected to result in higher student performance, more efficient use of
resources, increased satisfaction and skills of school-based personnel, and greater involvement
and support of the school system. Richland Two makes extensive use of site-based management
(also see Chapter 3).
FINDING
Richland Two is not adhering to best practices in assistant principal (deans, administrative
assistants, student activity directors) staffing. Of the 92 assistant administrator-type positions
assigned for the 2010-11 school year, as many as 53 are above best practices standards. And, as
can be seen in Exhibit 2-6, in some cases, Richland Two is not staffing schools according to its
own 2010-11 staffing standards and guidelines.
In April 2006, the North Central Association Commission of Accreditation and School
Improvement, the Southern Association of Colleges and School Council on Accreditation and
School Improvement, and the National Study of School Evaluation came together to form one
strong and unified organization under the name AdvancED. AdvancED now serves as the
accreditation association for the majority of states. School districts and schools that wish to
maintain AdvancED accreditation must meet set standards. Exhibit 2-6 shows the student
enrollment, and the assistant principal counts in each school for the 2010-11 school year.
Exhibit 2-6 also provides the AdvancED standards for assistant principals in Column 7.
Richland Two has an established staffing formula for assistant principals for the 2010-11 school
year. The district’s formula by school level shows:
• Elementary – one assistant principal for membership over 350, and two assistant
principals for an enrollment over 600 students.
• Middle – two assistant principals with a student population of less than 500 students
and three assistant principals with over 800 students.
• High – two assistant principals with a student population of less than 1,000, three
assistant principals with a student population of greater than 1,000, and four assistant
principals with a student population of greater than 2,000.
– two assistant administrators with a student population of less than 1,000, three
assistant administrators with a student population of greater than 1,000, four assistant
assistant administrators with a student population of greater than 1,400, five assistant
administrators with a student population of greater than 1,700, and six assistant
administrators with a student population of greater than 2,100.

Exhibit 2-6
Richland Two School Administrator Staffing Compared to
Recommended School Administrative Staffing Guidelines
2010-11 School Year
Number of
Assistant Assistant
Dean of Administrators/ School
Students/ Student Administrators
Student Assistant Dean of Activity Recommended
School Enrollment1 Principals Academics Directors3 Total by AdvancED Difference4
Elementary Schools
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary School 679 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Bookman Road Elementary School 577 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Bridge Creek Elementary School 603 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
L.W. Conder Elementary School 701 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Forest Lake Elementary School 604 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Joseph Keels Elementary School 638 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Killian Elementary School 693 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Lake Carolina Elementary School 786 2 -- -- 2 1.0 1.0
Langford Elementary School 441 2 -- -- 2 0.0 2.0
L.B. Nelson Elementary School 524 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
North Springs Elementary School 759 2 -- -- 2 1.0 1.0
Polo Road Elementary School 773 2 -- -- 2 1.0 1.0
Pontiac Elementary School 934 2 -- -- 2 1.0 1.0
Rice Creek Elementary School 790 2 -- -- 2 1.0 1.0
Round Top Elementary School 655 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Sandlapper Elementary School 747 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
Windsor Elementary School 656 2 -- -- 2 0.5 1.5
2
SUBTOTAL 11,560 34 0 0 34 10.5 23.5
Middle Schools
Blythewood Middle School 1,085 3 -- -- 3 2.0 1.0
Dent Middle School 1,271 3 2 -- 5 2.5 2.5
Kelly Mill Middle School 1,041 3 -- -- 3 2.0 1.0
Longleaf Middle School 587 3 -- 1 4 1.0 3.0
Summit Parkway Middle School 884 3 -- -- 3 1.5 1.5
E.L. Wright Middle School 998 4 -- -- 4 1.5 2.5
SUBTOTAL 5,8662 19 2 1 22 10.5 11.5
High Schools
Blythewood High School 2,061 4 -- 5 9 5.0 4.0
Richland Northeast High School 1,423 4 -- 4 8 3.0 5.0
Ridge View High School 1,976 4 -- 5 9 5.0 4.0
Spring Valley High School 2,012 3 -- 7 10 5.0 5.0
SUBTOTAL 7,4722 15 0 21 36 18.0 18.0
TOTAL 24,8982 68 2 22 92 39.0 53.0
Source: Created by Evergreen from Richland School District Two data.
1
February 9, 2011 Count.
2
Enrollment numbers vary since special schools are excluded from this exhibit.
3
In addition, the Anna Boyd School, with 21 students, has an assistant administrator in addition to the principal.
4
All .5 positions were rounded down. Thus, if a school was over by 1.5 administrative positions, only one (1) position was proposed as a
cut.

Exhibit 2-7 shows assistant principal staffing in comparison school districts.
Exhibit 2-7
Staffing Plan Guidelines for Assistant Principals
and Similar School Administrator Positions in Peer School Districts
2010-11 School Year
School Type Richland Two Beaufort Berkeley Dorchester 2 Richland One Rock Hill
Elementary 0 1 0 < 1,000 – 1 > 550 – 1 > 250 – 1

> 350 – 1 > 750 – 2 250 – 499 – .5 > 1,000 – 2
> 600 – 2 500 – 999 – 1
1,000 – 1,249 – 1.5
> 1,249 - 2
Middle 1 1 0 >499 – 1 1 1
> 500 – 2 501-750 – 1.5 250 – 499 – .5 > 749 – 2 > 601 – 2 > 500 – 2
> 800 – 3 751-1,000 – 2 500 – 749 – 1 > 1,000 – 3 > 700 – 3
1,001-1,250 – 2.5 750 – 999 – 1.5
>1,250 – 3 1,000 – 1,249 – 2
> 1,250 – 2.5
High Assistant Principals Assistant

Principals
2 1 0 2 2
> 1,000 – 3 751-1,000 – 2 250 – 499 – 1 < 750 – 2 > 1,000 – 3 > 1,000 – 3
> 2,000 – 4? 1,001-1,500 – 3 500 – 749 – 1.5 > 999 – 3 > 1,499 – 4 > 1,400 – 4
________________ >1,501 – 4 750 – 999 – 2 > 1,999 – 4 > 2,000 – 5
1,000 – 1,249 – 2.5 ______________ Each High
Assistant 1,250 – 1,499 – 3 School has a
Administrators 1,500 – 1,749 – 4 Assistant Dean of
> 1,750 – 5 Administrators Students.
2
> 1,000 – 3 2
> 1,400 – 4 > 1,150 – 3
> 1,700 – 5 > 1,500 – 4
> 2,100 – 6? > 1,850 – 5
> 2,200 – 6
> 2,550 – 7
Source: Data from Richland Two and Comparison District Staffing Plans, 2010-11 School Year.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-6:
Eliminate the positions of assistant administrator and student activity coordinator, as well
as several assistant principals or similar positions at the school level.
The implementation of this recommendation will result in a net decrease of 47 assistant principal
or similar positions. These position deletions include 18 assistant principals at the elementary
level, nine at the middle school level plus one assistant administrator, and 21 assistant

administrator/student activity directors in the high schools and the addition of three high school
assistant principals. Also, the assistant administrator position at the Anna Boyd School should
be eliminated.
FISCAL IMPACT
The average salary of an assistant administrator is calculated at $55,236 times 33 percent for
benefits is $73,464 times 23 positions is $1,689,672. The net decrease of 24 assistant principals
at an average salary of $107,730 (with 33% benefits) = $2,585,520. This cost savings should be
phased in over two years.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Excess
$2,137,596 $4,275,192 $4,275,192 $4,275,192 $4,275,192
School Administrators
FINDING
Richland Two is not staffing schools at the clerical level consistent with its own staffing plan.
As shown in Exhibit 2-8 Richland Two has an excess of 26 clerical staff in schools throughout
the district.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-7:
Reduce school-level clerical staffing in Richland Two.
Richland Two is significantly overstaffed with secretaries and similar clerical support at the
school level. While Richland Two’s staffing plan is commensurate with peer districts (as shown
in Exhibit 2-9), in reality, clerical staffing far exceeds the district’s own staffing plan standards.
FISCAL IMPACT
Using a $30,000 average salary and 33 percent benefits for a clerical position, the total cost for
each position is estimated at $39,900. Twenty-six (26) positions times $39,900 equals
$1,037,400. Evergreen recommended that this savings be phased in over two years.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reduce Clerical
$518,700 $1,037,400 $1,037,400 $1,037,400 $1,037,400
Staffing in Schools

Exhibit 2-8
Richland Two Clerical Staffing at the School Level
2010-11 School Year
Student Richland Two

School Enrollment1 Clerical3 Staffing Plan Difference
Elementary Schools
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary School 679 3 3 0
Bookman Road Elementary School 577 3 3 0
Bridge Creek Elementary School 603 3 3 0
L.W. Conder Elementary School 701 4 3 1
Forest Lake Elementary School 604 4 3 1
Joseph Keels Elementary School 638 3 3 0
Killian Elementary School 693 4 3 1
Lake Carolina Elementary School 786 4 4 0
Langford Elementary School 441 3 3 0
L.B. Nelson Elementary School 524 3 3 0
North Springs Elementary School 759 3 4 -1
Polo Road Elementary School 773 3 3 0
Pontiac Elementary School 934 6 4 2
Rice Creek Elementary School 790 5 4 1
Round Top Elementary School 655 3 3 0
Sandlapper Elementary School 747 4 3 1
Windsor Elementary School 656 3 3 0
SUBTOTAL 11,5602 61 55 6
Middle Schools
Blythewood Middle School 1,085 6 6 0
Dent Middle School 1,271 10 6 4
Kelly Mill Middle School 1,041 6 6 0
Longleaf Middle School 587 5 4 1
Summit Parkway Middle School 884 4 5 -1
E.L. Wright Middle School 998 7 5 2
SUBTOTAL 5,8662 38 32 6
High Schools
Blythewood High School 2,061 9 10 -1
Richland Northeast High School 1,423 13 8 5
Ridge View High School 1,976 14 10 4
Spring Valley High School 2,012 16 10 6
SUBTOTAL 7,4722 52 38 14
TOTAL 24,8982 151 125 26
Source: Created by Evergreen from Richland School District Two data.
1
February 9, 2011 Count.
2
Enrollment numbers vary since special schools are excluded from this exhibit.
3
Clerical refers to all support staff including secretaries, bookkeepers, administrative assistants, power school aide,
clerical aides, etc.

Exhibit 2-9
Staffing Plan Guidelines for School-Level Clerical Positions in Peer Districts
2010-11 School Year
School Type Richland Two Beaufort Berkeley Dorchester 2 Richland One Rock Hill
Elementary 3 3 2 4 3 2
> 750 – 4 > 750 – 4 > 700 – 3 > 326 – 3.5
> 1,200 – 4 > 550 – 5
Middle 4 4 3 4 4 3
> 750 – 5 > 500 – 5 > 400 – 4 > 650 – 5
> 1,000 – 7 > 750 – 6 > 700 – 5
> 1,200 – 6
High 8 5 6 6 7 10
> 1,650 – 10 > 750 – 6 > 400 – 7 > 1,650 – 8 > 1,000 – 8
> 1,000 – 7 > 700 – 8
> 1,250 – 8 > 1,200 – 9
Source: Data from Richland Two and Comparison District Staffing Plans, 2010-11 School Year.
FINDING
Richland Two is evaluating principals on a three-year cycle using the 2001 standards set by the
state of South Carolina. These standards include:
• Standard 1: Vision
• Standard 2: Instructional Leadership
• Standard 3: Effective Management
• Standard 4: Climate
• Standard 5: School/Community Relations
• Standard 6: Ethical Behavior
• Standard 7: Interpersonal Skills
• Standard 8: Staff Development
• Standard 9: Principal’s Professional Development
Currently all principals are reportedly evaluated by the Deputy Superintendent on a three-year
cycle. However, a random review of personnel records for school administrators found that:
• A high school principal has been evaluated in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, but not since
that time.
• A middle school principal had been evaluated in 1993, 2003, 2008, and 2010.
• An elementary principal was evaluated only in 2002-03 and 2005-06.
A similar void in completed evaluations was found among central office administrators.

Evergreen recommends that principal evaluations be conducted on a rotating schedule by the:
• Superintendent
• Deputy Superintendent
• Chief Academic Officer
Each of these three administrators should evaluate each principal once every three years using a
portfolio assessment approach. Thus, each principal would be evaluated annually by one of the
three administrators.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-8:
Evaluate principals and central office administrators annually (also see Section 3.3).
Principals in Richland Two should be evaluated annually. With over 30 schools, this evaluation
should be accomplished by three senior administrators on a rotating basis. Central office
administrators should be evaluated by their immediate supervisor.
FISCAL IMPACT
2.5 PLANNING
This section of Chapter 2 will be divided into two subsections:
2.5.1 Planning Office

2.5.2 Strategic Planning
2.5.1 Planning Office
Planning is one of the most important activities of a School Board and administration. The
planning process is critical for identifying goals, benchmarks, and measurements; for assessing
progress toward achieving goals; and for determining alternative courses of action based on
those assessments.
Planning also guides the school district in resource allocation for goal accomplishment, in
identifying staff needs, and in selecting professional development needs in order to reach
intended ends. Consolidating all of these aspects of the planning process in a concerted,
thoughtful, strategic manner facilitates the district’s execution of its educational programs and
activities.
The evaluation of planning efforts must be ongoing, consistent, and objective. Evaluation must
provide staff information to judge progress and set a course of action to achieve long-term
administrative, instructional, and student success. Effectively used, planning forms the basis for
professional as well as district and student growth. Effective planning and evaluation are two of

the most elemental components of effective resource management. Decisions that affect the
educational service delivery system and its resources should be based on comprehensive data
analysis and systematic planning.
FINDING
Exhibit 2-10 shows the Richland Two Planning Office. The Office currently consists of a
dichotomous structure of community relations and planning functions. The community relations
function was added in 2008 when the public information and community relations operations
were split.
Exhibit 2-10
Richland Two Planning Office
Superintendent
Chief Planning
Officer
Executive Director
Registrar
Community Relations
Accreditation and
Planning
Administrative Administrative Clerical Assistant
Specialist
Assistant Assistant (part-time)
Internal Grants GIS Specialist

Volunteer
Communications Coordinator Mail Room Investigator
Coordinator
Manager
Project Specialist
Project Manager
Educational Liaison “Reconnecting Coalition”
Grant funded
Source: Richland School District Two, 2011.
In addition to community relations, the Planning Office is responsible for:
• student enrollment (including Choice students);

• grant coordination (under community relations);
• GIS;

• some facilities planning, including property for new schools and allocation of portables;
• bond referendum campaigns;
• accreditation planning; and
• some special projects.
In Section 2.6 of this chapter, it is recommended that the community relations and public
information functions be combined. This modification will remove half of the staff in the current
Planning Office. To accomplish the Superintendent’s goals for accountability in the district, and
to provide a more balanced organizational structure, the accountability and evaluation unit needs
to be moved from IT to the Planning Office.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-9:
Reorganize the Planning Office and rename it as the Planning and Accountability Office.
The reorganized Planning and Accountability Office should include the following changes:
• The Community Relations Unit should be combined with Public Information (see
Section 2.6).
• Grants Coordination, currently in the Community Relations Unit, should remain within
the Planning Office.
• The Accountability and Evaluation Unit should be moved from IT to Planning, with the
testing/assessment function moved to Academics.
• The Accreditation and Planning Specialist position should be eliminated. In most other
school districts, the preparation for accreditation visits is conducted by internal staff who
have other responsibilities; additional staff are not added.
• The Project Specialist position should be eliminated.
• A centralized student registration and enrollment function should be created under the
Registrar.
FISCAL IMPACT
The elimination of the Accreditation and Planning Specialist would generate a cost savings of
$90,819 including benefits. The elimination of Project Specialist and creation of a Central
Registration Specialist could be accomplished at no additional costs or savings.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reorganize
$90,819 $90,819 $90,819 $90,819 $90,819
Planning Office

2.5.2 Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is essential for the successful functioning of a school district. This process
starts with the School Board and the Superintendent, and with a strategic plan. The strategic plan
clearly states the organization’s mission, upon which decisions will be based, sets forth goals and
objectives the School Board expects the school district to accomplish for its students, identifies
explicit measurements that will be used to monitor progress, and assigns accountability to
individuals or groups in the system. The strategic plan guides the School Board as it makes
decisions regarding policy focus and resource allocation.
In order for a strategic plan to steer a school district and its employees in their decisions and
actions, it must:
• be constantly used as a basis for decisions;
• be continually examined as to its applicability for students and the school district as time
progresses and circumstances change;
• have benchmarks specifically identifying how progress will be measured; and
• have benchmarks that must be continually examined for fine-tuning and determination of
success.
Strategic planning is an important management tool that is used for several reasons:
• it helps a school district focus its energy;

• it ensures that all members of the school district are working towards the same goals; and
• it allows the organization to adjust its direction in response to a changing environment.
Effective strategic planning:
• leads to action;
• builds a shared vision that is based upon shared values;
• is an inclusive, participatory process in which a Board and staff have shared ownership;
• promotes accountability to the community;
• is based on quality data;
• requires an openness to questioning the status quo; and
• is a key part of effective management.
Strategic planning assumes that school districts must be responsive to a constantly changing,
dynamic environment. Strategic planning emphasizes the importance of making decisions that
will ensure the organization can response to these changes. As such, a strategic plan is a
document that changes as circumstances change.
A strong strategic plan includes the following components:
• a mission statement that answers the question: “Why do we exist?”;

• a vision statement that answers the question: “What will success look like?” (This vision
statement is often what inspires the district to achieve its mission);
• a set of overarching goals with specific objective and strategies designed to help reach the
goals;
• an action plan that specifies timelines and responsibilities; and
• an evaluation plan that includes specific measurable outcomes to determine the

attainment of goals.
FINDING
A Strategic Plan for Richland Two was last developed for the 2008-13 school years. Evergreen
was provided a copy of the 2010 update to this plan. An outline of the current strategic plan is
shown in Exhibit 2-11.
According to most administrators and staff, this strategic plan is:
• very outdated;
• has not been used as a “living document” for years; and
• does not have outcomes which have been monitored nor evaluated.
Exhibit 2-12 shows Evergreen’s survey results compared to respondents in other districts in
Evergreen’s survey database.
Surprisingly, the majority of Richland Two survey respondents stated that the current strategic
plan was outstanding or adequate. Yet, the strategic plan was not recognized as a “living
document” by many administrators who were interviewed.
The Superintendent recognizes this deficiency and, working with the Board, has initiated efforts
to develop a new strategic planning process.
The Superintendent initiated a Design Team Process in Fall 2010. The process has involved:
• developing a shared understanding of the need for change;

• developing shared benefits and visions;
• developing focus on students and on the quality of work to students;
• developing structures for participatory leadership;
• developing structures for results-oriented decision making;
• developing structures for continuity;
• providing ongoing support;
• fostering innovation and flexibility;
• employing technology; and
• fostering collaboration.
In addition, the Board and Superintendent have drafted common goals, which will form the basis
of the emerging strategic plan. These common goals are shown in Exhibit 2-13.

Exhibit 2-11
Outline of Strategic Plan for Richland Two
2008-2013 School Years
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Strategy 1.0 Prepare students academically for their role as a productive citizen in an ever-changing world.
Action 1.1 Use technology and data analyses to improve achievement
Plans 1.2 Align, expand and monitor core curriculum and programs to reflect the demands of a global society.
1.3 Provide more choices to meet the unique educational needs of students
1.4 Provide core and customized professional development to support district and school level programs
1.5 Develop and refine formative assessment strategies
1.6 Develop and implement strategies to address identified gaps in achievement and/or opportunity.
SCHOOL CLIMATE
Strategy 2.0 Provide a positive, healthy and safe environment that supports each student's intellectual, social and physical
development
Action 2.1 Decrease the number of students who are referred to the district office for disciplinary reasons
Plans 2.2 Implement strategies that promote the socio-emotional skill development of students
2.3 Increase the engagement of students in co-curricular and extracurricular activities
2.4 Establish a model for a healthy school district
2.5 Provide services through district and the community to support families and students in crisis
2.6 Provide a safe and secure environment
TEACHER QUALITY
Strategy 3.0 Recruit, Hire and Maintain Quality Teachers and Personnel
Action 3.1 Expand methods to recruit and retain quality teachers
Plans 3.2 Continue to mentor new teachers
3.3 Provide training for all personnel
3.4 Coordinate benefits program for teachers
3.5 Expand methods to recruit and provide staff development for support staff
ADMINISTRATION QUALITY
Strategy 4.0 Manage growth effectively by ensuring appropriate administrative support
Action 4.1 Organize and expand the current district administrative team to deal with growth
Plans 4.2 Develop and retain a quality group of administrators at the school level
4.3 Develop incentives to keep and attract quality administrators
4.4 Utilize strategic plan to inform and evaluate Administrators
FINANCE
Strategy 5.0 Provide for the fiscal and physical needs of the district
Action 5.1 Focus fiscal and other resources on improving teaching and learning
Plans 5.2 Serve as responsible steward of district's finances
5.3 Utilize technology to make financial systems more efficient
5.4 Plan, secure funding, build and maintain facilities to meet the needs of a growing district
PARENT/COMMUNITY
Strategy 6.0 Develop alliances with families, schools, and community
Action 6.1 Develop, sustain, and promote collaborative and meaningful business and community partnerships
Plans 6.2 Enhance internal and external communications, utilizing all available media
6.3 Increase parent engagement in the educational process
6.4 Enhance marketing efforts of individual schools and the district
6.5 Involve stakeholders in the strategic planning process
Source: Richland Two Office of the Superintendent, 2011.

Exhibit 2-12
Rating of Strategic Planning by Richland Two Groups
Compared to Districts in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Comparison Districts in
Richland Two Evergreen’s Survey Database
Need Need
Major/Some Adequate/ Major/Some Adequate /
Respondent Group Improvement Outstanding Improvement Outstanding
Central Office Administrators 15.6% 68.9% 53.0% 36.2%
Principals 5.0% 80.1% 47.1% 51.2%
Teachers 12.1% 62.3% 36.6% 36.8%
Source: Evergreen Solutions Survey Results, 2011.
Exhibit 2-13
Superintendent and Board Goals
February 2011
The Superintendent and Board of Education:
• ensure the primary focus of schools is on the quality of experiences provided to students—
experiences that result in increased student engagement and learning;
• advocate for the needs and interests of students;
• act as good stewards of public resources;
• model a culture of honesty, morality, transparency, and collaboration;
• ensure responsible and flexible use of district resources;
• develop in the community, common understandings of the problems and challenges facing
the school district; and
• promote and model open communication between and among students, district staff, and
community.
Source: Richland Two Superintendent’s Office, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 2-10:
Expedite plans to develop a new Strategic Plan for Richland Two.
The Superintendent and School Board should accelerate efforts to create its new strategic plan.
This document should be operational prior to the start of the 2011-12 school year.

FISCAL IMPACT
2.6 LEGAL SERVICES

School districts obtain legal services in one of two ways: through in-house counsel or with
outside firms or attorneys. When outside services are used, school districts can generally obtain
the services of one large diversified firm that can handle the variety of needs; smaller districts
usually depend on more than one firm. Fees for legal services can vary widely, depending upon
the location and specialization required.
The costs of legal services have dramatically increased over the last few decades due to a number
of factors. These include due process activity associated with disciplinary proceedings,
complicated issues related to special education students, risk management matters, and a variety
of other issues. Areas of special education and student disciplinary activity are particularly
intricate and require specialized legal services. These areas are complicated by federal
requirements and their relationship to local and state regulations, as well as the school district’s
need to maintain an orderly educational environment.
FINDING
Legal services are provided to Richland Two by three primary attorneys. The attorneys are listed
below along with their primary area(s) of responsibility:
• Childs & Halligan (contracts and purchasing);

• Duff, White & Turner, LLC (special education); and
• Montgomery Willard, LLC (Board attorney and land deals).
These attorneys do not include bond attorneys nor those used for workers’ compensation in
Richland Two.
Exhibit 2-14 shows the district’s legal expenses for the three years, including year to date for the
current year. As can be seen, legal fees in Richland Two have increased the past three years and
projections for the current fiscal year exceed $250,000.
Exhibit 2-14
Richland Two Legal Expenditures
2008-09 through 2010-11 (YTD) School Years
School Year
2010-11 Year to
Firm 2008-09 2009-10 Date (2/10/11)
Childs & Halligan, P.A. $120,329 $70,327 $104,774
Duff, White & Turner, LLC $28,484 $68,163 $28,529
Montgomery Willard, LLC $3,368 $61,122 $15,587
Total $152,181 $199,612 $148,890
Source: Richland Two Finance Office, February 2011.

Richland Two is not complying with Administrative Rule BDG-R on “School Attorney/Legal
Services” (dated March 2003). Excerpts from this administrative rule are shown in Exhibit 2-
15.
As can be seen in the administrative rule, invoices must contain:
• names, rank, and hourly rate of lawyers/paralegals of the firm providing services;
• disbursement summary itemizing the bill;
• each task itemized separately; and
• adequate descriptions for each invoice.
A review of several attorney invoices found that:
• Invoices are not submitted monthly by at least one firm (rather services are grouped over
several months).
• Another firm submitted a bill in July 2010 for expenditures of $8,399.06. This invoice
included no documentation as to which attorney(s) at the firm was used, hours by task,
costs by hour, or the nature of each legal service provided.
• The third firm (which submitted an invoice in January 2011) included attorney names and
hourly charges, but no information on services rendered.
Each of these invoices was approved and paid by the Richland Two Finance Office.
RECOMMENDATION
Comply with Administrative Rule BDG-R regarding legal fees, and disapprove invoices
which do not have required information.
The district should adhere to its administrative rule and monitor all legal services provided on a
regular basis. Such action should result in greater efficiencies and mostly likely generate cost
savings.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the district will receive (at a minimum) a 10 percent savings if all invoices for
legal services are detailed, monitored, and controlled. The cost savings is calculated based on
the projected $250,000 for legal services.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Require Detailed
Invoices for Legal $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Services

Exhibit 2-15
Excerpt from BDG-R on School Attorney/Legal Services
Contracts with Attorneys
All engagements for legal services will be formalized with a written contract which will state with specificity the
following.
• nature of the engagement

• fees to be paid for each timekeeper's time
• services to be rendered by the attorney
• a detailed scope of the work to be performed
Billing and Fees
Counsel not hired through a proposal process will manage its relationship with the district according to the following
guidelines.
Billing frequency
Invoices should be submitted monthly (based upon receipt of file), except final invoices may be submitted at the
conclusion of the matter (which must be marked "final" on the invoice).
Case-related information
The following information must appear prominently on an invoice or may be handwritten or in a cover letter.
• name of the matter

• type of suit, case or matter
• whether the matter is "open" or "closed"
• if the matter is "closed" the disposition (i.e., by "voluntary discontinuance," "verdict," "compulsory arbitration,"
"concluded," "mediation" or "settlement")
• if indemnity was paid, the amount paid
Invoices lacking some or all of this information, or for which the information is incorrect, will be returned (without being
processed) for resubmission.
Other information on invoice
Invoices also must include a list of all timekeepers who billed time to each matter during the bill period, including the
following information.
• their full names

• the initials or other identifiers used to identify them in the time records
• their ranks (e.g., partner, associate, paralegal, etc.)
• their hourly rate and, if the hourly rate for any timekeeper changed during the billing period, the change date(s)
• their unique identification number assigned by the firm
Invoices lacking some or all of this information may be returned unprocessed for resubmission.

Exhibit 2-15 (Continued)

Excerpt from BDG-R on School Attorney/Legal Services
Disbursement information on invoice
Disbursement charges must be documented. To avoid disallowance, a summary of the common disbursements and related
information that invoices must contain is listed below.
• a disbursement summary itemizing the total billed for each type of disbursement (e.g., photocopying, travel
expenses, filing fees, faxes, etc.)
• for travel expenses, expense-level detail including mileage at the state reimbursement rate; actual expenses
• the district will not reimburse expense charges greater than those
• allowed South Carolina state employees and will not reimburse any air fare charges that exceed the lowest price
coach full fare available for the travel undertaken
• for inside and outside photocopying, the number of copies made, cost per page and total billed amount (per copy
cost will not exceed $0.10 per page)
• outgoing faxes should be charged at the telephone line rates only (incoming faxes not billable)
• special needs for messenger, runner, courier and expedited delivery services or the district's pre-approval for the
service
• documentation for disbursements exceeding $35 (a copy of the firm's check is acceptable only where there is no
invoice or receipt provided, such as for a court filing fee
• disbursement charges cannot be marked up above their actual cost to your firm (re-computerized research,
telephone etc.)
• pre-authorization is needed for any out-of-town trip where travel expenses will be incurred
Block-billing
Invoices must contain time records in single-activity format, e.g., not block-billed. Please note that each task must be
separately itemized, unless more than one task together took up to .1/hr in which event these tasks should be grouped in
one entry so that the time billed equals the actual time spent.
Adequate Descriptions
Each activity must be described adequately so that a person unfamiliar with the case may determine what activity is being
performed.
Adequate descriptions
Adequate descriptions include, but are not limited to, the following.
• for office and third-party communications (e.g., telephone calls, correspondence, meetings) the identity of other
participant(s) and the subject matter(s) discussed
• the purpose of the court hearing/conference and who attended
• the identity of each deponent/interviewee
• the purpose of review of deposition or trail transcripts
• the specific issue(s) researched
• the specific non-deposition discovery worked on and the nature of the work performed
• the specific trial preparation performed
• the specific motion worked on and the nature of the work performed
• the identity of the material or documents reviewed for travel time, the time spent traveling, the purpose and
destination
Source: Richland School District Two Board Policy Manual, 2011.

2.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Teachers and administrators, research literature, and areas of best practice speak widely about
the need for parental, community, and business understanding of and involvement in the public
schools in order for achievement to improve for all students. It is through significant partnerships
between the schools and their many stakeholders that the resources and perceptions, policies, and
practices will evolve to support 21st Century schooling that is powerful enough to have an impact
on every student. Classroom teachers, principals, schools, and school districts working in
isolation from their communities cannot achieve the goal of higher achievement and more fully
developed young citizens.
In today’s educational and political climate, it is not sufficient to be a good school district; the
public must be continually shown the advances of the school district. A school district must be
publicly accountable for every dollar spent, every program created, and every student graduated.
Good public accountability is often found in the form of an annual report which contains
pertinent information on the progress of the school district over the preceding year.
A school district is accountable to many different groups: its staff, its teachers, the federal
government, its students, their parents, local businesses, and the community at large⎯all have
invested time and money into the school district, and all have a stake in its success. In return, the
school district is obligated to demonstrate that it has spent the time and money afforded to it
wisely, and is making its best effort to produce well-educated, work-ready, civic-minded
graduates.
Compounding this challenge is the increasing competition for every public dollar, a common
situation in every local government agency. The era of “big government” is over and so is public
indifference to the use of limited tax dollars. Today, citizens demand the most out of every cent
contributed to public entities. A school district can only be successful in this environment if it
can consistently prove that it has a product, namely a valuable education, which is worth
continued public investment.
FINDING
In Exhibit 2-16, Richland Two teacher responses to the communications section of the survey
are compared to other school districts. In general, Richland Two teachers had higher levels of
agreement than the peer comparisons. For example, 67 percent of Richland Two teachers
agree/strongly agree when asked about parents playing an active role in school decision making,
compared with just over 47 percent in the peer comparisons. Other responses clearly show much
higher agreement levels in Richland Two. The most striking similarity on the survey, however,
comes when comparing the Richland Two teacher response regarding volunteer support. When
ask if there are enough volunteers available to assist with student and school programs, 49
percent of Richland Two teachers agree/strongly agree, as compared to 38 percent in other
school districts. Principals disagree with only 60 percent agreeing that there are plenty of
volunteers as compared to 80 percent of principals in other districts.

Exhibit 2-16
Teacher Survey Results on Communications
in Richland Two and School Districts in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Survey Statement SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D
The district regularly communicates with parents. 93.1% 2.1% 75.4% 8.9%
Parents play an active role in decision-making in our schools. 66.7% 17.0% 47.2% 28.6%
Teachers regularly communicate with the parents of the
94.5% 3.1% 84.1% 12.6%
students they teach.
Most parents seem to know what goes on in our schools. 74.9% 16.7% 52.8% 29.6%
The school district explains test results to parents. 71.6% 14.1% 52.7% 29.5%
Schools have plenty of volunteers to help student and school
49.4% 37.6 38.2% 43.3%
programs.
At least some local businesses are actively involved in
88.6% 4.6% 59.5% 20.3%
supporting our schools.
Source: Evergreen Solutions Result Surveys, 2011.
Evergreen consultants found excellent examples of communication between the:
• Superintendent and School Board;

• Superintendent (and staff) and the community;
• the central office and schools;
• the schools and parents; and
• Richland Two and the media.
Staff have followed the Superintendent’s lead. Central office staff are out in schools. When
asked if district administrators provide quality services to schools, 72 percent of Richland Two
teachers agree as opposed to only 61 percent in comparison districts.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for the multiple avenues of positive communication with its
internal and external stakeholders.
FINDING
In 2008, the Public Information and Community Relations Offices were subdivided. At that
time, the Community Relations unit was moved to the Planning Office and the Public
Information Office was created as a separate entity to report to the Superintendent. Exhibits 2-
17 and 2-18 show the current organizational structure of both offices.
Both offices are serving the district well in communicating and coordinating with the public.
However, several examples were provided on duplication and overlap in responsibilities. For
example, community relations has an Internal Communications Manager, but the Public
Information Office is responsible for internal communications. In addition, confusion exists by
internal and external stakeholders as to each office’s responsibilities. It is not in the best interest
of the district to maintain these separate offices.

Exhibit 2-17
Richland Two Public Office
Organizational Structure
Superintendent
Public
Information
Officer
Public
Receptionist
Information
(2)
Assistant
Multi-media
Web Content
Production
Coordinator
Specialist
Video Video Specialist

Producer
Exhibit 2-18
Richland Two Community Relations Unit
Chief Planning
Officer
Executive Director
Community Relations
Administrative
Assistant
Internal Grants
Volunteer
Communications Coordinator Mail Room
Coordinator
Manager
Reconnecting Coalition
Educational Liaison Project Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Merge the public information and community relations under a Director of Public
Information and Community Relations.
The positions of Public Information Officer and Executive Director of Community Relations
should be abolished. Current administrators in both offices can and should be applicants for the
proposed Director’s position.
The Grant Coordination function should remain in the Planning Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
This fiscal impact for this recommendation includes the deletion of the two senior managers, and
create a new position of Chief at a proposed salary of $130,000 (with benefits).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Public
$118,714 $118,714 $118,714 $118,714 $118,714
Information Officer
Eliminate Executive
Director, Community $135,911 $135,911 $135,911 $135,911 $135,911
Relations
Create Director of Public
Information and ($130,000) ($130,000) ($130,000) ($130,000) ($130,000)
Community Relations
TOTAL SAVINGS $124,625 $124,625 $124,625 $124,625 $124,625
2.7.1 Education Foundation
Information from the National Center of Public and Private School Foundations identify
educational foundations as privately operated, non-profit organizations established to assist
public schools. These foundations qualify as charitable organizations⎯different from school
districts, public institutions, or local governments. Public school foundations are designed to
augment, supplement, or complement programs and activities being provided by school districts.
There are over 4,800 school foundations that have their own boards independent of the school
district they support.
While it is fairly common for a school district to lend in-kind and staff support for the initial
development of an education foundation, the goal should ultimately be for a foundation to
become self-sufficient, reducing the burden on district staff and providing a supplemental
resource for the school district itself.
Generally, foundations are 501(c) (3) designated so that contributions are 100 percent tax
deductible.

FINDING
The Richland Two the Education Foundation aims to
… support districtwide programs and activities that are not completely addressed through
the district’s annual budget. The foundation provides financial support through grants,
corporate contributions, and private donations. It also serves as a facilitator for projects
that benefit the district and it schools, faculty, staff and students.
The Education Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization established in August 2000. The
foundation’s objective is to raise funds and promote educational programs for the district by
soliciting and accepting donations from business groups, individual corporations, foundations
and individuals-at-large.
Examples of projects the Foundation supports include:
• Literature and Arts Festival

• Teacher of the Year Celebration
• Sparkleberry Fair Grants Teachers Program
• Scholarship Programs
The February 15, 2011 Financial Report for the Richland Two Education Foundation shows the
total restricted and unrestricted funds as $170,027. According to district officials, this figure has
increased very little throughout the years. The unrestricted funds have increased just slightly
(from $5,721 to $7,116), leaving the Foundation Board with very little flexibility or latitude in
funding major initiatives. The Foundation does not generate significant unrestricted funds.
Almost everything that comes through the Foundation is associated with a fixed account.
The Foundation’s Board of Directors, whose members serve one to three-year terms, governs the
Education Foundation. Unlike most other education foundations, the Board of Directors for the
Richland Two Foundation includes many district employees. Most foundations supporting other
school districts include few, if any, district employees and consist of community and business
leaders in the true spirit of being an autonomous private entity.
The Richland Two Education Foundation has not been as successful as it should be in the
Richland County community, as evidenced by the low turnout for this year’s Literature and Arts
Festival and other events it has sponsored. This is in contrast to the Spring Valley High School
Education Foundation that has an Executive Director and has been effective in fund-raising
activities.
RECOMMENDATION
Restructure the Richland Two Education Foundation.

The Superintendent and Board should solicit prominent business and community leaders in
Richland County to serve on the Board of Directors for the Richland Two Education Foundation.
The new Board should set a fund-raising goal of generating at least $300,000 in unrestricted
revenue by 2012 and, when funds are adequate, hiring a full-time Executive Director separate
and independent from the district.
FISCAL IMPACT
This fund-raising effort is and should remain autonomous from Richland Two. No district funds
should be used; therefore, there is no fiscal impact.
FINDING
Students can also serve as a resource to generate funds for the Education Foundation. As one
example, a marketing class in rural Clinton Public Schools (Oklahoma) organized a project to
build a brick wall with the school logo near the entrance of a school. The students sold bricks for
$100 each; they sold 500 bricks for the projected income of $50,000 and make a profit of almost
$40,000.
The student’s promotional plan included the use of direct mail, the Clinton website, cooperative
advertising, and the involvement of radio and press media. Students are also requested alumni to
help with the effort through golf, football, and soccer competitions.
RECOMMENDATION
Involve students in supporting the Richland Two Education Foundation.
Students can be recruited to assist in fund raising for the Foundation. A marketing or other
appropriate class in several high schools in the district could spearhead this effort.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources.

CHAPTER 3:
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DELIVERY

3.0 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DELIVERY
This chapter addresses the instructional delivery operations of the Richland School District Two
and includes the following sections:
3.1 Organization and Management of Curriculum and Instruction

3.1.1 Accountability
3.1.2 Evaluation
3.2 Instructional Delivery and Student Performance
3.2.1 Early Childhood Education
3.2.2 Magnets/Choice
3.3 Special Education
3.4 Student Support Services
3.5 Instructional Professional Development
The educational service delivery of a school district depends on central office staff to serve as the
support system, and provide leadership and coordination for the education that is provided in
district schools. The effectiveness of instructional delivery depends on factors such as
organization, staffing and procedures that have been created and monitored in order to assure
consistency of instruction and student assessment across the district. The way in which those
central office factors are designed can either support or prevent progress towards high
achievement for students.
In discussing standards, the American Federation of Teachers observed that, “the idea behind
standards-based reform is to set clear standards for what we want students to learn and to use
those academic standards to drive other changes in the system.” In other words, the context of
reform of the entire school district should include:
• curriculum, instruction and assessment;

• professional development;
• parent and community involvement;
• instructional leadership; and
• the use of technology and other resources.
All parts of the district’s central operations, decisions, planning, and implementation must be
aligned and coordinated to support improved teaching and learning. The school district must
also reach out to the community so that the education provided to local students not only meets
national standards, but local needs, and uses the resources of the community in partnership for
the improvement effort.
3.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CURRICULUM AND

INSTRUCTION
Central office employees serve as the support system for the education that is provided in
schools of any school district and, depending on factors such as organization, staffing, and
processes, can either strengthen or hinder progress towards high achievement for students. A

Educational Services Delivery Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
well-orchestrated, balanced relationship between school needs and central office support and
coordination helps to ensure that financial and human resources are targeted toward increased
student achievement for all students. Clearly articulated, measurable, and monitored goals set at
the district level inform staff and the public of the district’s priorities and guide decisions and
actions at all levels of the system. Data serve as the foundation for goal-setting, progress
monitoring, and evaluation. Consequently, effective two-way communications systems, explicit
guidelines and expectations, processes that streamline and reinforce goals, and the monitoring of
priorities are essential responsibilities of the central office.
Reinforcing that point, in her book, The Reform Revisited: Effective Schools and Systemic
Reform, Barbara Olin Taylor states that the key to successful schools and to meeting the needs of
every student is an effective, well-aligned, and focused organization. She quotes Ron Edmonds,
a long-time researcher in defining the characteristics of effective schools:
We teach that there are no instructional problems that have not already been solved. The
only issue is whether or not the organization makes available to principals and teachers
the extraordinary repertoire of school behaviors and teacher behaviors that will produce
mastery for the full range of the population.
A school district’s central organization and management processes are critical in thwarting and
facilitating the acquisition of those behaviors to ensure mastery for all students. When an
organization is not getting the results it would like, structural issues are generally to blame.
Districts are well-served to analyze their organizational structure to determine root causes for the
current structure, and to identify areas where that structure could potentially offer better results
and impediments to higher performance could be eliminated.
FINDING
The organizational structure of the central office related to Curriculum and Instruction impairs
the efficient and effective use of personnel, communications, planning, and the execution of
work tasks. Silos and organizational barriers prevent the collaboration the Superintendent
desires and that is essential for planning effectively for teaching and learning.
Exhibit 3-1 shows the 2010-11 organizational structure of the Richland Two Academics
Department. The department is led by a Chief Academic Officer. She has seven direct reports:
• an Executive Director of Curriculum and Professional Development;

• an Executive Director of Special Services;
• a Senior Research Associate;
• an Administrative Assistant;
• a Coordinator of Service Learning;
• a Coordinator of an International Baccalaureate (IB) grant; and
• a Consultant/Instructional Coach who retired from the position of Chief Academic
Officer.
The functional curricular and instructional offices under the Chief Academic Officer (CAO)
position include:
• academic initiatives;

Exhibit 3-1
Organization of the Instructional and Student Services Departments in the
2010-11 School Year
Chief
Academic Officer
Administrative Consultant/
Assistant Instructional Coach
Svc Learning IB Grant

Coordinator Coordinator
Executive Director
Executive Director Senior Research
Curriculum
Special Services Associate
Professional Development
Administrative Administrative
Office Manager
Assistant Assistant
Director Director Director of

Senior Curriculum Curriculum Lead Social Compliance
Academic State/Fed Psychological Lead Nurse
Coordinator Coordinator Worker Officer
Initiatives Programs Services
Administrative Administrative Mathematics Medicaid

ESOL Secretary Social Worker
Assistant* Assistant Coordinator Secretary
Instructional
Early Childhood Administrative Data Info Administrative
Program
Coordinator Assistant* Specialist Assistant
Coordinator
RTI Specialist Due Process

Science
Bookkeeper Assistant
Coordinator
Intervention
Social Studies Program
RTI Specialist Project care
Coordinator Coordinator
Career & Tech

Education Administrative
Coordinator Assistant
Gear UP
AVID Liaison
Grant coordinator

• state and federal programs;

• special education;
• gifted and talented education (ALERT);
• curriculum and instruction;
• some curricular and instructional professional development; and
• intervention.
The Executive Director of Curriculum and Professional Development oversees academic

initiatives which include:
• magnet and choice programs;

• state and federal programs;
• early childhood education;
• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL);
• curriculum through seven coordinators (and an additional one in special education);and
• Response to Intervention (RTI), AVID and Gear UP grants through coordinators/liaisons.
There are some organizational barriers prohibiting greater collaboration that are related to
positions in the Office of Curriculum and Professional Development and others where staff
perform the same tasks. Staff reported that both IT and Planning have had the authority to make
decisions or initiate programs that are related to curriculum and instruction apparently without
consultation with leaders in Academics. Other examples include:
• Four instructional coaches (ICs) work with the Executive Director. However, another
Program Coordinator who reports to the Executive Director of Special Services has
responsibilities similar to the curriculum coordinators and the instructional coaches.
Additionally, a consultant serving as an instructional coach, reports to the Chief
Academic Officer. Some of the curriculum coordinators also serve as instructional
coaches (ICs). The coordinator in special education attends training with the ICs, but
does not provide training regarding special education strategies to them that could be
integrated into their overall approach to teacher coaching. That consultant has not
received all of the training that the others have. This inability of some of the coaches to
focus more concertedly on support for their teachers potentially diffuses their
effectiveness.
• A liaison is supposed to bridge the organizational division between technology and

academics. However, district staff reported that the structure has created barriers to an
integrated approach to instructional technology and training.
Additionally, responsibilities and span of control differ considerably among the three primary
direct reports to the CAO. The Senior Research Associate reports directly to the Chief Academic
Officer but has only one direct report⎯her administrative assistant. She is responsible for the
district’s programs for gifted and talented students and fine arts.
In contrast, the Executive Director for Special Education oversees special education;
intervention; and the lead social worker, lead nurse, and the Director of Psychological Services.

In that department, the organizational chart shows five administrative positions and a bi-lingual
social worker who is housed in the district office.
Grants coordination is housed in the district’s Planning Division in a separate building from
Academics. Only recently has there been a concerted effort to ensure that grants are aligned with
district instructional and programmatic goals.
An additional challenge to efficiency and effectiveness in the academic staffing and

organizational structure is found in the assignment of diverse responsibilities to staff who neither
have relevant background experience and expertise or who already have a multitude of
responsibilities that are not necessarily related to their primary job function. For example, with
the retirement of the employee who supervised learning supports (such as guidance, psychology,
and social work), supervision of those staff is now divided among personnel with various other
responsibilities. Some have backgrounds in the new areas assigned; others do not. This has
fragmented the services that are needed for a cohesive support structure for students with social,
emotional, and academic needs. Currently, three staff members share responsibility for
guidance, yet none are within the Intervention Program where staff works closely with guidance
counselors on student and family support once students are referred for district-level disciplinary
action. Unifying and tying guidance services more closely to those for students at risk either
academically or behaviorally would strengthen the district’s intervention infrastructure.
Assigning a mis-aligned group of responsibilities to curriculum coordinators prevents them from

focusing on the content and pedagogical needs of teachers. Most of the curriculum coordinators
have multiple responsibilities besides content. Some of them report to one district administrator
and others to a different one. Most coordinators are K-12; however, the coordination of
elementary and secondary English/Language Arts (ELA) is divided between two coordinators.
Some are almost purely content-related in their roles (such as science and health), while others
are responsible for things as broad as homebound, home schooling, e-school permeations,
serving as the technology liaison between IT and Academics, district textbook coordinator,
director of the district’s Virtual High School, Richland Two VHS, and a PowerSchool instructor.
Additionally, the Coordinator for Early Childhood, who shares the ELA role, is also responsible
for Title I. Two peer districts have five content coordinators and one has six; Richland Two has
eight. The position of Senior Curriculum Coordinator is not a position found in any peer
districts.
With the silos in the district’s organizational structure, planning, communication and
coordination are impeded among district offices responsible for various aspects of curriculum.
There is not currently a basis for focus or coherence among district activities, particularly with
respect to curriculum and instruction. It is clear in conversations with district instructional
leaders that most are unified in knowing where the district needs to go and are beginning to lay
the foundation for that progress. However, during Evergreen’s visit, little evidence of systems of
accountability or cross-district documentation of actions, monitoring, or progress of those plans
are yet in place. This can be better achieved with a more cohesive alignment of organizational
responsibilities with respect to curriculum, instruction, accountability, and staff training.
Just in the Academic Department, there are five grant-funded positions. The positions have been
added as the district has received funds for specific grants. These positions are essentially stand-
alone positions in contrast to the broader responsibilities of more permanent staff, causing an

inequity among staff based on funding sources. Some are part-time and some full-time. Also,
frequently the grant responsibilities are closely related to those of other administrators or staff,
and would more logically be absorbed by a specific administrator or spread among school-based
staff in the program. The following positions are district-level grant-funded positions:
• Gear UP Coordinator;
• IB Grant Coordinator;
• Service Learning Coordinator; and
• two RTI Specialists.
There are also a number of part-time positions at the district level, further fragmenting
responsibilities and expanding reporting relationships and key administrators’ span of control.
For instance, a district-level AVID liaison works two days a week recruiting, interviewing and
scheduling tutors for the program through USC and Columbia College. She interviews the
tutors, schedules them with AVID teachers/students, and monitors their work. While this relieves
the AVID staff at schools, it is also work they could do without the additional expense of a part-
time district staff member. A Consultant/Instructional Coach works part-time with selected staff
and reports to the CAO. And, in the Special Education Department, a part-time School
Coordinator works two days a week (discussed in Section 3.3).
Exhibit 3-2 shows a new organizational chart proposed for Richland Two.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-1:
Adopt the proposed organizational structure for the curricular and instructional offices in
Richland Two.
To implement this recommendation, Evergreen suggests that the district focus the responsibilities
of the curriculum coordinators more on their roles as teacher support by re-assigning duties that
are not directly related to a single content area to others with more closely related
responsibilities. In this process, the district should:
• return ELA to a K-12 position;
• remove shared responsibility for World Languages from the Director for State/Federal
Programs to the proposed Executive Director of Innovation and Special Programs who
has partial responsibility for that now;
• remove responsibility for Title I from the elementary ELA/Early Childhood Coordinator
and assign Title I to the Director for State/Federal Programs;
• consolidate responsibility for guidance supervision and coordination from three district
staff to the Intervention Program Coordinator; and
• transfer responsibility for homebound and home schooling from the coordinator also
responsible for technology-related instructional programs to the proposed Special
Education Coordinator (discussed in Section 3.3).

Exhibit 3-2
Proposed Organizational Structure
Division of Teaching and Learning in Richland Two
CAO/Chief of Teaching
and Learning
Executive Director of Executive Director of Executive Director of

Teaching, Learning and Innovation and Special Student Support
Professional Growth Programs Services*
Coordinators for Director of

Teaching and Learning Academic Initiatives
Director of State and

Federal Programs
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2011.

* A separate discussion of the organization of the Special Education/Student Support Services Department is in Section 3.3.
The proposed structure will benefit the district by eliminating silos, improving communications
and collaboration, and reducing duplication of activities. In addition, the proposed structure will:
• more directly tie technology decision making and implementation into curriculum and
instruction with a liaison dedicated to that purpose;
• focus district resources toward students who may be at risk of failure by placing all
support functions in one department, the Intervention Program, as discussed in greater
detail in Section 3.3;
• reduce the number and disparity of responsibilities that each Coordinator has and the
number of coordinator positions;
• compress the span of authority of key administrators by eliminating part-time/short-term

positions that do not offer an ongoing scope of support for teachers and students;
• change titles as follows: the CAO to Chief of Teaching and Learning, the Executive
Director of Special Education to Executive Director of Student Support Services, the
Executive Director of Curriculum and Professional Development to Executive Director of
Teaching, Learning, and Professional Growth;

• eliminate the Senior Research Associate and create an Executive Director of Innovation
and Special Programs at no additional costs;
• place all of the instructional coaches and Coordinators for Teaching and Learning directly
under the proposed Executive Director of Teaching, Learning, and Professional Growth
to better integrate training and support for all teachers and students;
• move the Director of Academic Initiatives from supervision by the proposed Executive
Director of Teaching, Learning, and Professional Growth to the Executive Director of
Innovation and Special Programs; and
• eliminate two part-time positions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Many of these changes will not have a fiscal impact but will re-allocate, streamline and clarify
roles and reporting relationships, better balancing them among central office administrators. The
few fiscal impacts are as follows:
• The elimination of the senior curriculum coordinator position will save the district the
average curriculum coordinator’s salary of $106,147 including benefits.
• The salaries of the part-time positions together are $90,884.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate the Senior
Curriculum $106,147 $106,147 $106,147 $106,147 $106,147
Coordinator
Eliminate Part-Time
AVID Coordinator
$90,884 $90,884 $90,884 $90,884 $90,884
and the Part-Time
Instructional Coach
TOTAL SAVINGS $197,031 $197,031 $197,031 $197,031 $197,031
FINDING
There is disparity in clerical support among the offices under the CAO. The 14 positions (18
including the four Instructional Coaches) in the Office of the Executive Director of Curriculum
and Professional Development are supported by four administrative assistants. For the six staff
on the organizational chart for Special Services, there are nine administrative support staff. The
Senior Research Associate has one administrative assistant.
Additionally, a comparison of support staff in peer districts with that in the Richland Two
Special Education Department in Exhibit 3-3 shows that it has far more clerical support than
peer districts.

Exhibit 3-3
Comparison of Central Special Education Clerical/Support Staff
Richland Two and Peers
2010-11
Data
Medicaid Information/ Due Systems
School Office Secretary/ Administrative Support Process Software District
District Secretary Manager Specialist Assistant Specialist Bookkeeper Assistant Managers Total
Richland Two 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7
Beaufort 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 5
Berkley 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Rock Hill 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
*Richland One N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Peer District
Average 1 .3 .3 4.3 .3 .3 6.5 .66 3
Source: Created by Evergreen from district websites and district organizational charts, 2011.
*received no response from Richland One so averages are based on other peer districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-2:
More equitably allocate clerical support staff among instructional administrators.
With adoption of the proposed organizational chart, Evergreen suggests a re-allocation of clerical
and support staff for the proposed Department of Teaching and Learning. With the re-
organization, the key instructional leaders can examine critical functions in each of the newly re-
organized offices, including staffing in each, and the CAO can re-assign staff accordingly.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Although some district staff stated that things are changing, in the past, the district has received
grants that are contrary to district instructional initiatives and added staff with those funds.
Historically, grants have sometimes been sought without consultation with academic
departments.
For example, a district employee was placed in March 2010 in a one-year grant-funded position.
The employee went out on maternity leave in October and remains out still in March 2011. This
raises questions about the district’s foresight in its hiring practices for finite, grant-funded
positions.
Evergreen was provided some documents that show a change in practice and some oversight
from the Academic Department to prevent these practices from continuing. However, several

staff reflected a need for more coordination and collaboration between Academics and the Grant
Department (in Planning), before grants are written.
Adding staff instead of considering assigning grant-related oversight to existing staff members
with relevant responsibilities and experience is neither efficient nor cost effective. Additionally,
it has led to additional staff with narrow responsibilities instead of an overarching approach to
meeting student needs that are aligned with grant goals. In many, but not all cases, personnel do
not need to be added simply to coordinate or collect data for grant initiatives. This increases
staff and related recurring expenses, when grant funds expire and positions remain, as many
Richland Two staff revealed has happened in the past. It appears from testimony that several
grant-funded staff members are currently employed with “letters of agreement” rather than
ongoing contracts⎯evidence of a change in practice. However, a number of grant-funded staff
members are in the central office with very specific and tightly focused responsibilities that
might otherwise be able to be absorbed by existing staff members.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-3:
Review all grant opportunities and related staffing through the District Leadership Team.
Oversight by the Leadership Team would ensure that grants are aligned with district goals and, in
fact, reinforce district efforts and initiatives. This would also provide a means of assessing the
need for additional staff or assignment of grant responsibilities to appropriate personnel. The
Leadership Team may not want to eliminate all existing positions but should be aware of their
costs versus issues such as equity of responsibility with other staff and relationship to others’
existing responsibilities. Grant funds could then be used to offset some of the district’s outlay
for existing positions, if desired.
FISCAL IMPACT
To provide an example of potential savings from not hiring additional staff for grant oversight,
the proposed fiscal impact is figured based on the possibility of district leadership eliminating all
four grant-funded positions currently at the district office. In fact, two of the positions related to
RTI are due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. The total salaries for the four grant-funded
positions: IB Grant Coordinator, Service Learning Coordinator, and two RTI positions are
$269,514. Adding benefits of 33 percent brings the total cost to the district to $358,454.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reduce Grant-
$358,454 $358,454 $358,454 $358,454 $358,454
Funded Positions

3.1.1 Accountability
Since enactment of federal No Child Left Behind legislation, accountability has become a
buzzword bandied around in education circles and has largely become associated with student
achievement to meet national goals of all children being proficient in reading and math by the
year 2014. The law promised:
• all students reading and doing math at grade level by 2014;

• higher expectations for every student and greater accountability for every school;
• annual assessments and disaggregated data to observe progress;
• highly qualified teachers in every classroom;
• timely information and options for parents; and
• the freedom and flexibility to invest in what works.
Without a doubt this legislation has focused discussions, decisions, and actions in states and
territories across the United States on improving student achievement, parental outreach,
enhancing teacher capacity, student assessment, and school and district responsibility for student
learning.
Accountability, however, is much more than the noble and equitable concepts embraced in the
law. If those aspirations are to be realized, then each school and district must develop:
• strong, two-way communication processes;
• integrated decision-making strategies;
• focused curricula and instructional tools and methodologies;
• professional development that undergirds the district’s goals and builds capacity in all of
its teachers and administrators;
• assessment tools that inform teachers, parents and administrators of progress or lack
thereof of each student so that teachers can individualize instruction for their success and
schools and districts can develop programs that support and assist all students in reaching
their potential;
• processes in which the programs implemented and data available in the schools are
continually examined and used to inform decisions; and
• ways of identifying and reaching out to all parents of all students to involve them in their
children’s education and make them feel a true partnership in raising student
achievement.
In order to do so, educators at all levels must create processes that infuse the collection, analysis,
and reflection on data and what it means⎯data beyond just student achievement, that provides
information on the learning climate and social and health needs of each student. They must
develop clear, transparent communications channels so that what is happening in the classroom

is a basis for school and district decisions. And, finally, they must use those communication
processes to create systems to hold each and every staff member in a district continually and
personally accountable for student success. Effective performance evaluation systems are a
piece of that process. Accountability in school districts is the underpinning of all of those
processes. It is a comprehensive, systemic and seamless way of ensuring that all decisions are
focused on student achievement and all actions of staff are way aligned to contribute to improved
performance of staff and students.
FINDING
A long-standing history of essentially autonomous site-based management has led to

inefficiencies, a lack of consistency among schools, and increased costs to the district. Richland
Two has been characterized by a district culture that encourages school individuality to the point
that almost no two schools are alike. One person noted, “there is a tension between site-based
management and consistency in this district.” Along with unprecedented growth in student
numbers and changes in demographics, this has made creating a uniform system of
accountability a challenge to district leaders.
Examples provided to Evergreen during the on-site visit of school autonomy that impedes
consistency or is not cost effective for the district include:
• With expectations different from school to school, the curriculum coordinators who are
tasked to work with teachers to build capacity are not always clear about school
expectations so that they know theirs are aligned with each principal’s expectations.
• In some schools, communications are open, clear and unimpeded; in others, there is a
distinct chain of command for magnet staff and curriculum coordinators, hampering
efficient responsiveness to teacher, school, or district needs.
• Training and implementation of district initiatives such as Response to Intervention (RTI)

differ according to individual principal priorities. This presents a barrier to cohesive
achievement of districtwide goals.
• In one instance, a principal decided, without approval of district staff, to move four
computer labs. Autonomy of this breadth costs the district in terms of IT and
maintenance staff time and resources.
• A districtwide committee identified over 40 reading programs being used in Richland

Two schools even though Open Court is used by the majority of schools. Even though a
list was compiled of those that were truly research-based and funds were only supposed
to be requested for those programs, testimony reveals that has happened inconsistently.
• Some schools have foundations; others do not. This causes inequity of resources from
one school to another (also see Chapter 2, Section 2.7).
• District prioritized training has been allowed to be a school-based decision, hindering

implementation of district goals across all schools.

• The number of magnet programs and variances due to site-based management result in
few feeder patterns that allow students to easily build on skills and knowledge learned in
elementary school and reinforced throughout their educational years.
• Both interviews and Richland Two state data show that inclusion of special education
students in general education classes is not a part of the district culture. This may be due
to the amount of autonomy provided to principals as well as training.
The extent of site-based management in Richland Two has contributed to a lack of an

accountability system that ensures that district goals and priorities are implemented at each level.
District instructional leaders, each in his/her own area, have developed processes to hold those
they supervise accountable for their work. However, with the extent of variability in district
programs from school to school, there is no overall system of regular monitoring, accountability
processes, or ongoing evaluation of programs and processes across district offices and schools.
Staff, in fact, stated that trying to evaluate magnet programs is “like comparing apples to
oranges.” There was no evidence provided to Evergreen consultants of any documentation that
monitors practices or holds administrators accountable for compliance with district directives,
when they are given. One person very succinctly described the situation in the district saying,
“we have become a system of schools and need to become a school system.”
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-4:
Examine site-based management and its implications on personnel, programs, and budget
to specifically define a balance between school characteristics and consideration of the need
for districtwide consistency.
Multiple instances have been provided throughout the site visit of operations where Richland
Two’s current application of the concept of site-based management has contributed either to
inequity of educational opportunities for students or ineffective processes and practices that deter
the district from achieving unified goals. There is also evidence that allowing site-based
decisions to over-ride district considerations has resulted in expenditures that could have been
prevented with economy of scale achieved in district purchases.
As currently applied, in many respects, the practice nullifies the ability of district-level
administrators to develop and improve programs that best meet the needs of students throughout
Richland Two. It is imperative that the district consider these effects of its current interpretation
of the concept and define parameters within which schools may operate. A monitoring process
should be developed at the same time to ensure that all schools in compliance.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
A significant Evergreen finding is the lack of an operational districtwide, pre-kindergarten

through 12 instructional plan. In on-site interviews, no one referenced a plan or its goals, so it
does not seem to be a central force in the district’s desire to improve student learning. Magnet
programs have been created, first to balance racial and economic equity among schools, but later
as a means of making each school have its own unique draw for students. Reports varied as to
how, or even if, the district is aware of the effectiveness of each or how their focus aligns with a
district instructional focus. They have also led to a challenge for the district to step back,
identify, insist upon, and monitor core knowledge and competencies both for students and
teachers around which each school can develop its magnet and/or student choice programs.
Additionally, there is not a comprehensive approach to integrating the needs of students with
special needs, whether they relate to a disability, academic, or behavioral challenge, within an
overall instructional and pedagogical framework.
Successful school districts use an instructional plan as an umbrella document that outlines and
specifies what good teaching looks like. Regardless of the content area, research is clear that
there are practices, routines, teacher behaviors, questioning techniques, and cross curricular
pedagogies that have high impact on all students’ learning. Interviewees indicated that programs
and initiatives were rolled out based on compliance, earmarked dollars, content area demands, or
magnet/choice focus, but not a united instructional goal and vision. During on-site
conversations, there was no evidence to support that curricular and instructional initiatives were
funneled through a district instructional plan that guides Richland Two teachers and instructional
leaders.
Content specific programs and initiatives can inform instructional practice, but should not be
viewed as isolated and totally content driven. A foundational set of research-based effective
teaching and instructional strategies, practices, and behaviors needs to be woven into all
curricular areas as part of a districtwide instructional plan. Students need to see teachers engage
in a common set of effective instructional practices and a common language that crosses
curricular boundaries from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. There must be districtwide
expectations that all teachers, regardless of the content area or program in which they teach,
engage in effective instruction.
Evergreen’s visits to schools found strong instructional leaders who understand the need for a
focused, data-based plan and who are, in fact, stimulating one at their schools. There are
certainly teachers delivering instruction with rigor and effectiveness by following the prescribed
curriculum. Central office and school administrators should identify these exceptional teachers
beyond those in the Teacher Forum. They can be used as living examples of practicing high
quality teaching behaviors and should be tapped to reinforce professional development,
mentoring, and coaching of other staff.
It is important to create coherence in instructional delivery. Equally important, the instructional

plan should not be a top down plan. It should be developed by teachers who are doing the right
thing, who are reaching students, and who are making a difference. It should also be a plan that
teachers can embrace, talk about, and clearly see that makes their jobs more fulfilling. It is also
critical to align the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade curricula with the instructional plan. To

date, there are few examples of regular and special education teachers who are working closely
together to deliver instructional practices for all students through co-teaching and collaborative
planning. This, too, needs to become part of the district’s commitment to reaching all students
by an engaging, skillful and knowledgeable teacher.
The Superintendent is clear in her desire to focus on student-centered work across the district.
She has begun the journey of taking administrators and teachers to visit and participate in Phil
Schlechty’s training to work on the work of teaching and learning. The plan should be a natural
outgrowth of that initiative to provide cohesion and consistency across content areas, schools,
and programs in the district. It should be developed by school administrators and teachers who
have first-hand, day-to-day knowledge of rigorous instruction. Central office and school leaders
(as well as parents and other teachers) know teachers who are knowledgeable of state standards
and skillful in improving student learning year after year, regardless of the knowledge level of
the students they receive. Those are the teacher leaders who should be tapped in initial stages
before the capacity of others is developed. They recognize and practice effective instruction.
The district office should support this initiative with research and technical assistance.
Instructional coaches, with the work they have done with teachers new to the profession and their
knowledge of effective pedagogy, should be an integral part of this process. This is a means for
the district to bring about the Superintendent’s desire to create an “induction” program for every
teacher, not just those new to Richland Two. The plan must be heavily influenced by teachers
who daily practice good lesson design and sound instructional delivery; and by building
principals who are instructional leaders and who are directly involved with delivering, managing
and assessing quality instruction. They, too, must be a part of the envisioning and training.
The instructional plan must:
• be measurable and have observable practices;
• be pragmatic;
• allow teachers to start in areas of greatest need but continuously learn and strive
for spiraling growth;
• be student-focused and guide teachers in making adjustments in instructional

practices based on student need;
• be built on sound, research-based, time-proven practices that improve student

achievement;
• include common academic language for core content areas and grade levels;
• have components of accountability and be linked to teacher performance

evaluations; and
• be bolstered by a support system that embraces organizational change,

professional learning, and an environment of stability and trust.

A districtwide instructional plan serves as each teacher’s tool box. All instruction is delivered
using this set of common tools. 21st Century teachers can no longer be effective if their primary
teaching tool is “stand and deliver lecture.” Richland Two has committed in the past to a long-
term process of equipping teachers with skills such as Direct Instruction, Learning-Centered
Schools pedagogical principles, Understanding by Design, and other strategies that will enable
them to develop a repertoire of strategies to teach to individual student needs. The impediment
in the past has been a lack of unity of purpose and scaling the barriers viewed to exist in school
walls and programmatic boxes.
Richland Two has many fine teachers and administrators who daily deliver high impact
instruction. This is the expertise that needs to be harnessed and recorded in an instructional plan
that all teachers are expected to replicate.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-5:
Continue the district direction of focusing on student needs to develop uniform

expectations and capacity among all teachers wherever they teach.
Richland Two should develop and implement a districtwide research-based, pragmatic, and
rigorous instructional plan. The district has taken sound steps toward developing an instructional
approach that transcends content and program to benefit all students. The district has also
selected a single approach to building capacity among all teachers and administrators. The
cultural challenge will be to overcome perceived and real barriers to consistency that have
historically hindered it. There is a plethora of sound research that can also be used to guide the
development of the instructional plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing district budget that has already been
allocated for Schlechty conferences and travel to other school districts.
FINDING
Some schools have data teams and rooms, using a myriad of data in grade level and department
meetings as the basis for ongoing instructional and programmatic decision making. In some
schools, data teams use video-recorders to tape lessons, then meet to examine them regarding
student engagement and instructional rigor and discuss issues such as what good work looks like.
Some use walk-throughs watching specific students regarding whether or not they are being
sufficiently challenged. Some have data walls that proclaim success and challenges. One
estimate revealed that approximately half of the schools are examining data regularly and have
data coaches who have received training to guide data use to inform teaching and learning.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its efforts to embed data analysis into its schools’ work.

FINDING
Data disaggregation and analysis are not consistent across the district. Some schools focus more
on test data and do not infuse data collection and analysis into their school culture. Several staff
members expressed a concern that many think only of student test data as evidence of success or
failure rather than using a variety of available data to delve more deeply into student success or
needs.
The Director of Research, Accountability and Evaluation has reached out to schools to train and
work with data teams to examine available data deeply to identify needs and strengths to build
on. Some schools have availed themselves of this assistance; others have not. All need to.
In Whatever It Takes (Dufour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004), two questions are posed:
• How will we know when students have acquired the intended knowledge and
skills?
• How will we respond when students experience difficulty so that we can improve
current levels of learning?
These are core questions to understanding and planning for student achievement. The natural
tendency to find answers and seek solutions to these questions should be to look at student data.
They should be easily accessible, preferably on a district database accessible at the school level
and used at the district, school, and classroom levels. Periodic assessments can be valuable
resources to inform decision making with regard to student need. When used in effective ways,
data can be a powerful friend and ally to all district entities.
Before data collection and analysis are commonplace foundations for instructional decision
making in Richland Two, professional development needs to be ongoing and uniform so that
teachers and administrators all comprehend the benefits to them and their students. All school
staffs should be empowered to understand how data analysis can guide their instructional
decisions for schools, classes, and individual students or groups.
Procedures need to be in place that systematize and support faculty with data analysis and
regular, ongoing examination of student performance and program data. The desired goal would
be for common sets of activities to be developed at schools to the level of analysis so that
teachers can base decisions such as student grouping, enrichment, and remediation activities on
student performance data. When the district fulfills its intention of consistent, ongoing use of
data as a basis for decision making, ongoing changes will be made in teacher practice and
program improvement. This use of data will result in continuous, customized instructional
changes benefiting individual students as well as the student body as a whole.
Many Richland Two schools have multiple programs which may compete with each other for
staff attention. The regular use of data, accompanied by program evaluation, will enable them to
know which ones are effective, and where goals and implementation strategies for each may
overlap so that they can plan for more effective and cohesive implementation. The use of data

also equips them with the objective knowledge that informs decisions relating to program
adaptations or strategic abandonment.
The 2009-10 Adequate Yearly Progress Report (AYP) for Richland Two shows that, while it
achieved 31 of 33 objectives and the goal for graduation rate, the district as a whole did not made
AYP. It did not meet the goal for student performance. Of district schools, all four high schools
did not meet AYP, nor did five middle schools and five elementary schools. Longleaf Middle
School is the only middle school meeting AYP. In both English Language Arts and Math, the
subgroups of students having the most difficulty meeting target objectives were:
• African-American;
• disabled;
• migrant; and
• those eligible for subsidized meals.
Migrant students are reported, but not considered in meeting performance objectives.
Best practices support the analysis of data by educators throughout the school district to
continually examine the results of practice, instruction, programs, and curricular materials so that
ongoing changes can be made and that each student’s learning needs are constantly addressed.
This practice keeps teachers and administrators focused on tailoring educational opportunities for
student strengths and weaknesses. When they examine all sources of data from homework to
class and weekly assignments and assessments, as well as standardized and benchmark
tests⎯instead of narrowing the curriculum and instruction in response to high stakes
testing⎯the range of instructional practices is broadened to promote student participation and
learning.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-6:
Systematize the use of student data for decisions regarding program and instructional
effectiveness and related revisions, staffing, and professional development.
Richland Two must make data analysis the underpinning of its decision-making process. The
district should develop a plan to systematically use data in all schools. It should be useful in
identifying staffing assignments, course-taking patterns, curricula, instructional techniques, and
resources that are likely to improve student achievement. These discussions and decisions should
happen at both the district and school levels. Ongoing discussions and systematic tracking of
students not meeting performance objectives for AYP should become an integral part of school
and district processes. The implementation of this recommendation will reinforce the
Superintendent’s desire to focus on student learning.
Administrators and offices that routinely use data should be considered as resources for
implementation of this recommendation and supported in their efforts to create accountability
through the use of data. Data should be used to garner an understanding of both curriculum and
instruction to determine if students know and have acquired the intended knowledge and skills.

Before the district can make decisions for responding to students experiencing difficulty, and
determine what needs to be done to improve current levels of learning, comprehensive data must
be examined.
Data analysis should not be limited to just student performance. There are rich sources of both
qualitative as well as quantitative data such as:
• ACT participation rates;

• freshman remediation rates;
• IB data as the district rolls that program out;
• college completion rates;
• dual enrollment participation;
• vocational completer data;
• attendance;
• tardiness;
• suspensions;
• expulsions;
• cohort graduation or promotion rates;
• discipline including time of day, day of week, location in school of incident; and
• professional development needs analysis.
Each of these should be considered as effective sources of information about the

district’s/school’s climate, and student and teacher strengths and needs.
Using comprehensive data should enable Richland Two to make accurate and appropriate
decisions.
FISCAL IMPACT
3.1.2 Evaluation
FINDING
An Office of Research, Evaluation and Accountability is poised to embed evaluation and

accountability into district processes, but has not yet been supported by a sense of urgency to
base decisions on evaluation, data, and accountability. Policy IL, amended in July 2003, states:
Effective classroom instruction rests on continuous evaluation of the instructional program.

The district will design its evaluation program to compare student progress with the aims
and objectives established by the district's strategic plan. The administration may consider a
variety of evaluation instruments and techniques when selecting the means of evaluating
different district programs and activities.

The limited staff cannot conduct evaluations of the multitude of variations on Richland Two’s
instructional programs although external evaluators do conduct some program evaluations.
Some staff expressed the belief that their programs had been evaluated regularly, but the reality
is that, while student achievement may have been compared over time or with other students, no
reasons for student performance success or need were necessarily identified. Additionally, staff
noted that the performance at two academies has dipped, but parents continue to send their
children to those programs. Without a well-designed evaluation being conducted, Richland Two
has no solid evidence upon which to base decisions to revise, expand, or discontinue any of its
programs.
Comments Evergreen heard that reflect concerns among administrators:
• the problem we have is that we have so many programs…we do something for a year or
two then try something else;
• we add on things and do not evaluate for strategic abandonment;
• we have poor fits of some programs or courses, especially at the high schools;
• there is no review process before a new program is begun; and
• some schools have so many programs there is little ability to focus or to know which is
most effective.
An ongoing evaluation program would guide the district in choosing, keeping, revising, or
eliminating programs that are proven effective for its students. For instance, a districtwide
research committee previously examined reading programs being used to see if they were based
on research and, therefore, more likely to be effective. They identified 47 reading programs
being used with “research” documenting the effectiveness of some of them having been
conducted by the vendor selling them. Although a list of programs to be used was identified,
testimony reveals that, without accountability, schools essentially reverted to using what they
wanted.
Richland Two is not alone in the nation in having little systematic program or process evaluation
to ensure that the programs and practices being used are those that have been deemed most
effective. Although some central office staff expressed a concern about apparent lags in student
performance at some schools, evaluation of magnet programs was estimated to be about two
years behind.
Analysis of readily available data sources could shed light on the effectiveness of program
elements, but are not routinely tracked for making determinations that could guide interim
modifications. The purpose behind a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of a program is to
glean quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal information to inform decisions about additions,
deletions, or revisions to the program, as well as about the effectiveness of the program as a
whole and its individual elements. Such information is essential to aligning district resources
with effective practices.

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-7:
Make program evaluation a core function underpinning district actions and the
determination of effectiveness.
Infusing program and process evaluation into the district’s way of work is essential for
continually improving teaching and learning. To implement this recommendation, Richland
Two should identify one or two programs that appear to be effective, evaluate them, identify
factors that were likely or can be proven to have led to that effectiveness, and put strategies and
monitoring in place to replicate in all schools.
Richland Two might look to Richland One for a beginning point of strengthening its evaluation
of programs and processes. When Evergreen reviewed neighboring Richland One, the district
wanted to reverse the frequent practice of school districts usually adding programs without
consideration of time, resources, or results being evaluated and, consequently, continuing
programs rather than revising or eliminating them. The intent was to strategically abandon
programs in a very systematic manner with the Office of Research and Evaluation integrally
involved. Although the desire was to examine both operational and programmatic
considerations, the initial undertaking began with instructional programs. Strategic abandonment
workshops were developed and presented to principals and department heads who then
conducted them for staff.
Initial criteria were identified for inclusion in an online survey that was completed by all
principals and department heads. Forty-six (46) programs were initially identified for
consideration. This array of programs resulted from two primary factors:
• the level of school-based management in the district; and

• programs that had been implemented as supplemental with Title I funds.
Richland One hoped the strategic abandonment process would better equalize programmatic
opportunities for students across the district.
Ten programs were initially identified for scrutiny. Seven sets of criteria were selected:
• validity;
• cost;
• personnel;
• time;
• training;
• other resources; and
• sustainability.
At every level of the educational enterprise, from the board room to the classroom, there are
constant information and data needs. The legislative accountability requirements of No Child
Left Behind have catapulted a frantic need for immediate, accurate, and analysis-driven data and

research reporting. An equally important and significant need (for what Michael Fullan and Rick
Stiggins refer to as assessment literacy or the ability to make critical sense of data and knowing
how to use it as a strategy for reform) has emerged. This focus on data-driven decisions should
extend beyond analysis of student performance to those programs and practices that affect
performance as well.
Research and program evaluation are critical to creating high-performance schools and a central
office organized by principles of high-performance management. One aspect of evaluation is the
need to identify the match between programs being considered for district students and their
academic needs and demographics. Additionally, programs in place should have formative
evaluations conducted to determine the need for change and refine strategies for effectiveness.
Without having a system of identifying programs to be regularly evaluated, the district puts itself
in the position of funding programs that are not meeting the intent behind their adoption and/or
spending time and dollars on ineffective programs. This may prevent the district from
implementing programs that are proven effective specifically for students. Use of an ongoing
systemic means of continuous program improvement keeps many factors that affect student
achievement at the forefront of staff minds, and focuses resources and training in areas where
they are most needed.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Budgets are not uniformly set for all schools in the district. Small programs (such as the
alternative schools and some magnets and centers) are dependent on additional funding from
after-school programs for basic needs including, in some cases, staff and instructional materials.
Some school staff stated that they did not receive a budget until mid-year. Some stated that
budgets of schools-within-schools, for needs such as curricular development and training, are
often dependent upon the relationship that the lead teacher has with the principal. This approach
to budgeting for student programs is far from student-centered.
A document from the district reveals that most magnet or choice programs do not receive
additional funds beyond the $25 fee charged students for participating unless they have grants, a
principal who may supplement their program, or they receive some funds from the district office.
Additionally, magnet and center budgets differ from program to program:
• some strengthen their programs with grants;

• some have received short-term ancillary funding from district offices;
• some receive all of the magnet fees while some receive a part or even none; and
• centers do not have fees assessed.

Magnet lead teachers report that the funds they do receive are used for consumables, field trips,
student projects, and curricular materials. The Centers receive their per pupil allocation for 262
students and a small amount of at-risk money ($7,500). They can use state-adopted textbooks,
but some of the specific curricular foci are not supported by books on the state list. For books or
materials [such as Singapore Math at the Center for Knowledge (CFK)], after-school program
funds are used. The Centers also depend on their PTAs for purchases and part of their staffing.
The CFK and Center For Inquiry (CFI) are allocated 12 teacher FTEs, two kindergarten aides, .5
Physical education teacher, .5 Art teacher and .2 computer aide based on 262 students. This past
year a .5 guidance counselor was added to be shared among the three Centers. However, the
allocation for Art, PE and computers has not increased as the programs have doubled in size. At
CFK and CFI, the PTA pays for a part-time music instructor and a library aide so that a related
arts class can be offered to all students. CFK funds an intervention specialist with after school
funds. CFA uses the related arts classes from the neighboring Lake Carolina Elementary School.
Each alternative school receives an allotment from Richland Two schools as base funds with
which to begin the year. Elementary schools provide $500 each to Anna Boyd and secondary
schools give Blythewood Academy $2,000 each. Middle school funding is based on prior year
enrollment from each school. Additional funding does not follow the student for the time they
attend the academies. Both schools are also allocated EIA at-risk funds (fund 338). Anna Boyd
is allocated $30,000 and Blythewood Academy is allocated $27,500 to be spent at their
discretion within the funding guidelines plus one teacher's salary is paid from the at-risk fund at
Blythewood.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-8:
Study equity of funding to programs and develop a formula that ensures consistency of
resources for all students.
District leaders should carefully and objectively examine every program, and identify key
components and their related costs. District leaders should then allocate a baseline budget that is
sufficient and cost effective, and ensures that students in all programs have equitable resources
supporting their education.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. The implementation of this
recommendation will in all probability require a re-allocation of current resources and an
examination of the fee schedule as recommended in Chapter 4.
FINDING
Many Richland Two administrators are actively involved in state organizations. This
participation enables district leaders to network with leaders from other districts and the state.
Participation also enables them to learn about promising programs or practices they might bring
back to Richland Two as well as brainstorm solutions to common issues together with peers.

Such activism raises awareness across the state of exemplary practices and leaders within
Richland Two.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for encouraging its administrators to be active in professional

organizations.
FINDING
Schools in Richland Two have many positions that do not provide direct instruction. They also
exceed AdvancED staffing and/or peer district guidelines in several areas. The district could
also gain economies of scale by centralizing some current school-based positions such as
Homebound. There are two homebound staff located in two high schools each with
responsibility to oversee that program along with one of the curriculum coordinators. Typically
in districts, these functions are conducted by staff at the central office.
Exhibit 3-4 shows a comparison of Richland Two staffing levels for selected school positions.
Exhibit 3-4
Richland Two School Secondary Counselors Staffing Compared to
AdvancED Recommended School Administrative Staffing Guidelines
2010-11 School Year
Number of
Career Counselors
Student* Development Recommended
School Enrollment Counselors Facilitators Total by AdvancED Difference
Middle Schools
Blythewood Middle School 1,085 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 -1.5
Dent Middle School 1,271 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 -2.0
Kelly Mill Middle School 1,041 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.5 -1.5
Longleaf Middle School 587 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 -1.5
Summit Parkway Middle School 884 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 -2.0
E.L. Wright Middle School 998 3.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 -3.0
SUBTOTAL 5,866** 17.0 8.0 25.0 13.5 -11.5
High Schools
Blythewood High School 2,061 5.0 2.0 7.0 6.0 -1.0
Richland Northeast High School 1,423 5.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 -4.0
Ridge View High School 1,976 6.0 2.0 8.0 5.0 -3.0
Spring Valley High School 2,012 5.0 2.0 7.0 6.0 -1.0
SUBTOTAL 7,472** 21.0 20.0 29.0 20.0 -9.0
TOTAL 24,898** 38.0 28.0 54.0 33.5 -20.5
Source: Created by Evergreen from Richland Two data, 2011.
* February 9, 2011 Count.
** Numbers vary since special schools are excluded from this exhibit.
All four Richland Two high schools, all six middle schools, and 12 of the elementary schools
have dedicated health room aides, in addition to full-time nurses. Only two peer districts have
health room aides.

There is an array of counselors providing services to Richland Two secondary students. Richland
Two employs five Career Information Specialists at the high schools whose responsibilities
appear to be similar to those of Career Development Facilitators funded by the State. The Career
Information Specialists are locally funded to provide juniors and seniors information on college
preparation, scholarships, financial aid and related workshops. They organize and host
admissions representatives from colleges and take students on college tours. While this is an
excellent service offered to students, it is also a function that could be served by guidance staff.
The Education and Economic Development Act (EEDA) of 2005 appropriated funds for salary
and benefits for middle and high schools so that districts could more closely meet the “300:1
student to counselor ratio required by the EEDA.” Districts are provided the flexibility to move
the funds among their schools to achieve the 300:1 staffing ratio for counselors. The funds were
two-fold:
• they were intended to reduce the ratio; and

• for “career specialists” (CDFs) to provide career services to students.
Richland Two has 19 staff in these positions having used the funds to hire additional staff rather
than toward salaries of guidance counselors to become certified as career specialists to reduce the
ratio to 300:1. Secondary staffing standards for Richland Two are a 300:1 ratio including career
specialists. These standards state that the school “must have at least one person with a bachelors
degree or a counselor certified as career specialist.” According to South Carolina State
Department staff, the district can use a counselor as a CDF as long as they become certified.
Exhibit 3-5 shows the impact of the additional Career Development Facilitator (CDF) positions
on the number of secondary counselors in Richland Two compared to recommendations by
AdvancED. Richland Two has 20.5 FTE more than the recommended AdvancED and its own
staffing standards for secondary counselors.
For all elementary schools, AdvancED standards recommend one media specialist per school
over enrollments of 249 students. In all secondary schools with enrollments below 999,
recommended media staffing is one media specialist per school and, for schools with enrollments
over 1,000, they stipulate that “the school may employ a qualified technology/information
specialist to work in collaboration with the library/media specialist.”
Exhibit 3-6 shows media staffing in Richland Two schools. In most cases, the support staff is identified
as media aides. However, some schools are also staffed with a media secretary or an assistant media
specialist. All Richland Two schools have instructional technology specialists (ITSs) who are not
included in the support staff numbers. Additionally, even though the staffing chart shows a 0.5 ITS being
allocated for small schools, the school organization charts show 1 FTE for that position in each school.
In some cases, it appears that the ITS supervises the computer lab at the school. Where there are two
support positions shown, the organization chart shows an ITS and an ITS/computer lab aide. It was not
clear to Evergreen whether the district considers computer lab aides to be ITS aides or if the two have
different job responsibilities. For purposes of constructing the exhibit, both positions are shown as media
support staff.

Exhibit 3-5
Richland Two School Elementary Counselors Staffing Compared to
AdvancED Recommended School Administrative Staffing Guidelines
2010-11 School Year
Number of
Counselors
Student* Recommended
Elementary Schools Enrollment Counselors by AdvancED Difference
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary School 679 1.0 1.0 0.0
Bookman Road Elementary School 577 1.0 1.0 0.0
Bridge Creek Elementary School 603 1.0 1.0 0.0
L.W. Conder Elementary School 701 2.0 1.0 -1.0
Forest Lake Elementary School 604 3.0 1.0 -2.0
Joseph Keels Elementary School 638 1.0 1.0 0.0
Killian Elementary School 693 1.0 1.0 0.0
Lake Carolina Elementary School 786 1.0 1.5 +0.5
Langford Elementary School 441 1.0 0.5 -0.5
L.B. Nelson Elementary School 524 1.0 1.0 0.0
North Springs Elementary School 759 1.0 1.5 +0.5
Polo Road Elementary School 773 1.0 1.5 +0.5
Pontiac Elementary School 934 2.0 1.5 -0.5
Rice Creek Elementary School 790 1.0 1.5 +0.5
Round Top Elementary School 655 1.0 1.0 0.0
Sandlapper Elementary School 747 1.0 1.0 0.0
Windsor Elementary School 656 1.0 1.0 0.0
TOTAL 11,560** 21.0 19.0 -2.0

Source: Created by Evergreen from Richland Two data, 2011.

Exhibit 3-6
Richland Two School Library Media Staffing Compared to
AdvancED Recommended School Staffing Guidelines
2010-11 School Year
Number of
Media
Media Total Specialists Media Media Support
Student* Media Support Media Recommended Specialists Staff Over
School Enrollment Specialists Staff Staff by AdvancED Difference Recommendation
Elementary Schools
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
School 679 0.0
Bookman Road Elementary 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
School 577 0.0
Bridge Creek Elementary School 603 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
L.W. Conder Elementary School 701 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 -1.0 1.0
Forest Lake Elementary School 604 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 -2.0 1.0
Joseph Keels Elementary School 638 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Killian Elementary School 693 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Lake Carolina Elementary School 786 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Langford Elementary School 441 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
L.B. Nelson Elementary School 524 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
North Springs Elementary School 759 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Polo Road Elementary School 773 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
Pontiac Elementary School 934 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 -1.0 2.0
Rice Creek Elementary School 790 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Round Top Elementary School 655 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Sandlapper Elementary School 747 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0
Windsor Elementary School 656 ***1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
SUBTOTAL 11,560** 21.0 24.0 45.0 17.0 -4.0 24.0
Middle Schools
Blythewood Middle School 1,085 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Dent Middle School 1,271 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Kelly Mill Middle School 1,041 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Longleaf Middle School 587 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Summit Parkway Middle School 884 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0
E.L. Wright Middle School 998 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0
SUBTOTAL 5,866** 6.0 5.0 17.0 6.0 0.0 -2.0
High Schools
Blythewood High School 2,061 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0
2.0 4.0 6.0
Richland Northeast High School 1,423 1.0 -1.0 -3.0
Ridge View High School 1,976 2.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 -1.0 -2.0
Spring Valley High School 2,012 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 -1.0 -1.0
SUBTOTAL 7,472** 15.0 8.0 19.0 4.0 -4.0 -7.0
TOTAL 24,898** 42.0 37.0 81.0 27.0 -8.0 -33.0
Source: Created by Evergreen from Richland Two data, 2011
***The number of counselors at Windsor differs from the school organization chart and the salary schedule provided Evergreen-this
one reflects the salary schedule number at Spring Valley also has a media temporary position.

Exhibit 3-5 shows that staffing of counselors at the elementary level should be re-apportioned
and exceeds recommended staffing by two guidance counselors.
Also, two high schools, Richland North East and Spring Valley each has a Public Relations
position. While they may consider them necessary to promote their magnet programs, the
district has a staff whose sole responsibility is public relations and those responsibilities should
be assumed centrally. Similarly, the responsibilities of the homebound coordinators should be
centralized as well.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 3-9:
Reduce Richland Two school staffing positions to levels closer to those recommended by
AdvancED and/or in line with peer district staffing, and centralize some school-based
functions.
This recommendation should also include a review of staffing on an annual basis. This would
ensure that school staffs do not grow without oversight and accountability and that staffing is
targeted toward district goals and priorities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The savings accrued through implementation of this recommendation are figured as follows:
• The average salary of a guidance counselor is $72,819 including benefits.
• The average salary of a career development facilitator is $54,354 including benefits. The
combined salaries of the 19 CDFs including benefits of 33 percent are $860,418 that
could have been used to offset general revenue costs.
• The average salary of a career information specialist is $54,354 including benefits. The
combined salaries of the five career information specialists including benefits of 33
percent are $271,770 that could also be used to offset general revenue costs.
• The average salary of a media specialist is $69,877 including benefits.
• The average salary of an aide is $36,352 including benefits.
• The average salary of a teacher is $62,594 including benefits.
• The annual costs to the district of the homebound planner and coordinator are $62,594
per position based on an average teacher’s salary and benefits.
The CDF positions should be phased out as counselors receive their certification. It is estimated
that this can be done by five per year beginning in 2013-14 and would be completed by 2016-17.

Homebound coordination should be moved to the central office and assigned to an individual
there for coordination by one person across the district.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate the Two
Out-Placed $125,188 $125,188 $125,188 $125,188 $125,188
Homebound Positions
Reduce Guidance
$182,048 $182,048 $182,048 $182,048 $182,048
Counselors By 3.5
Eliminate 19 CDF
Positions as Guidance
$0 $0 $215,105 $430,209 $860,418
Counselors Become
Certified
Reduce Eight (8)
Media Specialist $0 $0 $139,754 $279,508 $559,016
Positions
Eliminate 33 Media
$1,199,616 $1,199,616 $1,199,616 $1,199,616 $1,199,616
Support Positions
Eliminate 22 Health
$799,744 $799,744 $799,744 $799,744 $799,744
Room Aide Positions
Eliminate Five (5)
Career Information $271,770 $271,770 $271,770 $271,770 $271,770
Specialist Positions
Eliminate the Two (2)
PR Positions In the $125,188 $125,188 $125,188 $125,188 $125,188
High Schools
TOTAL SAVINGS $2,703,554 $2,703,554 $3,058,413 $3,413,271 $4,122,988
FINDING
Disparity exists regarding length of contract and job responsibilities of numerous positions in the
district. Some magnet lead teachers have 215 day contracts and others have 225 day contracts;
some are full-time lead teachers while others teach classes most in their magnets, but some are in
general education. Similar inconsistencies exist between the two individuals responsible for the
Early Childhood Programs. Some stated that they had a choice of contract length while others
said they were told how long it would be.
RECOMMENDATION
Standardize contracts and job responsibilities across the district for instructional positions
with the same job descriptions.

Implementing this recommendation would heighten consistency among programs in leadership

roles and minimize potential morale issues with staff with the same responsibilities but varying
contracts.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can likely be accomplished with existing resources.
3.2 INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Successful school districts have established guidelines and expectations that underlie a sound,
challenging curriculum designed to foster the success of every student. These expectations
extend beyond state standards, providing enrichment and remediation opportunities for students
based upon their individual needs. Regularly collected and analyzed data guide ongoing
curriculum and programmatic decisions. Grounded in research-based strategies, curricular
documents and processes define and buttress the realization of clear learning goals.
Curricula encompasses relationships among goals, specific learning objectives, instructional

activities, and student assessments. Curricula identify a scope and sequence in which
information, skills, and concepts are taught and reinforced through the years to inculcate learning
into student knowledge base. Effective curriculum guides also build in assessments and periodic
monitoring of both student achievement and the effectiveness of the documents themselves.
Materials can then be identified and purchased that assist in teaching concepts and knowledge
not addressed in curricular resources and that provide for student remediation and enrichment.
It is important that successful school districts begin with clearly defining the written, taught and
tested curricula. However, this is only the beginning. There must also be targeted focus on the
importance of instruction. Teachers must be the masters of instruction and the effective delivery
of clearly-defined curricula. Teachers, and the instructional leaders at the central office and
school levels, must have thoughtfully conceived, delivered and supported professional
development in order to deliver quality instruction that helps meet the needs of each student in
the district.
Successful schools pay particular attention to the curriculum that is provided for their student
population, but how the curriculum content is delivered to students is also highly significant.
Over the past three or four decades, educational research has given much guidance into the art of
teaching and instructional delivery. Schools cannot provide one-on-one tutoring for every
student. Therefore, it is important that districts expect teachers to implement those research-
based effective teaching practices that promote learning and enable students to achieve. There
are established teaching behaviors that support and reinforce learning. Effective school districts
have a plan for delivering instruction that is central to every classroom.
To accomplish effective program planning, decisions that impact the education service delivery
in the district and its resource allocation must be based on comprehensive data analyses that
direct systematic planning for curriculum and instructional delivery. For example, effective
planning of education programs must consider the specific needs of the students served by the

school district and the multiple resources available to meet student needs. Best practices
demonstrate that effective schools use numerical and informational data to make instructional
decisions to identify gaps in the curriculum.
By constantly analyzing data from multiple sources and using various levels of disaggregation,
educators determine courses of action that are likely to lead to improved student achievement.
Thus, systematic disaggregation of data provides a baseline by which progress is regularly
measured. State test data are not analyzed in isolation, but in conjunction with student classroom
assessments. Schools also analyze data both vertically and horizontally, often even within school
feeder patterns to problem-solve long-term solutions.
FINDING
Richland Two student performance was above the average of peer districts at all grade levels and
in both English/Language Arts and Math on the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test in 2007-
08 as shown in Exhibit 3-7. Exhibit 3-8 shows similar performance above peers on the High
School Assessment Program.
Exhibit 3-7
Richland Two and Peer District Results
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test - Percent of Students Basic or Above
2007-08 School Year
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

School District
Math Eng/LA Math Eng/LA Math Eng/LA Sci SS Sci SS Sci SS
Richland Two 79 89 81 82 80 82 61 84 78 68 72 76
Beaufort 74 83 74 78 77 77 53 76 65 52 59 71
Berkeley 77 88 80 82 78 77 60 86 72 57 64 71
Dorchester Two 84 92 82 88 81 85 66 87 79 64 72 78
Richland One 64 85 68 78 66 70 43 71 63 47 52 61
Rock Hill (York
Three) 80 87 81 82 81 80 59 81 74 60 67 74
Average 76.3 87.3 77.7 81.7 77.2 78.5 47.0 80.8 71.8 58.0 64.3 71.8
Source: SC Department of Education, 2011.
Exhibit 3-8
Richland Two and Peer District Results
High School Assessment Program - Percent of Students Meeting Standards
2007-08 School Year
School District Math Eng/LA

Richland Two 90 93
Beaufort 79 85
Berkeley 86 88
Dorchester Two 89 91
Richland One 73 83
Rock Hill (York Three) 84 89
State Average 85 88
Peer Average 83.5 88.2
Source: SC Department of Education, 2011.

COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for consistent high percentages of students meeting or

exceeding standards across all grades in Math and English/Language Arts.
FINDING
District administrators are, in many ways, modeling the use of technology for instruction and
assessment. Several staff interviewed provided multiple examples of the use of technology in
training and coaching activities with teachers. Curriculum coordinators and the Executive
Director of Curriculum and Professional Development incorporate technology training into
meetings with school and district staff. Coaches have flip video cameras for capturing lessons
and posting them, using these lessons as feedback for teachers, and as communication vehicles
with principals. They are encouraging the use of Edmodo⎯a social network for teachers and
students to infuse technology into lessons and communications among professionals. District
leaders are also using Google Docs for creating and sharing work online.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for “walking the talk” in integrating technology into district
meetings and communications.
FINDING
The Richland Two ALERT and fine arts programs offer truly enriching experiences for students.
Richland Two’s approach to meeting the needs of gifted and talented students is innovative in
the experiences it provides eligible students. The program is comprehensive in its approach to
students, teachers, parents, and the community.
A strong gifted foundation brings in between $25,000 and $30,000 per year for the program.
The foundation provided $600 to each teacher earlier this school year. The program uses
ongoing monitoring and accountability in a collegial fashion to oversee instruction. The Senior
Research Associate meets weekly with teachers after hours to discuss what went well during the
past week and needs for the future, planning a path for the following week’s work. Having done
that, she visits classrooms to see where teachers need additional assistance and to check for the
alignment of activities with what they had discussed in meetings. The Associate personally
selects teachers for the programs and assigns them to schools according to school need and
teacher strengths.
Parent symposia take place every other month to ensure that parents are well-informed of their
children’s activities and progress. Parents choose topics to be discussed. Symposia rotate among
Richland Two schools, regardless of ALERT enrollment, giving each school a chance to be
showcased and parents the opportunity to learn about schools in Richland Two.

Community representatives are deeply involved in student projects so that students can make
“dynamic connections with the community,” and so that developing student talent is a real-world
learning experience. For instance, when students do an architectural unit, top local architects
come in and design with the students. Students have worked with professors from the Citadel
and attended special classes at a museum in Charleston. A note from the President of the Citadel
reports that the professors have learned from their experiences with Richland Two students.
Similarly, the Fine Arts Program in the same office offers opportunities for teachers and students
beyond the boundaries of Richland Two. Fund-raising enabled dance teachers to visit Russia.
Rising sixth through ninth grade students nominated by their teachers audition for a three-district
summer arts program. Students are exposed to nationally renowned Broadway performers.
Additionally, the Fine Arts Program informally recruits Richland Two students to programs,
such as orchestra and chorus, through exposure to performances by high school and university
ensembles.
Administrators have made a concerted effort to reach students who qualify at all schools,
regardless of numbers. With limited staff and small numbers of students at some elementary
schools, Champion Schools were created several years ago to meet the enrichment needs for
students in such schools.
A document provided by the district shows that, even though all students are administered the
same battery of tests and those with qualifying scores are placed in ALERT, at most schools, the
enrollment in the program mirrors that of the school population as a whole. Exhibit 3-9 shows
the percent of students by ethnicity and free/reduced lunch eligibility for all students and in the
ALERT Program.
Exhibit 3-9
Ethnicity and Free/Reduced Percents
ALERT Champion Schools Students and School Populations
Percent of Students by Ethnicity Grades 2-5

African- Percent
Location American White Other Free/Reduced
Conder ALERT 79.2% 4.2% 16.7% 62.5%
Conder All Students 74.1% 4.8% 21.0% 80.8%
Keels ALERT 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 81.8%
Keels All Students 91.6% 3.8% 4.6% 81.8%
Killian ALERT 85.3% 2.9% 11.8% 61.8%
Killian ALL Students 84.0% 7.5% 8.4% 66.5%
Windsor ALERT 42.9% 50.0% 7.1% 50.0%
Windsor All Students 66.8% 13.7% 19.5% 71.1%
District ALERT 30.4% 55.6% 14.0% 19.1%
District All Students 57.8% 29.1% 13.1% 46.7%
Source: Richland Two Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability, 2011.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for the depth and breadth of enriching learning experiences
for its gifted and talented students.

FINDING
In conversations throughout the on-site visit, Evergreen heard of very few systematic efforts to
identify effective practices or recognize them in ways that promote replication. Principals
reported that sometimes effective practices are shared at school meetings. However, this is not a
systematic practice across the district. Several staff noted the need to be more intentional about
sharing exemplary practices that take place in every school every day. One example of a lost
opportunity is that data provided to Evergreen about Advanced Placement (AP) success of
Richland Two students in 2007 and 2010 shows that consistently a higher percentage (15-20% or
more) of Spring Valley’s students score three (3) or higher on AP tests than students in other
high schools. However, when asked if their strategies had been shared with other principals,
Evergreen was informed that successful strategies had not been shared.
There are exceptional principals in Richland Two analyzing data, serving as strong instructional
leaders and coaches for their teachers, and taking the initiative to innovate and push the envelope
of traditional expectations. Many school administrators are likely stimulating positive change as
well as using effective practices that others could benefit from. Similarly, in each school there
are likely strong teacher-leaders whose students, regardless of their abilities or needs, make
academic strides each and every year. Their ability to teach the same students from the same
backgrounds as other students throughout Richland Two should be examined and used as a
means of promoting similar instructional approaches among teachers in other Richland Two
schools.
The purposeful collection and dissemination of best practices taking place is a hallmark of
effective schools. Districts often create symposia in which their own teachers and instructional
leaders have the opportunity to interact with and present to their peers across their school district.
In this way, districts develop and market their own talents, further building skills and knowledge
among presenters and infusing effective ideas in other schools. The practice is also a low-cost
way to foster innovation and convey the message that risk-taking is acceptable when results are
documented, analyzed, and replicated.
A closer look at the effective schools research can also be used to frame or build a foundation for
improved instruction. Drs. Larry Lezotte, Ron Edmonds, and Wilbur Brookover⎯researchers
from Michigan State University⎯began research on effective schools in the 1960s. Their work
has been characterized as simply observing schools that are successful, where student
achievement is high, then finding out how they make it happen. The strongest findings, known
as Correlates of Effectiveness, came from successful schools located in areas of high crime and
poverty, marginal facilities and resources, and with ethnic and culturally deprived student
populations. Over time, the terms describing effective schools correlates have changed but the
basic concepts still stand true.
Effective schools are characterized as follows:
• safe positive environment;

• strong instructional leadership;
• clearly aligned curriculum maximizing student learning time;
• positive home, school, community communication;

• frequent monitoring of student progress;

• clearly stated, focused mission; and
• high expectations for all students.
This decades-long robust research should be used as guiding tenets in developing a districtwide
plan for instruction and identifying best practices in schools for duplication.
RECOMMENDATION
Identify and replicate those successful processes, procedures, and practices where
standards-driven curriculum is operationalized and student performance is improving.
This can be done as simply and informally as school representatives sharing ideas during
regularly scheduled meetings. Those who are open to innovation will hear about a new idea they
can use to improve things in their own schools. Replication of best practices can be
incorporated into regularly scheduled professional development training, news publications, staff
meetings, administrative meetings and web-based information. When practiced more regularly,
program evaluations could also form a basis for discussion and learning. If an evaluation reveals
a higher degree of implementation and greater success rate, how program goals were
accomplished should be investigated and actions replicated.
FISCAL IMPACT
3.2.1 Early Childhood Education
The two Early Childhood Programs in Richland Two are both characterized by strong,
committed leadership and highly qualified teachers with early childhood certification, many
masters’ degrees, and a number of National Board Certified teachers. Both leaders reported that
there is a very low turnover rate of staff with many assistants having remained in the program for
as many as 32 years.
Technology is integrated into lessons, morning messages, and leadership activities. Smart
Boards are, in one person’s words, “command centers” for student activities.
For over 40 years, Richland Two has had an Early Childhood Program in its schools. The
program has grown with expansion from centers into schools as well. One of the programs,
Spears Creek, mirrors the district’s focus on magnets, serving as a Montessori Preschool
Program on an elementary school campus where students can then matriculate directly into a
magnet Montessori Program.

COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its recognition of the important role early childhood
education plays in student success with its foundational Early Childhood Programs.
FINDING
There are a number of differences in the two Richland Two Early Childhood Programs, causing
disparity for students and staff in a number of ways. Both programs have centers as well as
classes in schools around the district. However, the early childhood programs are divided along
distinct financial lines among families. One program⎯Spears Creek⎯is fee-based and on a
first-come-first-serve basis, so is largely comprised of students whose parents are economically
strong. Its waiting list is estimated to be between 40 and 50 students. There is no attempt at
addressing diversity of students in this program because of its first-come-first-served enrollment
basis. Since Spears Creek is housed on a school campus with a ready feeder channel, there is
articulation between center and kindergarten teachers. Additionally, since teachers are in
elementary schools, there are reported to be transitional activities for the students before they
reach kindergarten. Both programs are strong and are recognized as exemplary early childhood
programs in the state.
The other program, Clemson Road, is funded with Title I dollars and has an estimated waiting
list of 300-400 students because of its need-based eligibility criterion. Since the funding source
is Title I, the program ranks the students who have applied beginning with those most in need of
early childhood experiences. District staff noted that an element of segregation is evident among
the student body in each that results from the difference in funding sources and related
requirements. Interviewees report little articulation between teachers at Clemson Road and those
in the kindergartens to which its students move.
The two programs operate essentially independently. Due to its fee basis, Spears Creek has
achieved and held the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC)
rigorous accreditation since 1987. This certification requires that new staff in that program must
have at least a Child Development associate’s degree. Staffing ratios, too, must be 10: 1.
Complying with Title I rules challenge Clemson Road’s ability to seek NAEYC accreditation.
Clemson Road staffing ratios differ from Spears Creek. At the sites, they have a staffing ratio of
1:10, but the small portables at the center reduce the ratio to 1:7.5 since the rooms are small.
Benefits that Clemson Road derives from its Title I status include parent educators who meet
monthly with parents to build their skills and knowledge, and educate them as their children are
being educated. This enables staff to develop personal relationships with families and teach
family members about child development to work together as partners. Title I funding has also
enabled the staff as a whole to receive extensive training in Conscious Discipline⎯a brain-based
program that integrates classroom management with social-emotional learning. Since those
dollars are not available to Spears Creek, its teachers do not have access to such intensive
training. Conversely, though, Spears Creek has a foundation to supplement its program whereas
Clemson Road does not.

Since Spears Creek is fee-based, its students have the opportunity to participate in an after-
school program that is part of Spears Creek’s fees. After-school extended learning and care are
not available to students and families in Clemson Road’s program. The program’s fee-based
enrollment makes its budget readily available at the beginning of the school year. However, with
the Title I fiscal year beginning in October, without a true set-aside, Clemson Road does not
always benefit from an early full budget in place annually.
Even though the two directors have the same responsibilities, their contract lengths are different
with one working 215 days and the other 225. The district’s Special Education Department has
provided an aide for an inclusion class at Pontiac Elementary for Clemson Road’s program.
Spears Creek does take children who already have IEPs if they are a part of the initial enrollment
application. Inclusion of special education students is not necessarily a hallmark of the program.
Richland Two might look to Clarke County, Virginia, as a model to emulate regarding inclusion.
This Virginia school division is fully committed to inclusion in preschool by including students
who are neither at-risk or special needs students, but are admitted to classes as reverse
mainstream students. They are students who are developing appropriately, but are included in the
class as role models for the special needs students and are often assigned a buddy with whom to
pair, as much as possible by age. This early integration of special needs and other students
epitomizes the intent of federal legislation with its emphasis on inclusion, and promises to create
an early understanding among all students of individual strengths and needs rather than abilities
and disabilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Begin a transition process to merge the two Early Childhood Programs into one.
The disparities in resources and restrictions between the two programs present multiple barriers
to equitable and consistent early childhood experiences for Richland Two students who attend.
Implementing this recommendation would overcome many of the barriers. It would more
effectively integrate students from diverse socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds during their
early years as they will be in school and in the world around them. A merger would also give
children the benefits of the same teacher: student attention and Title I funds would enable staff
who do not currently have access to extensive training more professional growth opportunities.
In the same way, curriculum and transition processes would be more unified for all students in a
single program. The first step the district should take would be for leaders to meet and weigh the
pros and cons, then develop a plan to integrate the two programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. There will likely be
opportunity for staff reduction with a merged program. However, instead of reducing staff,
Evergreen recommends that, with such a lengthy waiting list, the program be expanded with
those staff.

3.2.2 Magnet Programs
In education in the United States, magnet schools are public schools with specialized courses or
curricula. "Magnet" refers to how schools draw students from across the normal boundaries
defined by authorities (usually school boards) as school zones that feed into certain schools.
They can either be whole school programs or school-within-a-school programs operating
separately but as a part of an existing school.
Magnet programs emerged in the United States in the 1960s as one means of remedying racial
segregation in public schools. They became part of federal law in Sec. 5301 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Authorization (see http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg65.html).
Admission to magnet programs can be through a competitive entrance process, requiring an
entrance examination, interview, or audition while in others selection is through application, a
lottery system, or a combination of competitive entrance and a lottery.
Most magnet schools concentrate on a particular discipline or area of study, while others (such as
the International Baccalaureate schools Richland Two is initiating) have a more general focus.
Magnet programs may focus on academics or technical/vocational/agricultural education. They
are geared toward the full range of students from those excelling in arts or academics to those
who are struggling. They draw students based on their interests by offering specialized curricula
and opportunities to succeed in a diverse learning environment
FINDING
Richland Two has developed a plethora of magnet and choice programs that appeal to an array of
student interests. Parents, community members, and staff expressed pride in the opportunities
these programs offer students.
Like many districts across the nation, the original intent was to create racial and socioeconomic
balance in a district in which the student population was rapidly growing and diversifying. The
program has grown from one middle school program in the early 1990s to 31 programs today in
which 39 percent of students participate. District leadership expects clear, focused plans for
implementation and congruence with the intent of the program. Thirteen (13) of the magnet and
choice programs have developed extensive strategic plans toward that end reflecting the
commitment of the Director to continuous improvement and accountability.
All students are able to enroll in programs that allow them to pursue individual interests via
hands-on learning and research. Programs include partnerships with colleges, state departments,
corporations, and even the Riverbanks Zoo. They serve struggling students, artistically gifted
students, those with specific interests (such as leadership, business, or zoology), as well as highly
academically able students. Magnets are located on 22 of the district’s 35 schools and centers.
Last year, honors high school magnet students received an average of $737,975 in college
scholarship awards. Two Richland Two magnet staff have been selected as the Principal of the
Year and Teacher of the Year in Region XI comprised of Kentucky, North and South Carolina,
and Tennessee. They now move forward for national competition.

COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for offering students an array of educational opportunities geared
toward their abilities and interests in its magnet programs.
FINDING
Barriers stand in the way of magnet and choice programs being even stronger than they currently
are. Essentially, the district’s approach to magnets is imbued with inconsistent practices
regarding budget, access to related arts, and job responsibilities for lead teachers. While magnet
and choice programs have emphasized thematic, high interest learning, they may have distracted
the district from focusing more concertedly on ensuring that exemplary teaching and learning are
taking place in all classrooms in all schools⎯magnet/choice and non-magnet/choice alike. The
tenet that each school, magnet, or choice program must be completely unique has infringed on
the ability of students in all parts of the district from benefiting from effective courses and
programs.
As stated in Recommendation 3-8 of this chapter, budgetary and staffing issues present the
following challenges and variations to magnet and choice programs:
• program budgets vary based on a number of factors; and
• students in magnet programs are charged a $25 fee, but those in choice programs are not,
contributing to inequity among programs with the same foundational goals.
Challenges Evergreen consultants identified during the site visit include:
• Some schools have schools-within-schools that actually compete with each other for
students.
• Magnet program themes are not necessarily tied together across feeder patterns of
schools.
• A lack of authority has been exercised at the district level to insist on school-based
activities because of the strength of site-based management.
• Originally, magnets had planning years and funding for program initiation; however,
since then some programs were put in place with little time for effective planning and no
funds for inception. In fact, some schools were given only 24 hours to decide on a theme.
• There is no district-level magnet budget to support or enhance programs.
• Magnet leaders are hampered by the extent to which a principal embraces and is
knowledgeable of his/her magnet program(s).

• There is no systematic, districtwide evaluation program of the effectiveness of magnet

programs.
Several district practices regarding magnet programs deter collaboration and prevent students
wherever they are from exposure to enriching learning experiences. Many staff noted that there
is an aura of competitiveness rather than sharing and collaboration. The district’s long-standing
requirement that each school’s magnet program must be its “brand” alone prevents more students
from benefiting from effective programs and enriching courses offered in only one district
school. Latin is offered as a part of a magnet in one school. When another school requested the
ability to offer it to its students, the request was denied to maintain the uniqueness of the magnet
program at the one school, thus preventing more students from learning Latin, the foundation of
many of the world’s languages. Many individuals, including parents, speculated about the
wisdom of only offering a program in one part of the district, especially since parent
transportation to magnets is a requirement for attendance.
Parents in a focus group expressed pride in the variety of programs Richland Two offers
students. They also opined that, at this point, the district should stop expanding programs and
concentrate on maintaining and improving current ones. One parent of a fourth grade student
gave as an example that she was already examining middle school choices for her child even
though she will not have to commit for well over a year.
Magnet lead teachers spend much time outside the school day providing opportunities for
students in their programs. Originally, they received a supplement for the additional time
involved in program administration. When National Board Certification (NBC) began, several
pursued that professional growth opportunity. However, once they were awarded the NBC,
some were told they could either receive the lead teacher supplement or the NBC supplement the
district offers. Since the NBC supplement is larger, they opted for it. This leaves them, though,
in the position of having no additional compensation for their work as lead teachers as other
leads do. They could, in fact, return to the classroom, theoretically spend less time working, and
continue to receive the NBC supplement. Still others apparently receive both. As with child
development leaders, some magnet lead teachers have 215 day contracts while others work for
225 days.
Students in some school-within-school magnet programs have the benefit of instruction by

related arts teachers at their schools while centers must provide their own with limited resources.
This variability of staffing support creates inequities in programming for students.
Many comments reflected a belief that most magnet programs are effective and benefit the
students they serve. Nonetheless, requiring principals and lead teachers to initiate new programs,
that often require curricular and supplemental materials beyond those the district provides
without start-up funds, prevents them from creating a strong foundation upon which to build.
This action likely takes longer for them to build a robust program. That, in turn, prevents
students from participating in the full enrichment intended with program inception.
The Office of Academic Initiatives, responsible for magnet programs, does not have a budget to
support the 31 magnet programs in any way. Although students are assessed fees for
participation and are supposed to be either exempt or charged a discounted rate depending on

their eligibility for free/reduced lunches, there is no set districtwide source of scholarship funds
for students who wish to attend a magnet and are close to eligibility, but still strapped to pay the
fees, especially those with fees higher than $25 for required materials.
Discussion with magnet lead teachers revealed that they all believe their programs are evaluated.
However, as mentioned in Recommendation 3-7, evidence suggests there are few formalized
evaluations of magnet programs. This is particularly concerning since several district
administrators expressed concern over falling student performance in some programs. As stated
before, the variability of the programs presents evaluation and accountability challenges. They
also compel a systematic, ongoing need for evaluation to ensure that all programs are indeed as
strong as the public and district perception that exists.
RECOMMENDATION
Establish a task force to delve deeply into consistency of policies and practices regarding
magnet programs and make indicated changes.
The number of programs and variety of inconsistencies evident from one program to the next
raises a clarion call for a careful examination of all factors impacting district magnet and choice
programs. Too many students and staff are involved for the district not to address the need for
greater consistency across Richland Two’s 31 programs. Part of the review should also include
an analysis of staffing across all district programs. Setting a districtwide magnet budget rather
than depending on the myriad of funding sources that currently provide magnet curricular and
instructional materials, student enrichment experiences, and even staffing would ensure a
baseline funding and staffing level for all programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
An estimated minimum allocation for each program from the district level is $5,000 per
program⎯$4,000 of that should be for magnet specific materials and professional development
related to individual programs. Economies of scale could likely be achieved by offering training
with similar goals to staffs with similar needs. Some should be allocated for district-level
needs⎯such as the magnet fair and related expenses, magnet association fees, and
scholarships⎯if the district continues its fee schedule without amendment.
For the current 31 programs, this equates to an annual allocation of $155,000. The entire
amount, however, would not be new funds, but a re-allocation of some existing resources to the
district office which could be phased in over several years to equalize resources to all programs.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Develop a Magnet
($25,000) ($50,000) ($85,000) ($120,000) ($155,000)
School Budget

FINDING
The requirement that parents must transport their children to magnet and alternative programs
may be defeating the original intent of creating equitable access to programs for all students.
Some parents report they transport three different children to magnet programs in three separate
locations. This causes challenges for them in getting all of their children to school on time. It
also raises the question of what parents do who are not able to afford the gas to transport their
children to separate schools for the programs.
The district makes some provisions for parents of limited means to waive magnet and other fees,
but the transportation dilemma will only increase for those families as gas prices increase. There
are no data available to analyze the number of families whose children do not even enroll in
magnet programs that are not in their home schools because of the transportation issue.
Assuredly, though, children with parents whose work schedules or financial resources are limited
often do not consider programs that are not easily accessible for them. Similarly, parents who
are required to transport their children to alternative programs may face similar barriers to their
children’s educational continuity.
RECOMMENDATION
Expand magnet applications and alternative education assignment processes to collect data
on transportation barriers to student access to programs.
Once those data are collected, Richland Two should use them to examine the number of families
affected. The district should then develop procedures to ensure that transportation is not an
impediment to either magnet programs or continued education at alternative schools.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources.
3.3 SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special education provides supplemental or extended support for students and their families and
enhances student performance and academic achievement. Special education is provided to
supplement, accommodate, or modify the general academic course of study, and is intended to
provide adequate support to ensure the academic success of students with disabilities. The
student support role is to provide supplemental or extended support for students and their
families that contribute to enhanced student performance and academic achievement.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997) mandates that special education
services be provided to students with disabilities in the general education setting to the greatest
extent possible. NCLB reinforces that goal with its express expectation that all students will be
proficient by 2013-14. Toward that end, for years many districts have provided training and

encouragement to help regular classroom teachers learn how to accommodate the needs of
special education students in their classes.
FINDING
The organizational chart for the Richland Two Special Education Department shows many
positions that peer districts do not have. Exhibit 3-10 shows the organizational structure of the
Special Services Department. Exhibit 3-10 shows that the Executive Director for Special
Services has seven direct reports:
• a Director of Psychological Services;

• a Lead Social Worker;
• a Lead Nurse;
• a Curriculum Coordinator;
• a Compliance Officer;
• an Office Manager; and
• a part-time retired School Coordinator.
An additional eight staff members report to the Director of Psychological Services. Two of the
positions under her supervision, the Intervention Program Coordinator and her administrative
assistant, are not located at the central office, but at nearby Richland North East High School.
The positions the Director supervises include:
• a Medicaid Secretary;
• a Secretary;
• a Data Information Specialist;
• an Administrative Assistant;
• a Bookkeeper;
• a Due Process Assistant; and
• an Intervention Program Coordinator.
Exhibit 3-11 shows a comparison of Richland Two Special Education staff with those in peer
districts.
One of the coordinators in Richland Two is a Curriculum Coordinator. The 0.4 FTE is a part-
time retired School Coordinator. Another coordinator oversees the Intervention Program. The
other four FTE are specifically psychology coordinators who oversee the district’s psychology
interns and meet with psychologists under them. They have extended contracts and receive
supplements for the coordinator roles. At this point, Richland Two does not have a staff member
acting as a School Coordinator. Only one of the peer districts has a Compliance Officer.

Exhibit 3-10
Current Organizational Chart for Richland Two
Department of Special Services
Chief
Academic Officer
Executive Director
Special Services
Office Manager
Director of
Curriculum Lead Social Compliance
Psychological Lead Nurse
Coordinator Worker Officer
Services
Medicaid
Secretary Social Worker
Secretary
Data Info Administrative

Specialist Assistant
Due Process
Bookkeeper Assistant
Intervention
Program
Project Care
Coordinator
Administrative
Assistant
Source: Richland Two Office of the Superintendent, 2011.

Exhibit 3-11
Comparison of Central Special Education Administrative Staff
Richland Two and Peer School Districts
2010-11 School Year
Lead
Executive Teacher/Social Lead/Director Autism Compliance District
District Director Worker/Nurse Psychologist Coordinators Manager Officer Totals
Richland Two 1 2 1 6.4 0 1 11.4
Beaufort 1 0 6 1 0 8
Berkley 1 0 0 7 0 0 8
Rock Hill 1 1 1 0 0 1 4
*Richland One N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Peer Average 1 .3 .3 4.3 .3 .3 6.5
Source: Created by Evergreen from district websites and district organizational charts.
*Received no response from Richland One so averages are figured on other peer districts.
An examination of peer organizational charts shows that, when districts have coordinators, they
are, for the most part, School Coordinators whose roles (according to a comparison of job
descriptions) are far different than those in Richland Two. In Beaufort County, many of the
tasks they are assigned support teachers and schools, facilitate inclusion and transition, assist
with data collection and records, and conduct professional development related to special
education for administrators, teachers, and parents. In contrast, the Richland Two School
Coordinator works two days a week interviewing and coordinating teaching assistants and works
with school staffs when problems with assistants arise.
A conversation with the Beaufort Director of Special Education revealed that, although they have
six coordinators this year, they will be cut by three next year. One of the Berkley County
Coordinators is titled Behavioral Services Coordinator, which is a similar position to Richland
Two’s Intervention Program Coordinator. No other district has a position under the Director at a
higher level than Coordinator or Lead Teacher.
Compared to other districts, Richland Two has fewer dedicated special education school support
positions because of the number of coordinators who work with district psychologists. However,
the district has more coordinators than its peer average and about the same number as those with
coordinators.
Exhibit 3-12 shows a proposed organizational structure for the department that will brings its
staffing more in line with its peer districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed organizational structure for the Richland Two Special Education
Department.

Exhibit 3-12
Proposed Organizational Chart for
Richland Two Department of Student Services
Executive Director of
Student Support
Services
Intervention Program Special Education Special Education

Coordinator Coordinator Curriculum
Coordinator
Staff for:
Staff for: • psychologists
• Safe and Drug Free Schools • homebound
• Guidance
• nurses
• Social Workers
• Hearing Officer
• Intervention
Many districts across the nation have unified divisions that include both special education and
support services. This consolidation makes sense as it places functions that are related in a
single unit, facilitating communications, coordination, planning and implementation of strategies
and programs that offer support to students.
The proposed change will:
• consolidate all support services for students with special needs, whether disability or
academic or behavioral into one department to facilitate coordination, planning, and
communications;
• assign responsibility for homebound oversight and coordination, psychologists and social
workers to the proposed Coordinator of Special Education;
• begin to add positions of School Coordinators to support teaching and learning for special
education students in the district’s schools;
• eliminate the position of Compliance Officer;
• move the hearing officer into the Student Support Services Division in the Intervention
Program (as also noted in Chapters 2 and 5);
• integrate responsibilities for intervention, social workers, guidance, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, and hearings under the Intervention Program Coordinator;

• move the Intervention Program Coordinator to report directly to the proposed Executive
Director of Student Support Services to ensure integration of services for at risk students;
• convert the position of Director of Psychological Services to a Coordinator position;
• move the current leads for social workers and nurses to schools to perform student
support functions full-time;
• eliminate the part-time position whose responsibility it is to work with teacher assistants,
leaving that responsibility in principal’s hands;
• re-direct responsibility for attending court to the social workers in the schools who know
the students best instead of having a central staff member spend much time in court;
• convert the psychology coordinators to school psychologists only; and
• reduce the span of control of the Executive Director.
While the role of the psychology coordinators is understood and appreciated, in these tight
financial times, there is a far more urgent need for special education coordinators to provide
support, training, and technical assistance regarding classroom interventions and
accommodations to special education and general education teachers and administrators in the
schools. The Psychologist Coordinators should be assigned to schools full-time rather than
coordinating and supporting small groups of psychologists. This task needs to be assumed at the
district level.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation will result in the following savings and costs:
• Lead Social Worker, calculated at the supplemental days/salary of $1,785;
• the Lead Nurse receives no supplement, so there will be no cost savings with this change;
• Compliance Officer, figured at $80,524 salary including benefits;
• part-time School Coordinator conservatively calculated at $20,021;
• converting a Director’s position with an average salary and benefits of $125,814 to that
of a Coordinator’s average salary of $106,147 is estimated to save $19,667;
• the difference in the average salary and benefits of a Psychology Coordinator ($75,783)
and a Psychologist ($71,674) will be $4,109. (However, that does not take into account
the fact that two of the coordinators work year-round to conduct evaluations for Early
Childhood and summer referrals, so Evergreen estimates the savings will be negligible);
and

• the cost of replacing three of the four Psychology Coordinators with three School
Coordinators is estimated at the average coordinator salary and benefits of $106,147 x
3=$318,441.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Lead Social
$1,785 $1,785 $1,785 $1,785 $1,785
Worker Supplement
Eliminate Compliance
$80,524 $80,524 $80,524 $80,524 $80,524
Officer
Eliminate the Part-
Time School $20,021 $20,021 $20,021 $20,021 $20,021
Coordinator
Convert Director’s
$19,667 $19,667 $19,667 $19,667 $19,667
Position to Coordinator
Add Three School
($318,441) ($318,441) ($318,441) ($318,441) ($318,441)
Coordinator Positions
TOTAL COSTS ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444)
FINDING
Richland Two maintains the numbers of some student service professionals at ratios
recommended by national associations, but does not in other areas. The National Association of
School Psychologists recommends a ratio of 1:1,000 students. With Richland Two’s 24.8 FTE
psychologists, one Director of Psychology and psychology intern who are on staff, they are
sufficiently staffed for student psychological services for the district’s 24,966 students shown in
the school positions and salaries spreadsheet provided by the district. The National Association
of School Nurses recommends a ratio of one nurse per 750 students. With 28 nurses, the district
is close to the recommended staffing level. It could address the difference by adjusting
assignments and having smaller schools share nurses part of the day or week.
The major area of concern is with social worker staffing. The district has added social workers
rapidly in the past decade. However, with 12 social workers, including the lead social worker,
the district does not approach staffing levels of 1:400 recommended by the American School
Health Association (ASHA). Bringing the number of social workers to recommended numbers
for Richland Two will require an additional 19 social workers.
RECOMMENDATION
Maintain staffing levels for psychologists and nurses, and move toward recommended
staffing levels for school social workers as funds permit.
In these times, students and their families need access to the array of support services that are
provided by all three of these areas of professionals. Richland Two should maintain its level of
staffing in the areas of nursing and psychologists and add a minimum of five social workers each
year until it reaches recommended staffing guidelines. It should also seek ancillary support from

community agencies and ensure that all guidance and intervention personnel are aware of related
community service providers.
FISCAL IMPACT
The average salary of a social worker is $49,183 including benefits. Adding a minimum of five
per year will cost the district an additional $245,915 each year until it reaches recommended
staffing levels in 2015-16 when they will only have to add four social workers to reach 31.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Increase the Number
$0 ($245,915) ($491,830) ($737,745) ($934,477)
of Social Workers
FINDING
Richland Two has made strides in meeting some of the measurements that are reported in the
state Special Education Report. For instance, the 2008-09 report shows that Richland Two did
not meet the state target for the percent of students evaluated within 60 days of parental consent
for initial placement. The state target for this indicator is 100 percent. The measurement includes
all initial psychological and speech evaluations. Under any circumstances, 100 percent is a
challenging goal, especially when one considers that in 2009-10, over 800 of those evaluations
were conducted in Richland Two. In contrast, though, during the 2005-06 school year, 73
percent of Richland Two cases were completed within 60 days. For the 2009-10 school year, the
percent of cases completed within 60 days was 96. According to district sources, the State
Department of Education considers that a district has reached an acceptable level if it is above 95
percent.
The target indicator for students referred and found eligible for Part C/B who do not have
Individual Education Plans (IEPs) developed and implemented by their third birthdays again is
100 percent. During the 2005-06 school year, the district was at only 18 percent on this indicator.
In the 2009-10 school year, the district had 121 Part C/B referrals yet attained 100 percent. Once
again, the State Department of Education will accept 95 percent, although they will give a
noncompliance finding if it is less than 100 percent. To assist in meeting that goal, Richland
Two works closely with Babynet and First Step⎯ the agencies that work with disabled children
from birth to age three to insure a smooth Part C/B transition. They include Child Find in the
beginning of the year information to parents, on Richland Two TV, and have, in the past,
distributed information to local heath care providers and private day cares.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two’s Special Education Department is commended for the progress it has made
in improving progress toward state/federal target indicators for students with disabilities.
FINDING
Inclusion of special education students into general education experiences is not the norm in
Richland Two. There is little to no co-teaching in Richland Two schools and many self-

contained classes for students who do not necessarily have severe disabilities. One staff member
voiced the dichotomy of experiences of Richland Two special education students, “in some
schools, special needs students are immersed in real experiences that every other child enjoys; in
some special education classes, the door never opens and no one visits.”
The state’s special education district profile public report compares state targets set for gauging
the progress of students with disabilities to those at the local level. The 2008-09 profile for
Richland Two shows that, in several areas, Richland Two met or exceeded state targets.
However, Exhibit 3-13 shows that, in two areas relating to students with disabilities being
served in regular classes, Richland Two did not meet state goals.
Exhibit 3-13
State Indicators Relating to Richland Two Inclusion Program
Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:
A. inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; (20 U.S.C. 1416 (e)(3)(A))
Richland Two State Target
42.01% 52.00%
Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:
A. inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and (20 U.S.C. 1416 (e)(3)(A))
Richland Two State Target
21.25% 15.45%
Source: SC DOE Special Education District Profile Public Report, Richland Two, 2011.
As shown in Exhibit 3-14 from the district’s May 2010 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report,
while all other Richland Two students met the federal expectation of AYP, students with
disabilities did not. In the area of the report where the district describes what it is doing to
address the “problem of low achievement,” it reports, and rightly, that students with disabilities
sometimes have difficulty taking tests and that, across the nation, districts experience the same
challenge with those students meeting AYP. It also notes a planned renewed focus on core
curricular areas, especially elementary literacy as well as high school graduation rates, but does
not address any additional initiatives specifically to assist students with disabilities in meeting
expectations. Many districts, in fact, are successful in improving the academic success of these
students. Often immersion in general education classrooms where they are either co-taught by
general and special education teachers together or by general education teachers who have
learned strategies effective with a variety of children leads to that success. Richland Two has not
yet concentrated on such inclusionary strategies for its students with disabilities population.
One of the Special Education Curriculum Coordinator’s responsibilities is to train special

education staff on curricular issues. This position also works with special education teachers on
induction and meets with the other instructional coaches and curriculum coordinators. District
staff reported that special education teachers are encouraged to attend training for general
education staff, but that the reverse is not common practice. In some districts, the Special
Education Department guides child study teams at schools and offers much training as well as
responding to school requests. These teams also conduct training for teachers to equip them to
make modifications and accommodations for students with special needs in their classes. These
special education strategies are equally effective in individualizing instruction for non-identified
students.

Exhibit 3-14
Richland Two State Report
on Least Restrictive Environment
2009-10 School Year
ELA Math
AYP Categories Performance Percent Tested Performance Percent Tested
All Students Met Met Met Met
White Met Met Met Met
African American Met Met Met Met
Asian Met Met Met Met
Hispanic Met Met Met Met
w/Disabilities Not Met Met Not Met Met
Limited English Met Met Met Met
Subsidized Meals Met Met Met Met
Graduation and Attendance Met
Source: Richland Two 2010 Adequate Yearly Progress Report.
Although not universal in Richland Two, several statements related that, in some cases, principal
autonomy extends to decisions about students in special education at their schools. This raises a
question about the extent to which decisions that should be made at the district level, to provide
maximum equity, are made at the school level. Exhibit 3-15 shows a comparison of Richland
Two staff and peer districts regarding their opinion of the quality of special education programs,
reflecting a belief in the ability of the department to ensure equity when authorized to do so.
Exhibit 3-15
Evergreen Survey Results
Effectiveness of Special Education Program
Richland Two and Districts in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Survey Statement Agree/Agree Disagree/Disagree Agree/Agree Disagree/Disagree
The district has effective programs for Special Education.
Administrators 90.00% 2.00% 72.01% 10.89%
Principals 85.19% 10.49% 79.75% 9.36%
Teachers 88.36% 4.97% 68.87% 23.49%
The district has had IAT teams in place for some time to try to address student needs while they
are in general education classes and before referral to special education. A Response To
Intervention (RTI) Grant this year has focused even more strongly on that effort and collecting
student data to document progress. Funds for it, though, are not available beyond this fiscal year.
The fact that it is a relatively new initiative testifies to Richland Two’s not having forcefully and
uniformly addressed prevention and intervention in regular classes as a proactive means of
supporting students and remedying behavioral and academic needs early in their school years.

The federal government is explicit in its goal of 100 percent proficiency for all students by 2013-
14. In other districts where RTI/IAT-type teams are fully utilized and where inclusion is
practiced universally, percentages of students in special education programs have actually
declined. Students are thus served in regular classrooms without the stigma of identification as
“special” and with the benefit of interaction with their peers without disabilities. Evidence
abounds that collaborative teaching benefits all students not just those with special needs. It
further provides all students the opportunity to learn from teachers who have different teaching
styles with one often more likely to reach a child’s learning style than another.
One specific Virginia example of the positive impact on students is Clarke County, which has
practiced inclusion since 1999. There the percentage has fallen over three percent since
inception. Dinwiddie County (VA) has also created a task force on collaboration that has
examined needed resources, paraprofessional training, roles and responsibilities, and sites to visit
where it is being practiced effectively. They have very purposefully set forth goals and
identified key issues that will influence success.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop practices that will ensure effective collaboration and inclusion for all special
education students in Richland Two schools.
Making inclusion an expectation for the education of special education students will also
strengthen the skills and knowledge that regular classroom teachers can apply to teaching all
children. To effectively support expansion of collaboration, considerations should include joint
time for co-planning, principals and district leaders monitoring and supporting teachers as they
incorporate staff development and early intervention/prevention strategies into their instruction,
and expanding opportunities for teachers to share and mentor each other. Using teachers who are
already effectively collaborating to provide training and coaching to others who might be
interested would benefit both special needs and regular education students. This change would
also create a sense of efficacy among teachers selected for the initiative.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
A concern that students who are seen as “different,” whether because they are special education
students or in alternative education, are considered “undervalued” was an underlying current in
Evergreen’s school visits and in testimony by people at various levels of Richland Two. Several
mentioned a concern that often special education classes are located in particular areas of
schools, even new ones, rather than being more integrated in locations where students can mingle
with other students in a variety of ways. This can sometimes be an effective practice for sharing
resources among classrooms with similar students and related needs.

Evergreen team observations during school visits revealed that concern to be true. Staff even
related that special education classes are purposely located near each other in planning for new
schools for easier use of resources.
Many staff members also expressed concern about district procedures as they relate to students
who are low-performing or behavioral challenges for teachers and peers. At the high school
level, they noted that some administrations work with students who are beginning to show a
pattern of at-risk behaviors, referring them to the Intervention Services Program while others are
more inclined to implement sanctions and referrals. Another concern voiced was the paucity and
inconsistency of transition procedures for students returning to schools from alternative
programs.
Richland Two also has a policy that a student entering the school district from a juvenile facility
must attend the alternative school for 45 days before going back to their home school. This
practice appears to be double jeopardy for the students who have already served their punishment
and need a transition back to school with the fewest number of obstacles to success. This
prevents them from starting with a "clean slate" as well as putting them immediately into a
situation with students who may be poor role models.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop procedures that ensure equitable treatment of all students in Richland Two.
Whether disparities are intentional or inadvertent, the perception has a strong effect on the
community and student beliefs in their abilities to succeed. Much research documents the
influence that school facilities have on student learning. When programs are housed in
comparatively isolated facilities, students in the program as well as others lower their
expectations for success. Additionally, it is imperative that procedures ensure equitable
treatment of students in all schools when they have been identified as needing additional support
services in the regular classroom. After interventions have not proven effective, practices for
referral and placement should be uniform throughout the district.
For students returning from a juvenile facility, Richland Two could use a community staffing
team with representatives from the institution, the community probation and parole, and the
school district (Intervention Program, the school guidance counselor, the school administrator,
and any other agency personnel working with the student). This group would meet to discuss the
student, his progress, and develop recommendations for a transition plan that can be put into
place immediately. For these students, the alternative school should only be an option if the
student fails to adjust.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
Staff interviewed stated that transition activities for special education and alternative school
students occur between some schools, but are not uniform across the district. All interviewees
commented that creating a procedure that ensured consistent procedures among all schools
would be beneficial for both teachers and students. This is a particular challenge in Richland
Two with its lack of clear feeder patterns from school to school since students leave one school
and go to schools across the district rather than merely one or two schools as occurs in most
other districts.
Research documents the importance of school environments, structures, and practices to the
success of students with special needs. Similarly, creating effective structures and practices for
transitioning students with special needs contributes to their academic success and emotional
health. It also better informs teachers of effective instructional strategies for individual students
and effective classroom management techniques. Information about family, health, and other
factors affecting learning can also be shared during transition meetings to provide a firm
foundation for student success in the next grade. One downloadable resource that provides a
framework for addressing transitions as learning supports for students is Transitions: Turning
Risks into Opportunities for Student Support published by the Center for Mental Health Supports
at UCLA in 2008 (see http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu).
RECOMMENDATION
Establish uniform transition procedures among schools to ensure that special education
and alternative student needs are clearly communicated.
Setting a schedule for discussion of students changing schools or being promoted, and uniform
procedures where possible, would ensure that receiving teachers fully understand each child’s
strengths and needs when students change schools. This would prevent the teacher from having
to re-learn child-specific information former teachers already know. This action would also place
the child in the position of having his/her needs met the first day of school. Without the benefit
of face-to-face meetings, guidance counselors, special education and intervention staff could
create forms for universal use that would clearly communicate essential information for
receiving teachers.
In the case of alternative school students, face-to-face meetings are not only possible, but
essential to help with a smooth transition both academically and socially. Procedures should
enable them to have a personal contact at the school they return to in order to form a personal
relationship. They also need to be carefully assigned to classes where they will not be pre-
judged as troublemakers upon their return. Project Success, a pilot at Richland North East High
School, is showing early success in creating an early intervention school support system for
students demonstrating potential at-risk characteristics and may identify some practices that
could be used across the district.

FISCAL IMPACT
3.4 STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Both federal and state governments recognize and provide funds for students who are at risk of
failing in school and need additional resources to bolster their opportunity for academic success.
Research has found that programs that are effective in meeting the needs of students who are not
performing in traditional school settings include:
• a low teacher: student ratio which allows more personal time for each student, is
likely to provide a higher quality of instruction, and make better behavioral gains;
• a highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management and greater

potential for frequent positive reinforcement;
• clear, directly taught classroom rules;
• adult models/mentors who track behavior, attendance, attitude, grades; and
• high-quality academic instruction, involving direct instruction and small, interactive

groups.
Dropouts incur personal costs in the form of reduced earnings, higher chances of being
unemployed, and the higher likelihood of involvement with crime. Social costs appear in the
form of lower total productivity of the labor force, lower tax collections, and higher needs for
public services, such as welfare, health, and employment services.
The following findings are reported in the research:
• graduates show higher earnings than dropouts;

• dropouts show higher unemployment rates than graduates;
• dropouts are three times more likely than graduates to live in poverty;
• dropouts are overrepresented in the populations served by public services;
• dropouts report higher public assistance subsidies than do graduates; and
• a higher proportion of dropouts than graduates reported serious trouble with the law.
Students with limited formal education, and who are below grade level in English literacy, are
particularly at risk of failing. This makes finding effective instructional approaches that both
educate them in English and in content areas imperative. It also makes creating a seamless
support system within a school district as a whole and individual communities within the district
a mandate for educators and community members together. Other students have physical or
other learning challenges that affect their ability to learn at the same pace as the majority of
students. The intent of NCLB is for all of these students to have access to an equitable
opportunity to reach high learning standards.

Beyond alternative learning programs, many students and their families in today’s complex and
challenging society need additional support. When these structures are strong, they enable
students to focus on learning and families on supporting that learning at home. Districts provide
support through the employment of specialists (such as social workers, truant officers,
psychologists) and through collaboration with external social service agencies, governmental
entities that work with youth, and local organizations. Federal and state laws across the nation
that require parental involvement at a certain level, or require districts to develop parent
compacts or outreach strategies, recognize that the task is greater than schools alone can meet.
FINDING
An extensive Intervention Program unique to Richland Two offers students and their families in-
depth counseling and support by trained family therapists, licensed professional counselors,
externs, and interns in masters degree counseling programs needing clinical supervision hours.
The district has expanded the program, from initially offering intervention for students who were
in danger of being expelled, to counseling families facing disciplinary and other factors beyond
school but threatening student academic success. Services also include community service
opportunities, services to families requiring language translation or other special needs families,
as well as on going dialogue with the school and other community representatives.
Seeing the need for students to experience success beyond the classroom, the program now
offers them service learning experiences in the community where they can see their activities
impact others’ lives. It also gives them insight into where school failure could lead them
personally. Of 56 students who have gone through the service leadership part of the program, 14
are now in college. The program has also expanded to provide leadership training for students
exhibiting promise. Students selected through an application and interview process then lead
community service projects themselves.
For several years, the Intervention Program contracted with another organization to offer
families of students at the district’s two alternative schools multi-family group sessions. Two
family-focused programs⎯ the Family Solutions Program and Building Bridges to Success⎯
focus on improving school behavior and performance, family interactions, and resilience. This
year, the Intervention Program designed curricula for Building Bridges. It has also been opened
to include families from other schools, by request. Students they now serve are:
• high school students who have been referred by an administrator because of disciplinary
referrals;
• K-12 students and families who have been referred by the hearing officer;
• students and families attending the alternative schools;
• students and families interested in a particular service/program on a space available basis;

and
• students and/or families who have been referred by a social worker, psychologist,
guidance counselor or administrator for non-disciplinary reasons.

Program employees are not the traditional school student services types of support staff. They
include certified guidance counselors, licensed family therapists, and licensed professional
counselors. Backgrounds in juvenile justice, family court, and family therapy abound. This
experience gives them the background and experience to take a holistic approach to student and
family needs. The staff expanded early to provide services through cost-effective graduate
student interns in masters programs who needed clinical experience. Programs they represent are
school counseling, family counseling, clinical counseling, nursing and social work. Last year
interns gave 14,850 hours of service to the program. The program now also includes externs
who served internships in the program and are back with their degrees, but need clinical hours
and supervision by a clinical supervisor. They include an anesthesiologist, a Ph.D. professor
from the College of International Business, and a pediatrician’s wife. With the array of
professional personnel, either volunteering or sharing entry level pay jobs, the program is
extremely cost-effective.
Back at their home schools, intervention staff or graduate students provide follow-up counseling
at the school sites for students referred through the intervention or hearing board process. Staff or
graduate students also provide individual counseling, art and play therapy, or small group
counseling at the students’ school or at the family resource center.
Data show that between 2005 and 2010, the program served 1,364 students⎯408 received either
individual or group counseling or were trained as service leaders. An additional 778 students
participated in multi-family groups. Of those 2,558 students, only 91 were expelled in the year
they received the service. Data also show positive changes in parent and student attitudes toward
school.
Additionally, Richland North East has begun a pilot Project Success Program as a result of the
high dropout/expulsion/transfer rate of Blythewood Academy students who have returned to the
home school. The majority of students served are low socioeconomic, males who are behind in
their school work. Even though the program had no seed funds, it is showing promise of its early
intervention, research-based strategies turning students’ lives around. A graduate nursing
student is working with staff and students and collecting data to analyze as a part of her doctoral
program. There, too, a team of eight interns is tracking data on discipline, attendance, and
student shifts in goal-orientation. Counseling interns are assigned to each Project Success
student, checking in with them weekly and serving as an intermediary with their teachers. The
program offers students eight sessions where they talk about academics, test anxiety, goal-
setting, and work to develop self-monitoring capacity. Students are given the opportunity to lead
groups and choose the topics but they are all tied to how to be more successful in school. The
first cohort of 12 students all stayed in school and have evidenced a shift in their personal goals
and attitude toward school. This indicates a likelihood of developing resiliency and continuing
to remain in school.
Many of the strategies employed in both programs are aligned with findings in a 2008
publication Dropout Prevention by the Institute of Education Sciences in the What Works
Clearinghouse on dropout prevention. They identified six recommendations for reducing
dropouts that are divided into three categories:
• diagnostic processes for identifying student-level and schoolwide dropout problems;

• targeted interventions for a subset of middle and high school students who are at risk of
dropping out; and
• school-wide reforms designed to enhance engagement for all students and prevent
dropouts more generally.
The recommendations are:
• utilize data systems that support a realistic diagnosis of the number of students who drop
out and that help identify individual students at high risk of dropping out (diagnostic);
• assign adult advocates to students at risk of dropping out (targeted intervention);
• provide academic support and enrichment to improve academic performance (targeted

intervention);
• implement programs to improve students’ classroom behavior and social skills (targeted
intervention);
• personalize the learning environment and instructional process (school-wide

intervention); and
• provide rigorous and relevant instruction to better engage students in learning and
provide the skills needed to graduate and to serve them after they leave school (school-
wide intervention).
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its exemplary programs that proactively and effectively
provide interventions for students to remain in school.
FINDING
Richland Two has addressed some needs identified by a district task force and in a 2003 external
evaluation by the National Dropout Center at Clemson University of Blythewood Academy, but
many concerns remain. Another document provided Evergreen shows that key decision makers
met to discuss findings, determine actions, and make site visits to exemplary programs. They set
a mission and identified processes and supports to adopt at the middle and high schools including
intake, transition processes into and out of the alternative schools, and options for students if the
transition is not successful.
Some items that have been accomplished are the initiation of a comprehensive service learning
component, mandatory comprehensive parenting program, a comprehensive mentoring program,
and additional staff (ITS, transition coordinator at Blythewood Academy, and a part-time
counselor). Other items remain to be completed. Most importantly, key recommendations in the

National Dropout Center evaluation remain to be effectively addressed. Specifically

(Recommendations are bold):
1. The establishment of a comprehensive elementary/secondary alternative school

“program” is recommended that eliminates expulsion for students and has
differentiated components for the elementary, middle, and high school levels.
Several Richland Two interviewees expressed deep concern that the school district lacks a
comprehensive support system for early intervention and prevention efforts as well as support for
those programs and/or positions that are intended to offer students ancillary health, social and
emotional supports. Part of that gap in support is likely due to the current fragmented assignment
of those positions that provide students support. This contributes neither to efficiency nor
effectiveness in serving students.
2. Richland District Two should reconcile the differences that are known to exist
regarding Blythewood Academy’s purpose and mission by deciding if the school is
to be punitive or therapeutic in nature.
There are still mixed reports regarding this concern. The district has certainly addressed the
therapeutic side of the issue with the establishment and expansion of the Intervention Program
and its multiple programs that demonstrate implementation of some of the district’s task force’s
recommendations. Reports of non-existent or inconsistent transitions back to home schools and
the requirement that students coming to Richland Two schools from juvenile justice centers must
first attend 45 days at the alternative school suggest that the district is not yet clear about the
nature of the school’s mission yet.
The district’s Code of Conduct states that hearings will be held within 10 days after a
recommendation for expulsion. This does occur. However, several staff described periods of
time when students are out of school for periods beyond those 10 days once they have been
recommended for expulsion, had a hearing, and appealed their case. During this period of time,
they are not attending school and falling even further behind in their studies. This makes their
challenge to catch up even more difficult.
3. Blythewood Academy should develop and implement a comprehensive transition

strategy/program for students entering and exiting the school.
Richland Two has added a transition specialist at the school. However, many Richland Two
staff related deep concerns regarding student transition back into home schools. No one
described any consistent transition procedures into either alternative school between sending
schools and the academies. The creation of Project Success to address the need for greater
supports for students either in danger of being sent to Blythewood Academy or transitioning
back suggests that more needs to be done in this area for student success and achievement of the
task force’s stated mission to “increase student achievement by providing rigorous, meaningful,
and interactive learning experiences.”
The Hearing Officer and Intervention staff work closely together to develop an intervention plan
for students who are referred to the intervention program in lieu of expulsion. The school’s
transition specialist maintains contact with sending teachers regarding student work while they

are at the academy, but there is no assurance of a support system once the student returns to all
schools. To increase effectiveness, the sending schools need a designated contact person and a
formalized, student-centered program that assures students they do have a person who will
advocate and counsel with them and ensure that they get the schedule change or other
accommodations they may need for a “clean slate.”
4. A funding formula for Blythewood Academy should be developed based on best

practices for alternative schools and the school’s unique goals and objectives.
An examination of the school’s budget and communication with district staff reveals that the
school’s 2010-11 allocation is $17,956. Per district financial staff, Anna Boyd is allocated an
additional $30,000 and Blythewood Academy is allocated $27,500 in at-risk funds. Staff
provided the specifics of the amount of funding each sending school sent at the beginning of the
year, but there was no testimony showing that the reasons behind the funding were either based
on a formula, research or the school’s goals. In fact, although students pay fees at their home
schools, they do not follow the students to the alternative school. Nor are adjustments made if,
for instance, more students from a specific school attend the costs of which may exceed the
original school assessment funds.
5. The school should have a specified budget to administer a comprehensive guidance

program.
A career and transition specialist has been added to be shared between the district’s two
alternative schools; each school has a full-time guidance counselor, and the Intervention Program
supports students.
6. It is recommended that a specific training program, geared toward teaching

students most at-risk be established for all teachers, but especially prospective
teachers at Blythewood Academy.
Staff stated that both early identification and more consistent training need to occur. The district
needs to be certain that all teachers know risk factors so that they can identify students, provide
in-class support, and refer them to counselors for additional assistance and perhaps family
referral to local social service agencies for even greater levels of support. Training should have
dual aims: to increase staff skills and to change their behaviors and attitudes. This is also
addressed in Recommendations 3-5 and 3-23.
7. The evaluation team recommends a more systematic procedure for recording

quantifiable effectiveness data and using these data to guide program improvements
and goal setting from year to year.
This relates, in part, to Recommendation 3-6. No documentation other than the two reports
mentioned earlier provides evidence that effectiveness data are used to guide program
improvements or goals.

8. An emphasis should be placed on the improvement and enhancement of the

curriculum and course offerings at Blythewood Academy.
Staff in focus groups and interviews expressed concerns that there are many impediments to the
success of students who attend Blythewood Academy. Among those they noted were the fact
that different high schools may offer the same course in blocks or “skinnies.” The alternative
school tries to accommodate the differences that makes in preparing students for success in those
courses once they return to their home school, but certainly cannot offer all of the various
courses to students from many schools must take according to each school’s schedule with the
limited staff it has. Many of the courses students attend at the academy are online. While this
enables them to take the courses they need, it also presents another potential barrier to success in
that often these students are not the ones who can most effectively learn independently.
RECOMMENDATION
Integrate components of effective alternative programs into a district plan to strengthen

the Richland Two alternative school by more concertedly basing its staffing, instruction,
and operations on best practices.
The district needs first to re-visit the Clemson evaluation. Senior managers should identify
components that have been fully, partially, or not implemented. They should then prioritize
those that need to be addressed in the short-term and the long-term, and set aside dollars and
support staff to achieve those goals.
A successful alternative program provides hands-on experiences, as well as selects teachers for
their sensitivity to student needs and their abilities to provide for them. The program gives
students hope of attendance leading to graduating with their peers. Classes need to be hands-on,
addressing the learning styles of students and integrating academic content with activities where
it is applied. If there are any students for whom this is critical, it is those who have not
succeeded in traditional settings. Using book talks to examine and discuss alternative strategies
pertinent to Richland Two’s students would be one approach to beginning this process. Visiting
successful programs, as Richland Two administrators have done, is another, which six years later
might need to be repeated. Working with local family support agencies, the district should
develop a comprehensive plan to keep students in school and successful in order to benefit
students, their families and the community.
Smyth County Public Schools, (VA) has developed a time-proven, tiered approach to meeting
the needs of students with various academic, social, family, attendance, and behavioral needs for
learning in alternative settings. That has led to a dropout rate of .21 percent that could serve as a
model for Richland Two or at the least, for information regarding practices that are effective in
providing alternatives to traditional classes for middle and high school students.
The What Works 2008 publication is an excellent resource for program planning and even
provides a checklist for carrying out its recommendations. The district focuses on strategies to
increase motivation to remain in school rather than rules and punitive measures. These are both
the direction the Superintendent intends for the district to take in designing student work that is

engaging and the concern of the Clemson evaluators and many Richland Two staff regarding the
dichotomy between punitive and therapeutic approaches to student needs.
Exhibit 3-16 shows components identified by the Oregon School Study Council as effective for
alternative programs. Richland Two is using some of them, but could strengthen its support for
students by adding or integrating others. They offer modifications that should be considered as
Richland Two revamps its alternative program to be more focused on student needs and family
support.
Exhibit 3-16
Summary of Research-Based
Alternative Education Strategies
Low Ratio of Students to Teachers

• More personal time for each student
• Better behavioral gains
• Higher quality of instruction
Highly Structured Classroom with Behavioral Classroom Management

• Level systems provide predictable structure
• Self-management skills are taught
• High rates of positive reinforcement
• High academic gains
• Students are able to move to less restrictive settings
Positive Rather than Punitive Emphasis in Behavior Management

• Rewards for acceptable behavior and compliance
• Classroom rules are clear and directly taught
• Initial rich reinforcement “fades” to normal levels when possible (four positives to one negative)
Adult Mentors at the School

• Mentor must use positive reinforcement
• Mentor takes special interest in child
• Mentor tracks behavior, attendance, attitude, grades
• Mentor negotiates alternatives to suspension and expulsion
Individualized Behavioral Interventions Based on Functional Behavioral Assessment

• Identify causes of the behavior
• Identify what “keeps it going”
• Identify positive behaviors to replace problems
• Interview and involve the student
• Use multi-component interventions
Social Skills Instruction

• Problem solving
• Conflict resolution
• Anger management
• Empathy for others
High Quality Academic Instruction

• Direct instruction and learning strategies
• Control for difficulty of instruction
• Small, interactive groups
• Directed responses and questioning of students
Source: Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, Summer 1999.

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The programs demonstrate the district’s awareness of the need for early intervention and
preventive strategies to support such students before they fail. However, there is no
comprehensive plan to meld them into a K-12 infrastructure that addresses student behavior and
academic needs in a proactive manner. Principals, counselors, and district administrators all
identified a lack of a districtwide, comprehensive support system for students at all levels who
are at risk of failure. This year’s RTI project has begun to create a base for in-class and in-
school interventions as has districtwide training focused on equipping teachers with skills to
differentiate instruction for each child. RTI is also creating a database that can be useful in
determining the success of interventions.
The most frequent concern Evergreen heard about the RTI Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions,
though, was the fact that it creates scheduling challenges for teachers with its pullout component.
When a K-12 comprehensive approach is taken toward identifying and supporting students in
their classes that is bolstered by knowledgeable teachers and administrators who understand at
risk factors and related strategies to address them, there is less need for pullouts. Beyond that,
behavioral and academic issues will decrease and student performance, engagement, and success
in school will increase. The Dropout Prevention publication posits that graduation rates, a
Richland Two goal, might be “measurably improved” by implementing strategies they have
gleaned from effective programs across the nation.
The magnitude of the challenge of improving achievement for student subgroups highlights the
need for concerted efforts to design and implement programs and strategies that will keep youth
in school and facilitate successful completion. Additionally, the cost to students who drop out in
terms of lower wages and higher unemployment rates and the costs to society in terms of lost
revenue and increased dependence on social programs necessitate effective solutions to the
problem of dropout.
In effective schools, students are given additional learning time in a variety of settings with
varied approaches to instruction. Family members and other key persons in the lives of students
are encouraged to support the intervention strategies. To meet those needs, some schools provide
opportunities for students to double up on credits by compressing content or by integrating
remedial content in core subjects into career and vocational coursework. Richland Two must
take a more comprehensive look at programming, scheduling, instructional strategies, social
needs of all students and teacher characteristics. Without taking that long-range, comprehensive
approach to meeting the needs of its students who are not proficient and are falling behind others
their age, it will not only fail to meet the intent of NCLB’s proficiency expectations, but it will
also fail to meet its community’s need for a literate, educated, informed citizenry.

RECOMMENDATION
Create a comprehensive, long-term, cross-grade plan for students, educators, and families
to keep students at risk of failing at all levels of school.
Current programs meet the needs of a segment of Richland Two’s academically and behaviorally
challenged student body, especially those at the secondary level. However, to decrease the
number of students needing such programs in their middle and high school years, a broader
approach is required that identifies and tracks students at risk of failure earlier in their school
experiences, providing academic and counseling support in elementary school. The district
should seek effective practices in keeping students interested and successful in school before
they reach the point of being recommended for long-term suspension or expulsion. Such a plan
should be extensive enough that it identifies instructional methodologies, class configurations,
requisite professional development, scheduling options, program expansion such as CATE
courses, and resources. The district should also be uniform enough that students receive the
same support in whichever Richland Two school they are enrolled.
Plans should also include early identification of students at risk of failure in elementary school.
Underpinning the district’s stated desire to increase the graduation rate, they should routinely
examine graduation and dropout rates, and conduct exit interviews with students who leave. This
will enable the district to develop strategies in early grades before students become age-eligible
to drop out of school. With NCLB graduation expectations, it is imperative that the district
become pro-active in addressing dropout needs at earlier grades and all levels of its schools.
In order to uniformly achieve early identification and consequent preventive support strategies,
Richland Two teachers must be taught characteristics of students at risk and risk factors for
which they must be vigilant. At a minimum, key lead teachers at each school should be trained
and updated with new information and strategies. They could then provide training and
information during faculty meetings at their schools. The implementation of this
recommendation could have far-reaching benefits as practices adopted for students in danger of
failing also prove effective for all students and expand teacher repertoires of skills and
knowledge. Schools in some districts send letters to parents after students’ second absence,
notifying them and inviting them for a meeting to problem-solve together. The letters have
decreased absenteeism.
Winchester Public Schools in Virginia has created a system that supports learning for all
students. It individualizes remediation in ways that are varied and give students opportunities to
succeed without necessarily singling them out as slow learners. Each principal is required to
develop a remediation plan for their schools. The plans are submitted to two central office
instructional staff⎯ one examines the proposal for cost and the other for content. The action
enables federal funds to be leveraged to support school remediation plans.
The use of data is central to many aspects of Winchester’s approach. School data-based plans are
supported with intervention/remediation plans for individual students. Subsequent to pre-testing
and other benchmark administrations, the central staff member responsible for testing and

accountability provides reports that identify students falling below benchmarks tagged in red so
that teachers can identify concepts and skills not yet mastered, and re-teach and group students
for remediation. Information is also provided to administrators by strand, teacher, school, and
student at the department level to support and target plans. It is likely that many Richland Two
educators who are skillful in data use are already employing such strategies.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Two Richland Two practices deter its ability to implement Recommendations 3-20 and 3-21
effectively:
• Currently, the Intervention Program only intervenes with students after their second
infraction that may lead, with a third, to a recommendation for expulsion from school.
Earlier intervention by the professional counselors in this program has the potential to
involve families as partners earlier and re-direct student interest and behavior toward
success in school.
• The School Board set the tone for there to be a focus on learning in Richland Two
schools by adherence to its Zero Tolerance policy. The 2010-11 Back to School
Handbook Code of Conduct section states that, “students who are suspended three times,
as well as each time thereafter, in any one school year must be recommended by the
school administration to the district hearing officers for review and possible expulsion.”
The policy also states, though, that, “chronic recurrences of offenses may lead to
suspension or expulsion when previous disciplinary actions have not proven effective in
improving the student’s behavior.”
Staff told Evergreen that the district’s Zero Tolerance policy is applied differently at
various schools, resulting in students with different infractions being recommended for
expulsion. Some schools work closely with the Intervention Program and parents to re-
focus students on appropriate school behavior without enacting paperwork for minor
infractions that, when accumulated to three, would lead to a recommendation for
expulsion. Others more immediately begin the process that results in an expulsion
recommendation.
Data provided by the Hearing Officer demonstrate the variability in infractions that lead to a
recommendation for expulsion. Documentation shows that many recommendations
appropriately result from weapons, pornography, liquor law violation, drug possession, simple
assault, and being under the influence. However, other infractions that have led to a
recommendation for a Richland Two student to be expelled include:
• cutting school;
• cutting class;

• tardiness;
• refusal to obey;
• dress code;
• leaving school/class without permission;
• disrespect;
• being off limits; and
• obscene gestures.
Many of those largely affect the individual student and not others. The parent handbook notes
that “excessive absences result in denial of credit for a course,” not expulsion from school for the
remainder of the year.
Exhibit 3-17 provides data on expulsion in comparison districts. As can be seen, Richland Two
statistics on expulsion are not out of line when compared to the limited data we received.
Exhibit 3-17
Comparison of Expulsions in Peer Districts
2007 to 2011
Number of Total Expulsions

School District 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Richland Two 217 137 161
Beaufort NA NA NA
Berkeley 306 248 192
Dorchester Two NA NA NA
Richland One NA NA NA
Rock Hill (York Three)* 274 248 271
Average 290 248 232
RECOMMENDATION
Review the district’s discipline policies and their application across schools, and policies
and procedures relating to the timing of assistance by the Intervention Program.
Richland Two representatives were clear in their concern that district practices are neither
uniformly applied, nor geared toward assisting students in changing their behavior and
succeeding in school. It is clear that some school administrations go above and beyond to
support students and help them change their behavior and address their academic needs. It is
also clear this is not universal.
The interpretation and application of policies need to be agreed upon from the highest level and
adhered to uniformly in every class and school in the district. The evidence and testimony
contravene the agreed upon mission for the district’s alternative school to “increase student
achievement by providing rigorous, meaningful, and interactive learning experiences” and the
school district mission stated in policy:

…to guarantee…each student a quality education by providing appropriate and challenging

learning experiences to equip each individual for life-long learning, responsible citizenship
and productivity in an ever-changing world. The district will implement this vision by
providing lifelong learning opportunities that will develop the potential of all individuals and
thereby improve the quality of life for all citizens of the district.
Following practices that prevent students from completing their education due to inconsistent
policy interpretation that leads to students being expelled for as many as nearly nine months due
to minor infractions is assuredly not the intent of the board nor of the caring professionals who
serve in Richland Two’s schools.
3.5 INSTRUCTIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Over the last 15 years, the concept of professional development for teachers and administrators
has undergone a paradigmatic shift. The old model of expert-driven, off-site workshops, attended
by teachers and administrators according to their interests or mandated for all by the district, has
been replaced by a model of collaborative, constructivist learning focused on supporting
improved teaching and learning, as part of teachers’ regular routines. This job-embedded,
research-based, learning community approach requires teachers to reflect on student achievement
levels as a function of their practice and collaboratively problem solve ways to enhance
instruction to promote higher levels of student achievement. The broad descriptor for this process
is the Inquiry Model of Professional Development, and it is through the inquiry process that
school communities can create short-term continuous improvement cycles that, when connected
and focused on instructional practice and student learning, lead to whole school improvement.
In 2001, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) developed a set of standards for
professional development that support the whole school improvement effort. These standards are
organized around the context, processes, and content necessary for teachers to focus their
expertise on improving instruction and student learning at all levels of a school district.
Context standards involve the following:
• organizing adults into learning communities in which goals are aligned with those
of the school and the district;
• deploying skilled school and district leaders to guide continuous instructional

improvement; and
• allocating resources to support adult learning and collaboration.
Powerful professional development creates conditions in which school stakeholders can have
honest and open conversation about quality and excellence. In a learning community,
participants develop a level of trust that allows them to:
• share their instructional strengths and weaknesses;

• examine student and school data together to identify strengths and challenges and
develop strategies for improvement;
• look at student work together as a way to create working definitions of rigor,

creativity, and excellence; and
• ask the questions necessary to improve their practice.
Schools and districts must work to employ the facilitative leadership necessary to develop
learning communities as well as honor the in-house expertise of participants. Research has
shown that teachers tend to implement what they help design. A supportive context will provide
the space and time for the learning community to meet regularly; apply new learning; and get
feedback from colleagues on which to reflect, learn, and implement.
Process standards revolve around data collection, data use, and tools for collaboration in which
they:
• use knowledge about how people learn;
• provide stakeholders with the knowledge and skills for collaboration;
• use multiple sources of information for data and encourage data collection and
analysis; and
• encourage data-driven, research-based decision making focused on outcomes.
Choice is an important element of adult learning, and learning communities often spend many
initial meetings evaluating context and process variables. It is important to match the goals of the
working group to the context and process elements that best support the group’s learning and
working styles. Some participants will have more experience in collaborative work groups than
others. That experience can be used to avoid pitfalls and highlight effective communication
processes.
Content standards are broad and must be flexed to match the particular projects undertaken by a
learning community. The standards may relate to content about students, a particular academic
discipline, or community issues:
• understand and appreciate how all students learn;
• understand how to create supportive learning environments for students;
• hold high expectations for achievement;
• deepen teacher subject area content knowledge;
• deepen teacher pedagogical and assessment knowledge; and

• provide teachers with knowledge and tools for involving community stakeholders
in the education process.
When school and district leaders attend to these broad context, process, and content standards for
professional development and integrate them with their school improvement goals,
administrators and teachers join their students as learners, and the energy of whole school
improvement begins to transform individuals and institutions.
Successful schools create time for professional development activities focused on improving
instruction with strategies that address the needs of all students. Specific topics that are intended
to increase teacher knowledge and skills are delivered over time, with additional time for
reflection, discussion, and more practice between trainings so that teachers learn from practice
and each other. Each training session is supported by technical assistance that gives teachers
feedback on their use of the new skills and an opportunity to refine them early to prevent
ineffective implementation or frustration that leads to disuse of them. Professional development
also includes a variety of activities to address the interests and learning styles of adult learners.
If principals are to support new skills and knowledge that are applied in their schools as
instructional leaders, then they must attend the training with their teachers. This reinforces to
teachers the importance of the training, and increases the credibility of the administrator as
he/she provides feedback to improve instructional delivery. When training focuses on critical
new skills and knowledge for teachers, but does not provide time and support for teachers to
practice new learning, nor is it purposefully monitored to ensure that they are using it in their
instruction, they are likely to take the path of least resistance and use strategies with which they
are comfortable, garnering the same results in terms of student achievement.
Phil Schlechty’s Working on the Work is being used to build uniform capacity and design the
Richland Two framework, increasing the likelihood that all students will be engaged in learning
so that they will:
• learn at high levels and have a profound grasp of what they learn;
• retain what they learn; and
• can transfer what they learn to new contexts.
FINDING
There are pockets of effective, research-based professional development within the district.
Richland Two uses an instructional coaching model for new teachers that has been selected as a
state model for mentoring. For years, the district has had a long-standing relationship with:
• the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, training teams on

Understanding by Design;
• the Center for Highly Effective Teaching, with many schools having used the process for
years; and
• the Rutherford Learning Group, training staff in Learning-Centered Schools.

Additionally, estimates show that approximately 50 percent of the district’s teachers have been
trained in direct instruction, based on the belief that all children can learn and providing teachers
the skills and knowledge to address their needs. Book talks of professional publications such as
Teaching with Poverty in Mind are essential elements of many meetings and professional growth
opportunities for teachers and administrators. Principals and district staff provide testimony to
the success of many of the district’s training initiatives in creating a common language, building
teacher capacity, and creating a learning-centered culture in their schools.
Much of the training that has taken place has involved follow-up observations and debriefings, as
well as opportunities for trainees to get together between training sessions to discuss what they
have found effective and problem solve ineffective implementation together. Professionals from
respected outside organizations as well as Richland Two staff have been involved in training
activities and follow-up. Many of these practices are founded on NSDC standards.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for committing to long-term use of research-based

professional development models.
FINDING
Despite the use of research-based training and a district-level effort to build uniform capacity in
all its teachers, there has been no districtwide plan that ties all professional development into a
cohesive approach to increasing teacher and principal capacity relating to teaching and learning.
This is due in part to:
• the district’s organizational structure;
• site-based management enabling principals to opt their faculties in or out of training such
as Positive Interventions and Behavior Supports;
• various district offices initiating professional growth experiences for teachers

independently of others, demonstrating a lack of systems thinking that drives district
professional development decision making;
• professional development efforts sometimes being driven by specific funding sources

rather than by a comprehensive professional development program based on identified
strategic goals set by assessment of teacher pedagogical needs or student performance
data; and
• centers and magnet programs reporting that they are not given an allocation for
professional development, so they must find the dollars within their resources.
The end result is costly in terms of district dollars spent for partially implemented training
programs. One document the district provided Evergreen shows that last year alone, nine
schools spent $234,000 for HET training. It also has an impact on staffing costs. For example,

instead of adopting a comprehensive means of training all teachers to provide support for all
students within their classes, the district has hired an Elementary Behavior Intervention
Specialist who addresses behavioral issues in students who are not in special education classes.
When Curriculum Coordinators must know how to support a variety of instructional programs,
they cannot have in-depth knowledge about all to support teachers in district schools. The same
is true for staff in the IT Department.
The district’s Teacher Forum, which is composed of the district’s Teachers of the Year, has been
responsible for organizing a biennial professional development day. Richland Two is applauded
for wanting to capitalize on the talents that these teachers have. However, no testimony offered
Evergreen any indication that the breakout sessions that are offered on the day they plan have
any ties to a district need or focus.
Two days of training are provided by the district each year and three are school-based. This
strategy offers balance between district priorities and school training needs based on their
analyses of student and teacher data. However, without guidance and support from the central
office, it is likely that the follow-up, discussion, and joint problem-solving among teachers as
professionals does not take place after all training. Professional development is also fragmented
in that various offices conduct training without planning together or basing it on district-
identified needs and priorities.
An example of one office initiating teacher training without consultation with another is that the
Technology Department, independent of the Academics Department, designed iPAC training.
This is a two-year program “to equip teachers to implement technology in their classrooms at the
transformation level, becoming models for other teachers in Richland Two and more widely
recognized leaders in the field of instructional technology innovation.” When the Executive
Director for Curriculum and Professional Development learned of the initiative, she began
attending meetings so that the academic arm of the district would be aware of and involved in the
project. Such a one-sided approach to professional development bypasses collaboration and
inhibits a unified focus on skills and knowledge that teachers and administrators need. It also
focuses more on a group of teachers than students and the quality of work designed for them.
Testimony revealed that the district has not yet systematically trained all staff in identified core
pedagogical skills that accommodate the needs of all learners. These effective pedagogies
should be woven throughout all curriculum areas and professional development training.
Conversations with several staff reflected that some of the training that has been done over time
in the schools that have participated has begun to create a common language. Much of the
training the district has offered has been intended to train staff⎯ both school and district⎯ to
have the skills and knowledge that transcend content to giving teachers the ability to design
lessons that address each child’s learning style and instructional needs.
However, findings did not indicate that the district has identified or embedded a “common
language” that crosses content areas so that a pedagogy, strategy, or practice is referred to by the
same vocabulary regardless of the grade level or content being taught. Many content areas tout
language common to their individual discipline. For example, science speaks of inquiry, math
speaks of concept development, and reading speaks of comprehension strategies. Teaching and

instruction that generate high student achievement use all these strategies to create learning
regardless of the content. Strategies that are effective for ESOL and special education
instruction are equally effective with all students and provide mechanisms for differentiating
instruction.
Content of interviews made it clear that the district needs to systematically identify pedagogical
skills and teacher practices that support all student learning in multiple content areas. Many
reported that inclusionary practices are not prevalent in Richland Two schools. As stated before,
they further observed that the district does not have a seamless, comprehensive strategy in place
to identify and proactively meet student academic or behavioral needs before they are often
seriously close to failing or expulsion. If all teachers had an array of effective instructional
practices that enabled them to design meaningful instruction for all students, they would more
willingly and effectively include special needs students in their classes. This should be
commonplace and is certainly aligned with the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
It is important for Richland Two to clearly communicate that best practice teaching strategies are
expected of all teachers, assess the degree to which these already exist in classrooms across the
district, and then proceed with a plan to make these daily common practice.
While there are unique nuances to delivering some specified content, research is also clear that
there is also common ground for all instructional delivery. There are foundational instructional
delivery practices, behaviors, and pedagogies that have proven to have a high impact on student
learning. These pedagogies should be developmentally appropriate by age and grade, defined
with common vocabulary, and with appropriate interventions.
Robert Marzano’s work has given teachers instructional strategies that have the highest
probability of enhancing student achievement in all subject areas all of which can be adapted to
any grade level. Many of his strategies can be either teacher- or student-directed. Marzano
advocates writing as a very powerful tool to use in all content areas. It is often forgotten that
students must be explicitly taught how to organize their learning. For student learning to be
retained and for retrieval of learning from long-term memory to occur, teachers must equip
students with thinking and specific learning skills.
Exhibit 3-18 displays Marzano, Pickering and Pollack’s research-based teaching strategies that
have high impact on long-term learning. These strategies improve student learning across all
grade levels and in all content areas. The percentage of gain represents the degree to which the
strategy increases student achievement.
Teachers not only use effective strategies to deliver instruction, the best teachers teach each
individual student rather than gear instruction to those students most easily taught. The best
teachers enjoy and value all their students. Best teachers have often been described as having a
high degree of “with-it-ness,” awareness of what is happening in the classroom and in each
student’s sphere. These teachers are highly aware of the dynamics of their classrooms. They are
versatile, comfortable using many different teaching strategies, and can readily shift among them
as needed.

Exhibit 3-18
Strategies that Increase Student Achievement
Percent
Strategy Increase
Identifying similarities and differences 45% gain
Summarizing and note taking 34% gain
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition 29% gain
Homework and practice 28% gain
Nonlinguistic representations 27% gain
Cooperative learning 27% gain
Setting objectives 23% gain
Generating and testing hypotheses 23% gain
Questions, cue, and advance organizers 22% gain
Source: Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based
Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement Marzano,
Pickering and Pollock, 2004.
Exhibit 3-19 cites behaviors that enhance learning.
Exhibit 3-19
Effective Teaching Behaviors
• Establishes a classroom based on the belief that all children can learn;
• Questioning techniques elicit higher levels of thinking.
• Give students feedback in personalized, positive language.
• Praises and rewards academic growth and effort.
• Calls students by name.
• Allows adequate wait time for student thought.
• Expects optimal classroom participation-all students engaged in learning.
Source: School Improvement Team Leadership Training, Center for Effective Schools: University of Oklahoma, 2000.
Developing a common set of strategies and pedagogical practices would help students and
teachers connect, deepen, and more easily understand and link learning experiences across grade
levels and content areas. This can be accomplished through coaching, classroom observations,
and scheduled and focused dialogue among stakeholders at all levels. Once they are taught the
key pedagogies the district identifies as essential and common across content areas, all teachers
and principals should be held accountable for seeing that they are practiced. Once these are
identified and communicated, they must be embraced and give direction to all instructional
programs, initiatives and curricular endeavors in all programs. In their leadership and support
roles, district staff should serve as resources, locators and disseminators of information, and
support systems for practice and reinforcement.
The Superintendent is promoting the use of Phil Schlechty’s System Capacity Standards across
the district. The foundation for this is a concerted endeavor to give all teachers the skills and
knowledge to focus on what is important to accomplish—creating engaging opportunities for all
students to learn. Consequently, by design, both student and teacher satisfaction and
achievement will result.

RECOMMENDATION
Formalize the district’s approach to instructional professional development and set aside
additional time for adult learning.
Richland Two must analyze data, identify competencies they consider essential for improving
student performance, commit sufficient time and funds to their attainment, and follow-through
with support and monitoring. Then, and only then, will resources be well-spent and improvement
in teacher competency and student knowledge most likely occur. Training should not be on
National Staff Development Council standards, but incorporate those standards in designing the
training provided for teachers and administrators. Budgetary expenditures for professional
development should be aligned with the district’s prioritized plan. Along these lines, the Teacher
Forum Professional Development Day should either be eliminated or parameters and oversight
should be set with them reporting to the Executive Director of Curriculum and Professional
Development. She is the logical person to orchestrate all professional development relating to
instruction.
A 2005 synthesis of research (about the influence of standards on K-12 teaching and student
learning by the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning McRel Insights:
Professional Development Analysis) found a lack of alignment between what is known about
high-quality standards-based professional development and common practice. Many of its
conclusions are relevant to Richland Two’s needs. In particular, it notes that “deep changes in
teacher instruction…take considerable time,” requiring follow-up and coaching throughout the
year. Its study would be instructive to Richland Two leaders as a prelude to developing a long-
range professional development plan.
Considerations it suggests in designing professional development include:
• the professional development proposed is of high quality (the study gives examples);
• teacher instruction is examined as an outcome with descriptions of how instructional

change is measured;
• a reliable and valid achievement measure is used to assess impact on student learning;
and
• the evaluation design can attribute changes to the effect of the professional development.
The Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability has the ability to assist in developing
instruments to measure instructional change and evaluations of its impact on student learning.
Five research-based components that should be considered in designing training are:
• imparting knowledge;
• demonstrating or modeling the new strategy or skill;

• initial practice in a protected or simulated setting;
• promptly providing structured and open-ended feedback about performance of the

practice; and
• coaching—providing follow-up attention to help with the at-home implementation.
All five are essential for transfer of skills or new behaviors into classroom practice. All essential
elements of staff training processes that will ensure that teachers use them to change their
delivery must be considered in planning and executing professional development. Principals
should be required to attend specific professional development opportunities that their teachers
attend so that they can reinforce it or suggest modifications during classroom observations.
Richland Two must make professional development a more unified priority if it is to change
student learning. It must base its offerings on a data-based analysis of student needs and identify
core required professional development geared to address those needs. An annual needs
assessment should also inform district planners of teacher needs. Principals should be
knowledgeable of the training their teachers receive so that they know how to support it in their
classes. Using internal “experts” who have successfully taught students with the particular needs
that data show is a need would build a cadre of “resident experts” who can serve as resources to
others.
The district should consider new schedules for training, perhaps offering it throughout the day
during teacher planning periods as well as extending the school year to create time for
professional growth. District staff, teachers at each school, and principals should be equipped
and provided time for site-based coaching.
Finally, the district’s approach to professional development must recognize that teachers have
different needs and abilities depending on their own experiences and backgrounds, and develop a
tiered approach to training rather than a “one size fits all.” This takes into consideration the
needs of adult learners, and develops the specific skills and knowledge needed by each teacher⎯
much like differentiating instruction for students.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented by redirecting existing resources spent on

disconnected professional development towards a more focused professional development plan.
FINDING
Leadership training for principals, assistant principals, and aspiring principals is not
comprehensive. Testimony was relatively consistent among principals and district-level
administrators that there is a need for the district to make a more concerted effort to
systematically develop its principals into instructional leaders, and that their abilities and skills
vary across the district.

Current leadership training is based on a ten-year-old study. It re-directed principal training

from administrative abilities toward instructional leadership. It recognizes the ongoing need of
any district for succession planning so that there are capable leaders-in-training standing in the
wings as administrators are promoted, move, or retire.
The three tiers in the district’s Ventures in Leadership are for:
• aspiring leaders or teacher leaders;

• existing school administrators to prepare them to assume a principal’s role; and
• current school leaders to develop their talents to a higher level of excellence.
One member of the district staff has gone through the NAESP training to be a principal mentor
so is able to provide timely and appropriate guidance and support.
Some staff who have taken part in the leadership training for aspiring administrators stated that
the monthly meetings and guest speakers offered good information, but not necessarily hands-on
experiences in leadership activities they might face as administrators. They did testify, though,
that the district does a good job of training aspiring principals on the job. They mentor each
other and assistant principals. However, they concluded that the experiences varied depending
on placement in a school with a principal committed to training. Others made the observation
that principals and administrators in the district need more training in teacher coaching to
strengthen their instructional leadership.
That testimony is parallel to findings in research nationally. It was evident from school visits
that best teaching practices which are a part of daily instructional delivery can be found at school
sites where the building principal is a strong and visible instructional leader. Standards-driven
curriculum also hinges on the leadership and expectations of the building principal. If the
principal is a strong instructional leader, teachers are held accountable for not just a standards-
based curriculum, but also those instructional delivery best practices that have high impact on
student motivation and achievement.
In contrast, the operations and administrative responsibilities for principals are very demanding
as is the need for much documentation of compliance-related issues. This makes it difficult for
principals to operate in the instructional arena. However, in today’s climate of extreme
accountability, instruction and curriculum need to be a principal’s focus. The district has
principals who know how to “walk the talk” of being an instructional leader. These individuals
should be used as resources, learning guides, models, mentors and real life examples of what
instructional leadership looks like when it is implemented.
The research on effective schools made a strong case for effective principal leadership as the
second most important single variable behind a highly qualified classroom teacher in creating
and sustaining an effective school. Teachers who have spent long careers in a single school often
point to the power of the principal to stimulate either real cultural change or powerful resistance
to any change effort. All principals enter schools with positional power. That power quickly
becomes magnified as they attend to the relationship building necessary for cultural development
within a school. These relationships become the bonds that bind principal and faculty and make
it possible to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect that permeates all aspects of
school life. If and when that happens, the conditions are ripe for creating a shared vision around

teaching and learning, experimenting with curriculum and instruction with the student at the
center of those activities.
In an article entitled Good Seeds Grow in Strong Cultures, Saphier and King (1986) argue that
successful school improvement efforts build on cultural norms that nurture teachers and students
and contribute to their intellectual growth and psychological health. When that set of cultural
norms is strong, a school community can engage in the critical pursuits of school improvement:
• increasing teacher knowledge and skills;

• renovating curriculum;
• improving the organization; and
• developing responsible parent and community partnerships.
Over the last 20 years, school leaders have come to adopt Saphier and King’s list of norms as
ones that mark a strong positive school culture:
• collegiality;
• honest, open communication;
• high expectations;
• trust and confidence;
• experimentation;
• tangible support;
• reaching out to the knowledge bases;
• appreciation and recognition;
• caring, celebration, and humor;
• involvement in decision making;
• protection of what’s important; and
• tradition.
While one can argue about whether or not to include specific cultural characteristics or the
relative importance of any particular one, these elements together provide a climate of norms and
values, structures and processes that support creative, high-quality instruction, and improved
student performance that are neither grade level nor curriculum specific. Strong cultures allow
strong teacher leaders to develop within a school community and create conditions for them to
work with a principal to increase the academic effectiveness of the school. In the words of
Saphier and King:
If certain norms of school culture are strong, improvements in instruction will be

significant continuous, and widespread; if these norms are weak, improvements will
be at best infrequent, random, and slow. They will then depend on the unsupported
energies of hungry self- starters and be confined to individual classrooms over short
periods of time. The best workshops or ideas brought in from the outside will have
little effect. In short, good seeds will not grow in weak cultures.
Many districts recognize the importance of collaboration among educators as professionals and
set schedules that provide time for teacher collaboration with clear expectations and parameters
for what should be accomplished. Quality use of collaborative time needs to be structured so

that knowledge and expertise at all staffing levels are developed and deepened. For teachers,
talk should be sharply focused on reflection and improvement of instructional practice,
curriculum alignment and pacing, analyzing student work, and using assessment data to inform
instruction. Over time, a school culture of continuous, sustained learning is fostered. It requires
restructuring time throughout the school day. This can only happen as a joint venture through
effective instructional leadership of the principal and collaboration among instructional staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Institutionalize district and school leadership development as part of the district’s

approach to professional development.
Leadership growth opportunities must become more central to Richland Two actions to improve
student performance. It is imperative that, once training is provided, there is follow-up,
monitoring and support to ensure that it translates into actions and improved leadership abilities.
When identified as important for Richland Two leaders to commit time to training, its
application should become a part of regular discussions in administrative meetings, school visits,
and employee evaluations as well.
Some local district administrators in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) are using
the Halverson Rubric to reflect on distributed leadership skills between principals and teachers.
This rubric identifies the kinds of artifacts (policies, programs, structures and procedures, etc.)
that school leaders build to establish conditions for improving teaching and learning, and can be
used to assist school leaders in understanding the structures that establish school change,
stimulate faculty discussions, and suggest potential actions and decisions.
Halverson designed the rubric around five key tasks suggested in the professional literature to
support the conditions for improving teaching and learning in highly diverse school districts:
1. Focusing on Learning;
2. Monitoring Teaching and Learning;
3. Building Nested Learning Communities;
4. Acquiring and Allocating Resources; and
5. Maintaining Safe Learning Environment.
As shown in Exhibit 3-20, each key task is broken down into components. At its optimal
effectiveness, each task supports the development of instructional district leaders and principals
who can use the rubric to measure the impact of their development efforts on teacher practice
and student performance. Its key components would help district and school leaders focus their
efforts on critical tasks that support continuous improvement and student achievement. They
would also integrate learning, create consistency, develop student supports, and build joint
accountability for specific activities into school and district activities. The rubric nature of the
tool would help leaders and staff at the district and school levels in Richland Two assess where
they are with respect to each item, see what the ideal is to reach for, and assess progress along
that path.

Exhibit 3-20
IFL Instructional Leadership Work
School Leadership Rubrics
2005– 2007
Developed with IFL Partner District Principals (including LAUSD) by Rich Halverson, UW Madison
Key Task 1
Focus on Learning
Component Needs attention Proficient Exemplary
Tasks
1.1 Leaders have not engaged the school community and staff Leaders have engaged the school community and staff in Leaders regularly engage the school community and staff in
Maintaining a in collective conversations about student learning. The conversations about student learning that serve as the ongoing conversations that serve as the foundation of a
school-wide focus school either does not have a clear vision for learning or the foundation of a shared vision. The school has a collective understanding of student learning. The school has
on learning vision is regarded by community members as theory that is collaboratively developed vision of learning that largely collaboratively developed, and regularly revisits, a vision of
unrelated to the daily practices of teaching and learning. reflects the actual practice of teachers. Principals sometimes learning that reflects the actual practices and aspirations of
Principals rarely discuss either student achievement data or discuss student achievement data or examples of teachers. Principals frequently discuss both student
concrete examples of instructional practice with teachers. instructional practice with teachers. achievement data and concrete examples of instructional
practice with teachers.
1.2 The principal is not widely recognized as an instructional The school staff recognizes the principal of the school as an School staff and all stakeholders recognize the principal as an
Formal leaders are leader. School leaders rarely engage (fewer than 2 instructional leaders and seeks his/her input on teaching and instructional leader in the school and consistently seek his/her
recognized as times/month) in public instructional leadership activities learning issues. School leaders occasionally engage input on a variety of instructional issues. School leaders
instructional such as learning walks or classroom visits. Principals either (weekly) in public instructional leadership activities such as regularly engage (several times per week) in public
leaders design professional development activities on their own or learning walks or classroom visits. Principals work with instructional leadership activities such as learning walks or
leave the design to exclusively to teachers. Principals rarely teachers to organize professional development and classroom visits. Principals work with teachers to organize
participate in professional development opportunities. curriculum design, but do not participate in the actual professional development, lesson study, and curriculum design,
sessions. and are active participants in the sessions.
1.3 Teachers are left to their own devices to come up with Teachers and leaders work together to refine and develop Strategies to improve student academic performance are the
Collaborative instructional strategies. Strategies to improve student instructional strategies. The school has developed a regular focus of faculty meetings. The school has developed a
design of academic performance are rarely discussed at faculty structured, collective instructional planning process that structured, collective instructional planning process that uses
integrated learning meetings. School-wide planning for instruction is either not coordinates specific instructional initiatives toward overall student achievement data to coordinates specific instructional
plan done or is an exercise that exists apart from the actual goals of student achievement. Strategies to improve student initiatives toward overall goals of student achievement. The
instructional practices of the school. academic performance are discussed at faculty meetings. plan integrates intermittent measures of student progress
The school plan reflects the priorities of the district learning toward learning goals. The school plan is well-integrated with
plan. the district learning plan.
1.4 EL / Special needs staff work on their own and provide EL / Special needs staff work together with each other and EL / Special needs staff work together with each other and with
Providing services to students outside the regular classroom. Leaders with teachers to plan services, but services to students are teachers to plan services; services are usually provided in the
appropriate fail to develop differentiated intervention programs to help mainly provided outside the regular classroom. Leaders context of the regular classroom. Leaders work with teachers to
services for students who traditionally struggle. Few if any teachers use ensure that programs for diverse learners are developed for develop and monitor differentiated instructional practices for
students who pre-assessment tools as a basis for differentiation of students who traditionally struggle. Many teachers use pre- students who traditionally struggle. Teachers consistently use
traditionally instruction; differentiation of instruction is rarely assessment tools as a basis for differentiation of instruction pre-assessment tools as a basis for differentiation in all content
struggle observable. in reading, writing and math; differentiation of instruction is areas; differentiation of instruction is regularly observed across
often observable. subject areas.


2005 - 2007
Key Task 2
Monitoring Teaching and Learning
Component Tasks Needs attention Proficient Exemplary
2.1 Teachers rarely report sharing their practices to Teachers frequently report sharing their practices to provide Leaders provide structured opportunities at grade level or subject
Formative provide meaningful, systematic feedback on student meaningful, systematic feedback on student performance at matter meetings for teachers to study, share practices for providing
assessment of performance at grade level or subject matter grade level or subject matter meetings. Leaders recognize the meaningful, systematic feedback on student performance. Leaders
student learning meetings. Teachers are responsible for developing value of formative assessments and provide opportunities for recognize the value of formative assessments and provide
formative measures of student learning on their own. teachers to share assessment practices. The school either opportunities for teachers to collaboratively analyze / design
The school lacks a systematic method for providing contracts for or has developed its own systematic method for assessments in light of school learning goals. The school
intermittent measures of student learning across providing intermittent measures of student learning across successfully uses a systematic method for providing intermittent
classrooms and grade levels. classrooms and grade levels. measures of student learning in order to predict and shape student
learning outcomes across classrooms and grade levels .
2.2 Evaluation of student performance is limited to Evaluation of student performance is based on multiple Evaluations of student performance are based on multiple sources of
Summative district or state summative achievement data. There is sources of summative assessment data. There is some disparity data including student self-evaluation and/or self-reflection. The
evaluation of a marked discrepancy between the quality of assigned between the quality of assigned classroom grades and the disparities between the quality of assigned classroom grades and the
student learning classroom grades and the results of standardized results of standardized achievement tests, but this disparity is results of standardized achievement tests have diminished as a
achievement tests. Teachers and staff have fewer than a topic of conversation among staff. Teachers and staff have result of collaborative instructional design. Teachers and staff have
2 annual opportunities to collectively reflect on 2-5 annual opportunities to collaboratively reflect on more than 5 annual opportunities to collaboratively reflect on
achievement data and to collaboratively redesign the achievement data and to redesign the school instructional achievement data and redesign the school instructional program in
school instructional program in light of the data. program in light of the data. light of the data.
2.3 Principals limit classroom visits to resolving Principals/administrators visit classrooms monthly for both Principals/administrators visit classrooms 2-3 times per month for
Formative problems or for formal evaluation. Teachers are left formative and summative purposes. Leaders provide guidance both formative and summative purposes and regularly provide
assessment of on their own to find resources to improve their for teachers in identifying and acquiring resources to improve feedback on teaching. Leaders provide guidance for individual
teaching practice. Faculty meetings provide fewer than 2 practice. Faculty meetings use samples of typical or exemplary teachers to find resources to improve practice; these resources are
annual opportunities to use samples of typical or student performance 2-3 times per year to clarify teaching and collectively reviewed and integrated into teacher and school
exemplary student performance to clarify teaching learning tasks and to distinguish levels of student improvement planning. Faculty meetings use samples of typical or
and learning tasks or to distinguish levels of student performance. exemplary student performance more than 4 times per year to clarify
performance. teaching and learning tasks and to distinguish levels of student
performance.
2.4 The teacher evaluation policies and forms focus on Teacher evaluation policies, forms and procedures are Teacher and staff evaluation procedures informed by appropriate
Summative performance checklists that do not reflect research on informed by research on appropriate models of teaching and research on models of effective practice. Appropriate evaluation
evaluation of appropriate models of teaching and learning. learning. Appropriate evaluation policies are developed for policies are developed for classroom staff and teachers are reviewed
teaching Evaluation policies are not customized for non- classroom staff. Occasions for evaluation are focused on annually. Occasions for evaluation are targeted to measure the
classroom staff. Occasions for evaluation are either reviewing the teacher’s areas of professional growth in the staff’s ability to engage in the school’s major instructional
selected by teachers or chosen at random by the classroom. The evaluation process draws on multiple initiatives. The evaluation process draws on multiple classroom
evaluator. Evaluation practice usually involves a classroom visits. Formal evaluation practices are still visits by multiple observers. Evaluation practices are used to
single classroom visit. Formal evaluation practices primarily used to document poor performance. The design of document poor teaching as well as to provide valuable feedback for
are primarily used to document poor performance. the evaluation process is connected to either the school goals accomplished teachers. The design of the evaluation process
The evaluation process operates independently of for improving student learning or the school’s and teacher’s integrates measures of student learning and is linked with the
professional development or goals for student professional development program. school’s and teacher’s professional development plan.
learning.


2005 - 2007
Key Task 3
Building Nested Learning Communities
3.1 The schools seems to address a different The school has determined a long-term vision for instructional The school has collaboratively developed a long-term vision for
Collaborative instructional problem every year. Current programs improvement. Current programs build on past initiatives, and instructional improvement. Current programs build on past
school-wide focus do not build on past initiatives, and may even professional development, lesson study, daily instruction, initiatives, and professional development, lesson study, daily
on problems of contradict what went before. Meetings at which assessment and school improvement planning are linked to instruction, assessment and school improvement planning are linked
teaching and school instructional initiatives are discussed are focus on several key problems of teaching and learning. to the key problems of teaching and learning. Meetings at which
learning mainly informational rather than participatory. Meetings at which school instructional initiatives are school instructional initiatives are discussed are mainly
Faculty committees focus mainly on address discussed are balanced between informational and participatory. Faculty committees develop intermediate timelines
emergent problems and routine, non-instructional participatory formats. Faculty committees routinely focus on and benchmarks to determine whether new practices are helping
issues. Learning goals are measured in terms of issues of teaching and learning. Learning goals are identified achieve student learning goals. Teachers and leaders build on prior
student achievement data. Individual teachers are and measured in terms of disaggregated student achievement initiatives within and across their disciplines to plan and to develop
left alone to reconcile these different instructional data. Teachers build on prior initiatives within their disciplines new practices to meet teaching and learning goals.
priorities in their practice. to plan and to develop new practices to meet teaching and
learning goals.
3.2 The school allows teachers to decide on The school has developed a long-term plan for continuous The school has developed a long-term plan for focused support of
Professional professional development options. Formal in- support of professional growth that integrates individual professional growth in key instructional areas that provides
development service time is spent on disseminating information teacher needs with whole school goals. In addition to differentiated support for individual teacher ability in terms of whole
regarding assorted, disconnected topics. There are informational sessions, adequate structured time is allocated school instructional goals. Information is disseminated in alternative
no formal measures of professional development for staff to engage in these professional development media to allow for maximum time for staff to engage in and reflect
effectiveness. activities. Staff satisfaction surveys provide the main measures upon professional development activities. A variety of summative
of professional development program effectiveness. and formative assessments are developed to assess implementation
of instructional practices and impact on student learning in targeted
areas.
3.3 Authority in the school is perceived by teachers and Formal leaders delegate a variety of leadership tasks to a Formal leaders create and/or recognize structures through which
Socially distributed staff as centralized. Control over instructional and teachers and staff. Although there are opportunities for teachers and staff are able to developing initiatives for the school’s
leadership budgetary planning is retained by formal leaders. teachers to participate in school leadership, control over the instructional priorities. Control over the direction and content of the
principal. Opportunities for teachers to participate instructional agenda is retained by local leaders. instructional agenda is shared by formal leaders, teachers and staff.
in decision-making are widely seen as token efforts
irrelevant to the real decision-making power.
3.4 Teachers who have expertise in content or Teachers with expertise in content and pedagogy have Leaders provide teachers who have expertise in content and
Coaching and pedagogy do not have structured opportunities to structured opportunities to share information, experiences pedagogy with structured opportunities to share information,
mentoring share information, experiences, and/or knowledge and/or knowledge with other teachers. Mentoring programs experiences and/or knowledge with other teachers. Lead teachers /
with other teachers. Mentoring programs are either exist and are structured to help mentees learn from the coaches mentor other teachers on a regular basis. Lead teachers /
ineffective or accidentally effective based on the experience of mentors. District-level instructional coaches are coaches are supported through training programs that help them
dispositions of individual mentors and mentees. respected members of the community and successfully help relate their experiences to mentees. District-level instructional
District-level instructional coaching initiatives do teachers with problems of practice. experts / coaches are respected instructional leaders who help
not seem to effect everyday teaching and learning. teachers solve problems as well as introducing new methods and
practices.


2005 - 2007
Key Task 4
Acquiring and Allocating Resources
4.1 Fewer than 70% of teachers are certified and/or Between 75%-90% of teachers are certified and/or meet Over 90% of teachers are certified and/or meet requirements to teach
Personnel practices meet requirements to teach in their assigned subject requirements to teach in their assigned subject areas and grade in their assigned subject areas and grade levels. Teachers with
areas and grade levels. School leaders rely on levels. Leaders use district supplied applicant lists but also specialized qualifications and skills are actively recruited to fulfill
district applicant lists to fill open positions. There rely on other sources to find qualified candidates to fill open specified needs of the school community. Teacher induction
are no induction programs. There are few positions. There are limited induction programs to retain new programs are integrated into mentoring and professional
incentives available to reward teachers for excellent teachers. Leaders have some discretion to reward teachers for development programs. Leaders have developed an incentive system
performance. excellent performance. to reward teachers for progress toward school-wide goals.
4.2 Leaders expect staff to use time as an instructional Leaders support and assist staff to protect time as a valuable Leaders structure professional time to address complex issues of
Structuring and resources, but do not structure or monitor time used resources in providing quality instruction; but leaders do not instruction. Time is provided for whole-school, grade and subject-
maintaining time for professional learning. Shared time for planning explicitly organize time use around resolving the complex matter level planning, lesson study, curriculum design and
often spent on non-instructional issues. problems of instruction. Instructional issues are a priority for reflection. Teachers receive feedback on effective uses of
shared instructional time. instructional planning time.
4.3 Leaders perceive they have an inadequate range of Leaders perceive they have a limited range of discretion for Leaders perceive they have considerable range of discretion for
School resources discretion to acquire and allocate human, material allocating necessary human, material and financial resources. allocating and acquiring necessary human, material and financial
are focused on or financial resources. The perception of pre- Leaders are able to link budgets, school improvement, resources. Leaders base decisions about budgets, school
student learning determined school budgets leave leaders little professional development plans to school-wide goals for improvement, professional on school-wide goals for student
freedom or ability to repurpose resources for local student learning. Fiscal and performance data are used to learning. Fiscal and performance data are systematically used for
instructional goals. The budget is developed make informed decisions about resource plans. There is an making informed decisions. There is an established, comprehensive
through an ad hoc process that does not adequately established, comprehensive budgeting process that adequately budgeting process that incorporates staff input and is communicated
support sustained school improvement. supports sustained school improvement. to stakeholders; the staff receives training to participate in the
budget process.
4.4 District experts and external consultants approach Leaders seek out expertise from the district and from outside Leaders continuously seek out expertise from the district and from
Integrating external the school to provide services. Experts and sources. District experts and external consultants are chosen outside sources. The work of external experts is coordinated with
expertise into consultants generally do not customize services to based on their ability to help the school achieve instructional each other and with key community members to help the school
school instructional fit ongoing school instructional priorities. The goals; but the work of consultants might not be well achieve instructional goals. The school has cultivated “critical
program services of experts and consultants are coordinated coordinated with each other. School leaders have developed friends” to provide perspective on school progress. Leaders have
either with each other or with the main instructional close links with the district and are able to influence the use of developed strong relations with the district and are able influence
priorities of the school. District resources are not district resources. Some teachers participate in professional the design of district priorities. Most teachers participate in
well utilized. Few teachers participate in networks outside the school. professional networks outside the school.
professional networks outside the school.


2005 - 2007
Key Task 4
Acquiring and Allocating Resources
4.5 Most teachers contact fewer than 3 families per Most teachers contact 3-5 families per month to discuss Most teachers contact more than 5 families per month to discuss
Coordinating and month to discuss academic progress, strategies for academic progress, strategies for improvement, or to academic progress, strategies for improvement, or to commend
supervising improvement, or to commend students' successes. commend students' successes. There are a variety of programs students' successes. Families work with leaders to develop programs
relations with Other than parent-teacher conferences, there are no developed to welcome families into the school and that not only make the school more welcoming, but also to bring
families and the programs to welcome families into the school and classrooms. The school regularly reaches out to teachers, community resources into the school. The school regularly reaches
external the classroom. Teachers, families, building students, families, building personnel, and community out information through a variety of media and actively seeks out
communities personnel, and community must approach the members to provide information on instructional priorities what community members want to know about the school.
school for information on instructional priorities. through a variety of media.
Key Task 5
Maintaining Safe and Effective Learning Environment
5.1 Discipline policies are inconsistent or not enforced Discipline policies are enforced consistently throughout the Discipline policies are equitably and consistently enforced. Teachers
Clear, consistent at all. The responsibility for enforcement is left to school. Teachers and leaders work together to ensure fair and leaders work together to ensure fair enforcement. Teachers and
and enforced individual teachers. Discipline policies are rarely enforcement. Discipline policies are annually reviewed. Most leaders use data on student conduct and achievement to review and
expectations for reviewed. Most students perceive behavior polices students perceive behavioral expectations to be fairly designed adjust policies. Students take ownership by participating in the
student behavior as unfairly or randomly enforced . and enforced. development and peer-enforcement of behavior policies.
5.2 District/school safety policies or procedures do not District/school safety policies or procedures reflect conditions District/school safety policies and procedures reflect school
Clean and safe reflect conditions in the school. Significant numbers in the school, but are not regularly reviewed. A small conditions and are annually reviewed. Virtually no students are
learning of students are involved in fighting, theft, selling or minority of students are involved in fighting, theft, selling or involved in fighting, theft, selling or using drugs, or are perpetrators
environment using drugs, or are perpetrators or victims of using drugs, or are perpetrators or victims of harassment. or victims of harassment. Students regularly lead and interact civilly
harassment. School-wide assemblies are rare and Students interact civilly at regular school-wide assemblies. at school-wide assemblies. School-wide announcements that
difficult to control. School-wide announcements School-wide announcements that interrupt classroom teaching interrupt classroom teaching typically occur less than twice per day.
that interrupt classroom teaching typically occur typically occur between two and three times per day.
more than three times per day.


2005 - 2007
Key Task 5
Maintaining Safe and Effective Learning Environment
5.3 The school’s often miscategorizes ELs / students The school effectively identifies ELs / students with special The school effectively identifies ELs / students with special needs
Student support with special needs and is unable to provide services needs but is unable to provide services to successfully improve and successfully provides services to improve learning for most
services provide to successfully improve learning for most identified learning for most identified students. The school has a plan in identified students. Leaders work with teachers across the school to
safe haven for students. The school has underspecified plans for place and has made progress in improving attendance, dropout continually revise plans for improving attendance, dropout and
students who improving attendance, dropout and graduation rates and graduation rates for students who traditionally struggle. graduation rates for students who traditionally struggle. An
traditionally for students who traditionally struggle. No pool of Students can volunteer to meet with a pool of adult mentors extensive pool of adult mentors and advocates contact students in
struggle adult mentors or advocates is available for and advocates for academic and social assistance. need to provide academic and social assistance.
struggling students.
5.4 Leaders require teachers to resolve parent and School leaders are able to help teachers deal with parent School leaders are able to help teachers deal with parent concerns.
Buffering the district concerns on their own. The school can fail concerns. Leaders have developed good relations with the Leaders are able to relate the message of successful achievement at
teaching to meet expectations for classroom access in two district leaders and are able to effectively filter and pass on the school to district and community leaders. This message helps
environment ways. 1) The school restricts public access to relevant information to teachers. Leaders have established leaders serve as successful advocates for district resources and to
classroom teachers too tightly. Parents and visitors reliable procedures to provide public access to teachers and filter resources effectively to teachers. Leaders have established and
feel unwelcome in the school, and teaches are classrooms. Teachers feel comfortable with classroom regularly review reliable procedures to control access to the
reluctant to talk about their work with visitors. 2) visitors. classroom. Teachers welcome classroom visitors.
The school provides too little control over
classroom visitors. Teachers find it difficult to
focus on teaching and learning because of external
interruptions.
Source: Richard Halverson - University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005.

Those elements are:
• focus on learning;
• monitoring teaching and learning;
• building nested learning communities;
• acquiring and allocating resources; and
• maintaining a safe and effective learning community.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The district has a core of four instructional coaches who work with new teachers to induct them
into the culture of Richland Two schools with the dual goals of building their capacity and
retaining them for the benefit of the district. They have been trained in Cognitive Coaching and
the Santa Cruz New Teacher Center coaching model. They work as liaisons with administrators,
serving as support to new and veteran teachers who may need assistance. Their work includes
assisting in planning and designing effective lessons, holding monthly induction meetings,
arranging observations of master teachers and follow-up debriefings, and even recruiting for the
district because of their knowledge of what good teaching is.
Since the inception of the instructional coaching program in Richland Two, 1,184 teachers have
participated in the new teacher/year two program. Of these teachers, 55 have become nationally
board certified. From 2006 through today, 41 teachers have become their school’s teachers of
the year. Additionally, others have become department chairs, magnet lead teachers, or
administrators in the central office.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its strong program of induction of new teachers into the
district.
FINDING
Richland Two has a strong program supporting teachers who desire to seek National Board
Certification. The district conducts workshops, provides extensive information to teachers, and
emails them details on becoming nationally board certified. One person commented that “the
support is amazing!”
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for recognizing and supporting the merits of teachers
becoming accomplished to equip students with 21st Century skills through National Board
Certification.

CHAPTER 4:
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

4.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This chapter of Evergreen’s report addresses the finance-related activities of Richland Two. For
purposes of this report, financial management is divided into the broad areas of:
4.1 Financial Organization and Management

4.2 Budgeting
4.3 Purchasing
4.4 Payroll and Accounts Payable
4.5 Cash, Investments, and Bond Management
4.6 Asset and Risk Management
4.7 Food Service Financial Management
The Richland School District Two (Richland Two) is a fast-growing district facing financial
challenges related to changes in state and local funding. As shown in Exhibit 4-1, in 2007, the
South Carolina Legislature removed taxes imposed for school operations for owner-occupied
property in South Carolina and replaced this revenue source with a one cent sales tax. The district
reports that revenues from local sources remains adequate; however, proposed funding cuts in state
support now threaten to impose additional budgetary constraints on the district.
Exhibit 4-1
School Finance Changes
2006-07 School Year
Revenue/Pupil
Wealth/ Local Tax State & Expenditure/
School District Pupil Effort Federal EIA Local Pupil
Richland Two $17,401 1.550 $646 $4,225 $8,739 $8,974
Beaufort $81,988 0.694 $1,055 $1,420 $9,590 $9,604
Berkeley $18,896 1.046 $898 $4,346 $8,090 $9,836
Dorchester Two $15,418 1.102 $525 $4,184 $7,260 $7,206
Richland One $30,098 1.491 $1,401 $4,648 $11,787 $11,185
Rock Hill (York Three) $20,733 1.104 $663 $4,376 $8,341 $8,088
Average $30,756 1.1645 $865 $3,867 $8,968 $9,149
Source: South Carolina Department of Education, 2011.
As shown in Exhibit 4-1, Richland Two has the second lowest wealth per pupil and the highest
local tax effort among its peers. To put this into perspective, in South Carolina, equalized
assessed property valuation is used to allocate funding under the basic formula. Each district has
an index of taxpaying ability, which is its relative fiscal capacity compared to that of all other
districts of the state, based on the full market value of all taxable property in the district. The
amount of local support the district is required to provide is determined by computing the total
statewide collective local share (approximately 30 percent) of the cost of the foundation program
multiplied by the district’s index of taxpaying ability. Of the 85 school districts listed in the
South Carolina Department of Revenue’s, Index of Taxpaying Ability Report for Index Year
2011, Richland Two has the ninth highest index at .01960. Of the peer districts shown above,

Financial Management Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
Beaufort is #3 with and index of .09963, Richland One is #5 with an index of .03935 and
Berkeley is #6 with an index of .03476.
The amount of aid the State provides is the difference between the total cost for the district to
provide the foundation/minimum education program minus the district's required local support.
To qualify for its state appropriations, each district must spend 85 percent of the state aid in
direct and indirect aid to the specific program or classification for which it qualified for aid.
Further, each district is required to pay each certified teacher or administrator an annual salary in
accordance with the statewide minimum salary schedule.
Exhibit 4-2 shows the district’s enrollment grew by 42.6 percent between Fiscal 2001 and 2010,
while operating expenditures grew by 107.9 percent. Exhibit 4-3 shows the percentages for peer
districts.
Exhibit 4-2
Enrollment and Operating Expenditures
Fiscal 2001 through 2010
Annual Annual
% Growth Growth Operating % Growth Growth
Year Enrollment from 2001 Rate Expenditures from 2001 Rate
2001 16,995 $107,877,091
2002 17,665 3.9% 3.9% $114,558,272 6.2% 6.2%
2003 18,474 8.7% 4.6% $123,991,448 14.9% 8.2%
2004 18,874 11.1% 2.2% $133,855,844 24.1% 8.0%
2005 19,833 16.7% 5.1% $144,954,521 34.4% 8.3%
2006 20,913 23.1% 5.4% $162,664,040 50.8% 12.2%
2007 22,008 29.5% 5.2% $179,136,409 66.1% 10.1%
2008 23,196 36.5% 5.4% $200,189,531 85.6% 11.8%
2009 23,900 40.6% 3.0% $216,955,256 101.1% 8.4%
2010 24,238 42.6% 1.4% $224,323,404 107.9% 3.4%
Source: Richland Two Finance Office, 2011; Operating Expenditures – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
Richland Two School District, for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 Table 17: Operating Statistics.
Exhibit 4-3
Expenditure per Pupil Breakdown
2006-07 School Year*
District Building School Food
School District Leadership Upkeep Leadership Services Instruction Other
Richland Two 2.6% 9.2% 6.0% 3.4% 69.3% 9.5%
Beaufort 4.3% 10.5% 5.6% 3.9% 69.4% 6.4%
Berkeley 2.2% 11.1% 5.3% 5.4% 70.1% 6.0%
Dorchester Two 1.2% 10.1% 5.9% 3.8% 72.9% 6.1%
Richland One 2.1% 8.6% 5.3% 3.8% 72.9% 7.3%
Rock Hill (York Three) 1.8% 11.6% 6.0% 4.9% 70.6% 5.1%
Average 2.4% 10.2% 5.7% 4.2% 70.9% 6.7%
*latest data available.

As can be seen in Exhibit 4-3, on a per pupil basis the percent of district expenditures both
Richland One and Richland Two have lower than average expenditure for building upkeep. On
campus-based expenditures, school leadership is among the highest and instruction is the lowest
among its peers.
Exhibit 4-4 shows Evergreen’s survey results for finance-related items. As can be seen, the
survey responses from central office administrators, school administrators, and teachers varied
on some issues; however, overall the responses indicate a favorable rating of finance-related
functions in the district. The only question and subsequent response rate that presents an
exception is for central office administrators related to training of campus administrators in fiscal
management techniques. As can be seen, a majority of central office administrators indicated that
school-based administrators are not well-trained in fiscal management techniques. However,
school-based administrators and teachers felt differently. In general, for many of the finance-
related questions the majority of teachers had no opinion.
Exhibit 4-4
Finance-Related Survey Responses
Central Office School

Administrators Administrators Teachers
Survey Statement SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D
Site-based budgeting is used effectively to extend the
71.43% 8.16% 68.99% 11.40% 47.31% 13.06%
involvement of principals and teachers.
Campus administrators are well trained in fiscal management
28.57% 32.65% 57.60% 24.05% 38.66% 6.66%
techniques.
Funds are managed wisely to support education in the school
93.88% 6.12% 86.62% 5.10% 58.12% 14.21%
district.
The district’s financial reports are easy to understand and
75.51% 6.12% 54.43% 12.66% 34.16% 7.40%
read.
Campus and program administrators have sufficient access to
75.51% 6.12% 74.52% 7.01% 44.52% 1.75%
the financial data they need.
Financial reports are made available to community members
75.51% 0.00% 60.51% 3.18% 44.34% 2.11%
when asked.
4.1 FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 4-5 shows the organization of the Business Services area of the Richland Two School
District. In addition to the individuals listed in the organization chart, each school and many
departments have an assigned bookkeeper or clerical person who performs bookkeeping duties.
FINDING
The Business Services Division is not functionally aligned and individuals within each area have
cross-functional duties that in some cases fragment the knowledge and skill base of the
organization. Although the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) has knowledge of each operation, the
individuals who perform the fragmented tasks are not being used in a way that maximizes their
productivity and allows them to take ownership of the broader function.

Exhibit 4-5
Financial/Business Services Organizational Chart
in Richland Two
Chief
Financial Officer
Administrative
Assistant
Procurement Executive Director

Controller
Specialist Of Operations
Payroll and
Accounts Payable
Emergency
Manager Transportation
Services
Financial Services Manager
Manager
Payroll
Accounts Payable
Accounting New Design and
Special Revenue Maintenance and
Construction
Accountant Energy Supervisor
Manager
Accounts Payable Payroll Accounting
Manager of Food Service
Turf Manager
Accounting Manager (Sodexo)

Financial Service Warehouse
Warehouse Supply
Accounting Delivery
Risk Management
Coordinator Assistant
Food Services Field Services

Accounts Payable Bookkeeper Accountant
(PT)
While it would be impossible to list every activity performed by Business Services staff,
positions in the division perform major tasks as stated in Exhibit 4-6.
As shown, the Business Services staff performs a diverse number of tasks that are not aligned or
focused. Compounding the fragmentation is the fact that there are several employees in the
division that are within five years of retirement. Given the fact that few of these employees have
trained back-ups, and these tasks are diverse, protecting the institutional knowledge of the
Business Services Division will be critical to future continuity.
The position of Controller is an oversight position that closely mirrors the roles and
responsibilities of the Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer possesses many years
of experience and a wide knowledge and understanding of the programs under his direction.
Further, the CFO is very hands-on, and is therefore often involved in the day-to-day management
and direction of the staff that report to the Controller. Each of the positions reporting to the
Controller also appear to have a great deal of autonomy in how they carry out their functions.
Consequently, the added management layer between the CFO and the staff currently supervised
by the Controller appears to be a redundancy that may not be necessary or desirable in a financial
operation of this size.

Exhibit 4-6
Key Tasks Performed by Position
in Finance Office
Position Primary Tasks

Controller Oversight responsibility for cash management, debt management, risk, financial projections and budgeting
and financial reporting; assists in the issuance of bonds; prepares revenue and cash flow projections; oversees
the bidding and maintenance of insurance policies; performs analytical work as assigned by the CFO.
Manager Financial Oversees the annual fixed asset inventory and enters depreciation annually; assists in the compilation of
Services annual budget document; prepares financial and statistical reports for Board and administration; provides
auditor assistance during external audit; compiles or creates data used for state and federal reports.
Special Revenue Handles federal grants, EIA funding and budgets for special revenue funds; closes out prior year’s grants and
Accountant sets up new accounts each year; approves and/or monitors the expenditure of special revenues; handles all
cash receipts for the district office in addition to the state and local grants proceeds, refund checks, tuition for
Tri-district, and student; handles cash from the drink and snack machines in District office; prepares deposit
summary report; prepares claims, including indirect costs, for special revenue funds.
Manager of Oversees all accounting functions, including the approval and entry of budget amendments into the General
Accounting Ledger; administers the district’s 403 (b) plan; performs analytical work as assigned by the CFO; performs
year end close of General Ledger; assists in compilation of District CAFR; serves as liaison to general bank
for checking accounts; performs bank reconciliations, oversight and supervision of accounting staff..
Risk Management Administers self-funded Workers’ Compensation claims and recordkeeping; prepares OSHA reports;
Coordinator coordinates district-wide risk management committees; acts as liaison with Third-Party Administrator, Excess
Coverage Provider, risk management advisory service provider, district risk auditor, attorneys, and other
stakeholders in the Worker’s Compensation arena; assembles Budget and Audit Books for distribution;
maintains the list of Professional Certified Staff; assists in sending cafeteria and fee debt letters; enters and
maintains the voluntary and mandatory payroll deductions (i.e., 401K contributions, levies, bankruptcies);
prepares state employment and Medicaid reports; assists schools with procurement cards; performs
administrative activities for the Controller.
Financial Services Enters fixed assets into the system and monitors annual inventories; administers and tracks Impact Aid
Accounting Applications and revenues; monitors student activity accounts; enters all cash receipts and appropriate budgets
Assistant to general ledger; oversees revenues from Proviso Foster Care and transfers to home districts; coordinates the
efforts of and provides assistance and training to the Student Attendance Coordinators; maintains facility
rental contracts.
Field Services Accounting and reporting for all capital projects including the recording of bond sales; monitors budgets and
Accountant all change orders for capital projects; participates in major contracting activities for capital projects; assists in
the collection of overdue pupil activity fees and activity fund monitoring; performs monthly bank and NSF
check reconciliations for Food Service; prepares the P&L statement for Food Service; receives and reconciles
the vendor invoice for food service; maintains Davis Bacon Act records; assists with year end accounting
activities; assists in entering information regarding fixed asset disposal and the depreciation of fixed assets at
the end of the fiscal year; monitors the Operations and Maintenance Budgets; trains new bookkeepers and is
major point of contact with bookkeepers regarding financial transactions.
Food Services Imports new student files and maintains existing student files in the Nutri-kids system; imports payments from
Bookkeeper the online payment system into the campus level files; posts cafeteria deposits to the Alio system; enters
purchasing requisitions; answers calls from parents regarding their outstanding bills.
Procurement Approves all requisitions for $2,500 or over; controls purchasing and bid processes in conformity with
Specialist Procurement Code including advertising bids and sealed bid openings; assists in the ordering and inventory of
warehouse supplies; maintains all formal bid and bid-related documentation.
Coordinator Payroll Oversight and supervision of all payroll and accounts payable employees (9) and the related functions.
and Accounts
Payable
Administrative Performs administrative activities for the CFO, claims funds from the County Treasurer, transfers funds
Assistant to CFO within district and Investment Pool accounts based on draw-down schedules, payroll and accounts payable
needs; does journal entries for movement of funds; compiles building fund reports with assistance from the
Field Services Accountant; maintains the records of the Education Foundation, the W.R. Rogers Scholarship
Fund and the Nancy Zern Memorial Fund -- makes deposits, writes check for signature, and prepares financial
statements; files General Liability accident claims; organizes the annual distribution of Student and Athletic
Insurance information.
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions with data from Richland Two Finance Office, 2011.

The position of Manager of Financial Services has no direct reports and does not manage a
specific program or function within Business Services, as the title might imply. His primary
duties include compiling various reports and assisting with one-time projects (such as annually
coordinating the inventory and reporting of fixed assets and asset depreciation, assisting the
external auditors, and gathering other data for statistical analysis). Other members of the
Business Services staff, including the Manager of Accounting, the Financial Services
Accounting Assistant and the Field Services Accountant contribute to the Manager of Financials
Services’ efforts and have the ability to perform many of the data collection and analyses he
currently performs.
Although the Procurement Specialist has a broad picture of the procurement process and the
laws, rules and guidelines as well as an understanding of how Alio’s purchasing function works
and why, other employees with more fragmented tasks had a more limited understanding of the
related functions. For example, the individuals responsible for fixed assets and the various parts
of the insurance and risk management function owned only small pieces of these functions and
were not always sure why or how other tasks and functions related to the work they performed.
Financial management is most effective when a district properly aligns its financial services
functions, establishes strong systems of internal control, and properly allocates staff resources to
achieve the best results.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-1:
Reorganize the Business Services Division (Finance Office) to focus and align functions and
create a succession plan for key finance positions, particularly those where the incumbent
is eligible for retirement within the next five years.
The Finance Division should reorganize functionally into three major areas, including Payroll
and Accounts Payable, Asset and Risk Management, and Budgeting and Accounting, as shown
in Exhibit 4-7.
Although the final decision regarding the realignment for functions remains with district leaders,
the duties and responsibilities of each function are proposed in Exhibit 4-8.
Job descriptions should be created, and within each functional area, projects for documenting
roles, responsibilities and procedures should be undertaken to ensure that the operations of the
division continue unabated when the incumbents retire or leave the district.
The new positions being created should be posted and made available to internal and external
applicants with the skills and abilities to perform the related tasks.

Exhibit 4-7
Proposed Reorganization of Finance Office
in Richland Two

Exhibit 4-8
Proposed Duties and Responsibilities of each Function
Primary Positions to Carry Out

Functional Area Responsibilities Responsibilities
Payroll & Payroll: Perform all payroll related activities including entry of Coordinator of Payroll and
Accounts Payable exceptions, entry of pay supplements, maintenance of records; and, Accounts Payable plus five (5)
Management payroll distribution. exiting Payroll Clerks
Payroll & Accounts Payable: Perform all accounts payable related activities from Coordinator of Payroll and
Accounts Payable the point that an invoice is submitted for payment, maintenance of Accounts Payable plus five (4)
Management records; and, payment distribution. exiting Accounts Payable Clerks
Asset and Risk Asset Management: Maintenance of a centralized record of assets; Director of Asset & Risk
Management coordinating the annual asset inventories; recording annual Management; Asset Management
depreciation of fixed assets; monitoring the disposal of assets; and, Coordinator
maintaining insurance policies, records and claims.
Asset and Risk Purchasing: Control purchasing and bid processes in conformity with Director of Asset & Risk
Management Procurement Code including advertising bids and sealed bid openings; Management; Manager of
maintain all formal bid and bid-related documentation; maintain Purchasing and Warehousing;
vendor files; maintain catalog and bulk purchasing lists; and, negotiate Purchasing Specialist
bulk or volume purchase prices, as appropriate.
Asset and Risk Warehousing: Oversee the operation of the warehouse and delivery Director of Asset & Risk
Management function; provide daily courier service to all district locations; and, Management; Manager of
oversee and assist in the disposal of surplus property. Purchasing and Warehousing;
Warehouse and Delivery staff (3)
Asset and Risk Risk Management: Oversee the acquisition and maintenance of all Director of Asset & Risk
Management insurance coverages for the district; administer the Self-funded Management; Risk Management
Workers’ Compensation claims and recordkeeping processes; prepare Coordinator
OSHA reports, coordinate district-wide risk management committees;
and act as liaison with Third-Party Administrators, risk management
advisors and insurance providers.
Accounting and Cash & Investments: Maintain all checking and investment accounts of Director of Accounting and
Budget the district; monitor cash flows and make cash transfers; invest district Budget; Cash & Investments
Management funds to maximize returns on excess cash; prepare annual revenue Accountant
projections; assist in bond issuances and all decisions related to bonded
indebtedness; and, work with county officials regarding transfers of
revenues.
Accounting and Financial Reporting & Monitoring: Prepare annual financial Director of Accounting and
Budget statements; coordinate the district’s preparation for and work with its Budget; Cash & Investments
Management external auditors; prepare quarterly and monthly financial reports for Accountant
the Board; and, prepare all state and federally required financial
reports.
Accounting and Budgets and Special Revenues: Track and monitor all special revenues Director of Accounting and
Budget funds of the district; monitor expenditures of special revenues funds Budget; Budget & Special
Management and work with campuses to ensure that all special revenue funds are Revenue Accountant
spent in accordance with fund stipulation; develop and maintain a
budget calendar for the district; lead the annual budget preparation
process; enter and maintain budgets for all funds within the system;
monitor revenue and expenditure trends throughout the year; and,
monitor to ensure that all closing entries are made to the accounts of
the district annually.
Accounting and Capital Projects: Track and monitor all capital projects, including Director of Accounting and
Budget change orders; prepare expenditure estimates and flows; assist in the Budget; Capital Projects
Management issuance of bonds; in cooperation with the Operation Department, Accountant
prepare regular progress reports on all capital projects; and, assist in the
procurement and contracting activities related to capital projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the position changes are provided in the chart below. Please note that some
of the organizational changes proposed here are covered in more detail in other areas of the
report, and the fiscal impact of those changes is shown in those sections.
Salary Plus
Position Description of Change Salary Change Benefits (33%)
Controller Eliminate Position $112,261 $149,307
Manager of Financial Services Eliminate Position $92,113 $112,510
Food Services Bookkeeper Eliminate Position See Food Service See Food Service
Section Section
(Section 4.7)
Warehouse Supply Supervisor and Eliminate Positions (2) See Purchasing See Purchasing
Warehouseman Section Section
(Section 4.3)
Manager of Purchasing and Upgrade existing Procurement Specialist See Purchasing See Purchasing
Warehouse Services to Manager of Purchasing and Warehouse Section Section
Services (Section 4.3)
Internal Auditor Add new position See Audit Section See
(4.1.2) Recommendation
4.4 and Chapter 2
Director of Asset and Risk Add new position ($75,000) ($99,750)

Management
Cash & Investments Accountant Add new position ($40,000) ($53,200)
Cash & Investments Accountant Add new position ($40,000) ($53,200)
Net Fiscal Impact of Position Changes Addressed In this Recommendation $55,543
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reorganize the
Business Services/ $65,667 $65,667 $65,667 $65,667 $65,667
Finance Division
4.1.1 Finance Policies and Procedures
Richland Two has financial Board policies and administrative rules that address high-level
issues; however, few comprehensive procedures exist to guide day-to-day financial functions
routinely performed by principals, bookkeepers and departments throughout the district.
While this list is not all inclusive, it demonstrates the magnitude of finance-related tasks that are
performed outside of the Business Services area, including:
• Budgeting and Budget Maintenance

• Purchasing and Receiving Guidelines
• Payroll and Leave Accounting
• Use of Procurement Cards and Petty Cash Funds
• Use and Maintenance of Activity Funds
• Bank Deposits and Reconciliations
• State and Local reporting requirements

• Validation of Phone Bills

• Debt Collection
Individuals responsible for each of these areas indicated that some old manuals exist, but most
rely on a series of checklists and manually created forms to assist other staff to perform these
functions. For example, the Procurement Specialist indicated that handbooks and desk
procedures once used by the bookkeepers and other administrative staff are now outdated. To
assist district staff in the purchasing process, the Procurement Specialist has created a number of
very useful forms and checklists that lead the user through the process and are designed to ensure
compliance with the Procurement Code.
Finance staff members provide some training for new bookkeepers and principals, but once the
initial orientation is over, bookkeepers and principals have no comprehensive manual or guide to
refer to when new and complex issues arise.
The ERP Support Analyst has created online procedures for using the Alio system to enter
requisitions and process the paperwork through the system. This information is extremely useful,
but bookkeepers said they needed more detailed information to guide them through the process
of identifying the right vendors at the best price, obtaining quotes and handling all of the
activities that are not system related. Bookkeepers stated that it was counterproductive for each
of them to have to reinvent the wheel each time that something new comes along. Therefore
they spend a great deal of time calling around and talking to each other and to the Procurement
Specialist trying to figure out how to proceed. They felt a manual would help them to avoid this
frustration and would bring more consistency to the district.
Bookkeepers have two meetings per year, which are primarily a social gathering. The meetings
often involve a meal and provide bookkeepers the opportunity to meet each other and share some
time together. The individuals that attended the focus group session; however, felt that more
exchange of information among bookkeepers would be helpful. Bookkeepers at the various
grade levels and on different campuses are not consistent in how they perform certain functions,
and in some instances the bookkeepers have tried to help each other by calling or visiting a
campus where a new bookkeeper is struggling.
One item of particular concern to this group was the inconsistent understanding about the use of
the petty cash fund and procurement cards. Each campus administrator has established some
rules or guides, and some guidance exists in district administrative procedures. Each
bookkeeper, however, had examples of situations where they questioned how these instruments
were used. They indicated that they used their best judgment, but were concerned that they
could or should have done something differently.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 4-2:
Develop a comprehensive procedural manual to guide and institute appropriate levels of

controls over the finance-related functions carried out by principals, bookkeepers and
other departments throughout the district.

These manuals should be developed in collaboration with the campus bookkeepers to ensure that
the information provided, and the presentation styles, meet their needs. They should contain
copies of all standard forms that can be used by all employees in the district.
Because this will be an ongoing endeavor, the district should determine the areas of greatest need
and create portions of the manuals in priority order. In addition, individuals should be assigned
to regularly review and update their assigned sections of the manual in the future.
It is important that in creating the guides, the district also look closely at the internal controls that
are in place for each function, and if the controls are not sufficient, to develop the necessary
checks and balances within those functions to mitigate risk. For example, because of the nature
of the petty cash funds and procurement cards, and the campus-level concerns about those
instruments, not only should the manuals contain information on how to use and reconcile those
accounts, but also include procedures and tighter controls over the use of those instruments.
FISCAL IMPACT
Recommendation 4-3:
Establish a regular meeting schedule for campus bookkeepers.
In addition to manuals, bookkeepers in particular need an opportunity to share ideas, concerns

and solutions in a neutral setting where they will not be interrupted or pulled to handle pressing
issues. Establishing a meeting schedule that provides opportunities for all bookkeepers from
campuses to meet individually and other opportunities for representatives from each level to
meet collectively could provide more consistency throughout the district, and build community
among these employees.
Representatives in the Finance Office should attend these meetings so that a transfer of
information can occur.
FISCAL IMPACT
4.1.2 Internal and External Audits
By Board policy and in compliance with state law, Richland Two undergoes an annual financial
audit by an external audit firm. Financial audits are designed to provide reasonable assurance
that the financial statements fairly present the district's financial position, results of operations,
and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
The contract for the audit firm is rebid every three years; however, a single firm may retain the
contract for a second three years if the contract is awarded to them during the rebid process.

The firm of McGregor & Company, LLP is in the third year of its current contract with the
district. For the six years prior to McGregor, the district contracted with the firm of Elliott
Davis, PLLC.
Because the district expends $500,000 or more of federal awards in a year, it is required to obtain
an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments and
Non-Profit Organizations," the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement and Government
Auditing Standards. A single audit combines the annual financial statement audit with additional
audit coverage of federal funds.
In each of the years examined, the district received unqualified opinions on both their financial
audits and the district’s Single Audits.
The Board receives frequent financial information as part of their Board packet each month and
also receives Quarterly Financial Reports that provide additional information on the current
financial position of the district. Annually, the Business Services area compiles a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement, which also contains the results of the district’s
external audit and Single Audit.
FINDING
Richland Two has consistently received a Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting for its
Comprehensive Financial Reports from both the Association of School Business Officials
International (ASBO) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United
States and Canada.
These certificates indicate that the district’s CAFRs achieve the highest standards in government
accounting and financial reporting. Both the GFOA and the ASBO certificates and the
surrounding review process, encourage and assist state and local governments to go beyond the
minimum requirements of generally-accepted accounting principles to prepare comprehensive
annual financial reports that evidence the spirit of transparency and full disclosure.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two has achieved Certificates of Excellence for its Comprehensive Annual
Financial Reports, indicating that the district is adhering to the highest standards in
government accounting and financial reporting.
FINDING
Richland Two does not have an internal audit function. The Chief Financial Officer said that
Business Services staff regularly reviews and monitors internal controls, but the district has not
employed or contracted for internal audit services in the past.
An internal audit function, when organized and operated properly, provides management and the
Board with competent evaluations of an organization's system of internal control. Such

evaluations assess compliance with laws and regulations, the quality of performance of assigned
responsibilities, the reliability and integrity of information, the safety of assets, and the efficient
and economical use of resources.
While external auditors are primarily concerned with the financial aspects of the organization,
internal auditors help management improve the organization's performance through compliance
with organizational policies and procedures, evaluation of internal controls, and identification of
inefficient, unproductive, and fraudulent processes.
Some of the responsibilities of an internal auditor could include the following:
• auditing activity funds;

• reviewing departmental operations;
• reviewing cash receipts and disbursements;
• reviewing assets;
• reviewing and testing internal controls;
• auditing construction contracts and activity;
• reviewing purchasing procedures and compliance with bid rules;
• assisting external auditor;
• testing electronic data processing controls and systems; and
• special projects assigned by the board when and if concerns surface.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-4:
Hire an Internal Auditor and establish an Internal Audit function that reports directly to
the Superintendent.
An internal audit charter approved by the Board should establish the position. The internal audit
charter should provide the functional and organizational framework within which the department
serves the Board of Trustees and management. The charter empowers the internal audit function
and allows broad, unrestricted access to every facet of an organization's infrastructure. It
describes the purpose, authority, responsibility, and reporting relationships of the internal
auditing program. A sample charter can be obtained from the Institute of Internal Auditors.
The auditor also should develop an audit plan, including a risk assessment, which the finance
committee should approve. Finally, audit results should be reported directly to the
Superintendent.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation includes the annual salary for an internal auditor of
$60,000, plus benefits of 33 percent, for a total cost of $79,800 annually.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Hire Internal Auditor ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800)

4.2 BUDGETING
Controlling the district’s budget amid rapid growth and legislative budget constraints is a
challenging process.
As shown in Exhibit 4-9, student enrollment has grown by 42.6 percent between the 2001 and
2010 school years; however, the total number of full time equivalent employees has grown by
53.7 percent.
Exhibit 4-9
Enrollment and Staffing
2001 through 2010 Fiscal Years
Growth
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 from 2001
ENROLLMENT
(K-12) 16,995 17,665 18,474 18,874 19,833 20,913 22,008 23,196 23,900 24,238 42.6%
Growth from 2001 3.9% 8.7% 11.1% 16.7% 23.1% 29.5% 36.5% 40.6% 42.6%
Annual Growth 3.9% 4.6% 2.2% 5.1% 5.4% 5.2% 5.4% 3.0% 1.4%
Totals Full-Time Equivalent Employees (FTEs)*
Total FTEs 2,109 2,217 2,314 2,483 2,668 2,881 3,042 3,167 3,224 3,242 53.7%
Growth from 2001 5.1% 9.7% 17.7% 26.5% 36.6% 44.2% 50.2% 52.9% 53.7%
Annual Growth 5.1% 4.4% 7.3% 7.5% 8.0% 5.6% 4.1% 1.8% 0.6%
Source: Staffing numbers from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Richland Two School District, for Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2010 Table 16 – Full-time Equivalent School District Employees by Type; Enrollment numbers provided by the district.
* Note to CAFR Table 16: Full-time instructional employees of the District are employed for all 180 scheduled school days, at
seven hours per day or 1,260 per year. Total work hours by instructional employees are divided by 1,260 to obtain full-time
employment. Full-time equivalent employment for all other positions is determined based on 1,820 hours per year (52 weeks time
five days times seven hours).
Total staffing grew at rates that exceeded enrollment growth in five of the nine years shown
(2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007). Exhibit 4-10 illustrates that instructional staff, including
classroom teachers, had the lowest growth rate in total of all employment categories, whereas the
greatest growth was in the supervisory category.
Of the employee groups shown, the total number of FTEs declined among unskilled laborers,
technicians and exceptional student education (ESE) teachers.
Another way of looking at the impact of growth is to examine the Operating Expenditures in
comparison to the enrollment of the district as displayed previously in Exhibit 4-2. As shown,
the operating expenditures outpaced the enrollment growth in every year since 2001.
Richland Two performs incremental budgeting, meaning that each year the base line budget from
the prior year is incrementally increased or decreased based on anticipated need.
The administration presents a proposed budget each April for the Board’s consideration. It is
then submitted to Richland County Council in May and is approved by the County Council by
mid June. The Richland Two Board of Trustees then adopts a final budget at its meeting on the
4th Tuesday in June.

Exhibit 4-10
Staffing by Category
Fiscal 2001 through 2010
Growth
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 from 2001
Supervisory
Instructional Admin. 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 7 9 11 120.0%
Non-instructional
Admin. 20 21 24 27 33 38 49 60 60 63 215.0%
Consultants/Super. of
Instruction 7 9 10 8 10 10 18 20 20 17 142.9%
Principals 20 20 21 23 23 26 27 28 28 31 55.0%
Assistant Principals 31 35 36 41 46 47 52 61 67 69 122.6%
Total 83 90 97 105 118 126 151 176 184 191 130.1%
Growth from 2001 8.4% 16.9% 26.5% 42.2% 51.8% 81.9% 112.0% 121.7% 130.1%
Annual Growth 8.4% 7.8% 8.2% 12.4% 6.8% 19.8% 16.6% 4.5% 3.8%
Instruction
Elementary Classroom
Teachers 726 769 791 854 922 1,065 1,101 1,120 1,140 1,135 56.3%
Secondary Classroom
Teachers 324 331 340 364 397 510 531 541 553 545 68.2%
ESE Teacher 134 138 144 157 167 45 75 91 62 90 (32.8%)
Other Teachers (Adult) 52 50 52 62 55 57 58 60 54 54 3.8%
Other Professionals
(Instructional) 0 1 1 1 3 11 19 23 53 53 5200.0%
Aides 352 365 381 402 414 446 446 451 463 463 31.5%
Total 1,588 1,654 1,709 1,840 1,958 2,134 2,230 2,286 2,325 2,340 47.4%
Growth from 2001 4.2% 7.6% 15.9% 23.3% 34.4% 40.4% 44.0% 46.4% 47.4%
Annual Growth 4.2% 3.3% 7.7% 6.4% 9.0% 4.5% 2.5% 1.7% 0.6%
Student Services
Guidance Counselors 41 42 44 47 53 55 58 60 60 58 41.5%
Visiting Teachers/
Social Workers 1 1 1 1 2 5 6 9 10 14 1300.0%
Psychologists 17 19 19 22 22 22 24 26 26 26 52.9%
Librarians 20 21 22 22 26 28 29 29 30 29 45.0%
Other Professionals
(Non-instructional) 1 5 6 6 7 8 10 12 15 15 200.0%
Technicians 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 (100.0%)
Total 83 91 94 100 112 118 127 136 141 142 71.1%
Growth from 2001 9.6% 13.3% 20.5% 34.9% 42.2% 53.0% 63.9% 69.9% 71.1%
Annual Growth 9.6% 3.3% 6.4% 12.0% 5.4% 7.6% 7.1% 3.7% 0.7%
Support and Administration
Clerical/ Secretarial 108 114 118 133 148 156 159 185 188 190 75.9%
Service Workers 121 140 153 160 200 205 221 223 225 223 84.3%
Skilled Crafts 58 62 83 85 73 86 92 97 97 97 67.2%

Unskilled Laborers 68 66 60 60 59 56 62 64 64 59 (13.2%)
Total 355 382 414 438 480 503 534 569 574 569 60.3%
Growth from 2001 7.6% 16.6% 23.4% 35.2% 41.7% 50.4% 60.3% 61.7% 60.3%
Annual Growth 7.6% 8.4% 5.8% 9.6% 4.8% 6.2% 6.6% 0.9% (0.9%)
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Richland Two School District, for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2010; Table 16 – Full-time Equivalent School District Employees by Type.

According to Board Policy DB Annual Budget:
The annual operating budget will be the financial plan designed to meet the educational
objectives of the district. Execution of the budget will incorporate that measure of control
necessary to insure that each of the many educational objectives receives that portion of the
available funds allocated to it in the budget, and that total expenditures do not exceed the
total funds available during any fiscal year.
The process for adopting the budget is stated in Board policy as shown in Exhibit 4-11.
FINDING
Richland Two’s Board Policy “DA Fiscal Management Goals/Priority Objectives,” which was
last revised in April 2008, states that it is the intent of the Board “to maintain an unrestricted
general fund balance of between 7 to 12 percent of the annual operating budget.” As shown in
Exhibit 4-12, the district has maintained and grown its unreserved fund balance from a low of
6.5 percent of operating expenditures in Fiscal 2002, to the present 10.1 percent for fiscal year
2010.
Exhibit 4-11
Policy DBG Budget Adoption Process
Purpose: To develop the annual operating budget for the district.

The superintendent, in cooperation with the chief financial officer, will have the overall responsibility for budget
planning.
Budget planning for the district will be an integral part of program planning so that the annual operating budget
may effectively express and implement all programs and activities of the school system. Budget planning will be a
year-round process involving broad participation by administrators, supervisors, teachers and other personnel
throughout the school system, citizens and citizen groups. All discretionary expenditure budgets (i.e., those not
related to salaries, fringe benefits or other mandated expenditures) will be zero-based (i.e., each organizational
entity's proposed expenditure will be reviewed both as to the amount and the supporting justification).
Principals will develop and submit budget requests for their particular schools after seeking the advice and
suggestions of staff members. The budget request will reflect the principal's judgment as to the most effective way to
use resources in achieving progress toward educational objectives of the school.
The school and department budget requests are submitted to a budget committee (appointed by the superintendent)
for study. It is the responsibility of the committee to develop the district's annual operating proposed budget in
accordance with suggestions obtained from various advisory groups involving members of the board,
administrators, supervisors, teachers, support personnel, parents, other citizens, district wide goals, objectives and
priorities. The committee will submit the proposed budget and make recommendations via the superintendent to the
board.
The board will give careful consideration to the budget requests as presented by the superintendent and will review
allocations for fairness and for their consistency with educational priorities of the school system. It may also involve
faculty groups and citizen groups in a review of the proposed budget and school needs as it finalizes the budget for
adoption and presentation to the county council.
Adopted 4/25/78; Revised 12/11/79, 5/14/85, 7/1/03
Source: Richland Two Policy Manual, 2011.

Exhibit 4-12
Unreserved Fund Balance as a Percent of Operating Expenditures
FY 2001 through FY 2010
(modified accrual basis)
General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance

Unreserved Fund Operating as % of Operating
Fiscal Year Balance Expenditures Expenditures
2001 $8,313,778 $107,877,091 7.7%
2002 $7,391,451 $114,558,272 6.5%
2003 $8,188,372 $123,991,448 6.6%
2004 $9,310,014 $133,855,844 7.0%
2005 $10,882,091 $144,954,521 7.5%
2006 $12,564,566 $162,664,040 7.7%
2007 $14,962,096 $179,136,409 8.4%
2008 $18,577,808 $200,189,531 9.3%
2009 $20,390,382 $216,955,256 9.4%
2010 $22,694,466 $224,323,404 10.1%
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Richland Two School District, for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2010; Table 17 – Operating Expenditures; Table 4 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds.
As a result of the district’s decision to maintain its unrestricted reserves at this level, the district
has enjoyed strong bond ratings from the various rating agencies. In the October 2010 ratings,
the rating agencies made the observations shown in Exhibit 4-13.
Exhibit 4-13
Rating Agency Ratings and Reserve Comments
October 2010
Rating
Agency Comments Related to Reserves Rating
Fitch The district’s conservative financial management and strong budgetary controls have AA+
Ratings produced a string of consecutive surplus operating results dating back to fiscal 2003.
As a result, reserve levels remain sound despite changing state aid levels and budgetary
pressures from rapid enrollment growth.
Moody’s Moody’s expects the district to maintain a satisfactory financial position, given steady Aa1
Investors growth in fund balance levels and a history of strong fiscal management and Underlying
Service conservative budgeting practices. These practices have allowed the district to increase Rating Aa2
General Fund balance on an annual basis since fiscal 2003, despite experiencing
revenue pressures as a result of state funding cuts during the same period.
Standard & The district’s financial position remains strong. The district ended fiscal 2009 with a AA/Stable
Poor $1.8 million operating surplus that increased the unreserved general fund balance to
$20.4 million, or a strong 10.9% of expenditures.
Source: Overview of Outstanding Debt, January 5, 2011, prepared by Davenport & Company, LLC.
Maintaining its strong financial position, as evidenced by the district’s growing fund balance, has
resulted in strong bond ratings. Strong bond ratings translate into bond sales at more favorable
rates than bonds offered for sale by institutions with lower ratings.

COMMENDATION
The district’s policy of maintaining an unrestricted general fund balance of between 7 to 12

percent of the annual operating budget has resulted in strong bond ratings.
FINDING
The 2010-11 Richland School District Two Approved Budget document, which is available to the
public on the district’s website, contains information only on the General Fund. Although policy
states that all discretionary spending will be budgeted as a zero-based budget process, which
requires managers to justify all budgeted expenditures, the budget document contains no
descriptive information justifying the incremental changes in discretionary categories. There is
also no information provided to describe the process used to develop the budget, or the method
by which the administration has complied with policy requirements for involving stakeholders in
the budget process.
Although no formal budget calendar was provided, the timeline for achieving the steps outlined
in policy for budget development begins in late fall when the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) asks
the Board to set its priorities for the coming year. The CFO reviews the Board priorities and
soon after the first of the year, he asks principals and department heads for their budget requests.
These requests are received during February and evaluated by the CFO and ultimately the
Superintendent. The CFO and his staff make revenue projections, which may require estimates
and further refinement based on state legislative decisions. Since the Board must approve the
budget in April, there is little time between the time when the principals and department heads
submit their requests and the time when a final budget must be compiled. In the past, one staff
member indicated that the Superintendent and CFO routinely met with business leaders to
discuss the proposed budget prior to taking it to the Board for consideration; however, this
practice has been discontinued.
Because the Board does not approve the budgets of the Special Projects Fund, Education
Improvement Act Fund, Debt Service Fund, Proprietary Fund, Internal Service Fund, Fiduciary
Fund, or the budgets of the Charter high schools, budgetary and financial information for public
consumption is limited. There is also limited information available to the Board or the public
regarding the fees collected by campuses and how those fees will be used to support campus
operations.
The Quarterly Financial Reports to the Board contain some additional information on other
funds, including budget to actual numbers for the Special Revenue Fund, Education
Improvement Act Fund, the status of projects from the 2008 and 2004 Bond referenda, and the 8
Percent Funds (Non-referendum bonded indebtedness). There is also a page showing a year-to-
date report of expenditures from the School Board Account. But, again, the numbers are
presented with no explanations.
Although Richland Two prepares its CAFR each year in compliance with GFOA and ASBO
International standards, the district has not embraced the same concept for budgeting. These
same entities have standards related to budget preparation and reporting that encourage
transparency and participation by all stakeholders—elected officials, administrators, employees
and their representatives, citizen groups, and business leaders.

Richland Two is already following some, but not all of the GFOA standards. For example,
stakeholder involvement in the budget preparation process is a key component of the GFOA
standards. Based on the practices of the past, is was not clear how the principals or other
stakeholders were involved in budget discussions and decision making, nor was there any
documentation to show how budgetary requests were justified by the requestor.
This year, however, the Superintendent initiated a process that appears to be directly in line with
the GFOA standards. Initially, a survey was sent to all employees asking them for any and all
ideas and suggestions for addressing the potential budgetary crisis facing the district. Some
1,600 suggestions came in as a result of that survey. Budget Design Teams, made up of experts
in specific operational areas of the district, were formed to evaluate the ideas and suggestions
that related to their specific areas of expertise. This evaluation process was in progress at the
time of Evergreen’s on-site work in the district, and is a process that has already provided
significant stakeholder involvement and buy-in for the financial challenges ahead.
According to information found on the websites of the peer districts selected by the district for
this review, both Richland County School District One and the Beaufort County School District
follow GFOA guidelines, prepare All Funds Budget Books, and have received the GFOA
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for budget preparation and presentation.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-5:
Adopt the GFOA Budgeting Standards for budget preparation, including the adoption of a
formal budget calendar, and apply for the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation
Award.
An award by the GFOA represents a significant achievement by a governmental entity, reflecting

commitment of the governing body and staff to meet the highest principles of governmental
budgeting. In order to receive the budget award, Richland Two would be required to satisfy
nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. These guidelines are designed
to assess how well an entity’s budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations
guide, and a communication device. Budget documents must be rated “proficient” in all four of
those categories to receive the award.
While implementing the GFOA standards will require a major commitment by the Board and the
district’s leadership team, it is a process that can benefit the district financially and provide the
community and its taxpayers a level of transparency that can mitigate the impact of controversial
decisions during hard economic times.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
Richland Two has not been able to enter the campus-level budgets into the accounting system
until late September or October of each year, as the allocations for the campuses are not finalized
until the 10-day student enrollment counts are confirmed. Consequently the encumbrance
system cannot be activated to monitor expenditures.
Campus allocations currently involve a complex series of formulas primarily based on student
enrollment, which is estimated, but not confirmed until the students actually arrive on campus.
The Alio system, however, has the capability of temporarily rolling over a percent of the prior
year budget into the campus budgets, which could allow the encumbrance system to operate as
intended.
Having no budget in the system can be particularly problematic for expenditures using Special
Revenue Funds, as the guidelines for the use of the funds, and the limits on the total amount of
funds available, are restricted in most cases. The Special Revenue Accountant approves all
expenditures from these accounts, but the system will not automatically alert this person to an
over-budget situation.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-6:
Work with the Alio support team and the campuses to develop a way to enter all budgets
into the accounting system at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Since line item budget adjustments can be made by the CFO and his designees, entry of at least a
preliminary budget based on enrollment estimates should be possible, understanding that this
preliminary budget could be adjusted after the 10th day of school to reflect actual enrollment.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The Alio system has the capability of preventing any over-budget expenditures from advancing
through the system; however, district officials have opted to allow expenditures to be made and
even finalized with only a warning notice or red line entry at the bottom of the screen alerting the
requester or the approver that an over-budget condition exists. Budget amendments that move
money within the budget without increasing the total budget, do not require a vote of the Board,
but rather can be made in real-time within the Alio system by a limited group of Finance staff.
Bookkeepers indicated that they do not, in most situations, stop entry of a requisition when they
see an over-budget situation arise. They allow the request to go to their principal or manager for
a determination. In some cases, the principals or other first line approvers on the approval chain,

make the assumption that someone down the chain will make a budget adjustment to rectify the
problem later.
When the individuals with authority to make budget transfers either receive a request for transfer
or are alerted to an over-budget situation through another means, they will initiate the transfer.
In some, but not all cases, the CFO and his designees said that they will reject a purchase
because the expenditure is over budget, and notify the individual responsible for that budget of
the rejection.
An expenditure summary report generated on February 21, 2011 comparing year-to-date

expenditures to the adjusted budget showed actual and approved (encumbered) expenditures for
00310 Professional/Tech Services as over budget by $105,059; 00319 Legal Services as over
budget by $100,320; and Other Prof and Tech Services (00395) as over budget by $87,958.
According to interviewees, the old accounting system did not have the immediate real-time
capabilities of the Alio system. When Alio was implemented for accounts payable, the users
said they felt that they needed some time to learn and trust the system before more stringent
encumbrance controls could be implemented.
Some interviewees said that halting purchases could disrupt or even shut down the district’s
operations. Yet, with the new system in place, a request for budget amendment prior to entry of a
requisition could be responded to within minutes, if the need were great, and even if that need
was for a large dollar amount. In addition, if the need is immediate and of a low dollar amount,
such as an emergency need for toilet paper on a campus, each campus has procurement cards and
a petty cash fund with which they can make these purchases.
Another Alio feature that has not been activated would allow managers and principals to make
budget amendments within the accounts over which they have responsibility. The amendment
would be entered as a request, but would require approval from designated personnel before it
would be uploaded to the system. Since budgetary controls at the line-item level are difficult to
maintain. One way to make managers and principals responsible and accountable would be to
allow them to initiate their own budget transfers within their assigned budgetary areas. More
detailed controls might be necessary for specific areas like accounts involving special revenues;
however, giving managers spending parameters and allowing them to make some decisions
about how they use those funds could make the accountability they are assigned more
meaningful and realistic, and reduce the workload of district office staff who must enter each
transfer.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-7:
Work with the Alio support team to halt all over-budget expenditures and examine the
possibility of allowing managers and principals to initiate their own budget amendments
within given parameters.
Controlling budget expenditures is a primary function of any governmental entity. While a less
formal approach may have worked for the district in the past, as Richland Two has grown and

the functions have become more complex, maintaining control is incrementally more difficult.
The system the district now has in place has the capability of assisting in the process and that
capability should be used to its fullest.
Before halting all over-budget requisitions, the CFO and his designees with authority to make
budget adjustments should develop a process for immediate review and entry of approved line
item budget amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
As shown in Exhibit 4-14, Richland Two charges 1,344 different course fees ranging from $1.00
to $257 each. In addition, students are required to pay fees for parking, participation in athletics,
field trips, as well as lost and damaged library and textbooks, to name a few.
Exhibit 4-14
Student Course Fees
Credit Value Î Grand

0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00 (blank)
Dollar Amount Ð Total
$0.00 77 77
$1.00 4 4
$1.50 220 220
$2.00 114 10 124
$3.00 112 112
$3.25 16 16
$3.50 2 2
$4.00 142 167 3 312
$6.00 56 56
$6.50 4 4
$7.00 15 15
$7.50 8 8
$8.00 324 2 1 327
$10.00 2 2
$14.00 13 13
$15.00 4 4
$16.00 27 27
$20.00 8 8
$25.00 10 10
$50.00 1 1
$100.00 1 1
$257.00 1 1
Grand Total 6 272 506 29 531 1,344
Source: Richland Two Finance Office, 2011.

The South Carolina Legislature authorizes the school trustees to charge matriculation and
incidental fees in Title 59 – Education, Chapter 19, Section 59-19-90 (8) as follows:
(8) Charge matriculation and incidental fees. Charge and collect matriculation and
incidental fees from students; however, regulations or policies adopted by the board
regarding charges and collections must take into account the students’ ability to pay and
must hold the fee to a minimum reasonable amount. Fees may not be charged to students
eligible for free lunches and must be reduced pro rata for students eligible for reduced price
lunches;
The Evergreen Review Team gives no opinion on the legality or appropriateness of the district’s
fees in comparison to the South Carolina statutes, but rather is focused on the administration and
collection of the fees within this district.
The district uses a combination of the Power School and EZ Fee systems to track and collect
these fees. EZ Fee interfaces with Power School nightly; however, once the information is
downloaded, the course fees require manual adjustment if the student is eligible for free or
reduced price meals. In moving data from Power School to EZ Fee, bookkeepers indicated that
EZ Fee will pick up duplicate entries that must also be manually reconciled by the campus
bookkeepers.
As noted in the statutes, fees are not to be charged to students eligible for free lunches and must
be reduced for students eligible for reduced price lunches.
When students transfer between schools, student transfers of fees owed and paid can also be
problematic, according to bookkeepers.
There is no online payment system for fee collection; therefore, campus bookkeepers handle
large sums of cash, ranging upwards of $50,000 per day at the beginning of each semester. A
Pupil Activity Report generated on February 24, 2011, and shown in Exhibit 4-15, indicates that
$5 million has been collected in Fiscal 2011 to date.
While not all of the revenues shown in Exhibit 4-15 are from fees, the 2010 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report indicates that the total of revenues added to Pupil Activity Funds for the
2010 fiscal year was $8.3 million. District officials estimated that the total amount attributable
to fees of all kinds was in the $5 million range.
The collection of these fees has become problematic. As shown in Exhibit 4-16, the amount of
uncollected campus debt has risen sharply. The campuses are now sending the past due accounts
to central office staff for collections. Accounts are being examined for accuracy, particularly as
they deal with discounts pertaining to students who are eligible for free and reduced price meals.
Letters are being sent and accounts are being turned over to a collection agency when parents are
non-responsive.
The initial tracking, administration, and collection efforts have resulted in the addition of a Fee
Coordinator at each high school, dedicated solely to the task. Other campuses use the existing
bookkeepers and administrative staff for this purpose. Now, a considerable amount of time and
effort is being expended by central office staff in the advanced collection process.

Exhibit 4-15
Pupil Activity Report by Campus
in Richland Two
Original Available
School or Program Balance Adjustments Expenditures Encumbrances Balance
Spears Cr Rd Child Dev Pa $1,159.85 $4,601.52 $5,474.46 $1,400.00 ($1,113.09)
Blythewood Academy ($8,784.62) $1,577.42 $1,059.77 $82.49 ($8,349.46)
Anna Boyd School Pa $2,173.28 $195.00 $563.52 $98.03 $1,706.73
Wilson Tec Pupil Activity $49,026.10 $14,964.55 $12,913.93 $7,607.87 $43,468.85
Adult Education $30,821.85 $16,186.95 $12,455.08 $5,752.69 $28,801.03
Clemson Road Child Dev $5,277.38 $3,893.19 $5,039.59 $1,575.69 $2,555.29
Cnt/Inqry Pupil Activity $51,648.06 $82,661.95 $58,393.55 $8,548.51 $67,367.95
Cen/Knowl Pupil Activity $17,954.03 $86,891.58 $89,778.65 $5,740.14 $9,326.82
Alert Activity Accounts $12,798.22 $109,874.25 $32,419.81 $61,460.00 $28,792.66
Center For Achievement $17,744.29 $26,484.38 $24,251.02 $600.42 $19,377.23
Ctr For Accelerated Prep $1,865.73 $4,859.86 $3,381.03 $1,171.39 $2,173.17
Pupil Activity Rne Voc $3,088.89 $1,299.00 $8,300.10 $1,865.51 ($5,777.72)
Sp Valley Pupil Activity $352,560.22 $338,144.91 $230,626.63 $94,533.35 $365,545.15
Bethel-Hanberry Pupil Act $67,477.59 $130,183.48 $122,325.91 $11,188.98 $64,146.18
Dent Pupil Activity $23,474.42 $375,486.43 $272,956.70 $19,214.56 $106,789.59
Conder Pupil Activity $63,607.37 $112,242.97 $68,369.86 $6,449.87 $101,030.61
F Lake Pupil Activity $78,792.06 $124,360.81 $93,804.83 $9,654.99 $99,693.05
Keels Pupil Activity $46,899.34 $17,525.23 $14,377.81 $1,000.80 $49,045.96
Nelson Pupil Activity $78,559.42 $126,142.59 $99,107.26 $18,830.63 $86,764.12
Windsor Pupil Activity $7,214.42 $53,400.22 $46,799.82 $3,738.77 $10,076.05
E.L.Wright Pupil Activity $176,511.45 $331,642.74 $224,632.95 $53,382.11 $230,139.13
Rne Pupil Activity $116,485.23 $272,708.25 $202,415.11 $40,987.48 $145,790.89
N Springs Pupil Activity $187,894.11 $256,068.57 $242,246.46 $26,817.08 $174,899.14
Pontiac Pupil Activity $148,480.51 $117,454.94 $75,579.95 $4,079.75 $186,275.75
Sum Pkway Pupil Activity $108,780.22 $188,569.84 $137,480.08 $25,619.94 $134,250.04
Rice Creek Pupil Activity ($1,634.31) $60,447.01 $47,630.62 $2,623.03 $8,559.05
Ridgeview Pupil Activity $131,106.42 $313,334.06 $209,774.54 $33,422.69 $201,243.25
Blythe Ms Pupil Activity $113,707.29 $201,910.33 $175,071.27 $10,359.56 $130,186.79
Killian Pupil Activity $3,421.43 $99,657.71 $83,860.07 $9,329.65 $9,889.42
Bookman Rd Pupil Activity $64,427.46 $176,423.59 $112,161.66 $13,785.67 $114,903.72
Lake Carolina Elementary $67,509.25 $207,981.45 $138,350.39 $24,902.61 $112,237.70
Round Top Elementary $68,862.78 $131,139.45 $92,379.64 $10,530.43 $97,092.16
Kelly Mill Middle School $239,463.82 $301,187.01 $220,481.07 $36,489.16 $283,680.60
Blythewood High Pa $205,639.89 $304,184.13 $196,480.11 $46,794.49 $266,549.42
Sandlapper Elem Pa $68,844.72 $112,251.73 $86,284.04 $7,715.50 $87,096.91
Polo Road Elementary $114,458.99 $127,943.30 $90,254.23 $9,536.44 $142,611.62
Longleaf Middle School $22,186.61 $110,306.90 $73,317.08 $12,012.82 $47,163.61
Bridge Creek Elementary $16,401.64 $42,755.56 $29,957.55 $3,646.07 $25,553.58
Langford Elementary $1,000.00 $72,372.14 $42,001.40 $1,968.70 $29,402.04
Year 2011 $2,756,905.41 $5,059,315.00 $3,682,757.55 $634,517.87 $3,498,944.99
Source: Richland Two Pupil Activity Report, February 24, 2011.

Exhibit 4-16
Uncollected Debt from Student Fees
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Owed $9,694.25 $39,076.04 $108,475.66
Paid $2,130.66 $4,564.23 $4,031.10
Net $7,563.59 $34,511.81 $104,444.56
If the district collects roughly $5 million in fees and serves approximately 25,000 students, each
student would be paying approximately $200 per year or $100 per semester. This does not,
however, take into account the students who are eligible for discounts.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-8:
Reduce and consolidate the number and type of fees collected, establish an accurate and
dependable system for assessing the fees, and provide online payment options to reduce the
amount of cash handled by staff.
If a single standard fee could be assessed at each grade level for all required and elective courses, the
tracking and administration of fees could be significantly reduced. Further, a unified fee structure
would allow the discounts for student eligible for free and reduced price meals to be more easily
captured in the system, a lower functionality and easier to use computer system to track these fees.
Although there would still be certain athletic and parking fees, Richland Two should examine each of
these additional fees carefully to ascertain whether the amount charged is worth the cost to the
district for tracking and collecting those fees.
Under a simplified system, the campuses would no longer need fee clerks and the bookkeeper job
duties at those campuses without fee clerks would be significantly reduced.
The total number of clerks and administrative positions required by campuses can be reduced as a
result of the recommendation, as shown in Section 2.4.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The campus activity funds comingle funds that are specifically for pupil activities and funds
collected from students to support the educational operation of the school. Further, the activity
fund purchases are not subject to the district’s purchasing guidelines or the same level of central
office approvals, but are instead treated as principal discretionary funds to be used as determined
appropriate by the principal.

In Alio, the activity funds have a budget equal to the amount of money available in the account
at the time. As new revenues are posted to the system, the budget is manually adjusted by
assigned Business Services staff to match the amount of available funds. As shown in Exhibit
4-16, however, some campuses have overspent their budget/revenues and are in a payback
situation in the system. Since funds and deficits carry over from year to year, interviewees said
that they are working with newer principals to assist them in systematically eliminating the
deficits left by prior principals.
Historically, it appears that the South Carolina Legislature approved the assessment of pupil fees
in an effort to provide school districts a revenue stream to offset state funding reductions.
Board policy and administrative rules address the assessment of fees, but provide only limited
guidance on the use of the fee proceeds. The district does not apply the Purchasing Code
standards to purchases made from activity funds, and does not require quotes or bids at the
stipulated thresholds. Alio routes purchases made with activity funds through the approval
chains; however, when the purchases are sent to the Procurement Specialist for approval, the
approval is made without applying the Procurement Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 4-9:
Reorganize campus Activity Funds so that the monies in those funds are specifically related
to pupil activities, and place revenues from course fees into the General Fund Budget at
each campus so that these funds are subject to the same level of control as all other district
funds.
A detailed set of policies and administrative rules, as well as campus-level instructions, should be
prepared to ensure that funds intended to supplement the campus instructional budgets are used for
that purpose following all state purchasing guidelines.
Although the monies would now be reflected in the campus budgets, the district would not realize
any new revenues, nor would any single campus loose any revenues related to these funds. Rather
the intent is to bring these funds under the budgetary and purchasing controls imposed on all other
district funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
4.3 PURCHASING
An effective purchasing system allows a school district to provide quality materials, supplies,
and equipment in the right quantity in a timely, cost-effective manner.
Purchasing includes those activities involved in the identification and purchase of supplies,
equipment and services needed by the district, as well as the storage and distribution of goods.

Goods and services must be obtained according to the specifications of the users; at the lowest
possible cost; and within state laws and regulations including the state’s Procurement Code.
This section focuses on the overall purchasing system, including purchase order procedures,
bidding practices, internal controls, warehousing, and integration of systems.
4.3.1 Organization and Staffing
The purchasing function in Richland Two is decentralized. While many of the purchasing
functions fall under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer, the Information Technology
Department also operates a purchasing function that works closely with the Procurement
Specialist. Exhibit 4-17 shows this dichotomy.
Exhibit 4-17
Purchasing Organization
Office of the Superintendent

Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent
Campuses and
Chief
Departments Chief Financial Officer
Information Officer
Executive Bookkeepers
Director Executive
Information Procurement
Director of
Technology Specialist
Operations
IT Purchasing Purchasing Tech New Design and

Warehouse Supply
and Budget Construction
Supervisor
Warehouse
Delivery
Supervisor
Warehouseman Warehouseman District Courier

FINDING
The Richland Two warehouse maintains supplies that are regularly ordered and shipped to
campuses and departments: records; goods temporarily stored or in transit to campuses or
construction sites; commonly used chairs, tables, stages and other items that are periodically
moved to the campuses for special events; and surplus property.
There are five employees in the warehouse: two are dedicated to the supply function, two are
dedicated to delivery, and one is a courier. The supply function is staffed by the Warehouse
Supply Supervisor and one Warehouseman who also serves as the small pick-up and delivery
person for campuses. The courier is responsible for making the daily mail runs between all
district locations each day. The Warehouse Delivery Supervisor and second Warehouseman
make large item deliveries and intra-district equipment transfers.
The supplies are inventoried annually and monitored regularly to determine when purchases need
to be made to replenish the supplies. The Supply Supervisor also maintains the gasoline pumps
that are used to fuel district vehicles. Although the Supply Supervisor has access to Alio and
knowledge of its use, requisitions to restock supplies or the fuel tanks are entered by staff in
other offices. Maintaining the supply warehouse has allowed the district to purchase commonly
used items at marginally lower prices, but it is not clear that the cost of maintaining the space
and the staffing for the function outweighs the benefit.
Records are kept in the rear of the warehouse and both the Supply Supervisor and the Delivery
Supervisor work to maintain the records areas.
Information Technology staff receives, tags and maintains an inventory of all computer
equipment. Once the equipment has been tagged, work orders are created and the Warehouse
Delivery Supervisor and one Warehouseman deliver the computer equipment to the campuses.
This is normally done on a weekly basis.
During the summer months, warehouse employees focus on receiving and delivering items
ordered in preparation for the new school year. This time is also spent inventorying supplies and
performing general clean up and maintenance of the warehouse area.
Warehouse operations uses and maintains five vehicles:
• two delivery trucks with 300,000 and 190,000 miles on them respectively;
• one Step Van (2009) used by courier;
• one Cargo Van (2001) used for smaller deliveries (such as art work, testing supplies, and
the like) serves as a back-up vehicle should the courier’s vehicle not be operational; and
• one Ford truck (1992) used for small deliveries, and borrowed by the schools when a
truck is needed to move something themselves.
Not all of these vehicles are used every day, but as shown, each has a specified purpose and use.

RECOMMENDATION
Reorganize warehouse operations and eliminate the supply function by implementing

campus-level supply ordering and delivery direct from vendors.
A careful examination of the duties and responsibilities of each of the warehouse employees
should be done to ensure that the storage and delivery functions of the district can be carried out
efficiently.
FISCAL IMPACT
By eliminating the supply function, the district should realize savings from the salaries of the
Supply Supervisor and one Warehouseman of $60,015 plus benefits of 33 percent, for a total
annual savings of $79,820.
Some additional savings may be possible if one or more of the delivery vehicles are sold and
removed from the district’s insurance. Actual savings or revenues could not be estimated as the
decision about which, if any, vehicles should be retained or sold will depend on the global need
for vehicles in other areas of the district.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reorganize Warehouse
$79,820 $79,820 $79,820 $79,820 $79,820
Operations
FINDING
As demonstrated in the organization chart shown in Exhibit 4-17, the purchasing function is
decentralized, which does not provide the level of coordination that could be possible in a more
centralized structure.
Various purchasing functions for new construction and facility renovations and the warehousing
operation are carried out under the leadership of the Executive Director of Operations. Although
the Operations Director said that he runs all purchases through the Procurement Specialist and
she issues solicitation numbers, his team writes specifications and provides the text to the
Procurement Specialist. On some occasions, they will ask the Procurement Specialist to run the
newspaper ads and, in some cases, they will run the ads themselves. The Procurement Specialist
opens and reads sealed bids, and outside legal counsel reviews every contract issued by his
department.
The Information Technology (IT) Division maintains two purchasing staff. Standardization is
supported by encouraging campuses and departments to run all IT-related purchases through
these individuals. When IT staff initiates purchases for campuses, they issue the requisition and
charge the purchase against the campuses account codes. If the purchase requires quotes or bids,
the IT Purchasing and Budget employee will work with the Procurement Specialist to ensure that
all purchases are made in compliance with Purchasing Code. The specialist will obtain quotes or

ask the requestor to assist her in obtaining quotes and maintains a record in a spreadsheet that
then becomes part of the documentation that must accompany the invoice when it is sent to
Accounts Payable.
For purchases that require a formal bid, the IT experts will write the specifications and pass them
to the Procurement Specialist who will issue a solicitation number. The IT Purchasing and
Budget employee will paste the specifications into the standard template containing the legal
language, and posts and advertises the Request for Proposals (RFP). The Procurement Specialist
is present at bid openings to stamp the paperwork. An evaluation team will review the bids and
send their determination to the IT Purchasing and Budget employee, who sends out the award
letter and passes the documentation to the Procurement Specialist for retention.
When IT purchases are received from the vendor, IT staff receives the purchase in Alio, tags the
equipment and places the equipment into the IT inventory system, and issues a work order to
install the equipment or software. If computer equipment or software is not purchased through
IT, it is not tagged or tracked in the IT inventory system.
In addition to processing requests for purchases, the IT Purchasing and Budgeting employee
maintains a list of standard equipment and peripherals for use by campus and departmental staff
when considering IT purchases. She also negotiates prices with vendors, including vendors
listed on state contract.
Additionally, bookkeepers and other administrative staff throughout the district perform various
purchasing functions, such as seeking out vendors for goods and services, soliciting quotes when
appropriate, entering requisitions, forwarding purchase orders to the vendors, receiving goods
(when appropriate), and processing vendor invoices.
Richland Two uses state contracts, pre-approved catalogs, and a variety of other mechanisms to
reduce the need for quotes and formal bids, and the Procurement Code expressly exempts a
number of items routinely purchased from the Code requirements.
The Procurement Specialist acts as the ultimate gatekeeper for ensuring strict adherence to the
Procurement Code. Alio requires the Procurement Specialist to approve all purchases over
$2,500, and requires both her approval and the CFO’s sign off on all purchases over $50,000.
This ensures that she sees all purchases, regardless of who initiates the procurement that could
possibly require formal quotes or bids.
The Procurement Specialist maintains records of all documents supporting a purchase that has
been issued a solicitation number, and uses a check sheet to ensure that each file contains all of
the required documentation (such as copies of required newspaper advertising, requests for
proposals, sealed bid documents and evaluation instruments). Documentation of purchases
requiring a quote is attached to the invoice and retained with the payment records in Accounts
Payable.

RECOMMENDATION
Create a Purchasing and Warehousing Section within Business Services and provide
additional coordination of purchasing activities districtwide.
By upgrading the Procurement Specialists job title to that of Purchasing and Warehouse
Manager, and organizationally moving the IT Purchasing and Budgeting position and the
remaining warehouse and delivery position under this manager, these activities will be more
functionally aligned.
The job duties of the IT Purchasing and Budget person would not change, and she would remain
a liaison with IT in every sense of the word⎯continuing to participate in IT meetings and
planning activities that would allow her to provide the same level of service to IT and to the
campuses. She would, however, be responsible for understanding and interpreting Procurement
Code under the manager’s tutelage, as well as tracking and centrally maintaining the
documentation that was previously handled by the Procurement Specialist for IT.
Because the warehousing and delivery function would now report directly to the Purchasing and
Warehouse Manager, better coordination of IT receiving activities, inventory tagging, and
delivery should be possible.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation would include a cost for an upgrade in
pay for the Procurement Specialist of $15,000 annually, plus 33 percent benefits, or a total of
$19,950. There should be no other costs associated with moving the IT Budget and Purchasing
person or the warehouse and delivery functions organizationally under this umbrella.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Create a Purchasing
and Warehousing ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950)
Section
FINDING
The South Carolina Procurement Code was revised by the Legislature, and efforts are underway
to develop a new model procurement code for use by districts with a budget greater than $75
million. According to state officials, the district will not have to change its procurement code,
but may do so to be in line with the model code. The State has already sent out an exposure draft
for comment to procurement specialists in school districts, and plans are underway to send the
draft through the normal comment and approval channels in the coming months. Final approval
is expected this summer.
The Procurement Specialist has followed the development of the new model code, and is aware
of certain provisions that will impact the district, should they decide to implement the new model

code. For example, the Board has established a goal of using Minority Businesses for 10 percent
of regular purchases and five (5) percent of construction purchases. Currently, vendors are asked
to declare if they are a minority business, and to stipulate if the business is owned by a traditional
minority or is woman-owned. In the future, the vendors will need to be certified by the Office of
Small and Minority Business Assistance (OSMBA). According to State officials, this process is
time-consuming, and they encouraged businesses to begin the process as soon as they are able.
Should the district elect to adopt a new Procurement Code, the districts will not have the latitude
to adopt only certain portions of the State code. According to Manager of Audit and
Certification in the South Carolina Budget and Control Board’s Material Management Office,
only his office has some discretion in that area; however, that discretion is very limited. School
district codes must be substantially similar to the State code.
Should the district decide to move in that direction, some of the proposed changes may require
programming changes to the manner in which the Alio system processes and routes transactions
for approval. Understanding the likely impact of proposed changes and exploring options allows
the district the ability to proactively address the recommended changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Analyze the impact of the new Model Procurement Code by identifying the areas of
concern, sharing the issues with staff and vendors that could be impacted, and exploring
what impact those changes could have on the district.
Proactively researching the possible impact of the proposed changes, and engaging the
individuals and businesses that could be impacted by the proposed changes in process, would
position the district for those changes. This preparation would also allow the administration to
alert the Board to possible options prior to asking them to consider a new Procurement Code for
the district, should that be the direction the Board then wishes to pursue.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The district does not have a standard practice of reviewing and updating the legal language used
in the district’s RFP template or standard contracts each year.
Although the Procurement Specialist regularly works with outside legal counsel to review and
approve contracts and other purchasing issues, the specialist indicated the RFP template was the
same document that had been used for some time by the district. The departments or experts
prepare the specifications and scope of work for an RFP, which the Procurement Specialist then
pastes into the template containing the standard language.
As both state and federal laws and regulations change, legal documents such as an RFP may
require subtle, but important language changes.

RECOMMENDATION
Implement a standard practice of requesting an annual legal review of the district’s legal
purchasing templates, including the standard RFP template, to ensure that the district
continues to comply with state and federal guidelines.
Although no irregularities were noted in any document reviewed during on-site work in the
district, requesting a legal review of templates containing standardized language at least annually
could mitigate the district’s risk of non-compliance.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
During interviews, district staff had varying levels of understanding about the capabilities of
Alio. In some instances the questions or concerns had a basis in fact, such as the system’s ability
to generally route purchases to a chain of approvers:
• Less than $2,500, no special accounts:
Bookkeeper → Principal → Purchase Order (PO);
• Greater than $2,500 < $50,000, no special accounts:
Bookkeeper → Principal → Procurement Specialist → PO;
• Greater than 50,000 (using IT account as example):
Bookkeeper → Principal → Director of IT Operations → Executive Director of

Technology → Procurement Specialist → Chief Financial Officer →PO.
In other instances, the perceptions of staff were only partially correct. For example, the
perception that Alio allows individuals without budgetary responsibility for an accounting code
to make entries to that code is partially correct. District office staff members have the ability to
enter transactions for all of the campuses, but campuses should not be able to make entries to
each other’s accounts unless they have inadvertently been set up incorrectly.
In still other instances, there are misperceptions about the system that are causing the users to
resort to manual processes because they do not realize that there is a reliable system solution. In
many instances, staff are maintaining Excel spreadsheets and paper files as they have always
done because they are either unaware, or do not trust the system to perform as intended.
Training on Alio occurred during the transition, excellent instructions are online to assist the
users to enter transactions, and the ERP Support Coordinator and Analyst are available to work

with staff on specific issues. There are, however, few opportunities for users to share their
concerns in a group setting and, although the ERP Support Team receives and responds to many
calls, there are few opportunities for them to receive feedback from staff on their day-to-day
issues and challenges with the system.
RECOMMENDATION
Establish a schedule of brown bag lunch sessions on each of the campuses and other
locations so that users have an opportunity to share Alio-related issues and concerns with
the ERP Support Team and representatives from the Finance Office.
The questions and concerns noted above appear to be the natural progression of questions and
issues related to the implementation of a new system. Any and all of these issues may be an
education and training issue rather than a situation requiring system changes; however, to
ascertain answers to these questions, the ERP Support Team and representatives from the
Finance Office must review and assess the comments, and take appropriate action to address
employee issues and concerns.
FISCAL IMPACT
4.4 PAYROLL AND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

In Richland Two, the payroll and accounts payable functions are managed by the Coordinator for
Payroll and Accounts Payable.
The accounts payable function transitioned to Alio in February 2010 and the payroll function
transitioned in June 2010. The transitions have significantly impacted the work performed in the
Payroll and Accounts Payable areas, creating a steep learning curve as well as some efficiencies.
4.4.1 Payroll
Richland Two issues two payrolls per month, on the 15th and end of the month, with adjustments
made to the dates that fall on a holiday or weekend.
To simplify the payroll process, the district has annualized the salaries of all employees, meaning
that previously hourly-waged employees, and employees on contracts for less that a full year, are
paid a fixed amount over 12 months. Therefore, the payroll preparation process is one based on
exceptions that increase or reduce the annualized salary incrementally. For example, when an
employee works more than the hours or days stipulated in the original agreement, a form is
submitted to payroll showing the number of hours or days worked in excess of the annualized
rate, and payroll manually enters the additional pay into the system for payment. Likewise,
when an employee has exhausted his/her leave balance and is now on dock status, the annualized
pay for the period is reduced accordingly.

Leave accounting involves a combination of automated and manual processes. The My HR

system is used by the majority of employees for tracking and reporting leave, and the
information from My HR is uploaded into Alio through a combination of automated and manual
processes.
FINDING
The exception process for the district’s payroll is paper intensive, involves manual and
automated interfaces with other systems, is prone to error, and does not hold employees nor their
managers accountable for the accurate recording of time, leave, or other exceptional items such
as supplements.
From an audit trail perspective, the Alio system does not have the capability of accepting
payroll-related comments that would create an audit trail for the exception transactions, nor does
Payroll have the same scanning capabilities used by Accounts Payable.
When the assigned Payroll employee makes an adjustment to an employees pay, the supporting
documents and copies of emails are retained in a file folder, either by pay date or by employee.
If the employee inquires about the reason for the adjustment, the assigned Payroll employee
looks up the information in the file folder before responding.
According to the ERP System Coordinator, adding a notes capability to the system would require
a change to Alio’s universal software, therefore the likelihood of the Weidenhammer Control
Board approving the changes is doubtful. To add the scanning capability would require
programming changes to Alio and to the appextender side to accept the receipt of this
information. Licenses and scanners would need to be purchased and staff would need to be
trained. The district has, however, begun to evaluate the districtwide need for imaging as a
whole.
Each pay period, the Payroll Section makes routine adjustments related to errors in the previous
payroll due to late entries by campus, support, or central office staff. My HR tracks leave
requests and approvals, however, not all leave is taken when approved, and unscheduled leave
due to illness may not be entered as the employee is the only one who can enter leave into that
system. Therefore, when an employee experiences a major health event, the leave for that
employee may not be entered until that employee is able to return to work and complete the
entry. This has been particularly problematic for employees taking leave under the Family and
Medial Leave Act (FMLA). A sudden illness may qualify the person for FMLA. In addition, the
employee or the employee’s family or friends have completed the paperwork for the FMLA, and
Human Resources may have approved the FMLA; however, the leave cannot be recorded timely
because the employee is not available to enter leave into My HR.
The Transportation Office collects timesheets each week and enters the information into the
transportation system. The information is exported into Alio, and after the export,
Transportation notifies Payroll of the need for adjustments. The adjustments, which occur with
nearly every payroll, are then manually entered by the assigned Payroll staff person.

Supplemental pay, such as stipends for academic team leaders, coaches and the like, are
manually entered into the system based on a spreadsheet provided by the campuses to the Human
Resources Department. Although sports supplements are annualized, other supplements are
primarily paid only once or twice a year. With the annualized sports supplements, the
information is entered into the system at the beginning of the school year, and the employee
begins receiving pay based on that supplement. In the case of basketball or baseball coaches,
there are often changes in staffing assignments between the start of school and the basketball or
baseball season. When this happens, Payroll must reduce one employee’s pay by the amount of
overpayment for the preceding months, and enter the supplement for the new coach.
Because the payroll process is exception driven, if a resignation or the paperwork announcing a
termination is not physically delivered to the Payroll Section, the employee will continue to be
paid indefinitely. In one recent example, an employee resignation was submitted to the campus
administrator on November 30, 2010. Payroll was not provided the letter of resignation until
February 16, 2011. As a result, the individual was overpaid. After deducting the employee’s
leave from the amount of overpayment, the employee owed the district more than $1,000.
Although this amount was eventually repaid, there is no accounts receivable function in the
system related to payroll overpayments, which meant that the only record of this debt prior to
payment was retained in a folder on the desk of the assigned Payroll Clerk.
Finally, the current exception system relies on paper timesheets, requisitions, and other forms
that are inconsistently developed by the campus or department. If a paper document is not
submitted, the pay is not adjusted. There is little or no accountability within the system to ensure
that an employee under contract for a given number of days has actually worked those days.
There is nothing other than the monitoring by managers and supervisors to prove that employees
who were formerly hourly are actually putting in the agreed to hours.
A single automated timekeeping system that interfaces directly with Alio could reduce or totally
eliminate the noted concerns and provide additional functionality for ensuring accountability.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement an automated time accounting system that has an automated interface with Alio
to ensure that time worked is accurately recorded and paid for all groups and categories of
employees.
The Alio system is only as good as the data being fed into it, and the multitudes of manual
processes that are being used to enter data into the system are prone to error.
An automated timekeeping system that has a direct interface with Alio could automate manual
processes, eliminate errors and duplication, lower overtime costs, and improve productivity in
the Payroll Office.

FISCAL IMPACT
A review of the costs for an automated timekeeping system ranged from $50,000 to $300,000,
depending on the number of locations served, the delivery system (i.e., web-based, PC, time
clocks) and various other options.
Since the problems encountered by the district involve more than just timekeeping, the
assumption is the final cost will migrate toward the higher end of the spectrum. For estimating
purposes, a one-time cost of $250,000 is being used as a conservative amount for the district to
use when researching the available systems and options. Annual maintenance fees may be
required, which roughly could equate to 10 percent of the purchase price.
It should be noted, however, that when the efficiency of the system improves and many of the
manual entry processes are eliminated, the district should be able to reduce at least one Payroll
clerk position. The fiscal impact assumes that one clerk could be eliminated in 2012-13, making
an average annual salary of $35,785 plus 33 percent benefits, for a total savings of $47,594.
Net savings (cost of annual maintenance costs of $25,000 and savings of $47,594) would be
$22,594, beginning in 2012-13.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement an
Automated Time ($250,000) $22,594 $22,594 $22,594 $22,594
Accounting System
FINDING
Bus drivers, custodians and security guards have not been issued My HR accounts, meaning the
leave accounting for these employees is entirely manual.
The reason the district has not issued My HR accounts to these employees is because these
individuals do not have an assigned computer, and the My HR system is web-based.
RECOMMENDATION
Until such time as an automated timekeeping system can be installed, establish My HR and
email accounts and accessible computer workstations for bus drivers, custodians, and
security guards.
Reducing even a percentage of the manual processes being performed in the Payroll Office can
have tremendous benefit. Setting up a workstation in a common area that can be used by staff as
they leave or enter the facility can be accomplished with spare computers that may no longer be
educationally appropriate, but have internet capability (also see Chapter 8, Transportation).

FISCAL IMPACT
4.2.2 Accounts Payable
The Accounts Payable Section with Business Services is responsible for paying all non-payroll
purchases or obligations of the district.
FINDING
Checks are issued weekly for non-building fund payments, and bi-weekly for checks related to
the building fund. According to district records, in fiscal year 2010, $126.8 million was paid out
through purchase orders.
The Accounts Payable Clerks indicated that there are a number of non-building fund vendors
who receive checks weekly, as they are frequently used vendors. By issuing a check each week,
the dollars amounts for those vendors are lower than they would be if, for example, they were
issued one check per month or every two weeks. The cost of processing and issuing each check
could not be determined, but staff felt that the district would save money and they would
increase the section’s productivity if non-building fund checks were issued less frequently.
In discussions with the Executive Director of Operations, the bi-weekly frequency of Building
Fund checks appears to work well for both large and small vendors. From a cash flow
standpoint, he indicated that vendors may prefer a weekly payment schedule, but they are
comfortable with the bi-weekly schedule. There are infrequent occasions, however, where he
has requested a payment during an odd week, to meet a vendor’s needs, and the Accounts
Payable staff have issued a single check for that vendor.
Non-building fund vendors may have the same preferences related to cash flow, but as the
district grows, it must weigh the cost of continuing to provide this level of service to its vendors
against the savings that might be possible through less frequent check runs.
RECOMMENDATION
Issue non-building fund checks once every two weeks, rather than weekly.
Reducing the non-building fund check runs to every two weeks would improve district cash
flow, as the money would be held in district investment accounts for an additional seven days,
and would decrease the cumulative number of checks issued each month.
Staggering the check runs so that Accounts Payable is only processing one batch of checks,
either building fund or non-building fund, each week would also reduce Accounts Payable batch
and reconciliation efforts in preparation for the check runs considerably.

FISCAL IMPACT
The South Carolina Local Government Investment Pool’s average return for the month of
February 2011 was .3432 percent. If, by instituting a bi-weekly check run for non-building fund
checks, the district could conservatively hold $780,000 (an average check run less insurance
payments made during February and March) for seven days longer at the interest rate shown, the
district would earn an additional $52 per pay period (.003432/360 days X $1 million X 7 days).
Assuming a reduction of 24 check runs (reducing the total weeks to account for breaks) the
district’s additional interest revenues could be $1,248 per year.
Additional savings from issuing fewer paper checks should be possible, however the amount
could not be estimated at this time.
Once the bi-weekly check runs are implemented, it should be possible to reduce staffing in the
Accounts Payable section by one position. The savings from the reduction of one position is
estimated at the average annual salary of the full-time staff of $37,000 plus 33 percent benefits,
for a total of $49,210.
Total savings from increased interest earning and staff reductions is $50,458 annually ($1,248 in
interest + $49,210 in salary and benefits.)
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Issue Non-Building
Fund Checks Once $50,458 $50,458 $50,458 $50,458 $50,458
Every Two Weeks
4.5 CASH, INVESTMENTS, AND BOND MANAGEMENT

In a growing district like Richland Two, issuing and tracking bond sales and managing cash and
investments can be a challenging task.
According to the 2010 CAFR, the district sold $18.2 million in general obligation bonds
(Qualified School Construction Bonds in May 2010. These bonds were the second of four
issuances from the $306 million voter-approved referendum in November 2008. Additionally
the district issued $9.6 million in general obligation bonds that were non-referendum bonds for
capital and technology improvements. During 2010, the district reported retiring $24.5 million
in principal versus the $27.8 million in new bond issued, resulting in a net increase in
outstanding debt of $3.3 million. Exhibit 4-18 shows Richland Two’s outstanding debt by type.
As shown in Exhibit 4-19, the district uses the South Carolina Local Government Investment
Pool (LGIP) as an interest bearing conduit for state, local, and bond revenues.
As cash is needed, the money is transferred into the appropriate accounts for distribution. The
CFO’s Administrative Assistant reconciles the LGIP General Fund, Building Fund, and Pupil
Activity Fund accounts; and the Food Service Bookkeeper reconciles the Food Service LGIP
account. The Manager of Accounting reconciles the General Fund, Payroll, and Accounts
Payable checking accounts; the Accounting Assistant reconciles the Child Development,
Athletic, and Pupil Activity depository accounts; and the Field Services accountant reconciles
the Food Service depository account. All reconciliations are kept in a file in the Business
Services Office.

Exhibit 4-18
Outstanding Debt by Type
2001 through 2010 Fiscal Years
General Obligation Capital Total Primary

Fiscal Year Bonds Leases Government
2001 $73,745,000 $6,133,079 $79,878,079
2002 $62,805,000 $5,383,822 $68,188,822
2003 $136,500,000 $5,136,831 $141,636,831
2004 $131,805,000 $3,800,000 $135,605,000
2005 $186,125,000 $2,880,000 $189,005,000
2006 $233,405,000 $1,930,000 $235,335,000
2007 $260,815,000 $950,000 $261,765,000
2008 $284,540,000 $390,000 $284,930,000
2009 $347,875,000 $0 $347,875,000
2010 $351,190,000 $0 $351,190,000
Source: 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Table 12.
Exhibit 4-19
South Carolina Local Government Investment Pool
Name of Account Purpose Average Balance

General Fund General $45,170,000
Building Fund School Construction $77,289,608
Food Service Fund Food Services $89,000
Pupil Activity Pupil Activity $62,670
Total $122,611,278
Source: Richland Two, South Carolina Local Government Investment Pool, 2011.
Richland Two bank accounts are shown in Exhibit 4-20.
Exhibit 4-20
Richland Two Bank Accounts
Who is
Name of Account - Average/ Maximum Interest authorized to Who reconciles the
Bank Purpose Balance Bearing? sign checks? account monthly?
First Citizens-General Master Account $6,000,000 Yes No checks Manager Accounting
First Citizens- Superintendent
Accounts Payable Zero Balance Account (ZBA) $0 No and CFO * Manager Accounting
First Citizens-Payroll Superintendent
and Direct Deposit ZBA $0 No and CFO * Manager Accounting
First Citizens- Workers Compensation claim
Workers checks processed through Superintendent
Compensation Third-Party Administrator $2,000,000 Yes and CFO * Manager Accounting
First Citizens-Pupil Deposit of all pupil activity $500,000/ Financial Services
Activity funds $700,000 Yes No checks Accounting Assistant
First Citizens-Child Deposit account of all child $200,000/ Financial Services
Development development funds $500,000 Yes No checks Accounting Assistant
First Citizens- Deposit account for all $200,000 to Financial Services
Athletics athletic funds $500,000 Yes No checks Accounting Assistant
Principal/
Petty Cash (28) School petty cash checking Assistant
Individual Accounts accounts $69,000 No Principal(s) Bookkeepers
Human Resources for State
Petty Cash for HR- Law Enforcement background Chief Human Human Resources
Background Checks checks for employees $500 No Resources Bookkeeper
* Controller and Manager of Accounting are also authorized to sign check, but do not.

FINDING
In addition to the investments held at LGIP, shown above and in Exhibit 4-19, and the bank
accounts listed in Exhibit 4-20, the district also maintains investment accounts for funds that are
not immediately needed by the district⎯$3 million of which is in certificates of deposit that will
mature at varying dates. These are shown in Exhibit 4-21.
Exhibit 4-21
Richland Two Investments as of
February 2011
Bank Name Amount Invested Interest Rate Maturity Date

Community First-Charleston $250,000 2.33% 8/3/2012
First Community Bank $250,000 0.90% 12/10/2011
Regions Bank $250,000 0.75% 8/5/2011
Visa Bank $250,000 1.75% 8/24/2011
Bank Meridian $250,000 1.93% 9/25/2011
Southern First Bank $250,000 2.55% 8/25/2011
Congaree State Bank $250,000 1.46% 6/30/2011
Security Federal Bank $250,000 1.88% 11/2/2011
Atlantic Bank and Trust $250,000 1.49% 8/4/2011
First Palmetto Savings $250,000 1.69% 8/3/2011
First Reliance Bank $250,000 0.78% moneymarket
Arthur State Bank $250,000 0.75% 3/18/2011
BB&T $10,000,000 0.60% 7/31/2011
Total $13,000,000
These investments were made in compliance with Board Policy DFA Investments:
The investment program will be operated in conformance with federal, state and other legal
requirements, including the following. Code of Laws, State of South Carolina, Section 59-69-
215 states in part "Funds received by the school district from the county treasurer which are
not needed for immediate disbursement may be invested by the district in interest bearing
accounts or certificates of deposit issued by banking institutions or savings and loan
associations licensed to do business in this state or in securities issued by or guaranteed by
the United States government.
The average interest rates being paid by the LGIP in January 2011 were .3418 percent, and for
February 2011 were .3432 percent. The investments shown in Exhibit 4-21, therefore, are
earning considerably more than are being paid by the LGIP. The certificates of deposits will
mature at intervals ranging from March 2011 through August 2012, to potentially coincide with
cash flow needs of the district.
Richland Two uses the firm of Davenport & Co. LLC to assist them in making bond-related
decisions, but has not sought their advice in making investment decisions. Rather the Controller

researches the various investment options and, when he determines that the district can achieve a
better rate of return on investments outside of the LGIP, he will move money to those funds.
As shown by the rate of return on the investments, the district is benefiting from these
investments. Understanding that the LGIP is liquid (meaning it can be accessed when needed
rather than waiting until a specified maturity date), it is unclear why the district has not sought to
invest more of the $122 million currently in LGIP in other higher-yielding investments.
RECOMMENDATION
Enlist the services of a financial or investment analyst/adviser to assist Richland Two in

making investment decisions.
Richland Two should research the available services and determine the type and level of service
that the district needs to ensure that all funds are invested within the risk boundaries establish by
the Board’s investment policy, while achieving the best rate of return.
The district may be well served by issuing a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) so that services
and fee structures may be compared. Price comparisons, credentials, registrations, and reference
checks are highly recommended.
Expectations for these experts should be clearly defined and agreed to before entering into any
written agreement for services. Before even contacting one of these experts for a proposal, the
district should know what it wants and needs.
Some questions that district officials should ask themselves are:
• What services is the district looking for?
• Will the district participate in decisions?
• How will the board ensure district policies are followed?
• Are there confidentiality or other agreements needed to protect the district’s interests and
ensure compliance with Board policy?
• What results is the Board expecting?
• When does the Board expect to see results?
• Will the service pay for itself?
• How will performance be assessed?
• How, when and under what circumstances will services be terminated by both parties?
• What type of bonding, liability insurance or other assurances can be provided to the
district to ensure that assets will be protected?

• Will there be monthly or quarterly reports on progress?
• Will there be regular reports to the Board?
Although increased revenues are expected as a result of implementing this recommendation, the
actual amount can not be estimated at this time. If the district determines that the costs for these
services outweigh the monetary benefits, a contract should not be undertaken.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Campus bookkeepers at the high school level reported making single bank deposits of amounts
up to $100,000 at the beginning of each semester using unsecured bank bags and personal
vehicles, which places the employee and the district’s money at significant risk.
During registration and during the first few weeks of school, as well as at the start of the Spring
semester, a significant amount of cash and checks come into the campus offices from
matriculation fees, course fees, sports fees, and a number of other sources. Another peak occurs
near the end of the school year when students and parents settle past due library bills and pay for
lost or damaged text books. The central office also experiences peaks in deposit amounts when
student register for summer school.
The central office deposits often do not involve significant sums of cash. Daily district office
deposits are made by a rotating group of Accounts Payable staff.
Bookkeepers indicated that not all of the bank bags lock and the same people generally make the
deposits at approximately the same time each day. Only one bookkeeper said the she
consciously rotates the time of day when she makes her deposits, so that a student or outside
observers would be less likely to discover her routine. Avoiding standard times and modes of
transportation when transporting cash or cash equivalents can be a deterrent to theft. For
example, having multiple people rotate deposit responsibility, using a different car each day,
and/or rotating the time of day when the deposits are made, are all ways to deter theft.
During peak periods when the deposits reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, bookkeepers
said they became fearful and, in some cases, would request an escort to their car. Others said
that when the schools have penny drives or empty the vending machines, the weight of the
change they are required to transport is excessive; some required the assistance of another
employee to help them lift the deposit into their vehicle. Upon arriving at the bank, however,
these employees said they had concerns about safely traversing the bank’s parking lot; a problem
exacerbated when the coins increased the weight and volume of the deposit itself.
In some school districts with police forces, the district’s police officers (certified police officers
with the authority to carry a weapon) make large bank deposits. Richland Two, however, does
not have sufficient certified police officers to carry out this function.

RECOMMENDATION
Implement stricter cash deposit procedures that include a contract with an armored car
service to pick up and deposit cash during peak periods.
Obtaining locking bank bags and establishing procedures for varying the time when deposits are
made can be a deterrent to theft. When deposits reach a certain dollar threshold, however,
contracting for the intermittent pick-up of bank deposits would ensure the safety and security of
the district staff charged with making these deposits, and would safeguard the district’s money.
FISCAL IMPACT
The procedures can be implemented at no cost to the district. According to armored car
companies in the area, the best price per pick up location would be possible with an ongoing
schedule of from three to five days per week per location. However, the companies will also
accept calls or prearranged schedules for intermittent pick-ups at specified locations. The
estimated cost per pick up location ranges from $30 to $50.
Although Richland Two will need to determine the schedule and intermittent pick-up
arrangement that works best for the campuses, this cost estimate assumes that the district will
engage an armored car service at a cost of $40 per pick up, to pick up bank deposits at ten of the
highest volume schools (at least all high schools and selected other schools or locations as
designated) three times per week for 12 peak weeks of the year. ($40 per pick up X 10 site
locations X 3 pick ups per week X 12 weeks = $14,400).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Stricter
Cash Deposit ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400)
Procedures
FINDING
Richland Two has provided campuses both procurement cards and a petty cash fund to use for
incidental purchases. Although policy and administrative procedures provide some guidance
about the use of these instruments, campus bookkeepers indicated that each principal determines
which staff will have procurement cards, and when and how the petty cash accounts will be used.
Exhibit 4-22 shows petty cash accounts at various Richland Two campuses.

Exhibit 4-22
Petty Cash Accounts in Richland Two Schools
Individual Accounts Maximum Balance Individual Accounts Maximum Balance

Anna Boyd $2,000 Lake Carolina $2,000
Bethel Hanberry $2,000 Nelson $2,000
Blythewood Academy $2,000 North Springs $2,000
Blythewood Middle $3,000 Polo Road $2,000
Blythewood High $4,000 Pontiac $2,000
Bookman Road $2,000 Richland Northeast $4,000
Conder $2,000 Ridge View $4,000
Center - Achievement $2,000 Round Top $2,000
Center - Inquiry $2,000 Spring Valley $4,000
Center - Knowledge $2,000 Summit Pkwy $3,000
Dent $3,000 Transportation $2,000
Keels $2,000 Spears Creek $2,000
Kelly Mill $3,000 Bridge Creek $2,000
Killian $2,000 EL Wright $3,000
TOTAL $69,000
Petty cash accounts are not interest bearing, the principal or assistant principal is authorized to
sign the checks, and bookkeepers reconcile the statements each month and send the
reconciliation to the Risk Management Coordinator in Business Services. The reconciled bank
statements are retained in a file in Business Services.
Exhibit 4-23 shows procurement card purchases in Richland Two.
Bookkeepers indicated that they require receipts for each purchase, but do not necessarily
question purchases made to procurement cards, unless they see something that appears
egregious.
Exhibit 4-23
Bank of America Procurement Card Purchases
2010-11 thru 1/31/2011
Net Net
Net Card Card Card
Debit Debit Credit Credit Credit Spend Spend Spend
Date Debit Total Count Average Total Count Average Total Count Average
Jan-2011 $95,793.93 747 $128.24 $1,216.44 30 $40.55 $94,577.49 777 $121.72
Dec-2010 $75,628.14 740 $102.20 $954.46 14 $68.18 $74,673.68 754 $99.04
Nov-2010 $94,837.74 892 $106.32 $2,604.84 35 $74.42 $92,232.90 927 $99.50
Oct-2010 $82,905.23 953 $86.99 $2,098.07 16 $131.13 $80,807.16 969 $83.39
Sep-2010 $87,020.51 1003 $86.76 $818.56 18 $45.48 $86,201.95 1021 $84.43
Aug-2010 $117,818.75 985 $119.61 $1,271.89 18 $70.66 $116,546.86 1003 $116.20
Jul-2010 $86,799.18 634 $136.91 $2,929.54 18 $162.75 $83,869.64 652 $128.63
YTD Average $91,543.35 851 $109.58 $1,699.11 21 $84.74 $89,844.24 872 $104.70

RECOMMENDATION
Publish procedures for the use and administration of petty cash and establish tighter
controls over procurement cards to ensure consistency and prevent possible misuse.
Bringing some consistency of use and implementing tighter controls over these cash equivalents
is an internal control that can act as a deterrent to innocent misunderstandings about the intent of
these accounts as well as possible abuses.
FISCAL IMPACT
4.6 ASSET AND RISK MANAGEMENT

An effective asset and risk management program aims to control costs by ensuring that the
school district is adequately protected against all significant losses with the lowest possible
insurance premiums. This involves the identification and measurement of risk and techniques to
minimize the impact of risk. Fixed asset management should account for district property,
efficiently and accurately, and safeguard it against theft and obsolescence. The district's
insurance programs for employees health, workers’ compensation, and district's assets should be
sound and cost effective to protect the district from financial losses.
4.6.1 Risk Management
Richland Two maintains the insurance policies shown in Exhibit 4-24 to protect the district’s
property, assets and employees.
Exhibit 4-24
Summary of Insurance Policies
2010-11 Fiscal Year
Type of Insurance Provider Premium

Property Policy Firemen's Insurance Company $379,779
Boiler & Machinery Travelers Property & Casualty 36,179
General Liability/ Employee Benefits Liability/ Sexual
Misconduct Liability/ School Leaders Errors and
Omissions Liability Netherlands Insurance Company 116,239
Automobile Policy Netherlands Insurance Company 36,127
Umbrella Policy Peerless Insurance Company 39,469
Excess Workers Compensation Policy* Safety National Casualty Policy 83,399
Total Premiums $691,192
Source: Richland Two Finance Office, 2011
*Richland Two is self-insured for workers' compensation with an excess policy covering any claim over $400,000.

The district rebids its insurance policies every five years, and is currently in the process of
rebidding its insurance for the 2011-12 school year. The Controller is responsible for making
changes to coverages as new schools are opened and other property or equipment is added,
retired or replaced.
FINDING
The Richland Two School District made the decision to self-insure for Workers’ Compensation
beginning in July 2009, and instituted a safety training and awareness program that has
significantly reduced the number of claims being filed by employees as shown in Exhibit 4-25.
Exhibit 4-25
Workers’ Compensation Claims
FY 2006 through FY 2010
Employee Category 2006 2007 2008 2009* 2010 % Change

Teaching Assistants 37 35 26 15 21 -43.2%
Teachers 69 103 55 55 47 -31.9%
Cafeteria Workers 27 32 17 10 10 -63.0%
Custodians 3 4 0 0 0 -100.0%
Bus Workers 18 27 18 18 14 -22.2%
Administrators 5 11 3 2 8 60.0%
Support 5 11 7 7 5 0.0%
Principals 3 2 5 0 0 -100.0%
Maintenance 12 15 6 14 6 -50.0%
Substitutes 12 4 7 3 4 -66.7%
TOTAL 191 244 144 124 115 -39.8%
*July 2009 first year of self-insurance.
As shown by the claims history, the district’s concerted effort to increase safety awareness and
training has reduced claims by nearly 40 percent between Fiscal 2006 and 2010.
The district uses a third-party administrator, Key Risk, to handle the processing of claims and
obtains risk management advisory services from Keenan Suggs Insurance. Additionally, the
district has hired a part-time individual to do risk audits of district facilities.
The Risk Management Coordinator oversees the filing of forms and bills; acts as a liaison with
the third-party administrator, doctors, attorneys, and employees; attends hearings; trains safety
representatives at each location; and coordinates monthly and quarterly safety meetings.
Every campus and location, including the central office, has an assigned safety representative
that is responsible for monitoring the facility for safety hazards, assisting employees to complete
and submit accident reports and claims, and providing guidance to the employees in their
assigned facilities regarding safety procedures. These representatives meet monthly to discuss
ongoing safety concerns and to share ideas for improving safety awareness at their locations.

When the risk auditor identifies a potential hazard, he shares pictures of the hazard at meetings
and explains the potential risks for failing to address the hazard.
Additionally, Safety Committee meetings are held quarterly with heads of departments and one
principal each from a high school, middle school, and elementary school. These meetings are
attended by the risk auditor and representatives of the risk management advisory service.
Principals and department heads are expected to share the information they obtain at these
meetings with their staff and their peer principals.
Richland Two has also instituted drawings and incentives for campuses and departments with
“no slip, trip or fall” days for the previous month. Not only are the schools proud to meet the
requirements of no slips, trips or falls, but they are rewarded with gasoline gift cards of $25 to
$100. According to the Risk Coordinator, these incentives have gone a long way toward
heightening safety awareness districtwide.
COMMENDATION
The Richland Two safety training and awareness programs have significantly reduced the
number of Workers’ Compensation claims throughout the district.
FINDING
The district has not used the services of an actuary to determine the amount of its contributions
to the Internal Service Fund established to cover Workers’ Compensation claims since it became
self-insured.
Each year, beginning in Fiscal 2009, the district has transferred $1.5 million to the Internal
Service Fund to cover Workers’ Compensation claims. The amount transferred is equal to the
amount of the premium the district was previously paying to the previous insurance provider.
As shown in Exhibit 4-25, the district’s claim history has shown significant improvement over
the last two years, and that trend appears to be continuing. After a claims history has been
established, many districts will engage the services of an actuary. These professionals examine
the claims history to determine the cash required to meet future claims as well as the potential
liabilities that currently exist for past claims and mathematically calculate the amount of annual
contribution necessary to maintain appropriate reserves.
RECOMMENDATION
Engage the services of an actuary to determine the amount of annual contribution required
to cover past and future Workers’ Compensation claims.
The actuary can evaluate the amount of reserves currently in the fund and determine an appropriate
contribution by the district to ensure the solvency of the fund.

FISCAL IMPACT
Assuming that a 40 percent drop in claims will equate to at least enough to pay for the actuarial
services contract plus a 20 percent drop in the amount of required contribution to the fund, the
district could save $300,000 annually (.20 x $1.5 million).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Engage the Services
$300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
of an Actuary
FINDING
Richland Two has elected to internally administer its §403(b) plan, a deferred compensation
program offered to employees of certain public educational institutions, without the benefit of a
third-party administrator.
On July 24, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations governing plans
established under §403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Generally, the regulations were
effective for years beginning after December 31, 2008. In the past, coordination between
insurance company and mutual fund investment providers was not required; however,
compliance with the new rules mandates additional monitoring and testing of plan activities.
The regulations now require employers to take a more active role in the day-to-day operation of
these plans.
The district adopted its Plan Document in February 2009, and began Plan Administration in 2009
immediately following the plan’s adoption. The Manager of Accounting is charged with the
§403 (b) Plan’s administration. The Benefits Manager distributes plan materials to new
employees, and the Manager of Accounting maintains the daily details of the Plan; tracks
contributions; and communicates directly with employees who have distribution requests,
transfer requests, or other questions regarding their plans. The Manager of Accounting approves
all transfer requests, hardship withdrawals, and other Plan documentation. The Manager of
Accounting also provides the annual Universal Availability Notice to the Benefits Manager for
distribution to all employees.
Currently, there are 638 employees participating in the §403 (b) Plan⎯up from 601 in 2009 (a
6.2 percent increase). The Accounting Manager reports spending between 10 and 15 percent of
her day administering this function.
According to experts, under the new regulations, employers are responsible for a number of plan
activities including, but not limited to, those shown in Exhibit 4-26.
As shown in Exhibit 4-26, there are areas of the plan’s administration that could benefit from
specific expertise related to the administration of the plan. Although the district has made efforts
to comply with the IRS requirements, failing to fully comply could place the district at risk and
result in adverse tax implications for the participating employees. Many school districts have
chosen to mitigate both the district’s and employees’ risks by either not offering the plan to its
employees or by contracting with a third-party administrator.

Exhibit 4-26
§403 (b) Plan Activities
Plan Activity Richland Two’s Level of Implementation

Annual Notification of Eligibility The plan is posted on the district’s website, information regarding
under Universal Availability Rule the plan is published annually in the district’s newsletter, and
all new employees receive notification of the plan from the
Benefits Manager.
Ensuring the plan distributes excess The district does not have access to information regarding past
deferrals on a timely basis deferrals, deferral limits, and the like.
Apply catch-up deferrals according
to regulations
Applying earnings to excess deferrals
Ensuring hardship distributions are The district works through the vendors and vendor agreements to
administered accurately administer hardship distributions.
Ensuring participant loans are The district does not allow loans.
administered accurately
Determine if investments are As this related to deferrals, the district does not have access to
allocated to the correct sources information regarding past deferrals, deferral limits, and the like.
Ensure investment providers comply Initially, the district sent the plan document to vendors asking them
with plan provisions to sign an information sharing agreement stating that they would
comply with the plan provisions. Some vendors opted not to
participate based on the terms of the agreement. At this time, the
district does not have staff in place with the expertise to evaluate if
vendors are complying with Plan Document on an ongoing basis
(i.e., a Certified Financial Planner).
Ensure the plan document is The district initially developed a plan which was approved and
maintained distributed. Annually, the plan is reviewed and to date only one
amendment to the plan has been made.
Monitor distributable events The district reviews documentation provided by the employee to
available under the plan ensure that the events comply with rules for distribution or transfer,
according to plan document and IRS rules.
Maintain records required to provide Copies of all paperwork are maintained by Manager of
reports in the case of an IRS audit. Accounting.
Source: Column 1: PenServ website: http://www.penserv.com/pages/plan_info/403b_INFO.html; Column 2: Personal
Interviews.
Exhibit 4-27 reports the results of a telephone survey of peer districts conducted by Evergreen
consultants.
Exhibit 4-27
Administration of the §403 (b) Plan in Peer Districts
Offers §403 (b) Uses Third-Party Name of Third-Party Administrator,

School District Plan? Administrator? if Applicable
Richland Two Yes No N/A
Beaufort Yes Yes PenServ
Berkeley Yes Yes CPI Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
Dorchester Two Yes Yes PenServ
Richland One Yes Yes PenServ
Rock Hill (York Three) Yes Yes National Benefit Services
Source: Telephone Survey of Peer Districts conducted by Evergreen, 2011.

Among the selected peer districts, all provide a §403 (b) Plan for employees; however, Richland
Two is the only district that does not use a third-party administrator to mitigate the district’s and
the participating employees’ exposure to risk.
When contracting with a third-party administrator, the school district has the option of paying the
full cost of the contract, passing the full cost to the participating employees, or requiring the
vendors to pay the service fees. Passing the fees along to the vendor is only an option if the
third-party administrator has such an agreement with the vendor. In the Dorchester Two School
District, for example, there are approximately 530 plan participants, and the district has elected
to pass the full cost of the third-party administrator to the participants. According to the
coordinator, each participant pays approximately $2.50 per month for this service, or about $30
per year.
RECOMMENDATION
Contract with a third-party administrator to administer the district’s §403 (b) Plan, share
the cost of these services with the plan participants, and move the coordination of this
function to Human Resources.
Contracting for a third-party administrator would provide a level of expertise that is not currently
available in the district, and allow for staff time to be used more productively. Further, by
moving the coordination of the function into the Human Resources Office, employees would
have a single point of contact related to this program.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be a one-time start-up fee when contracting for a third-party administrator of
approximately $1,500. Because the vendors used by Richland Two are known entities, it is
highly likely that a third-party administrator will have standard agreements with those vendors,
making the option of passing along the annual fees to the vendors possible. Therefore, the
district should seek a contract where the final cost to the district for contracting with a third-party
administrator is limited to the start-up fee, with neither the district nor district participants
required to pay annual service fees. Should the district decide to pay the full service fees, the
cost to the district would be approximately $20,000 annually, based on $30 per year per
participant. To be conservative, the fiscal impact assumes the district would, at a minimum, split
the cost with the participants and pay $10,000 annually for this service.
Additionally, the district can expect greater staffing efficiencies when staff is no longer required
to perform these administrative functions.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Contract for a Third-
($11,500) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000)
Party Administrator

4.6.1 Asset Management
Capital asset expenditure planning and control are critical to the long-term financial health of any
school district. Generally, expenditures for capital assets require significant financial
resources⎯decisions are difficult to reverse, and the investment affects district financial
performance over a long period of time.
Richland Two has established a Fixed Asset threshold of $5,000, and as such, maintains a fixed
asset inventory of all district assets with a purchase value of $5,000 or more. The district
conducts an annual inventory of all fixed assets in the Spring of each year.
Board Policy DID Inventories states:
The office of financial services will be responsible for maintaining an accurate inventory of
materials and equipment in the school system. Principals of individual schools will make
reports on instructional materials held and used in the school to the state department of
education.
FINDING
The district’s processes for accounting and monitoring of assets is fragmented; there are few
documented policies, procedures or guidelines to aid district staff in the proper handling of
assets.
Business Services staff track fixed assets in Alio, Information Technology (IT) maintains an
inventory of computer equipment in an independent system, and the Title I Coordinator
independently maintains an inventory of items purchased with Title I funds. Other assets are
purchased using grant funds, but many of these items are not tracked unless they have a value of
$5,000 or more and are considered a fixed asset.
The Financial Services Manager and the Financial Services Accounting Assistant track and
monitor fixed assets and calculate depreciation for financial reporting purposes. They also
oversee the annual fixed asset inventory. Assets are added to the fixed asset system as purchases
are made. Assets are removed from the system annually, based on an asset disposal form and the
results of the annual inventory.
In the 2009 Single Audit, the external auditor noted a deficiency in the district’s process for
recording general fixed assets for inclusion in the government-wide statements. The
recommendation, which the district concurred with, called for the creation of policies and
procedures that would ensure that the district properly accounted for and reported capital assets
in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards. The auditor did not repeat the finding
in the 2010 audit, but neither the district’s policies nor administrative rules contained new
policies related to fixed asset accounting or reporting. Additionally, with the implementation of
Alio, many of the forms being used to monitor fixed assets and asset disposal are outdated.
The annual fixed inventory involves a list sent to each campus and location. The responsible
parties are asked to inventory the items and return the inventory to the central office. No spot
checks of inventory are performed by central office staff to ensure the accuracy of the

inventories. The external auditor does sample fixed asset inventories as a part of the district’s
external audit.
Information Technology maintains an inventory of computer equipment and tags the equipment
when it is received in the district. This IT equipment is not tracked in Alio, but rather is tracked
in a separate system maintained by IT. IT also records the disposal of items in that inventory.
The Title I Coordinator maintains the inventory of assets purchased with Title I funds and makes
these inventories available to state and federal monitors upon request. There are special
requirements that must be met when disposing of these assets, and reports related to the disposal
are maintained by the coordinator. According to the Special Revenue Accountant, monitors have
found no discrepancies in these inventories.
Fixed assets and computer equipment are tagged when they are purchased, and according to
staff, the tags are bar-coded. However, the district does not have scanners to use when
conducting inventories. Richland Two also does not have special coded tags for items purchased
with state or federal funds, or that may require special handling at the time of disposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Create a centralized fixed and controlled asset accounting system and related procedures
and forms that not only fulfill financial and accounting requirements, but protect the
district assets and enhance accountability.
Although multiple individuals and departments may be responsible for the tracking and
maintenance of the system, a centrally accessible system should track fixed and controlled assets
and identify those assets that require special handling during disposal.
Policies and administrative rules should be developed to assist district staff as they receive and
dispose of assets, and provide guidance related to annual inventories.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two’s process for selling surplus property may not be generating maximum revenues.
Although the district periodically holds sealed bid auctions for surplus property, staff reported
that a number of valuable pieces of surplus kitchen equipment and other surplus items have been
offered for sale without bid. Since the state’s Surplus Property Office is in Columbia, the district
has sent some of their surplus property to them for disposal. Once the item is sold, the proceeds
are sent to the district.

Some districts have begun holding online auctions for surplus property, which have appealed to a
broader audience and generated additional revenues, over and above what might be generated
locally.
RECOMMENDATION
Examine the possibility of holding online auctions of surplus property as a way of

generating revenues more in line with the assets value.
The benefits of the online auction process is that bids can be made any time during the day or
night, the audience is broader than those reached through local advertising, and bidders are in
competition which drives up the price.
Because the online auction process can appeal to a broader audience, online payment must be
required to hold the merchandise before pick up. To avoid problems with shipping and delivery
of larger items (such as vehicles or large pieces of furniture or equipment), the buyer should also
be informed that they are responsible for picking up the merchandise at the district location.
FISCAL IMPACT
4.7 FOOD SERVICES FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

The review of Richland Two’s food services financial operation examines management and
planning and the district’s efforts to address nutrition education and participation rates. In 2009-
10, Richland Two partnered with Sodexo School Services to provide food services for the
district.
According to the district’s website, the mission of the Food Service Operation is:
Our mission is to provide high quality, nutritionally sound, food service programs, which
support student life-long learning. All district schools serve a nutritious breakfast and lunch
everyday. All meals served meet nutritional standards established by federal (U.S.
Department of Agriculture) and state (South Carolina Department of Education) guidelines.
More than 25 percent of the produce and products served in schools comes from local
vendors.
In response to a survey administered by Evergreen Solutions at the start of the review, central
office and school administrators and teachers were asked the following questions related to Food
Service. The responses were divided into categories of Strongly Agree/Agree (SA + A) and
Strongly Disagree/Disagree (SD + D). Exhibit 4-28 shows the survey results for food services.

Exhibit 4-28
Food Service Survey Responses
Central Office School

Administrators Administrators Teachers
Survey Statement SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D
The Food Services Department provides
75.51% 2.04% 59.61% 28.85% 49.74% 33.38%
nutritious and appealing meals and snacks.
Vending machines are not available to students
22.92% 22.91% 43.95% 41.40% 45.59% 29.01%
during lunch periods.
Snacks and drinks available through the vending
65.30% 12.24% 47.47% 18.35% 30.53% 24.19%
machines are nutritious.
Bus riders get to school with enough time to eat
34.69% 12.24% 70.70% 18.47% 57.40% 16.05%
breakfast.
Cafeterias are calm environments in which to eat. 40.82% 14.29% 70.89% 22.78% 50.33% 37.23%
Students spend too long waiting in line to get
29.17% 16.67% 45.57% 49.37% 47.79% 38.31%
their lunches.
Many students bring their lunch from home
34.69% 10.20% 38.61% 48.10% 38.82% 43.45%
every day.
Based on survey results related to food services, it can be determined that all three survey groups
agree that meals and snacks provided at schools are nutritious and appealing, and that cafeterias
are calm environments in which to eat. However, for the remainder of food services items, it is
apparent that views points are mixed or slightly different. Specifically, the survey results indicate
that:
• A large percentage of teachers agree that vending machines are not available to students
during lunch periods; however, central office and school based administrators were split
almost 50/50 when it came to this question.
• All groups feel that snacks and drinks available through the vending machines are
nutritious; however, a larger percentage of teachers had no opinion than SA+A or SD+D.
• Central office administrators, school administrators, and teachers all feel that bus riders
get to school with enough time to eat breakfast; however, this perception amongst central
office administrators was not as strong as amongst the other two groups.
• Central office administrators and teachers agree that students spend too long waiting in
line to get their lunches while the school administrator group displayed mixed opinions.
This is the only problem area identified by two survey groups in regards to food services.
• Teachers and school administrators disagreed with the statement “many students bring
their lunch from home every day,” while central office administrators agreed or had no
opinion regarding this statement.
Exhibit 4-29 provides meal prices in the district.

Exhibit 4-29
Richland Two Meal Prices
2010-11 School Year
Breakfast Lunch
Students grade K-5 $1 $2.10
Students grade 6-12 $1 $2.40
Adults $1.80 $3.40
*Reduced Price Breakfast $.30
*Reduced Price Lunch $.40
Source: Richland Two Food Services Office, 2011.
4.7.1 Management and Planning
The organization chart for food services is provided in Exhibit 4-30. As shown, the Sodexo
Manager reports to the Executive Director of Operations and works closely with the Internal
Analyst who initiated the contract with Sodexo. The current Sodexo Food Service Manager came
to the district in August 2010.
Exhibit 4-30
Food Service Management in Richland Two
Organizational Chart
2010-11 School Year

The Sodexo management staff is physically housed at the district’s Support Services Center. The
district’s Food Service bookkeeper reports to the Management of Accounting, but works closely
with the Sodexo and Operations staff, since she is also physically located at the Support Services
Center.
At the time of on-site work, there were 134 school district employees in Food Service and 130
Sodexo employees. All of the campus cafeterias are managed by district employees, with the
exception of two sites that are now managed by a Sodexo employee.
Sodexo is responsible for recruiting and hiring new employees, and as school district employees
leave the district, Sodexo is replacing them with Sodexo employees. Sodexo does not have the
authority to take disciplinary action against a district employee, but instead works closely with
the Human Resources Office to address such issues.
The decision to outsource the management of the food services operation came after a “Food
Service Organizational and Operational Study” was present to the Superintendent in November
2007 and then updated in December 2008. The study elaborated on the strengths and weaknesses
of the program at that time, and the possible benefits that could be derived through outsourcing.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued and a contract was signed with Sodexo for the
management of the program beginning with the 2009-10 school year.
Exhibit 4-31 provides the Food Services Financial Report for the past three years. In the exhibit,
the shaded line for 300 Purchased Services shows the addition of the Sodexo contract to the
budget. As shown, the revenues less expenditures for Fiscal 2010 showed a positive $113, 677;
Fiscal 2008 and 2009 both showed losses.
Under the terms of the contract, Sodexo bills the district on a meals-served basis. The district
takes in all revenues associated with the program, including federal reimbursements. Sodexo is
responsible for food and payroll costs, and the repair and maintenance of district equipment. The
district is responsible for capital improvements to the cafeterias. Since 134 of the food service
employees are district staff, the district deducts these payroll costs from the total amount billed
by Sodexo.
FINDING
When Richland Two entered into its contract with Sodexo, Sodexo employees were given office
space at the district. One of the Sodexo employees does not work directly in the district, but is a
regional manager who oversees the district’s Sodexo Manager. An office in the Support Services
Center is allocated to this person, and this person conducts business for the Sodexo Corporation
from this office.
The district receives no reimbursement from Sodexo for the use of this space, nor does Sodexo
pay for the electricity to heat, cool, and light the office. Although district officials indicated that
having this person on site has given the school district immediate access to this individual, the
individual in question is not a part of the Sodexo contract, and does not work in the school
district’s Food Service operation.

Exhibit 4-31
Food Services Financial Report
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010
% Change
from FY
Description 2008 2009 2010 2008
REVENUE
1000 Revenues from local sources
1500 Earnings on Investments
1510 Interest on Investments $138,830 $24,342 $12,432 -91.0%
1600 Food service
1610 Lunch sales to pupils $2,190,142 $2,434,634 $2,434,324 11.1%
1620 Breakfast sales to pupils $190,915 $213,965 $240,873 26.2%
1630 Special sales to pupils $233,212 $204,234 $326,969 40.2%
1640 Lunch sales to adults $376,246 $386,873 $231,439 -38.5%
1650 Breakfast sales to adults $7,215 $10,059 $8,015 11.1%
1660 Special sales to adults $27,213 $32,476 $29,090 6.9%
1900 Revenue from other local sources
1999 Revenue from other local sources $15,444 $6,089 $20,057 29.9%
Total local sources $3,179,217 $3,312,672 $3,303,199 3.9%
3000 Revenue from state sources
3140 School Lunch
3142 Program aid $9,948 $9,282 $8,454 -15.0%
3900 Other state revenue
3999 Revenue from other state sources $ 94 n/a
Total state sources $10,042 $9,282 $8,454 -15.8%
4000 Revenue from federal sources
4800 USDA Reimbursement
4810 School lunch and after school snack program $3,244,082 $3,609,941 $4,050,637 24.9%
4830 School breakfast program $913,429 $1,019,362 $1,239,145 35.7%
4860 Fresh fruits and vegetable program $61,156 $66,964 n/a
4870 School food service equipment $25,000 n/a
4900 Other federal sources
4991 USDA commodities $477,791 $578,734 $493,208 3.2%
Total federal sources $4,635,302 $5,269,193 $5,874,954 26.7%
Total Revenue All Sources $7,824,561 $8,591,147 $9,186,607 17.4%
EXPENDITURES
256 Food Service
100 Salaries $2,677,283 $2,877,687 $2,510,909 -6.2%
140 Terminal leave $8,077 $2,902 n/a
150 TERI - Second Annual Leave Payment $1,866 $1,668 n/a
200 Employee benefits $921,130 $980,931 $929,159 0.9%
300 Purchased services $93,054 $82,539 $4,485,322 4720.1%
400 Supplies and materials $4,060,092 $4,150,955 $717,342 -82.3%
500 Capital Outlay $440,669 $424,878 $362,300 -17.8%
600 Other Objects $60,104 $75,818 $63,328 5.4%
Total Expenditures $8,252,332 $8,602,751 $9,072,930 9.9%
Revenues Less Expenditures $(427,771) $(11,604) $113,677 126.6%
Interfund Transfers from (to) Other funds

5210 Transfer From General Fund $514,304 $584,051 $569,453 10.7%
432-791 Food Service Indirect Costs $(489,270) $(540,445) $(517,920) 5.9%
Total Other financing sources $25,034 $43,606 $51,533 105.9%
Excess of Revenues and Other Financing Sources

Over Expenditures and Other Financing Sources $(402,737) $32,002 $165,210 141.0%
Net Assets Beginning of Fiscal Year $4,538,396 $4,135,659 $4,167,661 -8.2%

Net Assets End of Fiscal Year $4,135,659 $4,167,661 $4,332,871 4.8%
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for Fiscal 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Sodexo is a for-profit entity that is benefiting from public funds. While the Evergreen Review
Team gives no opinion on the legality of the use of public funds or public facilities for the
betterment of a for-profit entity, taxpayers have a right to expect that their tax dollars are being
used for the intended purpose⎯educating the children of the district.
RECOMMENDATION
Immediately execute a lease agreement with Sodexo for the office used by the Sodexo
corporate employee or request that Sodexo move the employee out of the district office.
Richland Two officials should immediately notify Sodexo that the school district will no longer
provide office space for the Sodexo corporate employee, and arrange a reasonable but immediate
date by a lease agreement can be negotiated or by which the employee must vacate the office.
The district may also wish to consider adopting a policy or administrative procedure regarding
the acceptable use or rental of district facilities by for-profit entities in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The Food Service Bookkeeper is performing a number of tasks that could be automated or
redistributed to other staff in the district.
The Food Service Bookkeeper is responsible for importing new student files and maintaining
existing student files in the Nutri-kids system. She also imports payments from the online
payment system into the campus level files, posts cafeteria deposits to the Alio system, and
answers calls from parents regarding their outstanding bills. Although some of these actions are
currently manual, changes to the system may automate these functions in the future.
The Field Services Accountant receives reviews and approves the Sodexo bill, and the Food
Services Bookkeeper enters the invoice for payment into the Alio system.
When the Internal Analyst determined the type of equipment and services needed for the kitchen
renovations, the Food Service Accountant entered those requisitions into the system and tracked
them through receipt and invoicing.
The Food Service Bookkeeper was posting food purchases for Sodexo; however, Sodexo later
hired an administrative assistant to do this data entry.
The Area Supervisor for Food Service is the Food Service Bookkeeper’s back-up for some
routine tasks when she is on leave⎯such as importing the new students and online payments into
the system. The Food Service Bookkeeper indicated that some of the tasks she performed, such

as posting deposits and requisition entry, were not as time sensitive and could wait until she
returned.
RECOMMENDATION
Eliminate the Food Service Bookkeeper position and delegate the functions performed by
that position to Sodexo and other existing district staff, according to the terms and
conditions of the Sodexo contract.
A careful examination of the duties and responsibilities of the Food Service Bookkeeper should
be made to determine the best method for redistributing the workload.
FISCAL IMPACT
Savings from implementing this recommendation include the Food Service Bookkeeper’s salary
of $43,231 plus benefits of 33 percent, for a total annual savings of $57,497.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate the Food
$57,497 $57,497 $57,497 $57,497 $57,497
Service Bookkeeper
FINDING
The Food Service Department, under the guidance of Sodexo, has established a more
comprehensive collection program for overdue food service charges.
The district has implemented a policy of providing meals to students⎯whether or not they have
the money available to pay for the meal at the time of service. Some districts will provide an
alternative meal in this situation, such as a peanut butter sandwich and milk, so that the child
does not go hungry. The district felt, however, that the disruption of providing an alternative
meal was counterproductive, and decided that the losses from unpaid meals outweighed the
benefits.
According to district staff, the practice has been for the cafeterias to attempt collection for
amounts up to $25, and then to turn those accounts over to district-level staff for additional
collections. These amounts are shown in Exhibit 4-32.
Exhibit 4-32
Food Service Overdue Debts Referred to District-Level Staff
2005-06 to 2010-11 School Years
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Owed $24,339.82 $45,327.12 $13,804.91 $5,163.33 $6,486.81 $51,414.52
Paid $8,852.25 $16,777.53 $7,914.15 $2,749.82 $4,977.74
Net $15,487.57 $28,549.59 $5,890.76 $2,413.51 $1,509.07 $51,414.52

Over the years, the level of campus collection activities has varied. However, when the new
Sodexo Manager came into the district, she recognized that overdue accounts were on the rise.
As of January 1, 2011, Sodexo requires the cafeteria managers and their designees to make at
least four attempts to collect using four of the six options available to them. These options
include:
• a business card (handed to child);
• cafeteria manager letter to parent;
• Food Services Manager letter to parent;
• email to parent;
• phone call to parent; and
• Ed Connect message to parent (Ed Connect is a phone messaging system that leaves a
pre-recorded message).
The cafeteria managers or their designees record each attempt in the system. Once four attempts
have been made, the account can be turned over to district-level staff. The district staff sends a
letter to the parent under the signature of the district Controller, requesting payment within 10
days to avoid having the account turned over to a collection agency.
While the final results of these additional collection efforts is yet to be realized, requiring
cafeteria staff to make at least four documented contacts gives parents fair warning, and allows
the parent an opportunity to call in to discuss the debt and any errors in the system, before
district staff begin their efforts.
COMMENDATION
Requiring cafeterias to perform at least four different collection activities before turning
the account over to the central office for collections has the potential to significantly reduce
overdue food service accounts.
FINDING
The school district is responsible for making capital improvements at the cafeterias, and although
the district is in the process of making some major renovations, little planning has been done to
date to ensure that capital budgets will keep pace with needs in the future.
Prior to Sodexo taking over the food service operation, district officials visited the campuses and
determined that many of the kitchens had fallen into disrepair. In response, the district allocated
about $1.8 million to kitchen renovations. Other mandated needs, such as the replacement of
deep fryers with other types of preparation equipment, increased the total allocation to just over
$2 million. Plans are underway to expend the last of those funds this summer, when walk-in
refrigeration units will be replaced while the kitchens are not in use.

As part of the new construction guidelines, Richland Two has established kitchen standards to
address the equipment and design of kitchens at new campuses. The guidelines are detailed and
address all components of a cafeteria⎯including serving lines, offices, and cashier areas. These
standards provide a good guide for the needs of existing kitchens as well.
District officials said that they felt that these standards provide a good guide for the needs of
existing kitchens as well, and had applied these standards, where appropriate, when
contemplating the renovations that are currently in progress.
Since this is only the second year of the contract with Sodexo, district officials agreed that they
had not yet developed a plan for how they might interact with Sodexo when creating the capital
budgets in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
Work with the contractor to develop long- and short-range capital improvement plans for
Food Service.
Proactively planning for the replacement of kitchen equipment and the renovation of cafeterias,
allows the district to spread the costs over time, and reduce the likelihood of major kitchen
outages that require emergency purchases.
Since the contract with Sodexo requires this vendor to pay for equipment repairs, they may be in
the best position to recommend replacements based on maintenance costs for old equipment.
Sodexo may also have expertise to advise the district when new types of equipment might be
available to enhance productivity. Working collaboratively in this planning effort can benefit the
district and maintain a strong relationship with the contractor.
FISCAL IMPACT
4.7.2 Nutrition Education and Participation Rates
The district’s food service operation, under the management of Sodexo, is increasing emphasis
on nutrition education. The district has instituted a universal free breakfast program at four
elementary schools, which has significantly improved participation at those campuses and is
being paid for through federal reimbursement.
FINDING
In February 2011, Sodexo hosted the districtwide finals of Future Chefs: Healthy Snack
Challenge, an Iron Chef-style culinary competition. The program, part of Sodexo’s commitment
to student well-being, was created to teach kids about making healthy eating choices by
encouraging them to make their own fun and nutritious snack recipes.

Elementary students throughout the district submitted healthy snack recipes and the best were
selected to participate in the districtwide finals event. Finalists prepared and presented their
creations before being judged on criteria like originality, taste, presentation and use of healthy
ingredients. Among the judges were fellow students and district officials.
Sodexo is a partner in First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative to end childhood
obesity. Richland Two joined 34 other Sodexo-served districts across the country holding Future
Chefs events throughout February 2011.
COMMENDATION
The Future Chefs contest, undertaken by Sodexo and the district, is a commendable
example of Nutrition Education initiatives that are engaging the community in building
healthy kids.
FINDING
Each year, the State publishes a "poverty index" for each school and district in South Carolina.
The index is based on free and reduced-price lunch data and Medicaid eligibility data. The
district implemented the free breakfast program at the Keels, Conder, Windsor and Killian
Elementary Schools, in January 2010, after analyzing the poverty index numbers for the
elementary schools and determining that federal free and reduced price reimbursement could
cover the cost of the program.
Each morning, meals are brought to the classrooms and all children, regardless of their
eligibility, are provided a free breakfast. The child or parent may opt not to take a breakfast on a
given day, but the choice is theirs.
As shown in Exhibit 4-33, the average daily participation (ADP) rates at the four campuses has
risen significantly since the program’s implementation.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, the agency that administers the school meal
programs:
There is concern that children might be coming to school without eating breakfast and still
not be participating in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) for a variety of reasons,
including a perceived stigma associating school breakfast participation with poverty.
Breakfast is an important meal and several studies appear to link the consumption of
nutritious breakfasts to improved dietary status and school performance. One approach to
increasing participation in the SBP is to offer free breakfast to all students, regardless of
their household’s ability to pay for the meal. It is believed that a universal free breakfast
program would result in more children consuming a nutritious breakfast and beginning the
school day ready to learn.
In interviews, district officials said that the program has been well-received at all four campuses
and anecdotally officials said that at least one principal told them that attendance rates had
improved and disciplinary problems had decreased since the program was implemented.

Exhibit 4-33
Average Daily Participation for
Elementary Schools
2010 YTD YTD

Poverty 2009 Target Jan ADP vs. % Change
School Index ADP ADP 2011 Target from Target
Joseph Keels Elementary 92.46 443 456 583 127 28%
L W Conder Elementary 91.14 386 393 645 252 64%
Windsor Elementary 82.89 415 417 546 129 31%
Killian Elementary 81.21 443 456 532 76 17%
Forest Lake Elementary 70.00 206 211 221 10 5%
Bridge Creek Elementary 67.31 225 222 191 -31 -14%
L B Nelson Elementary 63.47 163 168 169 1 1%
Pontiac Elementary 62.00 216 221 223 2 1%
Rice Creek Elementary 59.15 238 196 215 19 10%
North Springs Elementary 57.99 233 239 231 -8 -3%
Sandlapper Elementary 57.58 207 209 207 -2 -1%
Polo Road Elementary 53.22 200 203 208 5 2%
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary 46.42 `05 106 119 13 12%
Bookman Road Elementary 33.79 115 116 138 22 19%
Round Top Elementary 33.25 107 106 85 -21 -20%
Lake Carolina Elementary 22.21 84 83 68 -15 -18%
Source: South Carolina Department of Education and Richland Two Food Services, 2011.
COMMENDATION
The universal free breakfast program at the district’s four high-poverty schools is cost-
effectively providing a nutritious breakfast to all students on those campuses.
FINDING
Lunch hours at the high schools are as short as 15 minutes and as long as 49 minutes, which
limits the number of students who can get through the food lines. As shown in Exhibit 4-34,
Blythewood Academy has the shortest lunch periods, ranging from 15 minutes to 20 minutes
long. On average, Richland Northeast had the longest lunch periods ranging from 35 to 49
minutes in duration.
As shown in Exhibit 4-35, the meal participation rates at the high schools range from 101
percent at Blythewood Academy to 17 percent at Ridgeview High School.
It is customary for lunch participation rates at the high school level to be low (25 to 35 percent),
as students in this age category may skip lunch, purchase items from vending machines, or
choose off-campus food options, given that opportunity. In Richland Two, the high schools have
open lunch hours, meaning students may go off campus to purchase a meal. Besides this having
nutritional and economic consequences for students, it also poses a safety concern for
students leaving campus for such short time periods. The greatest single deterrent to students
eating a full meal appears to be the short lunch hours versus the total number of students that
must funnel through the lines within that short period of time.

Exhibit 4-34
High School Lunch Schedules
2010-11 School Year
Lunch Start Lunch End # of Minutes
Blythewood (Enrollment 2,061)
Lunch 11:55 AM 12:25 PM 0:30
Wed Lunch 12:39 PM 1:10 PM 0:31
Blythewood Academy (Enrollment 62)
Lunch 1 11:42 AM 12:02 PM 0:20
Lunch 2 12:05 PM 12:25 PM 0:20
Lunch 3 12:30 PM 12:50 PM 0:20
Wed Lunch 1 12:02 PM 12:22 PM 0:20
Wed Lunch 2 12:25 PM 12:40 PM 0:15
Wed Lunch 3 12:45 PM 1:05 PM 0:20
Richland North East (Enrollment 1,423)
Cap – Middle School Lunch 11:32 AM 12:21 PM 0:49
High School Lunch 12:21 PM 12:58 PM 0:37
Wed High School Lunch 12:50 PM 1:25 PM 0:35
Ridgeview (Enrollment 1,976)
Lunch 12:21 PM 12:58 PM 0:37
Wed Lunch 12:39 PM 1:10 PM 0:31
Spring Valley (Enrollment 2,012)
Special Needs 11:45 AM 12:15 PM 0:30
Lunch 12:16 PM 12:51 PM 0:35
Wed Special Needs 12:00 PM 12:36 PM 0:36
Wed Lunch 12:38 PM 1:12 PM 0:34
Exhibit 4-35
High School Participation Rates
2009-10 School Year
Total Average Average Percent
Total Serving Days = 178 Meals Served Per Day Participating
Blythewood Academy (Enrollment 62)
Lunch - Free 7,931 45
Lunch - Reduced 1,385 8
Lunch - Full 1,870 11
Campus Total 63 101%
Blythewood High (Enrollment 2,061)
Lunch - Free 43,694 245
Lunch - Full 19,188 108
Richland NE High (Enrollment 1,423)
Lunch - Free 44,799 252
Ridgeview High (Enrollment 1,976)
Lunch - Free 29,885 168
Lunch - Full 22,710 128
Spring Valley High (Enrollment 2,012)
Lunch - Free 46,624 262
All High Schools Total 274,611 1543 20%

The financial trends shown in Exhibit 4-35 indicate that “Other Food Sales” are rising, which
could mean that students are selecting other food options available in the cafeterias. Offering
other food options at kiosks is one way to reduce the lines for the Type A meals, and serve more
students. While these other food options are traditionally more nutritious than those purchased
off campus, federal reimbursements for Type A meals may be suffering as a result of students
either electing to eat something other than a well-balanced and nutritional meal.
Participation rates for the 2010-11 school year at the high schools are increasing; however, as
long as the same number of students must funnel through the lines within 20-30 minutes, it will
be difficult to increase participation rates past a certain level.
RECOMMENDATION
Collaboratively develop a plan for increasing high school meal participation, including an
examination of the number and length of the lunch hours.
Increasing the participation rates at the high school should be viewed as an effort to provide
student the nutrition they need to be successful academically. As shown by the district’s free
breakfast pilot program at four of the elementary schools, students and teachers have seen
marked changes in student behavior, including one principal’s comment that students have fewer
absences.
FISCAL IMPACT
If all of the four regular high schools were able to achieve a 30 percent participation rate, the
district would be serving approximately 200 additional meals per day per school, or 800 per day
in total for the four high schools. With 180 serving days, this equates to 144,000 additional meals
annually or $345,600 in increased revenues, by conservatively using the full price meal rate for
students in Grades 6-12 of $2.40 rather than the federal reimbursement rate of $2.72. Net
revenues would be $6,912 annually, based on the average cost per revenue dollar of $.98.
In reality, both the gross and net revenues could be higher, as some portion of the increased
revenues would be in the form of federal reimbursements at the free or reduced price meal rates.
Additionally, the productivity in the cafeterias as a result of higher volume sales may improve
the average cost per revenue dollar.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Increase High School
Meal Participation $6,912 $6,912 $6,912 $6,912 $6,912
Rates

CHAPTER 5:
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

5.0 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Managing any public education organization is a labor-intensive undertaking; personnel costs

typically consume the largest portion of the average school district’s budget. Consequently,
successful and effective school districts place a major emphasis on human resources
management. The employees of any school district are its most valuable asset. They possess
distinctive institutional knowledge and experience that can be difficult and costly to replace. The
recruitment, selection, orientation, training, salary, and benefits provided to the workforce
contribute greatly to the effectiveness of the organization.
Human resources management begins with the organization and direction of the personnel
function. Ultimately, the human resources operation is a customer service effort⎯particularly in
a larger school district such as Richland Two where personnel responsible for human resources
processes must deal with applicants, current employees, and often times employees who have
left the district. In order to be able to deliver the proper level of support and assistance,
employees performing personnel functions must be organized and trained appropriately, and
have the right delineation of job responsibilities. Employees must know that, if they have a
question on a particular issue that is critical to their job, the right person will be handling the
issue for them. Staff of the school district must feel confident in the abilities of the human
resources department to address personnel-related issues and challenges that are common in a
public education environment.
Within the scope of human resources management, there are a number of responsibilities—
including staffing analysis, recruiting, hiring, salary and benefits administration, and
performance evaluation. Effective personnel management requires compliance with equal
employment opportunity statutes and other applicable federal and state laws. As part of human
resources management, it is important to establish fair and workable policies, procedures, and
training programs that are important to recruiting and retaining competent staff.
A well-organized human resources function can help district leaders meet the needs of
employees, students, parents as well as the data needs of the administration. By assigning clear
responsibilities to staff, the district can effectively and efficiently deliver necessary services to
ensure the sound management of the human resources function.
Chapter 5 on Human Resources Management includes the following seven sections:
5.1 Organization and Management

5.3 Human Resources Records
5.4 Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention
5.5 Compensation and Classification
5.6 Performance Management
5.7 Human Resources Technology

Human Resources Management Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
5.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The effectiveness of personnel services is significantly influenced by the manner in which a
human resources department is organized and managed. The organizational structure of a human
resources department should be driven by the functions that it performs, and these functions
should be periodically reviewed to ensure that the needs of the school district are being
effectively served.
FINDING
In Richland Two, personnel functions are handled by a cadre of professionals in a centralized

department. The department’s staffing model is illustrated on an organizational chart which is
labeled both by position. Through an analysis of department function, it was revealed that due to
the background of the individual serving as the Chief Human Resources Officer and the fact that
Administrative Services was previously under his purview, that this unit was placed under the
administrative umbrella of Human Resources as a matter of convenience.
Exhibit 5-1 illustrates the current organizational chart for the department. To the right hand side
of the exhibit, the Administrative Services unit and its seven employees can be seen. While these
functions are critical to the success of any school district, they do not naturally belong in the
Human Resources Department.
Exhibit 5-1
Current Organizational Structure of the
Human Resources Department
Chief,
Human Resources
Administrative
HR Consultant
Assistant
Executive Executive Director

Director HR Coordinator Administrative
of Personnel Services
Administrative Legal
Secretary HR Specialist HR Supervisor HR Specialist
Assistant Secretary
Director for
Classified Personnel Director for
HR Supervisor HR Clerk (Temp) Secretary
& Employee Services Teacher Quality
HR Director of Director of
HR Specialist
Representative Student Services Athletics
Benefits
HR Supervisor II Secretary
Coordinator
Benefits Substitute
Representative Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-1:
Remove the Administrative Services unit from the Human Resources Department.
Given the parent and student-centered nature of the functions performed by this unit, it is likely a
better fit under the umbrella of the Academic Department (with a reduced staff as described in
Chapter 2). In order for a human resources department to function at its fullest capacity, its
leadership should be focused on personnel-related issues to the greatest extent possible. With the
attention of the Chief Human Resources Officer divided between personnel and non-personnel
issues, this is difficult to achieve. While the Administrative Services unit was placed under the
umbrella as a matter of convenience, given the history and experience of the Chief, it is not a
long-term solution considering that future incumbents in the Chief’s position are not prone to
have this same experience in leadership of administrative services operations (see Chapter 2,
Section 2.3).
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two maintains a job classification titled Human Resources Coordinator which is
serving as the primary administrator for human resources systems related to technology;
specifically the on-base workflow process for hiring, certain aspects of personnel records
administration and cataloging, as well as working with members of the IT staff in the
implementation process of the new Alio ERP system. The Human Resources Coordinator’s title
is very generic and does not meet the needs of the district.
Given the future direction of technology, as it relates to the human resources function and the
ambitious goals for ERP implementation, it makes sense for these roles and responsibilities to be
formally recognized in the long-term classification plan for the district. Creating a new
classification for systems administration in the Human Resources Department will allow for
more accurate hiring practices, as well as formally recognize the increasingly technical nature of
this role in the current environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-2:
Eliminate the position of Human Resources Coordinator, create a new classification titled
Human Resources Systems Administrator, and advertise the position.
A number of existing functions would logically fall under the span of control for the Human
Resources Systems Administrator. These areas include, but are not limited to:
• position control;
• electronic document management;

• human resources-related ERP implementation and maintenance; and

• automated process maintenance and development.
A sample classification description for the role of Human Resources Systems Administrator is
displayed in Exhibit 5-2.
FISCAL IMPACT
The elimination of the HR Coordinator classification would result in a positive fiscal impact of
approximately $96,488. This represents the current salary of the incumbent plus 33 percent for
benefits expense.
The creation of a Human Resources Systems Administrator and eventual filling of this position
will come with an associated salary and benefits expense. It is estimated that this classification
will demand a salary of approximately $77,985. When the cost of benefits is factored in this
brings the total approximate annual cost of this position to $103,720. This represents a net cost to
the district of approximately $7,232.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Human
$96,488 $96,488 $96,488 $96,488 $96,488
Resources Coordinator
Create Human
Resources Systems ($103,720) ($103,720) ($103,720) ($103,720) ($103,720)
Administrator
TOTAL COSTS ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232)
FINDING
Richland Two employs a part-time Human Resources Consultant at a salary of $41,000 per year.
This individual reportedly works approximately two days per week on average and focuses his
attention on maintenance and administration of the district’s position control process. If this
individual’s hourly rate were to be annualized to a full-time schedule, it would amount to nearly
$100,000 per year. This position is not needed in light of the coming implementation of the Alio
ERP system and its capacity to more efficiently manage position control.
It is not uncommon for long-term contractual consulting relationships to exist in school districts
the size of Richland Two, but for the expense being incurred by this contract, it is no longer
needed.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-3:
Terminate the relationship with the Human Resources Consultant and distribute any
related position control tasks to existing staff.
The duties and responsibilities of the Human Resources Consultant related to position control are
of sufficient importance that they should be reassigned to a full-time employee. They are not,
however, sufficiently demanding to require an additional employee to complete.

Exhibit 5-2
Human Resources System Administrator
Example Classification Description
General Statement of Job

Supports the design, development, delivery and evaluation of Richland Two’s ERP/HRIS activities to support the
overall business objectives of the organization.
Specific Duties and Responsibilities

Essential Functions:
• Supports the delivery of high-value Human Resources services/support through effectiveness coordination,
administration and utilization of Alio ERP. Ensures system optimization and consistency through review and
consultation with ERP and facility Human Resources.
• Conducts payroll/Human Resources system audits to ensure appropriate ERP system set-up and configuration;
compliance with internal policies and external laws and regulations.
• Completes Alio master file maintenance and Alio position add/changes
• Maintains all Shared Service job descriptions
• Acts as coordination for employee service awards
• Provides assistance on self-service systems
• Assists in measuring Human Resources programs and strategy effectiveness through oversight of standardized
and customized reporting development.
• Coordinates Human Resources analytics and business objects system security clearance according to
established policies.
• Provides guidance and expertise with regard to HRIS systems to include all modules of the Alio ERP system.
• Runs and distributes requests for standard and ad hoc reports.
• Tracks licensure and certification expirations and notifies holders and managers of impending expirations.
• Provides decision support to the development/analysis of Human Resources operating metrics, policies and
procedures, market studies, compensation review.
• Identifies district-wide trends and develops action plans.
• Supports a service excellence culture through demonstrated customer focus. Anticipates and responds timely
and courteously to all customer requests.
• The list of essential functions, as outlined herein, is intended to be representative of the tasks performed within
this classification. It is not necessarily descriptive of any one position in the class. The omission of an
essential function does not preclude management from assigning duties not listed herein if such functions are a
logical assignment to the position.
Position Qualifications
Education:
Bachelor’s degree required in personnel administration or related field
Experience:
Five to seven years progressively responsible experience in a field of personnel administration, three (3) of which
shall be acquired with a technological focus
Certification:
SPHR or PR Certification preferred

FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation will save approximately $41,000 per year.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Terminate Human
Resources Consultant $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000
Contract
FINDING
Richland Two’s human resources services are delivered to both certified and classified
personnel. These two groups of employees require some unique services. In particular, the
recruitment, retention, and licensure of certified and highly qualified teachers require a unique
set of services that are often handled separate and apart from the classified staff.
In the functional staffing model presented in the above organizational chart, it is evident that
some separation is made in how the two groups are handled; one position, the Director for
Classified Personnel and Employee Services, focuses most of her attention on this group. Given
the differences in how these groups require personnel services to be delivered, it makes sense for
them to be handled by different units within human resources.
The current organizational structure appears very vertical. Executive and managerial
classification titles within the department include Chief Officer, Executive Director, Director,
Human Resources Supervisor, Human Resources Supervisor II, and Human Resources
Coordinator.
Based on individual interviews conducted and job description analysis, the titles present depict a
much more top-heavy organization than is actually present. The most logical explanation for
this is that the classification system and specifically, the reclassification/promotion process may
have been used to achieve salary increases for people in circumstances when a compensation
only request would be less likely to be approved.
These changes are common among public sector organizations; they are most commonly done in
an attempt to recognize the work of a particular long-tenured and high-performing incumbent.
Such is likely the case when one observes classifications such as “Human Resources Supervisor”
with no direct reports reflected on the organizational chart. It should be stated that this is not a
poor reflection on the employees in question, rather a statement to the possibly inefficient
method by which classifications have been evaluated, updated and created over time. This is not
a problem which crops up overnight, rather it likely dates back a decade or more.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-4:
Reorganize the Human Resources Department in the context of a classification and

compensation study as recommended in Recommendation 5-18 with the goal to flatten the

organizational structure and identify any unnecessary management titles or misclassified

employees.
This review was not intended to serve as a comprehensive classification study; however, it was
evident from interviews with human resources staff and analysis of the department that the way
work is organized in day-to-day operations is not necessarily reflected in the present
organizational chart. Not all employees labeled “supervisor” are actually supervising staff and
not all employees labeled “coordinator” are coordinating operations. An in-depth review at the
incumbent and function-level, including job content and point factor analysis, will likely reveal
that a number of positions in the department can and should be reclassified to better reflect work
performed.
With Chief Officer, Executive Director, and Director titles in a department of 19 people, the
organization has the appearance of being unnecessarily top heavy. This recommendation serves
to identify where or if this is true and to take corrective action at the time such facts are born out
of specific data and analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented utilizing existing resources within the department.
Note: In light of Recommendations 5-1 through 5-4, a proposed organizational structure is

shown in Exhibit 5-3. This structure depicts a revised chart which closely mirrors the current
organization; with the removal of the Administrative Services unit and the promotion of the
Human Resources Coordinator to Human Resources Systems Analyst, the organization is
slightly more streamlined. As previously stated, a more complete analysis of the individual
classifications will likely reveal additional opportunities for refinement.
FINDING
Richland Two lacks basic measures for assessing departmental performance in human resources. In
order to accurately document performance improvements, it is important that key performance
indicators (KPIs) be identified to monitor results. Regular monitoring of performance towards the
accomplishment of written goals and objectives is essential for accountability.
In order to facilitate this process, the Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Director of
Personnel should work together to produce a quarterly or semiannual monitoring report of results
and accomplishments. Human resource functions or goal areas, the key measures by which
results can be determined, should be provided in these reports. Reporting can include a variety
of data such as objective data related to the recruitment process, subjective results to things such
as customer satisfaction surveys, and progress and status updates of special projects. The larger
a district, generally speaking, the more frequent such reports are commonly recommended. In the
case of a district the size of Richland two, quarterly reports for the first year to establish
baselines and strategize improvement plans are being recommended.

Exhibit 5-3
Proposed Human Resources Department
Chief Human
Resources Officer
Administrative
Assistant
Executive Director HR Systems

of Personnel Administrator
Secretary HR Specialist
HR Supervisor HR Specialist
Director
Director for HR Clerk
of Classified HR Supervisor
Teacher Quality (Temp)
Personnel Services
HR Representative HR Specialist
Benefits
HR Supervisor II
Coordinator
Substitute Benefits
Coordinator Representative
Exhibit 5-4 provides an outline for reporting primary areas of responsibility in the form of key
performance indicators (KPI).
Exhibit 5-4
Example of Key Performance Indicators in Human Resources
Core Function: Processing of New Job Applications

KPI: # of applications processed and candidates notified within 5 days of receipt
Status/Results this quarter: 75 percent completed per the KPI standard
Core Function: Processing of employee benefits change requests

KPI: # of status changes completed within 1 day of receipt of request
Status/Results this quarter: 35 percent completed by the KPI standard
Core Function: Qualified candidate lists

KPI: Lists provided within 10 days from date of receipt of request for candidates to fill vacancy
Status/Results this quarter: 15 percent completed by the KPI standard

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-5:
Develop key performance indicators, monitor performance results on a quarterly or semi-

annual basis, and provide an annual report of accomplishments to the Superintendent and
School Board for the human resources function.
Goals, objectives, and performance results should be reported on a quarterly or semi-annual

basis. An annual report should be used to determine the accomplishments and performance of the
human resources operation, and to guide any revision or reestablishment of goals and objectives
for future years.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
According to the teacher and central office administrator surveys completed during the
diagnostic phase of Evergreen’s study, employees and supervisors are generally more satisfied
with the human resources functions of Richland Two than those in their peer districts. This is
particularly true in the area of competitive compensation where 48.1 percent of Richland Two
teachers feel that they are personally paid fairly compared to just 31.8 percent among
respondents in other districts. This is further emphasized by the fact that 69.2 percent of
Richland Two teachers feel that overall salary levels in the districts are competitive compared to
34.8 percent among respondents in other districts. This indicates, however, that teachers are
more encouraged by the compensation of their non-teacher coworkers and supervisors than they
are by their own personal compensation. This is interesting because it indicates that the teachers
largely feel that overall pay is more competitive than their personal pay; morale among teachers
may be impacted by this perception.
When asked about the quality of the district’s orientation program for new employees, 83.8
percent agree or strongly agree that it was of high quality which is strong compared to the 49.2
percent among respondents in other districts. Overall job satisfaction, rated equally as high; 83.9
percent of teachers and 91.3 percent of school administrators agree or strongly agree when asked
if they are satisfied with their jobs. This compares favorably with peer districts where 81.2
percent of teachers and 73.2 percent of school administrators answered in the same way.
Exhibit 5-5 illustrates Richland Two teacher responses to diagnostic survey inquires pertaining
to human resources compared to the average responses to the same questions among peer
districts. The results of the survey were generally positive; Richland Two teachers reported
levels of satisfaction higher among respondents in other districts in virtually all aspects of human
resources management. This finding is commendable when one considers that perceptions of
customer service and satisfaction can be the most difficult of all to overcome. One area where
results were less than outstanding was in the annual delivery of performance evaluations. This,
however, is explained by the fact that in many cases in Richland Two, evaluations are only
presently required every two to three years.

Exhibit 5-5
Human Resources Survey Results in
Richland Two and Respondents in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Survey Statement Agree/Agree Disagree/Disagree Agree/Agree Disagree/Disagree
Salary levels in the school district are
69.21% 20.43% 34.80% 52.08%
competitive.
My salary level is adequate for my level of work
48.13% 45.47% 31.77% 59.31%
and experience.
Teachers who do not meet expected work
36.33% 35.68% 29.07% 36.63%
standards are disciplined.
Staff who do not meet expected work standards
36.46% 30.11% 28.06% 34.00%
are disciplined.
The district has a good orientation program for
83.80% 7.46% 49.20% 24.77%
new employees.
The district accurately projects future staffing
72.60% 7.71% 45.42% 25.35%
needs.
The district has an effective employee
79.00% 2.95% 40.03% 21.22%
recruitment program.
District employees receive annual performance
68.25% 10.51% 84.19% 5.47%
evaluations.
The district rewards competence and
experience, and provides qualifications needed 49.39% 29.38% 29.95% 43.53%
for promotion.
I am satisfied with my job in the school district. 83.90% 9.27% 81.19% 9.36%
I am actively looking for a job outside the school
9.46% 77.28% 19.89% 64.11%
district.
The district has a fair and timely grievance
36.64% 6.25% 28.83% 13.96%
process.
There are not enough high quality professional
28.10% 57.78% 26.07% 56.93%
development opportunities for teachers.
There are not enough high quality professional
development opportunities for school 10.69% 28.74% 11.07% 29.25%
administrators.
COMMENDATION
The Human Resources Department is commended for focusing on and delivering high
quality customer service as evidenced by Evergreen survey results.
5.2 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Clearly written personnel policies and procedures are required to identify areas of responsibility
and outline expected performance. Policies provide direction, while procedures provide
guidelines for implementation. Written policies and procedures should be used to ensure
consistency of processes and to provide for oversight by the School Board and Superintendent.

FINDING
Richland Two has comprehensive procedural guidelines written for its key human resources
processes. These are not the same as the board personnel policies and rules related to human
resources which will be discussed later. These are personnel procedures designed to outline the
actual functions performed by human resources.
The district’s human resources procedures manual provides guidance for the following areas of
human resources operations:
• Who to Call
• Referring/Hiring Guidelines
• Employee Paperwork
• Transfer Guidelines
• Substitute Employment
• Employee Pay/Reimbursements
• Employee Leaves and Absences
• Employee Benefits and Retirement
• Certified Employee Issues
• Employee Training
• Recordkeeping Guidelines
• HR Payroll Historical Record
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for developing procedures manual for its human resources
operations.
FINDING
The existing procedures manual is updated regularly. The complete guide contains thorough
steps to completing basic and complex human resources functions. Many organizations are
electing to develop process maps which resemble flowcharts for human resources operations.
These maps allow an at-a-glance assessment of the process and allow for the ability to quickly
track progress through an unfamiliar process or aid in the training of new employees who might
be more apt to learn visually.
Written standard operating procedures document the actions and timelines associated with
performing major personnel tasks. A quick desk reference or online web reference manual would
help maintain consistency of operations across schools and departments, and promote staff
teamwork and cross training. This practice helps institutionalize processes and practices, and can
be used as a training guide for new employees. The fact that the district already possesses these
practices in written format is a significant advantage and would make the development of a quick
reference guide or frequently asked questions (FAQ) sheet a much simpler and efficient process.

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-6:
Develop a quick reference guide or process map document for the human resources
procedures manual.
Exhibit 5-6 provides an example of a hiring process workflow. This exhibit was easily
developed using basic office software and can be based on a brief discussion of the process in an
informal setting involving key stakeholders. The workflow pictured is representative of a general
hiring process and serves as an example of what can be accomplished with relative ease given
the appropriate time and attention.
Exhibit 5-6
Sample Hiring Process Workflow
Need Arises
Applicant Removed
School/Dept. From Consideration
Sends Letter of
Need To Supt.
Fail
Personnel
Coordinate With Drug Test
Principal/Dept Supt. Applicant Starts Work and/or
No Approval Pass License
Head For As Employee
Additional Info Check
Yes
Supt.
Approves
Selection
Job is Back to
No & Offer
Posted Personnel
Apps Hirable Letter of Selection

Applicant? Yes
Received To Supt. From
Principal/Dept Head
Suitable Principal/Dept.
Candidates Yes Head Conducts
Chosen Interviews
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
The district’s administrative rules related to personnel cover a wide range of human resources
procedures designed to govern the personnel functions of the district in a consistent fashion from
day to day. A complete list of personnel administrative rules (R) which support human resources
policies is shown below:
• GBAA-R Sexual Discrimination and Harassment

• GBEC-R Drug-Free Schools
• GBGA-R Staff Health
• GBGAA-R Medicines
• GBK-R Complaints and Grievances
• GCC/GDC-R Employee Personal Leaves & Absences
• GCK-R Professional Staff Assignments & Transfers
• GCOA-R Evaluation of Instructional Staff
• GCQF-R Discipline, Suspension & Dismissal of Professional Staff
• GDBC-R Support Staff Supplementary Pay/Overtime
• GDJ-R Support Staff Assignments and Transfers
While these rules address all of the critical aspects of human resources, they do not specifically
address certified and classified employees. In the area such as performance management, for
example, there is a rule specifically dealing with evaluation of instructional staff, but no such
rule dealing with support staff, despite the fact that evaluations are performed for all support
staff, neither board policy nor rule directly address evaluations for these employees.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-7:
Create an administrative rule for managing performance specifically designed to address

classified staff in a similar way as certified staff.
Administrative rules provide the administrative framework necessary to ensure, from the top
down, that personnel issues are handled consistently, fairly, and in a way that breeds confidence
in management. Management of the performance evaluation process for classified staff is a
critical area that is missing from the present list of board policies.
Performance management will be specifically addressed in Section 5.6 of this chapter, but from
the standpoint of an administrative rule, it is appropriate to address it in this context as well. It is
important for Richland Two to have established rules for all aspects of human resources
management, and it is equally important that these administrative rules be written to apply to all
district employees.

FINDING
Richland Two uses a computerized system called Sub-Finder to place substitute employees into
service and track absences among employees. This system has the capacity to effectively track
absences and identify patterns in employee behavior. Throughout the interview and data
collection process, an interviewee discussed the increased workload on Mondays, Fridays and
rainy days. While this may seem somewhat logical given the propensity for employees to take
vacation days around long weekends, it was further revealed that these were generally sick call-
ins and not preapproved vacation days.
Evergreen requested that data be pulled from the Sub-Finder system to analyze the degree and
nature of these circumstances. Data pulled for a two-week period confirmed the anecdotal
statement of the staff member. On average, from Tuesday through Thursday, the average number
of sick call-ins was found to be approximately 150 while on Mondays and Fridays over the same
period, the number increased to over 200. This 33 percent increase in sick call-ins from a random
two-week period is indicative of an abusive situation and is in all likelihood not a coincidence.
An effective sick leave abuse policy establishes thresholds for call-in time where employees are
required to produce doctor’s notes for illnesses past a certain number of occurrences. Effective
policies of this kind also take into account employees who are suffering from long-term illnesses
while dissuading employees from abusing the system.
The abuse of sick time is a prevalent but preventable circumstance that has the potential to save
Richland Two the additional cost of paying for substitutes on days where the significant spike in
absenteeism is observed.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-8:
Develop and implement a sick leave abuse policy designed to reduce the apparent abuse of
sick time observed to occur on days which begin and end the work week.
An excerpt from such a sick leave policy is shown in Exhibit 5-7. The example provides specific
definitions for sick leave itself, unauthorized use, misuse, and patterns of abuse. Such definitions
should be interwoven into the Richland Two sick leave policy and should be communicated to
all staff at the time of implementation. A signed statement of acknowledgment of this new policy
should be collected from each affected employee and will put the district in a stronger position to
enforce such a policy.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented using existing resources.
FINDING
Richland Two provides salary supplements to employees in several non-traditional situations,

and the district in many cases lacks well-defined procedures that dictate who should receive
supplements and for what reasons.

Exhibit 5-7
Sample Elements of a
Sick Leave Abuse Policy
1. Sick Leave: Absence for medical reasons.

2. Unauthorized Use of Sick Leave:
a. Failure to notify supervisor of medical absence.
b. Failure to complete standard sick leave form.
c. Failure to provide physician's verification when required.
d. Fraudulent physician verification.
3. Misuse of Sick Leave: Use of sick leave for that which it was not intended or provided.
4. Pattern Abuse: Consistent periods of sick leave usage, for example:
a. Before and/or after holidays.
b. Before and/or after weekends or regular days off.
c. After pay days.
d. Any one specific day.
e. Half days.
f. Continued pattern of maintaining zero or near zero leave balances.
g. Excessive absenteeism - use of more sick leave than granted.
Source: Adapted from Ohio DNR by Evergreen Solutions, 2011.
It appears as though supplements are being provided for duties that, though not explicitly stated
in job descriptions, directly relate to each position’s duties. Rather than providing supplements,
many districts revise job descriptions to include related duties that do not necessarily justify a
position upgrade or salary increase, or review the position for potential reclassification.
By providing supplements that may fall in the “extra duty” category without specifically defining
what constitutes an extra duty, the district may be at the least negatively impacting employee
morale, and at the most engaging in unfair compensation practices.
Exhibit 5-8 illustrates a list of supplements currently paid, the number of individuals receiving
them, and their average value. What stands out immediately is that the majority of supplemental
pay is attributed to leadership/coaching of extracurricular activities such as sports or clubs. Also
included, however, are the 93 individuals receiving a supplement in a generic category called
“Supplement.” The average supplement in this group is $3,370. All supplements should be titled
in such a way as they are easily definable as the majority of those listed are.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 5-9:
Adopt a clear and well-defined administrative rule on salary supplements, and create
specific parameters for each supplement provided.

Exhibit 5-8
Summary of Supplements in Richland Two
Count of Average Value of

Job Code Description Recipients Supplement
Annual Sponsor 4 $1,701.03
Asst Football Coach 38 $1,795.21
Band Director 18 $2,421.56
Baseball 6 $2,568.85
Basketball 25 $2,955.82
Cheerleading 8 $2,023.91
Chorus Supplement 4 $1,362.96
Cross Country 7 $2,707.75
Custodial Worker - Hourly 1 $-
Debate Team Sponsor 2 $1,701.00
Dept Leader 69 $413.59
Drama Supplement 4 $1,614.97
Golf 5 $2,267.02
Head Football Coach 8 $4,465.39
Nat'l Brd Cert.Teac/Local 515 $4,732.54
Nat'l Brd Cert.Teac/State 494 $7,382.49
Natl. Teachers State Portion 39 $-
Newspaper 4 $866.31
Patrol Supervisor Pt 2 $-
Security Staff Hourly 10 $-
Soccer 19 $2,130.80
Softball 7 $2,112.48
Strength Coach 5 $3,022.22
Student Activities 2 $1,777.96
Student Government 1 $1,066.00
Student Government Sponsor 3 $1,066.08
Supplement 93 $3,370.33
Team Leader 7 $-
Tennis 6 $3,007.50
Track 10 $2,249.41
Trainer 4 $6,233.34
Volleyball 14 $1,851.03
Watch Commander Pt 2 $-
Wrestling 5 $2,253.34
Total 1,441 $4,899.52

In order to ensure that the district is maintaining accountability and equity, the Superintendent
should work with the Chief Human Resources Officer to create an equitable, well-defined
administrative rule for distribution of salary supplements. The rule should include specific
parameters outlining when a supplement should be given, for how long, and to whom.
FISCAL IMPACT
5.3 HUMAN RESOURCES RECORDS

The maintenance of complete, well-organized, and accurate personnel records is one of the most
important assignments of any human resources operation. Personnel records contain confidential
and historically valuable information on all employees. These records must be maintained in a
secure environment that is accessible only by authorized staff. Personnel files are used on a
regular basis by staff to provide job and salary verifications, produce personnel reports, develop
required compliance documents, and maintain accurate data on the school district’s workforce.
FINDING
Richland Two maintains personnel records in multiple formats and locations. The Human
Resources Department manages an electronic database using document imaging software where
formerly all paper personnel files are stored in a searchable database. Every document that was
present in the paper files has been scanned and indexed in this way. Since 2008, all files have
been created and maintained using the electronic imaging system; this has been done by creating
the paper documents, scanning them, and then indexing them. Once they are indexed the paper
documents are destroyed.
Personnel files which existed prior to three years ago are kept at the Support Services Warehouse
in unlocked file cabinets. A random selection of these files were viewed during this evaluation
and were found to contain confidential personal information, including social security numbers,
copies of drivers licenses, and medical documentation. Files in this location were observed to
date back to the 1970s; no formal plan exists for the planned destruction of these historical files.
In addition to the files located at the warehouse, schools that were visited by Evergreen
consultants were found to maintain personnel files for site-based staff as well. These files were
observed to be kept in locked cabinets inside of locked offices in some instances while in others,
they were in unlocked cabinets in commonly accessible storage rooms. The content of these files
was also found to be inconsistent. In one location, the files only existed for instructional staff and
held only copies of their licensure documentation, while in another school, the files were found
to hold copies of common personnel documentation that is typically maintained in the central
office.
A random audit of ten (10) electronic personnel files maintained in the district’s database
revealed generally well-organized personnel files. Exhibit 5-9 shows a matrix of audited
information and which randomly selected files contained that information. As previously stated,
these central files were found to be well organized and properly secured.

Exhibit 5-9
Central Personnel File Audit Matrix
Contract/Offer of Employment
SCRS / Retirement Form

Handbook Disclaimer
Employee Data Sheet
Rec. for Hire Form

Evaluation Forms
Correspondence
Certification
Safety Form
Application
W4
Position
Custodian X X X X X X X
Chief Officer X X X X X X X X X X X
Network Systems Engineer X X X X X X X X X
Executive Director X X X X X X X X X
Director X X X X X X X X
High School Principal X X X X X X X X
Middle School Principal X X X X X X X X X
Elementary School Principal X X X X X X X X
School Secretary X X X X X X
Bus Driver X X X X X X X X
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for making a commitment to transition to electronic

personnel files.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop a policy and administrative procedure on electronic and school-based personnel

records that ensures security of access, confidentiality, consistency of contents, legal
compliance, and a process for purging of these personnel records.
Federal and state laws dictate the legal requirements for maintaining personnel files. The
adoption of a policy and related procedures/rules for legal adherence, as well for timely
document retrieval, should act to guide staff in appropriate enforcement and utilization.
Duplicated files at the school sites should be avoided whenever possible.
Exhibit 5-10 contains a sample policy which Richland Two could use to develop a customized
policy for Richland Two records management.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation can be completed with existing resources.

Exhibit 5-10
Sample Policy on Employee Records
Employee personnel files contain personal, sensitive and confidential information as well
documentation of their term and status of employment with the District. Electronic personnel files
are to be maintained in a secure environment and accessible only to authorized personnel. Physical
files located at the schools will contain only approved information and will be kept in secure
locations and locked storage devices with access only being granted to authorized individuals.
Information contained in employee personnel files should be retained according to applicable

records retention statutes and purged of non-required documents on a regular basis. Files should be
maintained in an electronic format and back-up files should be stored in a remote location to
prevent loss due to fire, water or other hazards.
5.4 RECRUITMENT, HIRING, AND RETENTION

Perhaps the most critical functions performed by a typical human resources department are the
recruitment, employment, and retention of a stable high quality workforce that can support the
district in meeting its varied and unique challenges in educating students. The ultimate success of
a school district in meeting its goals and objectives is dependent upon the workforce being able
to implement the initiatives of the Superintendent and accomplish desired results.
The recruitment and retention of a high quality workforce requires a commitment of all
departments and supervisors, in a joint partnership with the human resources operation, to
initiate workplace satisfaction and employee support programs designed to retain employees.
Another benefit of an effective recruitment process is that, over time, it will improve the quality
of candidates hired and lead to longer tenure, thus reducing turnover. Turnover is proven to have
an associated cost. A number of online tools and resources exist that can assist in the calculation
of the precise cost of turnover, but a widely cited number is that turnover costs approximately 30
percent of the departed incumbent’s annual salary.
FINDING
Richland Two has an extensive collection of procedures for the recruitment of teachers. The
district attends job fairs at major colleges and universities in the region and has historically
traveled to other states (such as Michigan) to attend such events when budgets allowed. The
results of these efforts have been observed in the fact that average teacher tenure among the over
1,700 teachers is approximately seven years.
Unfortunately, the district has not placed equal emphasis on classified staff in this respect, as it
has on the certified teacher group. There is a significant amount of pressure for school districts to
focus their resources on producing the highest level of classroom achievement possible and it
becomes easy to de-emphasize classified staff in response to this pressure. The effective

recruitment of qualified support staff in classified roles is critical to the overall success of district
operations.
Richland Two maintains no recruitment plan for classified personnel and as a result, has no
method for tracking the success of recruitment efforts, or targeting the most qualified personnel
for their operational support functions.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement a plan focused on increasing recruitment and retention of qualified classified

employees, and ongoing professional development.
While Richland Two finds itself in a comfortable position of not struggling with turnover or
retention issues, developing long-term strategies designed to improve the quality of hired
employees will undoubtedly benefit the district over time. In addition, recruitment plans can
have an overall positive impact on diversity within an organization.
Sample elements of a recruitment plan are displayed in Exhibit 5-11.
Exhibit 5-11
Sample Elements of a
Recruitment Plan
• Timeline that includes fixed dates for advertising, receiving applications, performing reference and/or background
checks, interviews (first and second round), offer of employment, confirmation letter, and start date
• List of potential staff who will work on a focused campaign
• Survey of public relations/marketing materials — and ideas for revision if necessary
• Budget
• Number of member positions
• Target number of applications
• Standardized application form
• Comprehensive member descriptions that include position title, location and program summary, description of
typical service activities, duties and responsibilities, and member benefits
• Support network strategy for members
• Role of staff in relation to members and volunteers
• Orientation and training plan
• Accessibility and inclusion issues related to people with disabilities and cultural diversity
• Assessment of physical space and resources

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two does not conduct nor evaluate the results of exit surveys collected from personnel
who leave the district.
Exit survey data serve as an integral component for workforce planning that focuses on
improving the quality of the workforce. This information can be used to make data-driven
decisions about changes in benefits packages, compensation plans, organizational structure, and
the strategic delivery of training and professional development activities.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct an exit survey for each departing employee for the purpose of analyzing and
improving retention strategies in Richland Two.
Exit surveys completed by employees who leave the district will provide valuable information
regarding the reasons people leave. Workplace satisfaction and retention initiatives⎯focused on
the creation of a stable, highly-skilled workforce⎯will enhance the efficiency of the work
environment.
A sample exit survey is provided in Exhibit 5-12 and could act as a template for creating one
tailored for Richland Two.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two has a comprehensive employee handbook. Some schools within the district,
however, also maintain their our versions of such handbooks independent of the central office.
Employee handbooks are important sources of information that help staff understand district
expectations as well as rules and regulations that govern their employment. The handbook
includes rules and regulations that outline acceptable behavior and requirements made of
employees at all levels. The handbook also provides insight regarding policies and
procedures/rules that impact day-to-day operations and the working environment.
School-based employee manuals should be strictly controlled to contain only information that
does not override the districtwide employee handbook. These school-based manuals should be
reviewed on an annual basis to confirm that they are not in conflict with district policies and only
contain those pieces of information or rules that apply only to that location.

Exhibit 5-12
Sample Exit Survey Instrument
Richland School District Two wants to thank you for the dedication and loyalty you exhibited during your
employment with the district. Your contribution to the district and community was valuable. Although your
departure is a loss, we wish you the very best in your new position and future career choices.
We feel that our departing employees are in the best position to tell us how the management of the district works and
if we are meeting employees’ needs. We value your opinion and would appreciate it if you would take the time to
complete and return this confidential survey to our office within one week. Please explain any “no” answers and
give additional comments/suggestions in the space provided below. Thank you!
Yes No
Were employees informed ahead of time about changes?
Did you feel in control of your workload?
Did management care how you really felt about your work?
Was management open and honest in dealing with employees?
Did management have the ability to solve major administrative problems?
Was more emphasis placed on the quality rather than the quantity of the work?
Did you have a clear understanding of what was expected of you?
Were employees eager to come to work most of the time?
Was the working environment between staff, teachers and school leadership comfortable?
Name three things we could do to better serve our employees:

1. __________________________________________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________________________________________
3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments:

Based on observation and review of a sample of school-based employee handbooks, a number of

concerns were identified. Policies and statements pertaining to sexual harassment are very
important; however, they should be dealt with at the district-level and not at each individual
school. Another important example of what should not be present in a school-based policy
manual was found at one high school where they have a written statement on the subject of
religion. Sensitive topics such as these should definitely be handled at the district-level and not
be subject to interpretation at the school-level.
RECOMMENDATION
Standardize school-based employee handbooks to ensure that they are consistent in format
and content, and that they contain information which applies to that site only.
The standardization and central control over format and content of school-based employee
handbooks can benefit the district in many ways. First, with transfers between schools being a
common occurrence in Richland Two, a standardized school handbook format and content will
make the acclimation process for transferring employees smoother. Also, by allowing schools to
establish standard operating procedures dealing with sensitive issues such as religion which are
subject to interpretation, the district opens itself to avoidable litigation. Removing these from the
purview of the individual school administrator helps mitigate this exposure.
School-based employee handbooks should pertain only to school-level issues such as schedules,
facility guides, emergency response and safety plans, specific technology, contact information,
and other site-specific matters not otherwise dealt with at the district level. What appears to have
happened is that the individual schools within Richland Two have taken individual responsibility
for developing their own respective employee handbooks which overlap and sometimes conflict
to varying degrees with the districtwide employee handbook.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two does not have a succession plan in place for any of its key leadership. Yet, many
administrators are nearing retirement age. In order to ensure minimal disruption to the daily
operations of all departments, a well-developed succession plan is needed.
In organizational development, succession planning is the process of identifying and preparing

suitable employees through mentoring, training and job rotation, and to replace key personnel
within an organization as their careers end. From the risk management aspect, provisions are
made in case no suitable internal candidates are available to replace the loss of any key person.
For example, it is not unusual for a private sector firm to ensure the key person so that funds are
available if she or he dies, and these funds can be used by the business to cope with the problems
before a suitable replacement is found or developed. Although such a practice is not common in

the public sector, the idea of succession planning is a common practice in municipal
governments around the country.
Succession planning involves having senior executives periodically review their top executives
and those in lower-level positions to determine several backups for each senior position. This is
important because it often takes years of grooming to develop effective senior managers. There
is a critical shortage in many school districts of effective middle senior leaders.
A careful and considered plan of action ensures the least possible disruptions to the person’s
responsibilities, and therefore the organization’s effectiveness. An effective succession plan
clearly identifies the factors to be taken into account and the process to be followed in relation to
retaining or replacing a key person.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop a succession plan to ensure continuity of services in Richland Two.
By addressing the future leadership issue now and developing a formal succession plan, Richland
Two will ensure steady progress and implementation of strategic goals and plans. Ideally, this
process will result in a seamless transition of leadership for all key leadership roles.
Exhibit 5-13 illustrates the elements of a successful succession plan. This example can be used
as the foundation of Richland Two’s own planning effort.
Exhibit 5-13
Elements of a Sample Succession Plan
• Statement of commitment to prepare for inevitable leadership change.

• Statement of commitment to assess leadership needs before beginning a search.
• Plan to appoint interim leadership to ensure smooth operations and compliance with contractual
obligations.
• Outline of succession procedures including:
- internal management succession to the interim position;
- time frame for making the interim appointment;
- time frame for appointing a transition committee; and
- roles of the transition committee, e.g., communication with stakeholders, identifying a transition
management consultant, conducting an organizational assessment and designing the search plan.
Source: http://www.transitionguides.com, 2009.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented at no cost to Richland Two.

5.5 COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION

A well-organized plan for classification and compensation is essential for a school district to
maintain a stable high quality workforce. Classification systems and compensation schedules
must be regularly monitored to maintain their internal fairness and consistency, while at the same
time, stay competitive with the external marketplace.
FINDING
A strong compensation and classification system fails to meet a school district’s needs if it does
not have strong administrative support. Maintenance is the hidden need and cost of most
systems. Richland Two possesses an experienced executive leadership team from diverse
backgrounds who is able to meet most standards set by similar-sized school district. However,
the district currently has no established administrative practices to maintain a competitive and
equitable compensation and classification structure.
The employment market for any school district is fluid and constantly changing, and given the
district’s proximity to such a major employment market, this is particularly true. Richland Two
must make every effort to keep pace with local growth in terms of employee salaries. In order to
ensure it maintains its level of market competitiveness, human resources district staff should
work with the Superintendent to select a small sample of classifications and conduct an annual
survey of peer school districts and other organizations in the areas to determine the relative
values of these classifications. Richland Two could contact market peers directly or access
readily available secondary resources to make determinations about market competitiveness and
recommend appropriate adjustments.
While annual surveys of identified classifications can provide a general idea of the district’s
market competitiveness, Richland Two should consider completing a comprehensive
compensation and classification study every three to five years to ensure internal and external
equity (see Recommendation 5-18).
RECOMMENDATION
Create an annual plan and schedule for regular review and maintenance of the Richland
Two classification plan by internal employees.
Annual processes for updating the compensation plan may include targeted telephone surveys of
compensation trends in the surrounding area and the commissioning of a comprehensive study
every five years to address the district as a whole (see Recommendation 5-18).
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented at no cost to the district.

FINDING
Classification descriptions are typically developed and disseminated for every position in a given
school district. Richland Two appears to have written classification descriptions for most
positions and at present the district is in the process of updating and revising these descriptions.
Many classification descriptions were anecdotally reported to be out of date in the sense that
many employees feel that their descriptions are not accurate representations of duties that they
perform. In some cases, this was reported because employees feel they were not adequately
consulted during the update process while others feel that some aspects of their regular
responsibilities were omitted for other reasons.
Without accurate and up-to-date centralized job class descriptions, Richland Two could lose its
consistent voice on issues such as compliance and reasonable accommodation for the Americans
with Disabilities Act, or accurate assessment of designation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). FLSA compliance dictates who is eligible to receive overtime compensation according
to their exempt or non-exempt status.
RECOMMENDATION
Review, revise, and create job class descriptions that accurately reflect Richland Two job
duties and requirements with consistent and legally defensible content and formatting.
New and revised job class descriptions should include provision for the requirements of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, along with other legal requirements. Many components of what would
constitute a typical job description are present in the descriptions which already exist. The
information is at least considered and covered in these documents, but the district still has a
responsibility to maintain up-to-date classification descriptions for every job in the district.
Along with revising the descriptions themselves, the district should implement a system by
which classification descriptions are reviewed on a consistent and regular basis using a
standardized form designed to gather changes to the descriptions and evaluate the validity of
those changes to determine if their addition to the descriptions is warranted.
Richland Two currently maintains a consistent job description format which includes much of
the essential core information expected to be present in good job descriptions. The district’s job
descriptions contain the following sections:
• Title
• FLSA Status
• General Summary
• Essential Functions
• Education and Experience
• Knowledge
• Skills/Effort

• Working Conditions
• Responsibility (supervisory)
What is not present, however, are the relevant administrative details such as department, or pay
status that are important to have when reviewing a job description. A recommended sample of
categories to include in job descriptions is provided in Exhibit 5-14.
Exhibit 5-14
Example of Job Description Components
Classification Title:
Department:
Pay Grade/Step:
Reports to:
FLSA Status:
Prepared/Revised Date:
Approved By:
Approved Date:
General Statement of Job:
Essential Duties and Responsibilities: (Other duties may be assigned)
Supervisory Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Education and/or Experience
Language Skills
Mathematical Skills
Reasoning Ability
Certificates, Licenses, Registrations
Physical Demands
Work Environment
Terms of Employment:
Evaluation Criteria:
EEO Statement:
FINDING
Through a review of employee compensation and contract data, Evergreen found that some
district and school administrators have negotiated contracts while others do not. There does not
appear to be any consistency which indicates which administrators are paid on contract and
which ones are not. For example, 22 individuals are listed as being on “regular contracts” and
include both principals and central office administrators.

Thirty-two (32) are on “negotiated contracts” which also include both school and central office
administrators. More of this group is at the central office than the “regular contract” group. Ten
of the 32 are negotiated contracts with working retirees; six of the 10 working retirees are central
office employees and four are school principals.
Negotiated employment contracts with senior managers and administrators in a school district
are a common occurrence; however, when they are present, they typically apply to an established
group of administrators generally on a classification title basis. For example, it is not uncommon
for all school principals or director-level employees to be paid on negotiated contracts. For some
of those positions to be on contracts while others are in regular pay grades is the type of
inconsistent compensation practice which should be avoided.
RECOMMENDATION
Create a district policy or administrative rule which clearly defines, on a per classification
basis, which positions will be placed in the regular pay plan and which will have negotiated
contracts.
One of the most critical aspects and best practices in compensation is consistency. Allowing
some members of a class to negotiate employment terms while others are placed in regular pay
grades opens the district to criticism of preferential treatment. Inconsistent pay practices should
be avoided.
Further review of the contracts themselves revealed that some have effective lengths of up to
three years. This time period is also uncommon. The proposed policy or rule should also dictate
the maximum length of contracts. The most standard contract length is 12 months or one school
year. Long-term employment contracts should be generally avoided, especially in times when
fiscal conditions are such that budgets are shrinking or remaining constant rather than increasing.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
From a review of the job duties performed by individuals in various titles throughout the district
contrasted with interview responses there is a degree of misclassification present. Richland Two
has elected to perform smaller, internal compensation evaluations at approximately annual
intervals for several years. These evaluations have historically addressed both certified staff as
well as classified staff from the compensation perspective, but have not adequately addressed the
organizational classification plan to the same degree. While compensation and benefits are the
more public face of a school district’s human resources function in many cases, the hidden
danger in not adequately planning, studying, and revising the classification plan is that it can lead
to misperceptions of how work is organized and lead to internal inequities as jobs change over
time.

It has been more than seven years since the last comprehensive evaluation of the Richland Two
classification plan. In most high-performing organizations, both compensation and classification
are evaluated on matching five-year intervals, usually in the context of a comprehensive
classification and compensation study. While some school districts possess the resources and
expertise to complete such work internally, a greater return on investment can be found by
employing the services of a qualified human resources consulting firm to complete this work.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a comprehensive compensation and classification study at least every five years.
Third-party evaluators offer an unbiased look at the functional implementation of both

compensation and classification systems, and can provide the district with a more thorough and
efficient evaluation than might otherwise be possible using internal staff who must also balance
their day-to-day operations, thus protracting the timeline of the study. It would not be unusual for
a comprehensive study completed by internal staff to take six to 12 months to complete while a
third-party consultant can be expected to complete the work in three to four months.
The work plan for a comprehensive classification and compensation system should contain a
number of elements that would be difficult if not objective for internal staff to complete. One
aspect of a typical study of this nature is the review and updating of classification descriptions as
was previously recommended. If a school district commits to a regular cycle of comprehensive
compensation and classification studies they can ensure that the work plan contains this critical
element as well and accomplish the goal of having regular and consistent classification
description review. A sample work plan and project timeline is displayed in Exhibit 5-15.
The successful implementation of this recommendation is made more significant when one
considers Recommendation 5-4 previously discussed. The classification component of a study
of this nature should determine the appropriateness of department job titles and accurately assess
the content of those positions in light of the department’s mission and goals. A title and duty
based reorganization of the structure of the Human Resources Department will likely be one end
result.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of a review of this kind can vary significantly depending on the scope of services
desired and the employee group or groups analyzed by the assessment. A study of all 4,000+
employees would cost more than an evaluation of classified or certified alone. The approximate
cost of a study would be about $50,000.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Conduct Compensation
and Classification ($50,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Study

Exhibit 5-15
Sample Classification and Compensation Study
Work Plan and Project Timeline
MONTH
PROJECT TASKS
Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4
Project Initiation
Collect and Review Current Environment Data
Evaluate the Current System
Develop Compensation Philosophy
Evaluate and Build Projected Classification Plan
Identify List of Market Survey Benchmarks
Validate Approved List of Survey Targets
Conduct Market Survey and Provide External Assessment Summary
Develop Strategic Positioning Recommendations
Conduct Solution Analysis
Develop and Submit Draft and Final Reports
Develop Recommendations for Compensation Administration
Provide Revised Class Descriptions and FLSA Determinations
Provide System Maintenance Training
FINDING
Richland Two employs a significant number of “working retirees”. These individuals have
reached retirement age and have the ability to draw retirement benefits from the South Carolina
Retirement System while still working with the district at full pay. These employees are
commonly being paid at or near the respective pay grade maximum at a great expense to the
district. It should be noted, however, that many employees received a 10 percent salary reduction
in the current fiscal year and are being paid 90 percent of their salaries as a cost savings measure,
which is commendable. However, those retirees on negotiated contracts were only reduced by 5
percent.
According to a payroll database query at the time of this study, there are 145 working retirees
earning approximately $9.6 million in total compensation ($7.2 million in salary plus
approximately $2.4 million in fringe benefits).
As a part of the succession plan previously discussed, these employees are the most likely to be
replaced first. Discussions with senior managers lead to the conclusion that the wholesale
replacement of this degree of institutional knowledge would be inadvisable; however, the district
stands to save a substantial amount of money with the eventual turnover of these staff members.

RECOMMENDATION
Implement a plan to phase out working retirees.
Two primary options are available in the implementation of this recommendation. One is to
phase them out in a multi-year plan. In order to calculate the eventual cost savings of these
options, one must consider a number of factors such as the desired level of experience of the new
employees, and the actual salary at the time the working retiree separates from the district. If the
district hires new employees close to or at the minimum of the respective ranges then the cost
savings will be greater than if they elect to hire at or close to the range midpoint.
Another potential consideration is that all of these positions may not be completely necessary. As
the working retiree employees are phased out over the three-year period, each position should be
evaluated on an individual basis to determine the need of each position and whether or not it
should be refilled. Positions such as a school principal are clearly necessary, while others in
support or consulting roles can perhaps be eliminated with no long-term adverse effect. Those
working retirees can reapply for the positions they vacate, but should do so with the
understanding that they will not be hired at their retirement salary.
FISCAL IMPACT
A conservative estimate based on hiring new employees into these positions at the approximate
midpoint of their respective ranges would be that the district could realize $1.1 million dollars in
salary savings plus an additional savings of $364,000 in benefits expenses for a total
approximate savings of $1.46 million.
This figure is based on the following formula which calculates the approximate salary of an
incumbent hired near the range midpoint:
S
X=
(1+0.18)
X is the approximate salary to be calculated; S is the present salary of the incumbent, and .18 is the average percent
distance between range midpoint and maximum.
A phased-in approach would ease the strain of replacing the institutional knowledge of the
present working retirees, while increasing the cost savings each year as additional highly
compensated employees are replaced. In the first year, one third of the approximately $1.46
million will be saved which amounts to $486,667; in the second year, the district will recognize
an additional $486,667 for a total of $973,334; and finally, in the third year, the full $1.46
million could be realized as savings.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Phase out Working
$486,667 $973,334 $1,460,000 $1,460,000 $1,460,000
Retirees

FINDING
Richland Two currently compensates teachers in a payroll code called “XTRA” for their
professional development and other activities completed on days beyond their stated contract
time period. The most recent data available for Summer 2010 indicates that 1,221 teachers fell
into this category at an expense to the district of $679,369.
This presents a preventable extra expense. If the district can consistently predict the need for
these dollars, there is ample justification to take steps to prevent this expense. The district has
budgeted $778,000. It is highly unusual for that amount of extra duty pay to be paid at this level.
RECOMMENDATION
Set a goal of reducing summer extra duty pay by 50 percent for teachers.
This recommendation can be implemented in a number of ways. Common best practice is to

require these professional development activities to occur during planning periods or other
contracted days to avoid such extra payments. If this is not possible, then the district should
negotiate the limited extension of the number of contract days to encompass the time necessary
to complete these necessary elements of professional development.
The objective of this recommendation is not to deemphasize the importance of professional

development, rather it is to ensure that Richland Two has as much opportunity as possible to
direct its resources in ways which curtail unnecessary additional expenses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on the $778,000 budgeted for extra duty pay in 2011, a 50 percent reduction would save
approximately $389,000.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reduce Summer Extra
$389,000 $389,000 $389,000 $389,000 $389,000
Duty Pay by 50 Percent
5.6 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Employee performance assessment is an essential component of a well-managed school district.
Regular feedback on work performance in both an informal as well as a formal basis helps
employees better understand and work towards meeting expectations. Employees should be held
accountable for meeting performance expectations while leaders and supervisors should be held
accountable for performing their duties, as well as monitoring the performance of subordinates
and conducting effective performance evaluations.
The provision of regular performance assessments provides direction and guidance for quality
performance. Performance assessments can be an effective tool for setting expectations,

monitoring performance, identifying training needs, and developing performance improvement

plans.
FINDING
Through the collection of interview and focus group data from employee groups across the
district during the on-site data collection process, anecdotal evidence was provided concerning
the quality of the classified employees evaluation process. Employees had generally negative
feedback about the evaluations they receive and most of the negativity centered around the form
itself.
The format of the existing classified/support staff evaluation form is consistent and easy to
understand. The district has done an effective job of providing definitions of the range of
performance levels and does not focus on numerical scores during the evaluation process.
Classified employees are evaluated on a five point scale as follows; O-Outstanding, V-Very
Good, G-Good, I-Improvement Needed, and U-Unsatisfactory. In addition, the supervisor has the
option of marking a criterion as N-Not Rated. Performance criteria for all classified staff are the
same and include: Job Knowledge, Planning/Organization, Quality of Work, Efficiency,
Initiative/Motivation, Cooperation, Problem Solving, Judgment, Communication, Adherence to
Policy, Reliability, Following Instructions, Professional Image, Attendance, Responsibility,
Accountability, and Ability. Supervisors have the option of providing comments associated with
each of these performance criteria and also are asked to provide a summary of the employee’s
major accomplishments for the year.
The most common complaint was that classified employees feel that the evaluation instrument
struggles to adequately assess their performance in the context of their specific job duties. The
performance criteria are viewed as too generic and being written in such a way that they
document only broad categories of performance and omit many specific department operations
and functional differences between job classifications.
With respect to teacher evaluations, the district has adopted an evaluation instrument and plan
provided by the South Carolina Department of Education called the ADEPT evaluation. The
acronym ‘ADEPT’ stands for Assisting, Developing, and Evaluating Professional Teaching. The
State sets performance standards and provides training materials for evaluators and teachers
alike. The teacher evaluation process within the district, having been designed by state education
officials, is as comprehensive and complete as any that could be independently developed.
RECOMMENDATION
Refine and unify the performance evaluation instruments for classified employees, and
implement a performance management system that has established goals and objectives for
documenting and improving employee performance.
The results of annual performance assessments provide a measure for leadership accountability,
and for the identification of staff development and training needs for the district’s workforce. An

evaluation system will fail to meet these needs if it is not effectively assessing actual
performance on criteria that are important to each classification and department.
In addition, performance assessments should provide the basis for the assessment of professional
development and workforce training needs. Training and professional development programs
should target major workforce performance issues and needs in order to enable the
accomplishment of district goals and objectives.
A sample Performance Evaluation form that can be customized to apply to each department
within the district is provided in Exhibit 5-16. In addition to the material shown in the exhibit,
sections could be added to address performance competencies at the school level, as well as
classification-specific information. Beyond the evaluation of performance competencies,
sections should be added to allow for the regular and mandatory setting of goals.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two supervisors and managers, especially newer ones, are not provided specific
training on performance assessment strategies and requirements for most employee
classifications. The lack of comprehensive training can result in the inconsistent assessment of
employees. Training is required in order to ensure fair and consistent implementation of
performance assessment procedures and requirements by supervisors.
The district has developed or otherwise adopted a three-plus page document describing tips and
guidance for conducting more effective performance evaluations. This document was submitted
to the Evergreen consulting team as a part of the data request, but when asked, the Human
Resources Coordinator could not recall the file being used for any specific purpose.
The document contains the following sections:
• types of rating errors;

• cognitive models of the rating process;
• eliminating errors in rating other employees;
• errors in observation;
• errors in storage and recall;
• errors in evaluation;
• improving evaluations;
• legal concerns;
• suggestions for appraising employee performance;
• the performance appraisal interview; and
• communication technique suggestions.

Exhibit 5-16
Sample Performance Evaluation Form
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM

The performance evaluation forms are located and stored at the Central Office. They are dynamic forms that can be
typed on the computer then printed. Please remember to save the form to your computer before you fill it out. Once
the form is completed, please forward through your department to the Human Resources Department.
Employee Name John Doe

Department Human Resources
Job Title Human Resources Specialist
Date 8/1/2012
This performance evaluation covers the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. The categories below provide criteria
for the performance rating found in the sections below. When rating an evaluation, please indicate the number of
points the employee’s performance warrants based on the scale below.
(4 Points) EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS (EE): Performance consistently exceeds the requirements of the position.
Performance is regularly of an unusually high quality.
(3 Points) MEETS EXPECTATIONS (ME): Performance completely meets the requirements of the position.
Indicates that all assignments and objectives have been met. All core competencies were performed according to the
requirements of the position.
(2 Points) NEEDS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT (ND): Performance either does not meet or partially meets
some but not all expectations. Further improvement is required for successful performance of the area in question.
(1 Point) IMPROVEMENT EXPECTED (IE): Performance does not meet most expectations. If the employee
does not improve before the next quarterly review, employment may be terminated.
In the event that an employee scores 2 points or lower in any competency, quarterly reviews will be initiated
to evaluate the improvement process.
Half points may be awarded to indicate a level of performance that falls between two of these prescribed levels.
Possible scores for any competency include 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4.


Sample Performance Evaluation Form
DISTRICTWIDE COMPETENCIES
District-wide performance competencies are those basic elements or requirements of any employee working for the
District at any level, in any department. They are derived from the strategic plan and are the cornerstone to our
overall success
Exceeds Expectations 3: Meets Expectations 2: Needs Further Development 1: Improvement Expected

Score
(1-4)
Regularly in attendance; use of leave and notification of such is acceptable;

ATTENDANCE
not often absent
PUNCTUALITY Prompt and timely; not often late.
ABILITY TO
Has good working relationships with other District employees; helpful, polite,
WORK WITH
and courteous.
OTHERS
FOLLOWS Follows oral and written instructions well; does not have difficulty
INSTRUCTIONS understanding new procedures.
Good attitude and interest in work; does not complain excessively; provides
ATTITUDE
positive suggestions or ideas.
FOLLOWS Follows District and departmental rules and policies with regularity; does not
RULES break or bend rules to suit own needs.
PERSONAL
Maintains appropriate appearance, cleanliness, and personal hygiene.
APPEARANCE
Average Secti
Score
SUPERVISOR
COMMENTS:

Each of these sections is dealt with in a somewhat abbreviated manner, but the foundational
information is relevant and could be used to generate a more complete training curriculum. It is
unclear what the source of this document is; however, this document or one like it should be used
to develop a more comprehensive performance management training curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop and implement an employee performance assessment training program for

Richland Two managers and supervisors.
Richland Two supervisors who conduct performance assessments with subordinate employees
should be required to complete this training. An annual update of requirements should be
provided to ensure consistency and reliability of assessments for all classifications of employees.
Performance management training for supervisors should include the following:
• review of the evaluation instrument;

• refresher of the definitions of performance levels and point values;
• information on goal setting for employees;
• common scoring errors and tendencies;
• methods for avoiding these errors; and
• guidelines for providing performance feedback to employees.
FISCAL IMPACT
5.7 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY

Managing the human resources function of a school district the size of Richland Two is a data-
and paper-intensive undertaking. The effective implementation of technology in these operations
can serve to increase efficiency and reduce the need for adding additional staff as the volume of
work increases over time. On the other hand, ineffective technology has a strong likelihood of
slowing down processes with unnecessary layers of duplication, physical paper processes and
miscommunication.
Many of today’s human resources processes can be automated and streamlined which has the
effect of reducing errors and providing everybody involved in the processes with better
information regarding timelines and success. Effective human resources organizations are able to
leverage technology to draw key performance indicators and performance metrics as was
previously discussed.

FINDING
Human resources data are kept in separate databases depending on the user and format of the
data rather than in a central clearinghouse. Benefits data, FMLA data, employee leave data,
performance management data, and position control/payroll data are maintained by individual
users which lead to many duplicative efforts when changes are needed as well as the potential for
incomplete communications.
Richland Two has purchased and is in the process of implementing the Alio ERP system. Alio
ERP has several human resources modules including:
• Alio payroll;
• Alio position control;
• Alio salary administration;
• Alio applicant portal;
• Alio personnel administrator;
• Alio leave administration; and
• Alio employee portal.
With the exception of the applicant portal, all modules are planned for implementation. Instead
of the Alio applicant tracking module, the district is using a program called AppliTrack which is
a customizable hiring process tracking program. According to interviews with IT staff regarding
the implementation of the Alio system, no stated timeline exists for each individual module. The
process is variable as live production data are loaded into the system one school at a time. By all
anecdotal accounts, the process has flowed relatively smoothly and the ultimate goal is to utilize
Alio’s ability to bring together the various disparate databases in human resources. Human
resources staff is working to develop custom workflows for the AppliTrack system, and
AppliTrack is planned for integration with Alio ERP in the near future.
Interviews with the district’s ERP Administrator included product demonstration and a review of
its user manual lead to the conclusion that this system contains all of the basic functionality
necessary to serve as a fully functional Human Resources Information System (HRIS).
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for the implementation of Alio ERP for human resources.

CHAPTER 6:
FACILITIES

6.0 FACILITIES
This chapter examines the ways Richland School District Two manages, maintains, and operates
its facilities. This chapter contains the following five sections:
6.1 Facilities Planning

6.2 Facilities Maintenance
6.3 Custodial and Grounds Operations
6.4 Energy Management
6.5 Community Use of Facilities
The manner in which a school district manages its facilities can have a significant effect on other
school functions. Useful, well-maintained, up-to-date, and cheerful learning environments can
help reinforce positive attitudes and performance by students, teachers, and administrators. For
example, excellent indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and day lighting have been shown to
improve concentration and learning. Facilities that are neither overcrowded nor underutilized
create an educational community where team work, cooperation, and other positive attributes can
be practiced and promoted.
An article on the Iowa Association of School Boards website provides an excellent summary of
the significant benefits and contributions of school buildings to teaching and learning. Entitled
The Link Between Buildings and Learning, the article addresses such issues as extended learning
areas, interdisciplinary instruction, varied schedules, student teams or academies, productive
environments, acoustics, ventilation, light, and color.
An excerpt from the website states:
A school building is an important tool to support learning. Experts agree that school
facilities should be designed to facilitate what we know today about providing the best
possible education for all students.
IASB interviewed a number of experienced school architects and reviewed several

articles to learn more about trends affecting school building design. This article
summarizes what we found.
Buildings Reflect the Education Program
Schools are being designed and remodeled to accommodate how educators want to
deliver instruction to improve student learning.
Most Iowa schools were designed to support education based on large-group, teacher-
centered instruction in individual classrooms. But current knowledge and research about
learning call for new models of education that are characterized by more active student
involvement.
Students are doing rather than just receiving; creating rather than absorbing; they are
thinking, working and solving problems. They are supported by teaching strategies such

Facilities Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
as cooperative, project-based and interdisciplinary learning. All require students to move

about, work in various sized groups and be active.
Source: http://www.ia-sb.org/SchoolFacilities.aspx?id=560
Well-planned facilities are based on the educational program and on accurate student enrollment
projections. The design process should have input from all stakeholders⎯ including
administrators, principals, teachers, security specialists, parents, students, and the maintenance
and operations staff. The selection of building materials; interior finishes; hardware; mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems; and other major building components should be made
according to life-cycle cost analyses for an optimum total cost of construction, operations, and
maintenance. As much as possible, the variety of all such materials and equipment should be
limited to save repair and replacement costs, and reduce inventory and the need for training of
maintenance staff.
The maintenance and operation of the facilities must be accomplished in an efficient and
effective manner in order to provide a safe and secure environment that supports the educational
program, and efficiently utilizes the school district’s resources. Efficiencies and economies of
maintenance and operations are critical to ensuring that resources for direct instruction are
maximized. On the other hand, extreme actions to reduce the cost of maintenance and operations
can result in higher than acceptable costs of repair and replacement in the years to come. This
cost of curing deferred maintenance can amount to as much as the square of the original cost of
maintenance that was deferred. As a rule, deferred maintenance should be neither tolerated nor
allowed to persist. Consequently, a difference must be recognized and enforced between
reasonable economies and unreasonable cost reductions that cost eventually much more than the
original “savings.”
For many years, Richland Two has prided itself in the pro-active planning, design, construction,
maintenance, and operation of its school facilities. Evergreen’s review of programs and activities
of Richland Two operations has shown that the buildings and grounds are, with few exceptions,
in excellent repair and functional condition. It is clear from this review that past and present
Richland Two administrators, as well as the community at-large, have taken pride in well-kept
and well-run facilities to support teaching and learning in the district.
Over the years, the financial support needed for complete maintenance and cleaning services, as
well as energy management, appear to have been provided prudently and sufficiently. Provisions
were and continue to be made for preventive maintenance in order to avoid the much more costly
consequences of deferred maintenance. Without doubt, large sums of money were saved over the
past few decades by Richland Two because it developed and maintained a highly competent and
credentialed staff of in-house maintenance trades capable of completing major projects that
would have been much more costly if they had been contracted to outside vendors.
On that basis, it can be safely assumed that Richland Two and the community of greater
Columbia will want to continue this track record of excellence with respect to their school
facilities.
Exhibit 6-1 demonstrates that Richland Two follows a path of expenditures on facilities that
relates favorably to the five peer school districts (Beaufort, Berkeley, Dorchester, Richland One,
and Rock Hill) that have been chosen for comparison purposes. Richland Two facilities

expenses, in FY 2009, represented just over eight percent of total expenditures, and slightly
below $800 per pupil. Dorchester’s per pupil expenses were only five dollars below those of
Richland Two, but represented nearly ten percent of total expenditures, while Richland One’s
$1,147 per pupil costs were 8.76 percent of total expenditures.
Exhibit 6-1
Richland School District Two and Peer District
Data for Facilities Expenditures
FY 2009
Current Facilities* Percent of

School District Expenditures Per Pupil Total
Richland Two $19,520,345 $797 8.11%
Beaufort $20,501,366 $1,067 10.16%
Berkeley $25,848,525 $903 10.66%
Dorchester $17,225,856 $792 9.77%
Richland One $27,915,707 $1,147 8.76%
Rock Hill $18,332,673 $1,041 11.28%
*includes maintenance services, repairs, equipment, supplies, capital improvements, custodial services, and
utilities.
Exhibit 6-2 summarizes the permanent structures and their floor areas. Note that the district
operates 136 portable units, of which 125 serve as classrooms. Exhibit 6-2 computes this
mixture of single and double portable units as the equivalent of 77 double units, with an average
floor area of 1,440 square feet each, or a total of 110,880 square feet. This total amount for
portables has been added to the permanent square footage. In addition, the 29,000 square foot
floor area of the central office has also been added to this total, resulting in a district floor area of
3,857,312 square feet. This is the total area subject to heating and cooling, maintenance, and
custodial services.
Exhibit 6-3 shows the current organization and staffing of the Richland Two Support Services
Department. This large department contains the following functions covered in this chapter:
• new design and construction;

• maintenance and energy;
• emergency services; and
• stadium maintenance (turf).
The following support services functions are addressed elsewhere in this report:
• Transportation – Chapter 8, Transportation;

• Food Services and Warehouse – Chapter 4, Finance; and
• Emergency Services and Safety – Chapter 9, Safety and Security.

Exhibit 6-2
Richland Two Building Inventory with Floor Area and Year of Construction
2010-11 School Year
School Name Floor Area (SF) Year Built

ELEMENTARY
Anna Boyd Child Development Center 13,500 1954
Bethel Hanberry ES 76,000 1954
Bethel Hanberry Addition 1 46,000 1990
Bethel Hanberry Addition 2 6,369 2003
Bookman Road ES 75,000 1998
Bridgecreek ES 95,105 2008
Center for Knowledge 18,840 2007
Center for Inquiry 24,432 2007
LW Conder ES 36,000 1958
LW Conder ES Addition 1 23,000 1989
LW Conder ES Addition 2 16,960 2003
LW Conder ES Cafeteria Addition 4,087 2007
Forest Lake ES 35,000 1957
Forest Lake ES Addition 1 23,000 1989
Forest Laske ES Addition 2 18,245 2003
Joseph Keels ES 38,000 1959
Joseph Keels ES Addition 1 23,000 1989
Joseph Keels ES Addition 2 14,639 2001
Joseph Keels ES Cafeteria Addition 2,919 2007
Killian ES 75,000 1998
Langford Road ES 110,771 2010
L.B. Nelson ES 39,000 1962
L.B. Nelson ES Addition 1 40,000 1989
L.B. Nelson ES Addition 2 14,261 2001
L.B. Nelson ES Cafeteria Addition 7,234 2007
North Springs ES 79,000 1982
North Springs ES Addition 1 22,448 2007
Polo ES 94,830 2006
Pontiac ES 60,280 1990
Pontiac ES Addition 1 29,016 2001
Rice Creek ES 61,000 1993
Rice Creek ES Addition 1 29,016 2003
Round Top ES 91,635 2002
Sandplapper ES 94,500 2006
Lake Carolina ES 91,635 2002


Richland Two Building Inventory with Floor Area and Year of Construction
2010-11 School Year
School Name Floor Area (SF) Year Built

Windsor ES 42,400 1966
Windsor ES Addition 1 23,300 1989
Windsor ES Addition 2 21,656 2001
Windsor ES Cafeteria Addition 8,207 2008
MIDDLE
Blythewood MS 121,000 1996
Blythewood MS Addition 1 6,300 N/A
Dent MS 36,000 1998
Dent MS Addition 1 162,853 2007
EL Wright MS 89,867 1961
EL Wright MS Addition 1 11,266 1990
EL Wright MS Addition 2 92,009 2004
LongLeaf MS 150,646 2007
Kelly MS 150,646 2004
Summit Parkway MS 117,000 1990
Summit Parkway MS Addition 1 7,700 1992
HIGH
Blythewood HS 299,000 2005
Richland Northeast HS 261,349 1978
Richland Northeast HS Science Bldg. 41,064 2004
Ridge View HS 238,755 1995
Spring Valley HS 420,240 2008
Spring Valley HS Science Bldg 17,893 2008
Spring Valley HS Fine Arts Add’n. 20,679 2008
OTHER FACILITIES
Blythewood Academy 40,000 1929
District Auditorium 25,000 1996
Central Office 29,000
TOTAL PERMANENT SF 3,635,552
Estimate of 77 double equivalent portable units @ 1,440 SF 110,880
TOTAL PERMANENT AND PORTABLE SQUARE FEET 3,857,312
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data provided by Richland School District Two Facilities
Office, 2011.

Exhibit 6-3
Richland Two Support Services Department
Current Organizational Chart for Facilities Unit
Executive Director
of Operations
Administrative
Receptionist
Assistant
Maintenance and New Design and

Energy Manager Construction Manager
Administrative Work Order Construction

Assistant Specialist Supervisor
Assistant Maintenance Administrative

Supervisor Assistant
2 PM Teams
Carpenters (4)
(4) on each
Electricians (4) Plumbers(4)
Irrigation Fire Alarm/

Tech(2) Comms (2)
General
Locksmith(1)
Maintenance.(3)
HVAC (5)
Turf Manager
Groundskeepers
(2)

Chapter 6 also addresses the early phases of facilities planning and programming. Those
functions are contained within the Richland Two Planning Department (see Chapter 2). The
Planning Department is responsible for future enrollment projections, facilities programming
(cooperatively with New Design and Construction), space allocations (including portables), and
land purchases for future school sites.
The Planning Office’s involvement does not provide a clear indication of how facilities planning
information is transferred to, or shared with, New Design and Construction, or other parts of the
support services function concerned with facilities.
6.1 FACILITIES PLANNING

Organizationally and functionally, one of the most challenging aspects of facilities planning is
making a clear connection between realistic school district growth projections, and the
meaningful translation of these into useful and responsive facilities programs for new schools
and school additions. The timely design, construction and completion of needed additional
schools is also a required consequence of a responsive effort to fulfill the needs of a growing
school population amidst changes in educational techniques and philosophies. By and large,
Richland Two has managed this challenge successfully.
FINDING
Richland Two has a long-range Capital Improvements Plan. This document projects needs ten
years into the future, and is updated at least annually. When changes occur more rapidly, more
frequent plan updates are made. Also called the “Long-Range Facility Study,”* the document’s
purpose is to “review and update the enrollment projections in order to ensure that the facilities
will have adequate seating capacities which will accommodate future enrollments and meet
program needs.” The secondary goal is to aid the district in identifying major needed repairs and
renovations which will improve the existing facilities.
A facility master plan should be the norm for any school district, regardless of size and growth
mode. Such a document allows the following essential outcomes:
• a common understanding of facilities plans for all concerned: school district

management, parents, taxpayers, the business community, and the community at-large;
• more successful bond referenda due to a firm justification of need;
• facilities that are well-maintained and in excellent repair; and
• the ability to anticipate trends, changes and developments as much as forecasts permit.
The successful facility management program of Richland School District Two is in large
measure due to this formal master planning process.
*This document, and the process by which it is kept current, are both exemplary, as evidenced by the most current version at the
following link: http://www.richland2.org/lib/files/DistrictOffice/ Departments/Finance/2010_Facilities_Study.pdf.

COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its steadfast use of a facility master planning process with
a ten-year horizon and annual updates.
FINDING
During interviews with Richland Two officials, it was pointed out that input from building users
is sought actively during the very early design stages. According to district officials:
During the design process, the A&E and the CM along with the District project manager
invite principals, classroom teachers, coaches and other school level individuals to provide
input in the design. Additionally, the District maintenance staff provides input and reviews
the design for their respective functional areas. The process takes from six to twelve months
(depending on the type project) including final reviews and approvals by OSF and Richland
County’s Design Review Team.
Because new buildings or building additions must ultimately fit and serve the needs of the
educational program⎯and thus the needs of the building users⎯such input is of great
importance to a responsive process of facilities planning, design, and construction. School
buildings have a considerable life expectancy. For this reason, it is critical that the basic
configuration and layout are serviceable, and not in need of major, costly changes within a few
years.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its traditional commitment to soliciting input from
building users during the early programming and design phases.
FINDING
A few years ago, Richland Two engaged the services of the well-regarded and highly
experienced architectural firm of Perkins & Will of Chicago to assist with the development of
architectural facility programs. Architectural programming is an essential prerequisite to
optimum client - architect relations.
A well-written facility program describes the client’s needs and wants to the architect. A facility
program documents what the client seeks.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for communicating client needs to the architect/engineer in a

clear, documented, and professional manner.

FINDING
In addition to facilities programs, Richland Two also furnishes architects and engineers design
standards. The Facilities Design Standards have been prepared by the district to provide
guidelines to the designers of projects in an effort to standardize buildings relative to materials,
systems, and general information.
A review by Evergreen consultants of the Design Standards furnished by Richland Two, shows a
strong emphasis on life cycle cost, rather than first cost alone. An excerpt from this Design
Standard document underscores this point:
1.1.1 Porcelain Tile Flooring shall be the base bid in all Entrance Lobbies, Corridors,
Stairwells, grand stair treads, and the Cafeteria.
1.1.2 Epoxy Terrazzo Flooring shall be the Alternate Bid in the Entrance Lobbies,
Corridors, Stairwells, grand stair treads, and the Cafeteria.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its well-developed Facilities Design Standards.
FINDING
A clear indication does not exist of how facilities planning information is transferred or shared
with New Design and Construction or with any other parts of the support services function
concerned with facilities. The district has reached a point where some additional improvements
could bring even more desirable results in new, expanded and renovated schools.
While the use of facility master planning, user inputs, facility programs, and design standards are
clearly appropriate and commendable, Richland Two has an opportunity to raise its facilities
planning and design efforts to even more effective levels. Chief among these improvements are:
• formalized feedback through post-occupancy evaluation;

• documented follow-through on user inputs during design; and
• technology and product monitoring.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-1:
Refine the facilities planning and design process for even greater effectiveness.
The facilities planning and design process at Richland Two is not organizationally structured, but
instead relies on informal cooperation between Planning and New Design and Construction. In
the past, this informality has resulted in school buildings that have responded positively to the
needs and wants of the district.
Although Richland Two has an exemplary facilities planning and design process, the district
should consider the further refinement of this process.

The following actions are strongly recommended:
• Formalization of feedback from post-occupancy evaluation. Cognizant district

personnel no doubt conduct an informal process whereby “lessons learned” from
completed buildings are noted and recommended either as items to be repeated because
they worked, or to be avoided in the future because of problems. Evergreen recommends
the establishment of a formal process whereby a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is
conducted as an additional form of user input beyond what is done currently by the
district.
According to the website http://postoccupancyevaluation.com:
Post Occupancy Evaluation involves systematic evaluation of opinion about buildings

in use, from the perspective of people who use them. It assesses how well buildings
match users’ needs, and identifies ways to improve building design, performance and
fitness for purpose.
School administrators, teachers, staff, students, custodians, maintenance mechanics,

security and resource officers, and a sampling of parents, should be considered for POE
input. Such POE information can be invaluable in the preparation of future facilities
programs and design standards. In addition, this input can become part of the
formalization of user input to the design process.
Initially, Richland Two should conduct POEs of all new school buildings completed and
occupied a minimum of 12 months as part of the 2004 and 2008 bond referenda.
Thereafter, every new school facility should undergo a POE not less than 12 months and
not more than 30 months after initial occupancy. A firm with experience and capability
should be sought for detailed advice on structuring the POE protocol.
• Documented follow-through on user input during design. The commendable Richland

Two practice of seeking user input during design should be reinforced through thorough
documentation as the design process moves from the program phase through to the
schematic, preliminary, and design development phases. User-recommended design
features, materials selections and other user input should not only be recorded at the
beginning. They should be followed through subsequent phases. If an idea was discarded,
the reason for this should be clearly documented. If an idea was accepted, documentation
must show how it was included in the design plans and specifications. Similarly, if an
idea was modified, this must be shown. Such documentation will assure that user input is
sought and accepted with utmost interest and seriousness. Furthermore, such
documentation will be useful as a POE is conducted later: there the input of users can be
tested to see if it worked as expected. As with the previous item, an experienced
professional firm should be sought for detailed advice on structuring the user input
protocol.
• Technology and product monitoring. Architecture is often practiced in a justifiably

risk-averse environment. Design professionals are wary of specifying new materials,
products, and technologies if they do not feel adequately protected from litigation. On the
other hand, school districts may be enthusiastic about trying innovative items, especially

if they might save money on maintenance, cleaning, or construction. Architects may

conjure up nightmares of the likes of aluminum wiring, lead paint, friable asbestos, faulty
exterior insulation and finish systems, or mold on composite siding. School
administrators, on the other hand, may look for flooring materials that require only warm
water and a mop, paints that reject graffiti defacement efforts, toilets that will never clog,
and lamps that never burn out. American School and University and Building Design and
Construction Magazines (www.asumag.com and www.BDCnetwork.com, respectively) are rich
sources of new product information. Richland Two should include these information
sources and others to identify innovations of interest as part of a formal assignment to its
facilities staff. Candidate materials, systems or other technologies should then be
discussed with the architect for possible specification.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation is not easily quantified. While minor additional
consultant costs may or may not be incurred by the district, Recommendation 6-1 should have
long-term positive fiscal consequences that impact the district such as:
• reduced need for changes in school configuration and other redesigns;

• greater user satisfaction, resulting in improved teaching and learning; and
• lower costs of maintenance, cleaning, and energy consumption.
FINDING
The Richland Two Board of Trustees selects architects, construction managers and contractors
without input from cognizant staff. The following text is quoted from the response of district
officials to Evergreen’s data request:
Richland School District Two typically uses the design bid process for all new construction,
additions and renovations.
The first step in the process is selection of a Construction Management (CM) firm. A Request
for Proposal (RFP) is issued. The responding firms are scheduled for an interview. The
voting members of the interview panel consist of the seven members of the Richland School
District Two School Board. The Chief Planning Officer and the Chief Financial Officer are
present but are non-voting members. Following the interview, the panel will award projects
to the selected firms.
The second step is selection of an Architectural and Engineering (A&E) Firm. The process
used to select the CM is used to select the A&E firm.”
In addition to the above written communication, it was pointed out by district officials that
Richland Two Board members perform CM and A/E selection without seeking any input, advice
or comment from the two “present but non-voting members.” It is noticeable that only the Chief
Financial Officer and the Chief Planning Officer are present. No one from the Support
Services⎯who will eventually deal directly with the CM and A/E firms is present at the

selection⎯neither the Executive Director of Operations nor anyone from the New Design and
Construction Management Staff.
This selection process as practiced by Richland Two appears to be contrary to common practice.
One example of common practice may be found at the following website: http://www.scstate
house.gov/code/t11c035.htm#11-35-3220. This section of the South Carolina Finance Law describes the
procedure for a qualifications-based selection of design professionals and similar consultants. It
provides for the establishment of an “Agency Selection Committee…composed of those
individuals the agency head determines to be qualified to make an informed decision as to the
most competent and qualified firm for the proposed project.”
While it may be within the letter of this law to establish the School Board also as the Agency
Selection Committee, it would appear that Richland Two could be better served with a selection
committee composed of persons involved on a daily basis with the planning, programming,
design, and construction of the district’s facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-2:
Establish an Agency Selection Committee for the qualification-based selection of

Architectural Engineering (A/E) and Construction Management (CM) firms.
A formal Agency Selection Committee should be established by Richland Two. This Committee
may be composed of the following voting members: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Planning
Officer, and Chief of Operations. In addition, the Committee may rely on a non-voting staff
member from each functional unit for review and input of qualification submittals. A principal,
athletic director or other appropriate administrator may also be asked to serve in a voting
capacity. The charge for this Committee would be to identify three finalists, and to recommend
one of the three for approval by the Board of Trustees.
The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) offers a resource list on this
subject at http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/design_professionals.cfm. At the moment, this list contains 39
book and other media references, 65 journal articles, and 10 websites. Of special interest in this
resource list may be an article by C. William Day, a frequent contributor to American School and
University Magazine: http://web.archive.org/web/20041010034355/http://
www.kbdplanning.com/selectingservices.html. He points out that the fee for professional design services
of all consultants (architect, engineers, construction manager, landscape architect, etc.) is usually
less than one percent of the total lifetime cost of a building. Yet, the selection process can have a
major impact on the outcome of this ultimate total lifetime cost.
Although it is entirely possible that the Richland Two selection process by its Board of Trustees
members has always yielded the most qualified and beneficial design and construction
professionals, a more conventional approach to the process will remove any appearances of a
political decision-making context.

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two has a long history of rapid growth. Exhibit 6-4 shows the student enrollment
growth since 2001.
Exhibit 6-4
Richland Two Student Enrollment Growth
2001 – 2010 School Years
Growth
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 from 2001
ENROLLMENT
17,498 17,665 18,473 18,905 19,829 20,913 22,025 23,200 23,901 24,245 38.6%
(K-12)
As with any school district undergoing major growth periods, the district has amassed a
considerable number of portable classroom units. Until additional permanent schools and
classrooms can be built, portables are needed to serve temporarily as classrooms to house
students that exceed the capacity of existing schools. In addition, portables serve as temporary
classrooms when existing schools need to be vacated completely or partially for additions and
renovations to be completed.
Unfortunately, typical portable units are an undesirable element of any school district’s facilities
inventory. According to an article, Beware “temporary” Classrooms, http://www.njea.org/pdfs/
HS_TempClassrooms_10-09.pdf, the following problems are usually associated with portable units:
• poorly functioning heating, ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC) systems that provide

insufficient ventilation with outside air;
• poor acoustics from loud ventilation systems;
• chemical release of formaldehyde and other toxic materials from pressed wood and other
high-emission materials;
• water entry and mold growth; and
• site pollution from nearby parking lots or loading areas.
In addition, portables tend to be less energy-efficient, and more costly to maintain and clean than
permanent buildings.
According to Richland Two Planning Department records, the district currently owns a total of
136 portable units. Of this total, 125 serve as classrooms. The remaining 11 units are used
mainly to house central office staff that cannot be accommodated in a permanent facility. In the

case of Richland Two, the label “temporary” classroom is largely a misnomer: a certain number
of temporary portables will likely be a permanent part of the district’s classroom inventory. If
Richland Two’s enrollment continues to grow, no matter how many new schools are built or
existing schools expanded, it is unlikely that the capacity of all permanent schools will ever be
sufficient to house all students.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-3:
Reduce the number of portable classrooms and replace the remaining portables with more
energy-efficient, better-constructed units.
Richland Two should follow a three-pronged strategy:
• First, in future updates of the Ten-Year Facilities Study, accelerate the construction of
new facilities with the aim of eliminating half of the current inventory of classroom
portables. Base the next bond referendum on this accelerated plan.
• Second, construct a new district office that is sufficiently ample to eliminate most
portable units currently housing district office staff (see Recommendation 6-4).
• Third, replace all remaining portables with units that are more energy-efficient, have
acceptable indoor air quality, and are more easily maintained and cleaned.
The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) offers a resource list on portable
classroom facilities (http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/portable.cfm). Many references to higher quality
portable units that are better learning environments, use up to 75 percent less energy, and are
affordable, can be found here. Examples can be found on the following sites:
• http://www.greenbuildingpro.com/articles/57-features/2028-green-modular-classrooms-gaining-
momentum
• http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/04/01/mod-genius.aspx;
• http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/11/25/project-frog-becomes-cinderella-story-modular-construction
FISCAL IMPACT
The second strategy will be considered under the fiscal impact for Recommendation 6-4.
Approximately 62 portables would need to be eliminated, if the current portable classroom

inventory of 125 were to be halved. The other half, about 63 portables, would need to be
replaced with better quality, more energy efficient units.
This fiscal impact assessment assumes that the next bond referendum will be offered and passed
in 2014, with a reduction of 62 units, and replacement of 63 more, over five years, or about 26
units per year sold, and 13 better quality units per year purchased. Assuming a salvage value of

$15,000 per old portables sold, and a cost of new well-built portables of $100,000 purchased, the
net cost is approximately $70,000 per unit replaced. At 13 units per year, the net cost shown is
$910,000 per year. A savings in energy, custodial and maintenance costs will eventually offset
these expenditures.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reduce and Upgrade
$0 $0 $0 ($910,000) ($910,000)
Portables
FINDING
The Richland Two central office is a 29,000 square foot single story office facility housing the
vast majority of central administrative functions. Nine double and two single portable units also
house district office functions, totaling approximately 14,000 square feet. Four double units are
located at the central office site; the remainder are located at the Support Center and elsewhere.
Richland Two needs a district office facility at one location that can house most central functions
(except those typically housed in a special support center such as transportation), and including
those in most portable units.
Exhibit 6-5 shows recent budget versus bid amounts from the 2008 bond referendum. To date,
bids have arrived $42,304,266 below the construction budgets. This situation has been promoted
by the current weak economy.
Exhibit 6-5
Savings from 2008 Bond Referendum
Construction Bid Under Budget

Project Bid Date Budget Amount Amount
Langford Road ES (ES 17) 1/21/09 $20,749,000 $16,848,879 $3,900,121
Muller Road MS (MS 7) 3/31/09 33,757,000 24,647,993 9,109,007
HS5 4/23/09 73,831,000 52,225,595 21,605,405
Catawba Trail ES (ES 18) 12/3/09 21,367,000 15,172,426 6,194,574
CFA (Center for Achievement) 1/21/10 3,845,790 2,861,631 984,159
District Stadium No. 3 4/20/10 7,000,000 6,489,800 511,000
Total Under Budget Amount $42,304,266
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data provided by Richland School District Two, 2011.
Consequently, it appears that Richland Two may have much more than the necessary funds to
find a solution to house a new central office without borrowing additional monies.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-4:
Consider a solution to house district staff and provide space for professional learning
together, with the capacity to expand as may be necessary due to district growth.

Richland Two has issued an RFQ for a firm to help it solve the current problems with
overcrowding of its central office. In the opinion of Evergreen consultants, a new district office
solution would require a minimum of approximately 43,000 square feet. This is the sum of the
existing 29,000 square feet, plus the approximately 14,000 square feet currently housed in
district office portables⎯50,000 square feet would be desirable, with expandability by as much
as 30 percent (15,000 square feet) to accommodate future growth.
While it may be feasible to build the new central office building on the park site adjacent to the
existing facility, and to create a park once the old building is demolished, it may be more
advantageous to locate the new building at or near the geographic center of the district, in order
to equalize travel distances. The existing building could then be sold or re-used by the district.
Other alternatives should be considered as well. For example, many school districts have placed
their offices as alternative re-uses in existing buildings.
FISCAL IMPACT
A 50,000 square foot facility at $350 per square foot is estimated to have a construction cost of
$17,500,000. Site purchase costs, if any, would be additional. A savings of ten double wide units
no longer needed and sold by the district amounts to $15,000 per unit, or $150,000. The timeline
below does not show the cost of construction because it is funded from the bid savings of the
2008 bond referendum. The money recouped from the sale of the portables is shown in 2013-14.
If an existing building were selected and refurbished, the cost of this construction may be equal
to, larger, or smaller, than the figure quoted previously.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Consider New Central
$0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0
District Office
FINDING
New construction, additions, and renovations have been conducted with minimal reliance on
change orders. Change orders occur usually because the contractor has found information
lacking from, or ambiguities in, the construction documents. Some change orders are also
initiated by the client, when it is apparent that a design element, or furnishings, fixtures or
equipment, should be deleted, changed, or added.
Exhibit 6-6 shows the recent experience of Richland Two with change orders for projects
initiated and completed as a result of the 2004 and 2008 bond referenda.
In a 2007 article, Controlling Change Order Costs, Michael Gibeault, AIA, notes that change
orders typically range from two to five percent of bid cost, but can rise as high as ten percent
(http://lhonline.com/services/design/controlling_construction_change/). As Exhibit 6-7 demonstrates,
Richland Two is well below two percent in all but one case, and even boasts a change order
record where the percentage is negative (i.e., where change orders resulted in lowering the cost
of construction).

Exhibit 6-6
Change Order Record for Projects from the 2004 and 2008 Bond Referenda
(as of February 2011)
Change
Construction Change Final Order
Project Budget Bid Amount Orders Contract Percent
2004 Referendum
Polo ES (ES 15) $11,345,000 $13,007,468 $75,519 $13,082,987 .58
Sandlapper ES (ES 14) 11,345,000 12,930,464 85,601 13,016,065 .66
Longleaf MS (MS 6) 21,581,080 21,669,382 (162,787) 21,506,595 -.75
Bridgecreek ES (ES 16) 12,396,988 15,671,939 388,417 16,060,356 2.42
CFI (Center for Inquiry) 4,111,634 3,825,000 29,335 3,854,335 .76
2008 Referendum
Langford Road ES (ES 17) $20,749,000 $16,848,879 $268,493 In progress 1.59
Muller Road MS (MS 7) 33,757,000 24,647,993 359,250 In progress 1.46
HS5 73,831,000 52,225,595 534,160 In progress 1.02
Catawba Trail ES (ES 18) 21,367,000 15,172,426 183,748 In progress 1.21
CFA (Center for 3,845,790 2,861,631 20,751 In progress .73
Achievement)
District Stadium No. 3 7,000,000 6,489,800 15,239 In progress .23
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data supplied by Richland School District Two, 2011.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its excellent management of change orders, resulting in a
typical performance below two percent of construction cost.
6.2 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE

During financial crises, facilities maintenance is often a first target for budget cuts. Instead of
creating false economies by curtailing a full facilities maintenance program, Richland Two has
wisely committed to funding not only ordinary repair and reactive maintenance activities, but
also crews of preventive maintenance workers. This commitment has resulted in no significant
maintenance backlog, and no appreciable deferred maintenance. The facilities visited by
Evergreen consultants showed evidence of being in good to excellent repair, with no signs of
neglect or lack of care. It is important that Richland Two continue this program.
FINDING
According to Richland Two records, the total building replacement value, including portables, is
$595,190,779. The replacement value of building contents is $58,131,116, for a grand total of
$653,321,896.
In its Report Number 131, Budgeting for Facilities Maintenance and Repair Activities, the
National Academies Press notes:

In 1990, the Building Research Board (BRB) published a report entitled “Committing to the
Cost of Ownership—Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings.” The report has been
widely distributed, and one finding and recommendation in particular has been quoted often:
An appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R [maintenance and repair] for a
substantial inventory of facilities will typically be in the range of two to four percent of the
aggregate current replacement value of those facilities (excluding land and major associated
infrastructure). In the absence of specific information upon which to base the M&R budget,
this funding level should be used as an absolute minimum value. Where neglect of
maintenance has caused a backlog of needed repairs to accumulate, spending must exceed
this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated.*
Consequently, Richland Two should be spending two to four percent of the building replacement
cost of $595,190,779, or $11,903,800 to $23,807,600 on maintenance and repair of its buildings.
Based on data furnished by Richland Two, Evergreen has prepared Exhibit 6-7 to calculate the
annual amount spent by the district on maintenance and repairs. As the figures demonstrate,
Richland Two spends within the guidelines of two to four percent of building replacement value.
Exhibit 6-7
Richland Two Expenditures on Maintenance and Repairs
2010-11 School Year
Maintenance and Repairs Funding Source Amount
Maintenance/Custodial Salaries and Benefits $1,982,272

“8 Percent Money” $4,358,157
Custodial Contract $4,966,498
General Fund $1,179,764
Supplies $982,486
Capital Improvements (additions, renovations) $1,755,575
Total Amount Spent on Repairs and Maintenance $15,224,752
Percent of Net Building Replacement Value 2.58%
Source: Prepared by Evergreen from data supplied by Richland Two, 2011.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its diligent spending on maintenance and repairs within
the Building Research Board Guidelines of two to four percent of building replacement
value.
FINDING
Richland Two will soon be adding further new facilities to its building stock. Exhibit 6-8 shows
the new facilities currently under construction or in design. The exhibit shows that Richland
Two will soon add approximately $140 million in new facilities to its inventory.
*http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9226

Exhibit 6-8
Facilities Currently Under Design or Construction
2010-11 School Year
Floor Area
School or Facility Name Construction Contract (sq. ft.)
Langford Road ES (ES 17) $16,848,879 110,771
Muller Road MS (MS 7) $24,647,993 176,532
HS5 $52,225,595 329,874
Catawba Trail ES (ES 18) $15,172,426 110,771
CFA (Center for Achievement) $2,861,631 19,900
District Stadium No. 3 $6,489,800 19,274
ES 19 (in design) $22,000,000 (approx) 125,000
Total Under Development $140,246,310 892,122
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data supplied by Richland School District Two, 2011.
Consequently, the district should add a minimum of $2.8 million to a maximum of $5.6 million
to its maintenance and repair budget, in keeping with the “two to four percent” formula of the
Building Research Board. To stay at its current level of 2.58 percent, Richland Two should add
$3.62 million to its maintenance and repair budget. Some of these funds should add maintenance
and custodial staff, including perhaps a third Preventive Maintenance (PM) Team.
It is often argued that because new buildings have many components under warranty, and
because new items are indeed new, there should be no need to add maintenance workers,
including those on PM Teams⎯there is nothing to maintain or repair. When viewed through the
analogy of the automobile, it can be seen that the argument against servicing and maintaining a
new vehicle appears ill-advised. This is also true for buildings. It may be acceptable to “ramp
up” the funding for maintenance and repairs over two to three years, but such a move is not
endorsed by industry standards nor guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-5:
Continue to spend at the two to four percent on maintenance and repairs whenever new
buildings and other facilities are brought online.
Richland Two should continue its proper funding of maintenance and repair activities by
increasing this budget (as it has done in the past) so that it stays at the level of two to four
percent of the replacement value of its building stock. As the replacement value of Richland
Two’s building inventory is increased by over $140 million, the minimum added annual
maintenance and repair expenditure should be two percent (or $2.8 million).
FISCAL IMPACT
Additional dollars would be added to the Richland Two general operating budget (as has been
done in the past) for maintenance and repairs as new buildings are constructed.

FINDING
Richland Two operates two Preventive Maintenance (PM) teams. This type of maintenance is
crucial to saving the district large amounts of money. When maintenance is not performed on
schedule to prevent the failure of building equipment or other portions of a building, it is defined
as “deferred maintenance.”
The U.S. Government (www.FASAB.gov) in its Statement of Federal Financial Accounting

Standard 6, defines deferred maintenance in this way:
“Deferred maintenance” is maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or
was scheduled to be and which, therefore, is put off or delayed for a future period. For
purposes of this standard, maintenance is described as the act of keeping fixed assets in
acceptable condition. It includes preventive maintenance, normal repairs, replacement of
parts and structural components, and other activities needed to preserve the asset so that it
continues to provide acceptable services and achieves its expected life. Maintenance
excludes activities aimed at expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to
serve needs different from, or significantly greater than, those originally intended.
According to research completed in 2001 by David Todd Geaslin, the cost of repairing the
damage from failure due to deferred maintenance is usually the square of the original cost of the
needed maintenance task. Thus a $1,000 roof repair deferred or never done can result in a
$1,000,000 cost of a failed roof.
When we attempt to force maintenance spending into specific lumps of time that do not meet
the needs of our machines, we create the need to defer maintenance. Maintenance budgets
fail because final budgeting authorities do not understand the disastrous consequences of
deferring maintenance.
http://www.petersonpredict.com/whatispm_deferredmaint.htm.
Exhibit 6-9 shows the current organization of the Preventive Maintenance Teams in Richland
Two.
Exhibit 6-10 displays the PM checklist used as the basis for the work at each school or other
facility.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its commitment to preventive maintenance by operating

two Preventive Maintenance (PM) Teams that have saved the district millions of dollars.
FINDING
Maintenance workers at Richland Two are assigned to clusters of facilities as shown in Exhibit 6-
11.

Exhibit 6-9
Preventive Maintenance Team Schedule
Team One Team Two
Lonnie B Nelson Elementary E.L Wright Middle
Windsor Elementary Richland Northeast High
Polo Road Elementary Dent Middle School
Conder Elementary Blythewood Academy
District Office Blythewood High School
Forest Lake Elementary Muller Road Middle
Keels Elementary High School 5
Anna Boyd Blythewood Middle
Bethel-Hanberry Elementary Kelly Mill Middle
Round Top Elementary Ridge View High
Lake Carolina Elementary Long Leaf Middle
Rice Creek Elementary Summit Middle School
Sandlapper Elementary W.R. Rodgers Adult Ed
Killian Elementary Spring Valley High
North Springs Elementary Service Support Center
Bridge Creek Elementary
Bookman Road Elementary Time Fames:
Catawba Trail Elementary Elementary Schools, 4-5 days
Pontiac Elementary Middle Schools 5-7 Days
High Schools 10-14 days
All PM visits will be made during

normal working hours, 7:00 to 3:30 Magnet Programs Facilities (CFI, CFK,
Monday through Friday unless CAP, CDC's, ECT) will be done with the
special occasions arise campus they are attached
Source: Richland School District Two Facilities Office, 2011.

Exhibit 6-10
Preventive Maintenance Team Checklist
Used in the Richland Two School District
SCHOOL_____________________________________ DATE______________
Electrical
Check Exit Lights Ceiling Systems
Electrical Room Access Check Receptacle Covers
Light Fixture Condition Rest room Hand Dryers
Outside Lighting Check Receptacle polarity
Other
PLUMBING SYSTEMS
Drinking Fountain Bathroom Leaks
Bathroom Fixtures Kitchen Plumbing
Toilet Operations Sewage Odors
Other
HVAC SYSTEMS
C/S Wall Units C/S Ceiling Fans
Change Filters Clean Condenser Coils
C/S Ceiling Units Check and Change Belts
C/S roof Units
Other
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
Check all Door Hardware Window Hardware and Operation
Check Playground Equipment Check Condition of Signage
Check Base Boards Exterior conditions Portables
Change Ceiling Tiles As needed
Other
I Certify That all systems have been Checked, Serviced and are in good working Order.
Any Systems found in poor condition has been documented and the school has been informed
so a work order can be submitted.
Signature PM Team Leader_____________________________ Date______________
Signature of School Representative ___________________________________________

Exhibit 6-11
Maintenance Matrix
High Middle Elementary Direct General General Support

School School School Other Support Support Reinforcing
Maintenance
Tech for each
RNE Dent Forest Lake ABCDC High School HVAC
District
Conder Office Plumber PM Teams (2x4)
Keels Electrician
North Springs
Maintenance
Spring Tech for each
Valley E L Wright L B Nelson CFK High School HVAC
LongLeaf Pontiac Adult Ed Plumber Irrigation Tech (2)
Windsor Electrician
Sandlapper Carpenters (4)
Maintenance
Tech for each
Ridge View Summit Killian CFI High School HVAC
General
Kelly Mill Lake Carolina Plumber Maintenance (3)
Rice Creek Electrician
Bookman Work Order Tech
Maintenance
Bethel- Blythewood Tech for each
Blythewood Blythewood Hanberry Academy High School HVAC
Round Top Plumber
Athletic Fields
Polo Electrician Maintenance (3)
ES 16
The above matrix is staffed with the following maintenance workers (Note: Number in
parentheses shows number of persons authorized for the position:
HVAC 5 (5) Electricians 4 (5)

Plumbers 4 (4) Locksmith 1 (1)
Alarm/PA 2 (2) Carpenters 4 (4)
PM Teams 8 (8) General Maintenance 3 (3)
A boiler technician position is authorized, but no one occupies the position.
Across the nation, maintenance worker productivity has increased since 2001. Based on surveys
contained in the 2010 MSBO Facilities Benchmarking Report by Robert L. Moles
(http://www.msbo.org/ services/facilities/2010/FacBench-Rpt.pdf), the trend, as measured in instructional
square feet per skilled maintenance workers is shown below:

• 2001-02 132,000 sf
• 2002-03 130,673 sf
• 2003-04 143,337 sf
• 2004-05 146,357 sf
• 2005-06 153,416 sf
• 2006-07 144,741 sf
• 2007-08 159,402 sf
• 2008-09 181,108 sf
Richland Two has 28 skilled maintenance workers, and three general maintenance workers, for a
floor area inventory of 3,857,312 square feet. This computes to 137,761 square feet per skilled
maintenance worker. Considering the fact that eight of these workers are assigned to preventive
maintenance tasks (rather than reactive maintenance), a more appropriate ratio calculation would
be the floor area divided by 20 workers. This yields 192,856 square feet per worker. At any rate,
Richland Two’s maintenance function appears to be staffed appropriately for the moment.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its appropriate staffing level of
maintenance, given its current floor area inventory.
FINDING
Richland Two’s maintenance, repair and cleaning services are viewed generally with high regard
by district administrators, school administrators and teachers. Exhibit 6-12 shows survey results
in Richland Two with a comparison to respondents in other school districts.
Exhibit 6-12 shows uniformly high responses in the strongly agree/agree category for
maintenance and repair-related questions. The only notable exception is on timeliness of repairs
for teachers. Yet, district and school administrators have rated this same question much more
favorably. Strongly disagree/disagree responses are all below ten percent, with the exception of
teachers on the timeliness of repairs question. Peer responses to the same questions are less
favorable, and show much higher responses in the strongly disagree/disagree categories.
These results underscore that maintenance services are viewed very favorably by the key
constituents of Richland Two.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its well-regarded maintenance services
program.

Exhibit 6-12
District Administrators, School Administrators, and Teachers Survey Results on
Maintenance and Cleanliness Issues in Richland Two and
Evergreen’s Survey Database
Survey Responses from District Administrators SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D

Schools are clean. 97.91% 2.08% 86.50% 9.00%
Schools are well-maintained. 100.00% 0.00% 80.78% 13.19%
Repairs are made in a timely manner. 87.75% 4.08% 64.40% 27.32%
Emergency maintenance is handled promptly. 89.80% 4.08% 79.93% 10.80%
Survey Responses from School Administrators SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D

Survey Responses from Teachers SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D

FINDING
According to Richland Two staff, the following procedure is used for the processing of work
orders:
Work order reports are done weekly noting the number received, the number
rejected/cancelled, the number completed and the number open. The number open is the
backlog at that snap shot in time. The work orders are also reviewed for number by trade
and technician. Technicians are assigned specific schools but may go to any school for an
emergency or when they are on call. Although there is no formal feedback mechanism,
principals and/or the individual designated as the facilities person provide frequent feedback
both on quality of the work performed and the professionalism and attitude of the technician.
The Chief Financial Officer receives Quarterly Work Order reports. Exhibit 6-13 shows the
work orders processed in 2010.

Exhibit 6-13
Work Order Tally
2010-11 School Year
Number Number Number Number Number

Type of Work Order Received Completed Denied Canceled Remaining
Food Services 201 125 25 51
HVAC Schedule Change 2,614 2,593 21 0
Maintenance 6,545 6,028 25 406 86
Security 203 171 1 12 19
Warehouse-Supplies 26 22 4 0
Total 9,589 8,939 30 464 156
Source: Richland Two School District, Facilities Office, 2011.
Further comments by Richland Two staff noted the following:
• The system does not track expenditures. Funding comes from both the General Fund and
8 percent (Capital) Funding.
• The report represents documented requests. The numbers do not include emergency
requests phoned in or additional request made while a technician is on site at the school/
facility.
• The remaining work orders column is the backlog at that point in time. It is .017 percent
of the processed work orders.
• The automated work order system is a Richland School District Two proprietary system.
Schools access the system from the district webpage. The work order system is not tied to
other software programs.
• Each school determines who is authorized to input work orders and those people are
given a password by the Manager of Maintenance and Energy. The work order system is
reviewed multiple times during the normal work day. New work requests are received
and distributed to the responsible technician for action. When the work order is
completed, the system is updated by the System Technician.
Approximately 10,000 work orders are recorded and documented annually at Richland Two. Yet,
by the maintenance staff’s own admission, 5,000 additional work requests are never written-up
for the record. Various reasons are given for this record gap, including:
• Some work requests are made orally by school administrators, but no work order is ever
generated by the school staff to document what was done, how much time was spent, and
the equipment and supplies that were used.
• Although emergency requests are fulfilled, a work order is never generated to document
what was done, how much time was spent, and the equipment and supplies that were
used.

When only two-thirds of all fulfilled work requests are documented in the form of work orders, it
diminishes the major purposes of keeping work order records⎯to have a clear and complete
picture of the maintenance workload, and (for response and planning reasons) of the types,
patterns, and frequencies of work requests received. Moreover, if only two thirds of the actual
workload in maintenance can be documented, this leaves the maintenance function vulnerable to
charges that its employees are not as busy and productive as they perhaps could or should be.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-6:
Change the work request process to require the generation of work orders reflecting
accurately the work that was accomplished, the time spent, and any equipment or supplies
purchased for completion.
Currently, it appears that too many work requests, though fulfilled by the maintenance staff, are
never documented in the form of a work order. Discussions should be held with each school
facilities person to explore procedures that may lead to a much greater and more accurate
documentation of fulfilled work requests. Work orders should be required for all transactions.
FISCAL IMPACT
The current software system can accommodate all work orders.
6.3 CUSTODIAL AND GROUNDS OPERATIONS

Since 2007, custodial services have been partially outsourced in Richland Two. In 2011, only a
small number of custodians remain as in-house employees. Richland Two officials expect that
the transfer to total outsourcing will reach completion within three to five years.
Exhibit 6-14 shows the custodial staffing arrangements among Richland Two’s peer districts. As
can be seen, while some districts are clearly phasing in outsourcing, other districts appear to be
committed to in-house custodial staffing.
Exhibit 6-14
Custodial Staffing Arrangements
2010-11 School Year
School District Custodial Staffing

Richland Two Vast majority outsourced to private company; remainder to be
outsourced after attrition and retirement.
Beaufort 100% outsourced.
Berkeley 100% in-house.
Dorchester 100% in-house.
Richland One Majority in-house; some outsourcing as “experiment.”
Rock Hill About half in-house; half outsourced.
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data provided by peer districts, 2011.

Exhibit 6-15 depicts the current distribution of custodians among the facilities of Richland Two.
This shows clearly that outsourced custodians outnumber district employees by 109 to 23 full-
time, and 132 to 2 part-time. A grand total of 132 full-time custodians, and 134 part-time, make
up the roster of combined contract and district employees. This translates to 199 FTE custodians
districtwide.
Exhibit 6-15
Custodial Allocations in Richland Two
Contract Contract District

Employees Employees Employees District Employees
School Name Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time Part-Time
Anna Boyd Child Development Center 1 1 0 0
Spears Creek Child Development Center 1 0 0 0
Bethel Hanberry ES 1 2 3 0
Bookman Road ES 4 2 0 0
Bridgecreek ES 4 2 0 0
Center for Knowledge 0 2 0 0
Center for Inquiry 1 1 0 0
LW Conder ES 3 0 2 0
Forest Lake ES 3 4 0 0
Joseph Keels ES 2 5 0 0
Killian ES 1 6 0 0
Langford Road ES 4 3 0 0
L.B. Nelson ES 4 2 0 0
North Springs ES 1 5 1 1
Polo ES 3 4 0 0
Pontiac ES 3 4 0 0
Rice Creek ES 2 7 0 0
Round Top ES 3 4 0 0
Sandplapper ES 2 5 0 0
Lake Carolina ES 3 5 0 0
Windsor ES 4 3 0 0
Blythewood MS 5 4 0 0
Dent MS 5 4 5 0
EL Wright MS 4 9 0 0
LongLeaf MS 5 2 0 0
Kelly MS 6 4 0 0
Summit Parkway MS 1 4 6 1
Blythewood HS 8 12 0 0
Richland Northeast HS 8 5 4 0
Ridge View HS 8 9 0 0
Spring Valley HS 7 10 0 0
Blythewood Academy 0 0 2 0
Adult Education 0 1 0 0
District Office 2 0 0 0
TOTAL 109 132 23 2
Source: Richland School District Two, Facilities Office, 2011.

With one exception, grounds operations are also outsourced. The grounds contractor is Enviro
AgScience, Inc. The contract includes a specified number of cuts by school/location, edging and
pine straw application twice per year. It does not include any district competition stadiums. The
value of the annual contract is $622,927. District competition stadiums are maintained in-house
by a team of five Richland Two employees.
FINDING
Richland Two custodial staff consists of 199 FTE custodians⎯both contracted and district
employees.
A formula developed by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has been
used widely to calculate the optimum FTE custodians in a school district. This formula includes
the number of teachers and students, along with the square footage, as follows:
[# of Teachers / 10) + (# of Students / 260) + (Total Square Footage / 15,000]
The resulting figure is then divided by three to obtain the custodial allotment.
Based on the foregoing, the DPI calculation for Richland Two is:
2269/10 + 25,726/260 + 3857312/15,000 = 194

3
This number is only five fewer than the 199 FTE custodians currently at Richland Two. Given
the fact that cleanliness of facilities at the district is at a very high level, and that this factor is
highly rated by district and school administrators, as well as teachers, this staffing level is used to
its fullest potential (see Exhibit 6-12).
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its roster of 199 FTE custodians, which is
in line with the North Carolina DPI formula used to calculate optimum custodial staffing
for school districts.
FINDING
Exhibit 6-12 shows the very high opinion held by district administrators, school administrators,
and teachers about the cleanliness of Richland Two schools. Strongly Agree/Agree responses are
above the 90th percentile in all cases. Respondents in other districts were below those for
Richland Two in every instance.
Visits to selected schools in Richland Two by members of the Evergreen Team confirmed the
exceptional standards of cleanliness in the district schools.

COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for the consistent state of cleanliness in its
school facilities.
FINDING
The current contract for custodial services does not specify certain desirable teamwork attitudes
that should be expected of custodians. Although custodian/security officer cooperation is noted
as a requirement when buildings are to be locked, custodians are typically part of a team,
working with maintenance workers, school administrators, and teachers.
In addition, well-trained custodians are an early trouble warning system. They can hear when an
air handler needs attention, see when a leak is developing, or when other maintenance calls are
necessary and appropriate. Consequently, custodians should be part of the process of work order
or work request initiation through proper channels at their assigned schools. There are no
provisions in the current contract for such desirable forms of job deportment.
Richland Two should seek to renegotiate the current contract as soon as possible, or at least at
such time when it is up for renewal.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-7:
Add teamwork provisions to the contract for custodial services.
Suggested provisions include, but are not necessarily limited to:
• teamwork with school administrators on the same matters commonly addressed by in-
house custodians: set-ups for special programs and school events, classroom moves,
special cleaning needs, and work request and work order processing;
• teamwork with maintenance workers on concerns about mechanical equipment, air

quality, human comfort, light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, etc.; and
• teamwork with teachers on student projects and displays, non-routine cleaning needs,
moving of classroom furniture, and other assistance.
Other provisions of a similar nature should be proposed and discussed among all parties
concerned.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. The addition of these
provisions should not result in a higher contract amount.

FINDING
As noted earlier, a contract for ordinary groundskeeping services outsources all grass cutting,
edging, mulching, and trimming. However, the maintenance of competition stadiums and fields
is an in-house operation, headed by a Stadium/Turf Manager. Two irrigation technicians, and
two field technicians report to the Stadium/Turf Manager. Richland Two decided that this
stadium turf management function should remain in-house because the quality of the competition
athletic fields is of extreme importance to the district.
The following functions are included in this service:
• cultivation, fertilization, irrigation and striping of all competition fields;

• all week grass cutting on rotation during growing season;
• maintenance of tracks, stadium lights, scoreboards, and public address systems;
• public address systems and scoreboards in gymnasiums;
• outside pest control 100 feet or more from buildings; and
• bid specifications for all related sports/stadium improvements.
Some annual events, such as a band contest for up to 30 bands, places significant wear-and-tear
on stadium turf, and is a special challenge. Other outside uses of the fields are also permitted as
part of the community use of facilities function of the district.
Exhibits 6-16 and 6-17 illustrate the quality of the stadium and turf management.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for operating an excellent stadium and turf
management program with a highly competent core staff of irrigation and field technicians.
6.4 ENERGY MANAGEMENT

Utility costs are a significant expenditure. Heating, cooling, electric lights, and sufficient power
for equipment (copiers, IT hardware, buffers, polishers, etc.) are essential in today’s school
environment. Consequently, school districts are well-advised to take all reasonable measures to
reduce energy use without compromising human comfort, and the ability to perform teaching and
learning activities.
With the advent of increased costs for energy to provide fuels for HVAC systems, transportation,
food service operations, and other related activities, school districts have established numerous
and varied policies, procedures, and methods for increasing efficiencies in energy consumption
and reducing operating costs. Policies typically describe a board’s specific desire to ensure that
maximum resources are available for instructional purposes and charge the administration with
developing related procedures.

Exhibit 6-16
District Stadium Showing Effects of Irrigation
Exhibit 6-17
District Stadium with Striping in Place

Procedures generally prescribe a range of measures and activities to be implemented and a

specific means for computing the results. Some school boards develop incentive systems to
reward employees for actions or recommendations that have resulted in substantial savings or
improvements in the performance of energy consuming equipment.
Energy management methods range from sophisticated, centralized, computer controls over
HVAC systems and other energy consumption devices to simple manual procedures for turning
thermostats down and lights off during periods of minimal building or room utilization.
FINDING
According to the Richland Two Approved General Fund Budget for 2010-11, the budgeted
amounts for energy are approximately $2,600,000 from the General Fund, and an additional
$4,600,000 derived from Stimulus Funds, for a total of approximately $7,200,000. The final
figures for 2009-10 are $1,244,779 from the General Fund, and an additional $5,400,000 from
Stimulus Funds, for a total of $6,644,779. The increase in energy cost at Richland Two of about
$555,000 from 2009-10 to 2010-11 is due in part to energy cost increases, but mainly because
new schools have opened, or will open, over that period.
The currently budgeted amount of $7,200,000 for the 2010-11 school year is for heating, cooling,
lighting and power for about 25,800 students, or $279 per student. This compares favorably with
the energy/utilities consumption data per student cited in the NCEF Statistics Resource List
(http://www.edfacilities.org/ds/statistics.cfm#) .
According to this source, energy costs per student have increased on average from $233 in 2005
to $296 in 2008. Energy costs are subject to great volatility, especially in instances where
electrical power is generated with oil.
Caution should be advised when attempting to compare prior year energy use with current
consumption levels because the district is growing rapidly, and because energy costs tend to
fluctuate. A savings in energy use of ten percent is easily nullified by an equal price increase.
Nevertheless, Richland Two is well within this commonly accepted utility cost benchmark.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its efforts to keep energy use below
nationally accepted ratios and benchmarks.
FINDING
One of the reasons why Richland Two has managed to control its energy expenses is their long-
standing performance contract relationship with Johnson Controls as the Energy Services
Company (ESCO). While some smaller school districts have found it unnecessary, and perhaps
unaffordable, to enter into a performance contract, large districts such as Richland Two can reap
considerable benefits from the budget-neutral features of performance contracting. For more
details on performance contracting, see http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/ resources/whatis.htm.

Exhibit 6-18 shows the energy savings achieved during the performance contract period from
1996 through 2009. Continued savings since the performance contract are also shown, for a total
energy savings of nearly $11 million since 1996.
Exhibit 6-18
Richland Two Performance Contract Energy Savings
1996 – 2009 School Years
Performance Energy Savings Operational Savings Total Savings

Contract
Year Guaranteed Actual Guaranteed Actual Guaranteed Actual
1996-97 $233,076 $242,521 $41,924 $41,094 $275,000 $284,445
1997-98 $420,992 $440,252 $455,636 $455,636 $876,628 $895,888
1998-99 $425,957 $513,623 $283,554 $283,554 $709,511 $797,177
1999-00 $431,133 $493,140 $263,803 $264,803 $695,636 $757,943
2000-01 $436,525 $469,771 $265,936 $265,936 $702,461 $735,707
2001-02 $442,146 $472,074 $267,102 $267,102 $709,248 $739,176
2002-03 $448,002 $493,723 $357,554 $357,554 $805,556 $851,277
2003-04 $454,106 $479,529 $269,541 $269,541 $723.647 $749,070
2004-05 $460,465 $511,964 $270,816 $270,816 $731,281 $782,780
2005-06 $467,091 $535,437 $272,129 $272,129 $739,220 $807,566
2006-07 $473,996 $531,724 $273,481 $273,481 $747,477 $805,205
2007-08 $481,190 $521,609 $274,874 $274,874 $756,064 $796,483
2008-09 $488,686 $592,941 $276,309 $276,309 $764,995 $869,250
2010* $0 $747,691 $0 $273,522 $0 $1,021,212
TOTAL $5,663,365 $7,045,998 $3,573,659 $3,847,181 $9,237,024 $10,893,179
Source: Richland Two Operations Office, 2011.
*Calendar Year 2010 includes all district buildings, whereas other years include only buildings in the performance
contract.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for entering into a performance contract with
Johnson Controls and saving the district nearly $800,000 per year⎯with a promise of
continued savings of similar magnitude.
FINDING
With the expiration of the successfully completed performance contract with Johnson Controls, it
is typical to terminate the contract. As can be seen in Exhibit 6-18, savings of over $1 million
were realized the year after the performance contract ended.
As it stands currently, Richland Two appears to have a strong orientation to continued prudence
and frugality in energy management:

• The Johnson Controls energy management hardware and software is in place, but care
must be taken that it is properly maintained, serviced, upgraded, and always expanded to
include all new buildings as they are brought into service.
• Preventive maintenance teams are in place to assure all energy systems are working
optimally, that coils are cleaned, and filters replaced.
• An incentive program is just now being implemented with the aim of rewarding energy
conservation and punishing energy waste at each school site (see next finding and
Recommendation 6-9).
• Richland Two has made the commitment to use LEED criteria in all future new
buildings, additions, and renovations.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-8:
Continue with an in-house version of the Johnson Controls performance contract.
Richland Two should continue energy conservation strategies put in place during the
performance contract with Johnson Controls. This includes, but is not limited to, the four items
noted under the finding for this recommendation: the energy management system, the preventive
maintenance emphasis, the incentive program, and the emphasis on LEED.
In addition, Richland Two should institute a “technology monitor” activity as previously

described under Recommendation 6-1. This activity should search for, and identify, emerging
energy technologies that could benefit the district, once they become economically viable and
competitive with conventional approaches. Photovoltaic technology is one example.
Finally, Richland Two should seek ideas from all staff for ways to conserve even more energy.
Perhaps, as an extension of the incentive program, a prize could be awarded once an idea has
been implemented successfully.
FISCAL IMPACT

Documentable energy savings should continue in the order of magnitude of $1 million per year.
FINDING
Richland Two has initiated a program to incentivize energy conservation behavior. District
officials describe the program as follows:
The energy conservation goals are established based on the average of the past three years
of actual usage. Over time, the District has found that this is the most representative

number. An estimated percentage is applied to this usage average, based on projected rater
increases by the energy Suppliers: SCE&G and Fairfield Electric.
As we looked at the history of District energy usage, we initially established an incentive for
those schools that met or came under the established goal. This was a boost for these
schools, but we found that the goals were not challenging enough: most of the schools
received the incentive awards without having to put forth much effort. The schools that did
not receive incentive awards did not work toward the goal at all, as there was no penalty for
lack of performance.
Through experimentation, we lowered the energy conservation goal by several percentage

points to get the schools something they had to work and plan to receive. The number or
recipients went down but the incentive had more meaning. At this stage, there was still no
penalty for over usage.
Our program has now evolved whereby we establish the energy conservation goal for each of
the schools. If the school saves energy by ten percent or more below the goal the district
will reward the school fifty cents for every dollar that is saved to an established level.
Maximum incentive awards are $10,000 for high schools, $5000 for middle and $2500 for
elementary schools. Conversely, if a school exceeds the goal by ten percent. we deduct from
their operating funds at the same rate. This has resulted in the schools playing a more
active part in the district’s energy programs. More schools are working to meet the goals.
This program shows promise, especially in energy conservation. If teachers, staff, administrators
and custodians can team up to turn off computers and other energy users when they are dormant,
and seek other ways to reduce energy use, then they can see a direct cause and effect between
receiving an incentive or being penalized.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 6-9:
Refine the energy conservation incentive program through evaluation and feedback.
Richland Two should continue to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the incentive
program for energy conservation. This program has great promise, and may further decrease
energy use in the district, especially due to behavior modification by building users. Of special
interest should be the creation of teamwork or of a team spirit within each school, and of friendly
competition between schools.
The district may wish to consider using the services and expertise of Energy Education, Inc.⎯a
firm working with K-12 schools and others to implement behavior-based energy conservation
efforts (see http://www.energyeducation.com/). Evergreen consultants do not endorse specific vendors
or products, but seek to make Richland Two aware of this firm’s potential usefulness.

FISCAL IMPACT
Once the incentive program has been refined, it is plausible that an annual savings of energy
expenditures in the order of magnitude of three to five percent is plausible. From the current
energy budget of $7,200,000, this would amount to between $216,000 to $360,000. The timeline
below shows the average of $288,000 to be phased in over two years.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Refine the Energy
$144,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000
Conservation Incentive
6.5 COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES

Public school facilities⎯especially auditoriums, athletic fields, cafeterias and meeting/seminar
rooms⎯are significant assets in any community. The well-kept and attractive facilities of
Richland Two are frequently booked for events ranging from after-hours and weekend civic
organization meetings, church services, amateur athletic leagues, picnics, and other events.
Richland Two is organized for the rental or lease of its facilities to organizations and groups in
the community. Policies are in place to govern this after-hours use, including a fee schedule and
basic policies and procedures (see http://policy.microscribepub.com/cgi-
bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=239575626&advquery=community%20use&depth=2&headingswithhits=on&hitsperhea
ding=on&infobase=richland2.nfo&record={1EA1}&softpage=PL_frame). Specific rules apply to the
district auditorium and the district stadium.
The after-school services agreement for elementary schools is shown in Exhibit 6-19. The
procedure for payment from outside vendors for after-hours use is shown in Exhibit 6-20.
FINDING
An automated process for application, screening, and approval of outside groups and
organizations has been implemented by Richland Two in 2010. Exhibit 6-21 shows the details
provided to Evergreen consultants by Richland Two officials.
District officials also provided a sample computer screen to illustrate the flow of information,
and the documentation of approvals. This information is displayed in Exhibit 6-22.
Richland Two has recorded 255 after-hours and weekend bookings of its school facilities from
May 10, 2008 until May 26, 2010. An analysis of these rentals shows that:
• rental fees were charged for 50 of the 255 bookings - rental fees were waived for the
remaining 205 bookings;
• custodial fees were charged for 62 of the 255 bookings – custodial fees were waived for
the remaining 193 bookings;
• the lowest custodial fee charged was $2.00, while highest fee charged was $1,500;

Exhibit 6-19
Sample After-School Program Services Agreement
RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT TWO

ELEMENTARY AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM SERVICES AGREEMENT
Between Richland School District Two (the “District”), for the after-school program at:
_________________________________________________________, (the “School”), and,
Provider name: ___________________________________________ (the “Provider”)
Address: ___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Telephone: _________________________ Alternate telephone: _______________
Federal Tax ID/SSN number: _________________ Contact name: _____________________
Terms of Agreement for After-School Program:

1. Provider agrees to perform the following services for the after-school program at the School [generally describe the course / activity here]:
2. Provider will obtain a properly completed and signed parental permission form for each student prior to providing services to any student, and
will provide a copy to the school.
3. The rates charged to students are in the sole discretion of the Provider. Provider will handle enrollment of students in its program, completion of
all necessary forms, collection of all registration fees, etc. in connection with its services. The terms of Provider's fees are as follows [describe
how provider will charge for its services]:
4. In exchange for access to and use of school facilities, Provider agrees to pay to the School _______ percent of all monies collected in connection
with the services provided at the School. Provider will give the School a monthly statement showing an itemized list of all amounts collected,
including the names of students participating, and will pay the School its percentage of the fees on a monthly basis.
5. Provider’s normal schedule, which may be changed at the discretion and convenience of the School, and subject to the School’s calendar,
weather days, etc., will be as follows [describe the meeting schedule, start and stop times, etc., here]:
6. The specific individuals who will provide supervision / instruction on behalf of the Provider are as listed below, and may not be changed without
the consent of the School [list Provider’s staff here]:
7. The School will provide suitable facilities for the Provider’s activities, according to the schedule, and the Provider will use the facilities as
follows [describe the facilities to be used and requirements for clean-up, lock-up, specific entrances to be used, or other facilities-related
specifics for the course or activities]:
8. Provider will abide by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including all Internal Revenue Service requirements,
applicable to its programs in providing services to students. Provider acknowledges that neither the District nor the School is operating,
managing, or supervising Provider's programs. Provider agrees to conduct appropriate background checks, including criminal records/SLED
checks and sexual offender registration checks, prior to placing or permitting any employees or volunteers to work in the program with students.
Provider also will provide appropriate and regular training to its employees and/or volunteers regarding the custody and care of children, and will
implement proper and reasonable safeguards designed to protect the safety and well-being of all students participating in its programs. Provider
assumes full and sole responsibility for the custody, care, and control of the children participating in its programs, and acknowledges that the
District and the School are not assuming any responsibility or liability for any harm while the children are in Provider's custody, care, and
control. Provider agrees to provide proper supervision of the students while they are in the custody and care of Provider.
9. Provider understands that the District and School are not financially responsible for any programs or services being provided to the students.
10. The Provider agrees to indemnify and hold Richland School District Two, its agents and employees, harmless for or against any claim or injury
arising from any act or omission of the Provider.
11. The Provider must provide the following insurance requirements, with appropriate coverage levels:
Workers Compensation/ Employers Liability, and
Comprehensive General Liability: a) Insurance Company must be licensed to do business in SC, b) Limits of Coverage: 1,000,000 per
Occurrence, 2,000,000 General Aggregate, and c) Richland School District Two must be named as an Additional Insured on the vendor’s
general liability policy and the additional insured endorsement should be attached to the certificate of insurance.
12. The District may terminate this Agreement for its convenience, with or without cause, at any time. The School may order the immediate and
permanent removal from the School of any of Provider’s principals, agents, or employees for any reason.
13. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of South Carolina. This Agreement may be amended
only by further writing signed by all parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties and
contains all of the agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For the School For the Provider
Principal Signature: _______________ Owner Signature: ____________
Print Name: _____________________ Title: _______________________
School Name: ____________________ Print Name: _________________
Company Name: ______________
Date: __________________
Witnessed by: Witnessed by:

___________________________ _____________________________
Name: Name:

Exhibit 6-20
Procedure for Payment of After-School Activities
Provided by Outside Vendors
PAYMENT OF AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PROVIDED BY OUTSIDE VENDORS
1. GENERAL
The purpose of this administrative procedural rule is to establish guidelines for payment
for services provided by outside vendors and/or companies in the after school programs.
Payments made to the Boys and Girls Clubs are subject to the terms of the contract
between the school and the Boys and Girls Club.
2. PROCEDURES
All activities provided to after school participants should be paid by the parent/guardian
directly to the school unless an After School Program Services Agreement has been signed
by the school and the vendor. Receipt of these funds shall be posted to the pupil activity
fund.
a. A purchase order and all appropriate documentation required (W9) should be

processed in order for the school to pay the vendor for the services.
b. Employee owned companies are not allowed to provide services to Richland School
District Two. Per District Policy GBEA and the State Ethics Law Section 8-13-700 a
public school employee:
i. May not use his/her position to obtain an economic interest of him/herself, a

member of his/her immediate family or an individual or business associate. If
the employee is required to make a decision or take an action which benefits
the aforementioned, he/she must prepare a written statement describing the
matter and the nature of the potential conflict of interest and submit it to
his/her superior, who will assign the matter to another employee.
ii. May not use public materials, personnel, equipment or confidential

information to obtain an economic interest. He/She may not receive money in
addition to normal compensation for advice or assistance given in the course
of employment.
c. Private companies, organizations, or individuals requesting the use of District

facilities (i.e. to hold dance lessons, karate lessons, etc.) must apply in writing on the
appropriate form to the respective school principal/director, per District policy PK.
d. Richland School District Two employees may be paid stipends through the payroll
system for services performed outside of their normal duties.

Exhibit 6-21
Facility Rental Explanation
Beginning mid-October 2010, we began fully utilizing an online facility usage request application. An
outside organization wishing to use Richland School District Two’s facilities must register at the website;
https://webapps1.richland2.org/facilityRental/logon.aspx
After a review of the information, the organization is approved to request use of our facilities.
Sample of Information required:
Organization Information Contact Person Information

Organization: Blythewood Historical Society Name: Margaret DuBard
Address: P. O. Box 886 Blythewood, SC 29016 Address: Blythewood, SC 29016
Telephone: 803-754-0710 Home #: 803-754-0710
Purpose: Blythewood historical education for the Cell #: 803-960-3724
Town of Blythewood Email: wlmcdub@bellsouth.net
In their request, the organization must provide information about their event.
The request is routed to the principal, business services (Vickie McIntyre), facility manager (Jack Carter),
and the chief financial officer (Bob Davis). At any point in the process, the request can be approved with
comments and concerns for the next person to evaluate. A denied request is not forwarded to the next
level.
Many events are held by organizations that directly benefit the school or community. The rental fees for
these events can be waived based on our school board policy by the Chief Financial Officer. Labor costs
can not be waived and our school board policy requires a custodian be on site during an entire event. The
labor cost set by board policy is $100.00 for the first four hours and $25.00 each additional hour. Upon
final approval of the request, all charges for rental and labor costs are invoiced directly to the
organization by Vickie McIntyre. The organization is required to make payment in advance.
Vickie McIntyre receives payments for facility usage and prepares the funds for deposit into the general
fund account. Sixty percent of the rental fees are retained by the district for general operating costs while
forty percent is disbursed to the location to be added to the school’s discretionary budget the following
school year. Payment to Service Solutions is made by the district and reimbursed by the organization.
Some church organizations have continuous yearly contracts to meet every Sunday. Payments for these
contracts are received monthly. Payment for custodial services is made directly to Service Solutions.
Rental fees are waived for Boys and Girls Scout meetings. If meetings take place during the time a
custodian is already on location; custodial labor charges are also waived.
Source: Richland One School District, 2011.

Exhibit 6-22
Sample Screen View of Approved Request
Back To Admin Log Off
<< Back Contact Person Information

Organization Information Name: John Hawkins
Organization: Plex Indoor Sports Address: Columbia, SC 29229
Address: 741 Fashion Drive Columbia, SC 29229 Home #: 803-360-7300
Telephone: 803-360-7300 Cell #: 803-319-8851
Purpose: To rent gyms Email: john@plexindoorsports.com
Request Information
Location: Dent Area: Gymnasium Cost of Location: $350/day
Date From To
2/5/2011 8:00 AM 8:00 PM
Purpose of Use: We would like to use the gymnasium for our Annual Plex Volleyball Tournament.
# of People Attending: 150 Fee Associated With Event? No
Request to waive rental fee?No Reason: N/A
Phase 1 - Principal Input
Principal Name: Randall Gary

Name of individual assigned by Principal to be on duty: Ronnie Robinson
Principal Comments: We recommend that the Plex contact us prior to the event to affirm any setup that is required.
Date Approved: 11/23/2010 9:25:14 AM
Phase 2 - Vickie McIntyre's Input
Comments: OK..
Date Approved: 11/23/2010 10:52:10 AM
Phase 3 - Jack Carter's Input
Comments: Who is paying the cost of the in-house custodian?

Date Approved: 11/23/2010 11:07:46 AM
Phase 4 - Vickie McIntyre's Input
Comments: The Plex will pay rental and custodial costs.

Date Approved: 11/23/2010 11:15:13 AM
Phase 5 - Bob Davis' Input
Received Final Approval

Comments: ok
Date Approved: 11/29/2010 8:59:25 AM
<< Back

• district security was required in only one of the 255 rentals, with a fee of $125; and
• a theater technician was used in one of the 255 rentals, at a fee of $200.
Churches have been the largest rental income source for Richland Two. Rental income from
churches was:
• FY 09 - $161,700
• FY10 - $100,400
• FY11 - $40,850 (to date)
The SchoolDude facility management software has a module permitting the scheduling of
facilities use after hours and on weekends. In connection with this software module, SchoolDude
performed a “Facility Scheduling Cost Recovery Analysis” approximately two years ago for the
Rock Hill School District. Since this district is one of five selected peer districts for Richland
Two, the results of this analysis should be of interest. The SchoolDude analysis is based on
experiential data from similar districts to Rock Hill.
• the top ten percent of these school districts report invoicing an average of $459,000;
• the average school district invoices $308,000; and
• below average districts invoice $76,500.
RECOMMENDATION
Restructure the Community Use of Facilities policies and procedures to increase income to
the district by at least 200 percent.
Richland Two can increase its rental fee income in several ways:
• obtain more business from community groups and organizations;

• book more fee-paying customers; and
• revise the fee schedule to
- reduce the number of organizations that are fee exempt,

- exempt no groups other than district affiliates from custodial fees,
- increase fees.
Richland Two officials have recognized the need for a revision of the fee schedule, and have
shared the proposed changes as shown in Exhibit 6-23. In general, charges are higher, and in
most cases there are day and night charges for athletic fields. In addition, theater technicians
must be hired. Similarly, custodians should be mandatory, even when an organization is
otherwise fee exempt.

Exhibit 6-23
Proposed Revisions to Rental Fee Schedule
PUBLIC USE OF DISTRICT FACILITIES
Schedule of daily rates for rental of school facilities for eight hours or less
Cafeteria $500 ($300 increase)
Rental of cafeteria includes use of main cafeteria, chairs and tables, and, where applicable, the stage but does not
include the kitchen or equipment
Multipurpose rooms at elementary schools and Middle Schools to include North Spring Auditorium
$500 up to 4 hours
$125 each additional hour
Classrooms $400 up to 4 hours
Gymnasiums High schools, middle schools and Bethel Hanberry Elementary School
$750 up to 4 hours
High School Theatre areas $750 up to 4 hours
District Stadiums $1,500 up to 4 hours

$ 375 each additional hour
Richland Northeast, and Ridge View, Spring Valley, Blythewood Soccer / Practice Football Fields
$750 up to 4 hours
Baseball/Softball $750 up to 4 hours
Night $1,000 up to 4 hours
Track Daytime $750 up to 4 hours
Night $1,000 up to 4 hours
High school tennis courts Daytime $500
Night $750
Auditorium at $500 up to 4 hours
School-level equipment charges
Sound system with two speakers $350
Other Charges
Portable Bleachers (250 seat capacity) $350
Portable Ticket Booth $350
Ice $ 15
AUDITORIUM RENTAL SCHEDULE
Commercial group: A for profit group, organization, association, company, corporation, etc.
Performance
Minimum of four hours $600
Each additional hour above minimum four hours $150
Holding rooms per room (theater classroom or rehearsal) No Charge. Available only with Auditorium
rental.


Proposed Revisions to Rental Fee Schedule
Rehearsal
$150 per hour for a minimum of two hours. Rental rate applies to move in/out, regular rehearsals, technical
rehearsals, dress rehearsals.
Equipment
Follow spo$40
$100 $175
Video Projection $50
Video Projection and Laptop $75
Wireless Microphone $40
Wired Microphone $15
Wireless Headset Communication $50
Choral Risers $75
Specialty items such as wireless microphones and robotic lighting may be available for an additional charge.
Equipment fees do not include labor for setup, break down, or operation. Package discounts may apply for multiple
rentals.
Concessions/Novelties
$100 per performance for the sale of concessions, books or tapes and/or novelties.
Technical service charge (minimum of four hours) $100
At least one technician must be on duty during the time of each performance and all rehearsals. Additional
technical assistance beyond the four-hour minimum will be at the rate of $25 $50 per hour per technician.
FISCAL IMPACT
Assuming a current level of income of approximately $100,000 per year, a realistic expectation
should be $300,000 per year by 2014, adding $200,000 to current revenue levels. A phase in
implementation is recommended.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Increase Community Use
$50,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Revenue

CHAPTER 7:
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

7.0 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
This chapter reviews staffing, organization, and operations related to administrative and
instructional technology in Richland Two. The chapter is organized into four major sections:
7.1 Organization and Staffing

7.2 Technology Planning and Management
7.3 Instructional Technology
7.4 Staff Development
The discussions in this chapter reflect the belief that technology is not an end in itself, but rather
a means to improve and more effectively facilitate progress and outcomes⎯driven by and
aligned with district priorities and requirements⎯within mandates from local, state, and federal
levels⎯and consistent with the stated mission of “…advancing and supporting integration of
evolving technologies for teaching, learning, and information.”
Richland Two is positioned to move even further in advancing integrated technology services,
evolving and exemplifying best practices, and broadening the effective use of technology across
a substantially wider and larger user base of students, parents, community support, and outside-
the-family resources engaged with each student.
The commitment to quality work, efficient and cost-effective operations, and an energetic work
ethic were consistently evident across all direct interactions with district and school-based
technology support staff. The input of principals and staff dependent upon these services was
consistently positive. Overall survey ratings of instructional technology (81.8%) and
administrative technology (74.1%) from teachers, principals, and district administrators were
substantially more positive (averaging 40.1% more positive) than ratings from districts in
Evergreen’s survey database.
The district is among the best of school districts nationally in its technology initiatives as
reflected in the 2005 National Association of School Boards recognition of Richland Two as one
of the top three technology school districts in the nation. Furthermore, the district remains
dedicated to further improvements and effectiveness, as reflected in continuing self-improvement
initiatives such as the Herbst & Associates studies (2000 and 2006).
7.1 ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

Ideally, technology is one area of a school district that supports all administrative and
instructional personnel in a positive manner. Organizing technology resources to effectively
achieve this outcome can be challenging; however, it is necessary for operational and educational
success. Not only does it require the necessary staffing level, but also necessary skills, tools, and
leadership.

Technology Management Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
The organizational structure for technology in Richland Two is shown in Exhibit 7-1. As can
be seen, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) reports to the Superintendent and Deputy
Superintendent. There is a Technology Integration Coordination Team and a Project Planning
Team that includes certain key stakeholders and functions to provide input to Information
Technology. In addition, contracted services are incorporated on an as-needed basis, and to
meet needs for staff augmentation to meet project completion deadlines.
In addition to the CIO, there are five supervisors, nine managers or coordinators (supervising
three or fewer staff), 27 technical or systems specialist positions (including one vacancy), one
administrative assistant, and one intern, for a total of 45 district staff. Also, each school has one
ITS (Instructional Technology Specialist) position, and a named (i.e. not a separate or additional
position) technology contact person who also has other, full-time assigned duties (e.g., the media
specialist).
The ratio for Richland Two (approximately 380 computers to one technology person) compares
favorably to the estimated statewide ratio of “close to 500 computers to one technology person”
as cited in the South Carolina Technology Plan (“Digital Resources Enabling Achievement
2009-2013,” p. ii); but is lower than the recommended national standard for infrastructure
support and network maintenance.
The current fiscal year budget for Information Technology is approximately $2.2 million in
salaries; $600,000 in non-salary funding from general funds; approximately $377,000 from
general funds telecommunications; and approximately $5,300,000 from capital funds (which
includes approximately $100,000 from Erate budgeted proceeds). A list of funding is provided
in Exhibit 7-2.
FINDING
Significant staffing and organization changes were made in the Information Services area
subsequent to and consistent with the 2006 Herbst & Associates Technology Audit
recommendations. The current structure reflects these staffing changes, including:
• achieving technology standardization and more efficient management of technology

resources;
• providing direct user support services at both the district-level and on-site at individual
schools;
• implementing major new and improved student, ERP, and web applications; and
• providing adequate infrastructure support for database, networking, and communications

functions at all schools.
These adjustments are also consistent with the ISTE technology recommendations for school
districts which are identified in order to attain high efficiency.

Exhibit 7-1
Department of Information Technology
Superintendent
Chief
Information Officer
Administrative
Assistant
Director Executive
Accountability & Director
Eval Info Technology
E-Rate IT Purchasing Computer

Coordinator USC Intern and Budget Operator
/Support
District Test
Coordinator Purchasing Tech
Technology
Director Senior Systems Integration
IT Operations Engineer Coordinator
Web Technology
Development Systems Engineer Integration
Coordinator Specialist
Technology
Web Developer LAN Systems Support Integration
Administrator Specialist Specialist
Technology Technology
ERP Systems Support Integration
Coordinator Supervisor Specialist
Administrative Technology Technology Technology

ERP Support
Technology Support Support Integration
Analyst
Specialist Specialist Specialist Specialist
Student Systems
Coordinator Support Support
Specialist Specialist
Student Systems Student Systems
Specialist Assistant Support Support
Specialist Specialist
Technology VACANT
Support Technology
Specialist Support
Telcom Specialist
Manager
Electronics Tech
Telcom Telcom
A/V Technician
Technician Technician
Technology Asset
Control
Project Support
Specialist

Exhibit 7-2
Information Technology Projected Funding
2010-11 School Year
General Fund Allocation for Technology $592,000

(does not include salary or fringe benefits)
Capital Expenditure Funds for Technology

(not including equipment replacement) $ 2,552,379
Capital Expenditure Funds Allocation for Obsolete Equipment Replacement $2,826,974
E2T2 Formula Funds $17,000
South Carolina Apple License Plate Special Revenue $3,000
General Fund Telecommunications Allocation $377,000
Total Funds $6,368,353
Source: Richland Two, Technology Plan 2011, p. 94.
The ISTE district technology survey is a useful tool for confirming the status of current district
technology goals and 21st Century models of technology integration. Of the ISTE Staffing &
Processes Domain items in this survey, Richland Two IT practices reflect satisfactory or high
efficiency on 14 of the 17 items.*
The district’s instructional software evaluation and selection process also incorporates ISTE
standards. This tool helps enforce a more comprehensive and systematic consideration of
instructional software implementation requirements and deployment planning preparations.
Having all the technology functions within the same unit in the district’s organization provides
for a logical chain of command, closely tied to district leadership through formal and informal
communications, and maximizes efficient communication among highly technical staff who
must work closely across networking, applications, systems, and user support functions.
Having the CIO as a member of the Superintendent’s Leadership Team is critical to planning and
ongoing leadership; facilitates adjustment of technology systems and services as necessary to
meet changing district priorities; and assures integration of technology strategies and IT tools in
the district’s overall strategic planning efforts. This organizational structure serves the district
priorities well and provides a good foundation for future growth.
*http://tsi.iste.org/techsupport/tech-support-index-2.4.pdf.

COMMENDATION
There is a consistent level of competence, dedication, and commitment among the IT staff,
managers, and administrators across all functions and areas in Richland Two.
FINDING
As outlined in the introduction to its Technology Plan (2008-2012) entitled Transforming

Education for the 21st Century, the mission for technology in Richland Two is:
…to develop and promote world-class education by advancing and supporting the
integration of evolving technologies for teacher, learning, and information management.
The Richland Two Technology Plan is detailed and includes an in-depth needs assessment and
operational plan, including a goal for each of five Technology Dimensions. Current status data,
detailed objectives and strategies, specific action list items and steps, funding considerations,
and evaluation criteria are provided for each dimension. The dimensions are described in
Exhibit 7-3.
Evaluation criteria for tracking progress in meeting plan objectives are listed in “Section V.
Evaluation” and in Appendix 6 of the Technology Plan.* These criteria and outcomes provide a
concise basis for reporting on each outcome’s progress and for updating leadership, key
stakeholders, and technology advisory and project planning committees.
According to the Technology Plan, the Superintendent, district IT leadership and staff, and 28
school-based ITS individuals participated in creating the Technology Plan.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its Information Technology organizational structure,

reflecting the focus on direct user support, integration of technology into the curriculum,
reliable performance of major applications, networking infrastructure, technology
standards, best practice processes, and timely infrastructure support for all schools and
district programs.
FINDING
The commitment and focus on instructional outcomes and student success was notably consistent
in interviews with staff and managers among all technical areas.
In the interviews with ITS leadership, without exception, each manager consistently articulated
his/her commitment to and focus on each student’s educational success.
*https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxyaWNobGFu ZDJpdHxneDozOD
kwMzM0NjNiOGNhNjQ5.

Exhibit 7-3
Overview of Five Technology Dimensions in
Richland Two Technology Plan
2008-2012
1. Learners and Their Environment: This dimension emphasizes helping students use technology in ways that advance
their understanding of the content in the state curriculum standards while improving their real-life problem solving
and inquiry skills. The environment should be one of shared learning and should be designed to enhance student
academic achievement through scientifically based learning practices and modern technologies.
2. Professional Capacity: This dimension emphasizes strategies to develop ongoing and sustained professional
development programs for all educators—teachers, principals, administrators, and school library media personnel.
Utilizing a broad definition for the term professional capacity, this dimension is also aligned with the EOC action area
called “Leadership and Coalition Building.”
3. Instructional Capacity: This dimension is a further refinement of the Milken dimension “Professional Competency.”
Richland Two’s “Instructional Capacity” dimension specifically targets the development of strategies to integrate
technology into curricula and teaching and also explores ways to promote teaching methods that are based on solid
and relevant scientific research. This dimension also aligns with the EOC action area “Teacher Quality.”
4. Community Connections: This dimension emphasizes strategies for the development of partnerships and collaborative
efforts to support technology- related activities and to maximize community involvement in education. This
dimension promotes school and district partnerships with such entities as private schools, higher education
institutions, public libraries, museums, nonprofit organizations, adult literacy providers, and business and industry in
ways that will increase student achievement and teacher technology proficiency. This dimension aligns with the EOC
action areas “Education for Economic Development” and “Community and Parental Support and Involvement.”
5. Support Capacity: This dimension seeks to combine the Milken progress dimensions “Technology Capacity” and
“System Capacity.” Richland Two’s “Support Capacity” dimension emphasizes the development of strategies to
provide the necessary physical infrastructure and supporting resources such as services, software and other
electronically delivered learning materials, and print resources in order to ensure efficient and effective uses of
technology. This dimension aligns with the EOC action areas “The Governance and Structure of the System” and
“Efficient Use of Resources and Accountability.”
Source: Richland School District Two Technology Plan, 2008-2012.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for having a comprehensive, strategic Technology Plan that
provides direction in terms of overall vision, action planning, monitoring progress, and
focusing of efforts and resources at both the district and school levels.
FINDING
Richland Two’s commitment and investment in integrating technology into learning experiences
and school operations are major contributors to the overall success and prestige of the school
district. Oversight of the district’s technology investment, operations, and planning⎯and
specifically processes to help ensure alignment with changing district priorities and needs⎯are
essential to the continued efficacy of the technology investment.

While a Technology Integration Coordination Team exists, the role and participation of key
stakeholders can be strengthened to better ensure necessary adjustments to planning, policies,
standards, and service levels.
Interviews with district staff identified the Instructional Technology Specialists (ITS) as the de
facto technology committee. Although input arises from a variety of other sources in the
department, there is a lack of a strong formal structure for assuring participation and integrating
all major areas in technology planning, implementation, and evaluation. As an example, it was
noted that the district’s instructional area staff and leadership were not listed as participants in
the district’s Technology Plan (p. 64). However, the district’s curriculum support and leadership
should be among the key stakeholders working with IT.
In most school districts, a Technology Committee evolves from the group that helps write the
state-mandated technology plan to an advisory group responsible for ensuring the successful
implementation of the plan. Technology committees take on the role of assessing the
performance of the IT area in comparison to plans, and providing strategic as well as tactical
advice.
This Committee should have a clear charge for developing and updating IT goals and practices to
align the district’s technology plan and the learning environment for the future.
When special projects occur, the Technology Committee will typically establish special
subcommittees or working groups to work on individual projects. Some examples include the
implementation of the new student information system, teacher and staff training requirements,
higher levels of classroom technology integration, and new hardware/software standards.
Richland Two has developed a strong Technology Plan that is aligned with the South Carolina’s
technology plan guidelines and national best practices. Interviews and observations show that
the major initiatives and outcomes in the district’s Technology Plan are reflected in current IT
operations and system priorities.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-1:
Revise the Technology Integration Coordination Team’s function and membership to

include key stakeholders representing school and district leaders, district
instructional/curriculum representatives, administrative program area heads, and the
community.
This group should be formally charged with oversight of the technology planning in Richland
Two, with an understanding that they are expected to make recommendations to the
Superintendent and district leaders relating to the Richland Two Technology Plan, policies,
standards, service levels, and priorities.

It is further recommended that:
• IT leaders and appropriate representatives from the IT area be responsible for the
committee agendas, meeting preparations, and follow-up communications⎯but IT
positions not be voting members of this group.
• The CIO should work with the Superintendent and Leadership Team to identify
membership representatives and preferred candidates⎯from district, school, and
community areas. Membership should include representatives such as principals and
assistant principals, instructional/curriculum services, ITS, student services, special
services, facilities and construction, and federal programs, as well as major
administrative departments and community and business representatives.
• IT policies and strategic planning should continue to incorporate recognized national

standards and benchmarks (such as ISTE, LoTI, enGauge 21st Century Skills learning
Bridges, and ITIL). This incorporation will serve to help maintain a broad and
competitive instructional focus as well as help to ensure continued consideration of
organizational and operational items that are likely to be referenced in future audits and
reviews.
• Project planning include capacity and infrastructure requirements, not only new products
and deployments⎯a TCO model, which includes initial, as well as continuing costs and
maintenance.
• Consideration be given to including representatives from the University and from among
community technology experts⎯but not vendor representatives who are currently or
who are likely to be candidates for contracts from the district. A formal invitation to
participate should come from the Superintendent.
• The Committee be an active group, meeting at least three times annually or as issues
dictate (e.g., a major revision to the district’s Technology Plan or major technology
budget items may warrant more frequent meetings, or formation of a special task force or
subcommittee).
• Due to the number of key participants, standing subcommittees or ad hoc study groups
can more effectively address certain focus areas such as curriculum and instruction,
equipment standards and service levels, IT security and safety (e.g. Internet, technology
use, and confidential data security), major new initiatives, and policy/procedure updates.
• The group’s membership be approved by the Superintendent and Leadership Team prior
to the start of each new school year.
• A non-IT person should serve as chair of the group, and recommendations from the group
should be submitted for consideration and approval by the Superintendent and
Leadership Team via the CIO.

Some of the issues to include in initial meetings include:
• five-year technology plan updates and status reporting;
• priorities to improve technology integration in the classroom;
• review of current service levels, key performance indicators, and resource allocations;
• feedback from users and clients, including input from the groups represented by the
respective committee members;
• increasing corporate and other partnerships; and
• garnering additional grant, vendor, and community resources.
Much of the routine work of developing consensus can be conducted via electronic means where
documents and discussion threads are shared, and individual members can communicate
electronically with committee members. Minutes, proposals, reference materials, handouts, and
agendas should be posted on a Committee website.
FISCAL IMPACT
This Committee is an expansion of an existing entity. The fiscal impact is largely that of staff
time for committee preparations and postings relating to agendas, support materials, minutes,
follow-up, and reporting.
FINDING
Currently, there is a Project Leadership Team. Almost without exception, during interviews,
administrators and managers indicated a need for more proactive planning and better
preparations and communications relating to the implementation of new initiatives. This is not
surprising given the number of major new applications and system introductions now underway.
It was also consistently emphasized that better planning, advance documentation for users and
site administrators, training and preparation guides, and checklists for district and school site
staff relating to new initiatives would provide more orderly and efficient implementation.
While there are guidelines and a process for review of instructional software, there was not
evidence provided of a similar process for operational/administrative software system reviews.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-2:
Restructure the current Project Leadership Team to be more proactive and involve all key
players in planning for new or upgraded system implementations and integration.

There is a critical need to monitor, to continually set and re-set priorities, to be more realistic
about what is doable within desired timeframes and resources, and to make adjustments to
current needs.
It is further recommended that:
• Each major districtwide project or multi-school project⎯with a likelihood of districtwide

deployment (whether instructional, operational, or administrative)⎯have both a sponsor
(typically at the director’s level or above) and project leader identified and responsible
for updates and communication on issues and strategic opportunities.
• New projects have a dedicated task force or work group to plan and to assure that there is
an opportunity for input from key stakeholders.
• Each major project plan have a written implementation outlining major deliverables, key
events, and timelines, a “total cost of ownership” projection (including initial/start-up
costs and at least a five-year costs projection), as well as leadership and user orientation
and training activities.
• Each major project should require a formal “sign-off” from Finance, Instruction, School
Leadership, and IT/IS Leadership prior to Superintendent or Board consideration and
action.
• The project plan and costs projections include at least a five-year view of major
deliverables, updates, license and product renewals, maintenance, support costs, and
specific funding sources, and should be part of the support materials provided to the
Superintendent and Leadership Team for their approval.
• Major new project submittals include research of bids and reviews from other school
districts or from the state-recommended vendor/contract listings, and site visitations for
more informal feedback and observations.
• There be written technical requirements and criteria for major projects in the form of a
comprehensive review checklist to be prepared with vendor and technical specialists
input. The technical support requirements need to include:
- hardware and software requirements;
- data requirements;
- data security steps (e.g., when confidential/personally identifiable data are to be

provided off-site to a vendor or hosting agency);
- integration with existing systems;
- back-up and archiving of data/system recovery if a critical system;
- the process for initial and continuing user authentication/authorizations; and

- timely de-authorizations.
This listing will be different from the checklist used for instructional software programs (which
is oriented more toward instructional/curriculum delivery):
• the respective vendors should be given a deadline in which to respond and complete
needed information so that leadership and technical support can adequately consider
requirements and costs;
• it can be expected that these requirements relating to data and access security will likely
be audited if funding involves state, federal, or other special/grant funds or
appropriations; and
• Forrester and Gartner critiques, product or system white papers, and “4 Quadrant”
review analyses can provide an independent projection of vendor viability, future
maintenance and commitment to R&D, and product ranking among similar products and
systems. These reports can also be solicited from vendors in the initial data collection
stage.
FISCAL IMPACT
This Committee is an upgrade to an existing entity. The impact is largely that of the additional
staff or consultant front-end time and preparations, project materials and research, meeting
preparations and postings relating to agendas, support materials, minutes, and reporting. The
return on investment of the recommended steps are likely to be cost recovered as a result of
improved implementation success and efficiency, and the broader use of procedures, user
manuals, and documentation relating to requirements from the vendors and from other agencies
which have had successful deployments.
FINDING
Keeping the equipment and systems up and running is essential. The district and school staff
need to work to deploy, repair, and maintain IT equipment and systems. This is a challenge
given the number and scope of systems/equipment in place and continuing to be added, and the
expectancy of regular and immediate service support.
Interviews and input from ITS, district technology staff, and technology managers reflected some
needs and other improvements:
• district technology support (nine positions currently) have school assignments changed
monthly and school assignments are not clustered well to preclude mileage and travel
time. (It was also observed that assigned service requests from the prior month remained
open each time there is a transition to a new site);
• not having readily available training or knowledge as it relates to basic and advanced user
manual and technical documentation, common problem resolution options, site

preparations and maintenance requirements⎯ prior to the deployment of new equipment

or systems;
• preparation checklists for school site and district technology support personnel ahead of
time for their orientation and preparations; and
• reasonable advance notice being provided to technology support personnel on work hour,
work assignments, work locations, or salary adjustments (including furloughs) to better
allow for work order service continuity and follow-through adjustments. Technology
support reported very short notice on positions or furloughs.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-3:
Maintain technology assignments to specific schools for longer periods (at least 3-6
months), and cluster the sites to minimize mileage and travel.
These steps will increase available work hours and make work completion more efficient and
timely given more continuity at specific assigned sites. This change should reduce mileage
reimbursement and increase the effectiveness of technology staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation will enable travel costs to be reduced (10-20
percent travel cost savings).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Cluster Technical
Support $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Assignments
FINDING
Technology support staff reported too little prior training; hands-on orientation, and the need for
continuing user support, new product and installation updates. Reasonable advance notice (as it
relates to salary, school assignment, furlough, and work schedule adjustments) should be
provided to technical support staff to allow closure on assigned work and
scheduling/communication with clients.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 7-4:
Schedule more regular training (at least one-half day each month) for technical support
staff at the district and school levels on new equipment and system changes, pending
changes, and to share new systems and deployment/support solutions.

Having more scheduled contact between district technical support, product/system staff
representatives, and ITS to share issues, fixes, preparation checklists⎯including hands-on time
and question/answer sessions with new equipment, upgrades, or systems⎯will ensure that the
technical support personnel at the district and school levels can experience new products being
deployed. Separate meetings for elementary and secondary level ITS are recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff and manager time will be needed for preparations and coordination with vendor
product/training representatives or with in-house developers. Costs will likely be paid back by
more rapid response and time saved to research information related to fixes or product/system
use. If paid trainer or contracted technology support training is necessary, time and resources
should be part of the upfront negotiated contract costs for new products, systems, or
applications⎯whether from capital, general, or grant funds.
Recommendation 7-5:
Implement multi-tier technical support positions and advanced/continuing training

incentives.
Tiered positions and continuing education incentives can provide a structure for continuing
improvement and skills updating, as well as provide for better morale in terms of job pride and
confidence of technicians, and allow the district to “grow their own.” Richland Two should have
at least a network-based systems/applications specialist in addition to the more-entry-level
computer support technician type position (with understood skills and experience requirements
to clarify needed steps for individual staff promotions).
The district should provide for staff development or advanced certification training credits such
as one-time bonuses for training or permanent supplements. This action allows for bringing
along staff at lower cost levels, while providing an understood and motivating option for
advancement and skills development. The more advanced tier positions can also be used for
helping supervise staff, supervising activities and work assignments at specified clusters of
schools or sites, and for training and documentation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Conversion of the current vacant position to one more advanced tier position will require
approximately $4,500-5,500 of additional funding to provide a network systems specialist
position. Additional higher or lower tier positions could be added as vacancies allow. This
action provides the option of a reduced orientation period and new employee training, while
improving continuity in client and system services support.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Provide Tiered
Technical and System ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000)
Support Positions

FINDING
Power policies have become very commonplace configuration options and yet often they are not
managed in a way that minimizes energy consumption without impacting user productivity. With
automated power management solutions in place, strategic decisions can be made for
standardizing, implementing, and assuring power policy implementations that achieve significant
enterprise-wide cost savings and other energy reduction goals. Few areas in IT management can
achieve more immediate and quantifiable return on investment than the introduction of
automated power management solutions for enterprise workstations.*
Richland Two does not have in place a comprehensive, integrated, network-based system that
can be used simultaneously by district and site technical staff and selected
administrators/managers for:
• tracking service requests and work orders;
• asset management⎯including warranty tracking, software license tracking, replacement

cycle information;
• managing site-based and district-provided network storage;
• immediate access to specific equipment and settings information according to property

control ID or users;
• specific equipment service records;
• historical and in progress tracking of resolutions;
• energy controls;**
• equipment imaging;
• desktop software updates and user setting/profile updates;
• security updates and controls; and
• management reports relating to the above services and operations.
While some network-based management of software and systems are in place currently, this
capability is not available to the technology support staff, ITS or school technology contacts, and
the proposed upgrade provides significantly more comprehensive and unified service support
processes and efficiencies.
*http://www.kace.com/redir/reg_success.php?doc=Best-Practices-in-Power-Profile-Management&form_name=White Paper
&success=1
**http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/07/28/dell-launches-energy-savings-calculator-energy-star-50-pcs/

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-6:
Purchase and implement a unified, comprehensive, network-based system for managing

hardware and software, including asset management, imaging, software and security
updates, wired and wireless network management, desktop servicing, knowledgebase, help
desk and service tracking, and energy management programs.
The implementation of this recommendation will expand use and availability of service support
tools for technical support staff at school and district levels, as well as tools for managing
equipment and services by administrators and managers.
There are significant advantages that can extend effectiveness such as:
• Extension of remote desktop diagnostics and services⎯ to enable both district and school
technology staff to reach-out via the network for diagnosing, fixing, or training users who
have desktop issues or issues with applications. This will eliminate significant travel
and access time for desktop fixes and updates.
• Implementation of automated, network-based distribution and management of software,

software updates, individual passwords and security, profile changes, licenses, and
network management tasks⎯from anywhere on campus or across the district⎯for site
and district technical staff and managers. Monitoring software use of common, widely
distributed standard applications can provide data on licenses and actual use, which has
been shown to significantly reduce license subscriptions or renewal costs. This is a
significant capability, valuable in terms of documenting needed software purchases and
negotiating for just what is needed⎯with updates based upon demonstrated usage
(particularly valuable as new products require many months to deploy where licensing
can be adjusted to just what is then in actual use). Vendors will allow for conservative
projections of usage, with annual adjustments based upon actual use data, resulting in
lower costs to the school district.
• Discovering what is out there, what is being used, and what is not being used can lead to
significant savings not only on software licenses and upgrades, but in terms of user
support and staff training needs. This is valuable for software compliance and
minimizing exposure for unlicensed software use, while monitoring software usage for
training, control and standardization purposes.
• Extension of more efficient desktop, mobile, and other device imaging to all district and
school site staff. This has the advantage of all imaging/re-imaging capabilities being
controlled from one point centrally, but immediately available for use by those who have
been trained and who are ready for this tool. Site-based ITS, site technology contacts, as
well as district technicians (whether contracted or regular staff) utilize this capability for
user support and service, deployments, and upgrades.

• The Help Desk/Work Order System should be opened up and made available to other
staff and managers relating to service requests resolution or tracking. This can provide
access to technology inventory information, status of service calls, and service history
information on specific equipment and applications (Note: This alone is very significant
to technicians so that they understand the service history on a particular equipment item,
software, or user⎯including what was done previously, what worked, and what issues
persisted).
• Opening up the system for access and use by techs/managers/ITS/principals will help
with the use of data ranging from monitoring the status of work requests, identifying
common problems, problem equipment, and user requirements. These systems allow
schools/departments to have their own view of work requests for that school or
department alone.
The management of service levels, warranties, and options for support services can be made
using actual longitudinal data on types of services needed⎯by site, by application, by equipment
type in working with specific data on work requests made, time to first service contact, time to
fix, type of problems, and equipment failure or fix rates. These data can be very significant to
projecting and tailoring warranties and costing out options for servicing equipment including:
eliminating or shortening warranty periods by use of stocked spares (which is currently being
done in Richland Two), depot maintenance plans, replacements from refurbished or recycled
equipment, or the use of outsourced technical support where the frequency of repairs or the need
for very high-level and expensive expertise is more effectively provided via service contracts
(verses internal staff positions).
FISCAL IMPACT
These comprehensive, integrated network-based system capabilities, through a consolidated suite

of products (e.g. Altiris, KACE, LANDesk or Symantec) have been shown to save school
districts, comparable in size to Richland Two, very significant staff time, user support,
equipment/system down-time cost savings, and an average of 20 percent reported energy savings
in technology-related power costs.
After the initial purchase and set-up expenses and training, there are substantial energy usage,
licensing, technical and user documentation savings, and the net impact is likely to exceed
$200,000 per year. More specifically broken down in terms of:
• energy usage savings due to centrally managed and automated computer, projector,
printer equipment sleep-mode policy implementation during and after-hours⎯estimated
net savings of $150,000 to $350,000 annually;
• software license negotiations, just-in-time purchasing, and discovery and compliance

savings⎯estimated savings of $10,000 to $175,000 savings annually; and
• electronic documentation and repair history tracking, user support, and technical
servicing cost effectiveness⎯estimated savings of $7,000 to $70,000 annually.

These advantages usually translate to significant software cost savings that have been
documented through user presentations and case studies.* Projected savings will continue to
increase as energy policies are expanded, as software license agreements are renewed, and as
technical servicing costs are reduced.
There are products from many vendors worth considering, including Altiris, Cisco, Dell KACE,
LANDesk, Symantec, and VMware. The immediate benefit of automating software
distribution, updates, desktop and user support/training, and energy management can be
significant.**
The following projections reflect the minimum range of estimated savings for energy and
software licenses, and technology management (as listed above). These savings are expected to
increase as policies are put into place and usage increases in future years.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Generate Additional
Energy and License $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $230,000 $230,000
Cost Savings
FINDING
Richland Two has established standards for computers, printers, projectors, telephones and
software, as well as a centralized review and management process for consolidation of orders,
bids, new facility planning and projections. These standards are posted and maintained for
access and use by all site and department administrators, managers, bookkeepers and
accountants. The IT accountant is a very helpful resource to those placing orders, and she
reviews all purchases to confirm that current standards and best prices are used.
COMMENDATION
Having technology hardware and software standards and procurement controls/support in

place is a highly commendable and effective practice which positions Richland Two for
continuing systematic improvements to hardware, software, and applications.
FINDING
While there are printer standards and printing and forms procedures (which include color
printing and online forms), migration to these newer standard equipment via the replacement of
more costly printers and copiers, and the implementation of printer policies and management
software, is largely not completed.
*http://www.itworld.com/software/59209/effectively-managing-software-licenses ; http://www.softwaremag.com/focus-areas/it-
infrastructure/featured-articles/software-license-managementstrikes-a-balance/;
http://www.kace.com/customers/industries.php?q=education..
**http://www.manageengine.com/products/asset-explorer/software-asset-management.html;
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa71/configuration/guide/mswlicfg.html

Forms which are, or could be standardized for use districtwide, are printed at individual sites and
often stocked.
There are significant opportunities for printing and copier cost savings, through the use of multi-
function printers in place of copiers; the elimination of fax machines through the use of scanned
document attachments; and the incorporation of unified communications within email.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-7:
Implement printer and forms standards across all schools and sites, and phase out costly
printers, fax machines, and copiers.
Eliminating costly printers, copiers, and fax machines and replacing these with more cost-
effective printer options (e.g. laser jet, duplex) and multi-function printers (which provide
printing, copying, and fax capabilities) will save costs. Printing management software should be
obtained to monitor and restrict printer access and use at school and district sites.
Standardizing forms districtwide and having these available online to reduce forms production
and replacement costs is important.* Forms access for students and parents, as well as those
working with students and employees, can be a significant advantage as well. Forms completion
and forms routing/workflow is also likely a major functionality in progress within both the ERP
(Alio) and SIS (PowerSchool) applications.
FISCAL IMPACT
A systematic, paced printer replacement plan (particularly focusing on eliminating the most
costly color injets or other per-page costly printer models) with a move to better standardization
across all sites and departments can result in potential net savings estimated at $75,000 annually
through reduced printing costs; reduced copier, fax and line costs; and reduced printing costs for
forms.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Replace Printers and
Faxes and Centralize $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Forms Repository
FINDING
Staffing improvements have been substantial and necessary in support of the expanded
technology integration, applications, and web-based services⎯which also warrant significant
and continuing technical services and user support for these investments. However, as staffing
cuts are necessary, alternative processes are needed.
*http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_printer.html

RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-8:
Establish clear and specific IT service levels.
To better clarify the scope of IT services and staffing resource requirements, and to help in
understanding and planning impacts of spending levels, specific service levels are needed. A
process similar to Microsoft’s service level model is recommended. Through this process,
essential levels of services can be determined⎯ including specific staffing, resources and
management/administrative requirements. This model provides an objective basis to consider
funding, staffing, and services (including outsourced or hosted services).
As general funds are cut back, critical service level minimums should be reviewed by the CIO
with other district leaders as staff reductions become necessary. It is strongly recommended that
support services, based on specified service levels, be negotiated and bundled-in with the initial
purchase projections and system purchases made from capital, regular, and special fund sources.
This can substantially reduce initial and continuing general fund funding requirements in future
years as well, as user and specialist technology support/training, new release updates, and on-call
or after-hours technology support can be included in the initial purchase proposal and funding.
It is also recommended, in conjunction with service levels, that the school district:
• Delineate a clear service escalation process for priority needs, with at least concurrent
approval by respective administrators, with reasonable resources being provided for that
option and adjustments as the data on such requests dictate. This will be more important
as service capacity is reduced. The current ratio of district computer support technicians
to computers is only viable given the on-site work provided by the ITS and computer
support contacts. As additional equipment or staff availability is limited, managed
service escalation processes will become more critical.
• Develop explicit, critical systems “key performance indicators,” such as communication

system uptimes (e.g. 90% availability outside of regular work hours, 98% uptime and
responsiveness 5x10), bandwidth capacity, payroll runs consistent with delivery
expectations, report card production schedule deadlines, and memory/storage limits for
teachers, students, staff⎯to focus efforts and help assure necessary resources consistent
with leadership consensus on what are the most critical services.
These benchmarks should be identified and approved by the advisory committee, Superintendent,
and other district leaders as part of the budget review and preparation process. Typically, the key
performance indicators directly reflect critical projected capacity needs and are the basis for longer-
range funding projections.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented within existing resources.

FINDING
The IT Department is overstaffed in certain areas. Options for staffing adjustments were
discussed in interviews with IT managers and administrators, and based upon Evergreen’s
review of functions and criticality of work loads. Two areas appear to be likely candidates for
position cuts:
• the reduction of one district ITS position – consistent with the movement towards site-
based ITS doing more technical support and development/training; and
• the reduction of an IT administrative position.
In this later situation, it is not that positions are not fully engaged or attending to critical
functions, but in consideration of the administrative and staff responsibilities. Specifically, in
light of the proposed move of the Accountability and Evaluation Office, the move of the
Computer Operator Support position to Student Systems, and the relative supervisory loads of
the other directors, it is recommended that the Executive Director and Director of IT Operations
positions be consolidated.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 7-9:
Reduce district-level staffing in the Information Technology Department, including:
• combining the positions of Executive Director and Director of IT Operations; and

• reducing by one IT administrative level position.
The site-based ITS and tech contact functions should be expanded to include further technical
support responsibilities, assisted by their utilization of network-based desktop management and
security, service requests tracking, software updates/distribution, and technology assets
management. These duties should include new machine imaging procedures, network-based
desktop support, responsibility for surplus or over-replacement date machines (with appropriate
cleansing of electronic memory/storage), and software and hardware asset management. This
step will extend the use of site-based staff to handle technical support functions currently
handled mostly or entirely by district staff. While this is not an optimal situation in that it will
reduce direct teacher support, this step can result in more efficient and responsive tech support in
directly addressing user and equipment problems, while helping minimize the impact of district
tech staff reductions.
The IT leadership should reorganize specific responsibilities based upon criticality of skill sets
and project/service priorities, and best fit these responsibilities among the other administrative
positions.
Monitoring of service levels for regular requests and escalated services will be essential in terms
of maintaining equipment, applications, and systems, as well as in adjusting expectations as new
initiatives and services are added.

FISCAL IMPACT
Recommended staffing cuts can reduce IT personnel costs by approximately $220,000 annually.
The proposed reduction of one district-level IT administrative level position (salary + benefits =
$135,000) by consolidating the job functions of the Executive Director and the Director of IT
Operations; and one district-level ITS (salary + benefits = $85,000).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Reduce IT Staff $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000
FINDING
Some level of electronic records processing (including scanning and indexing, electronic storage,
records retrieval and archiving) was reported in at least three locations relating to human
resources, student, and finance/facilities documents. Different systems and approaches are
being used. The district currently uses two separate systems⎯OnBase by HR and
ApplicationXtender.
Based upon interview information, the district has recognized this need and a project is
underway to evaluate the entire district’s need for imaging as a whole. The district has dedicated
a portion of the eight (8) percent bond proceeds for technology and technology enhancements.
RECOMMENDATION
Identify a single, centralized electronic records unit which can provide a common and more
efficient method for scanning, storing, and accessing records (including OCR searches)
across multiple areas and users.
By using a centralized software and storage, with network-based retrieval and access, multiple
departments (within the same building or across the district) can share a full-featured records
scanning, imaging, retrieval, archiving, and storage capability⎯ with access limited
appropriately depending upon the user ID and authorizations.
This recommendation should bring records and forms control and records destruction together,
and reduce paper costs associated with multi-site, quantity bid-printing. Online forms would
provide on-demand access and printing of the forms needed.
Individual users (from human resources, special education, student records, facilities, and other
administrative offices) can choose to have their own scanner set-up or be responsible for their
own scanning, or they can pay pro-rated costs to have scanning/indexing/records confirmation
and destruction handled centrally.

This unit could also include the support and functions necessary for centralizing commonly used
districtwide forms online, and making these forms available online to district staff and to parents
and students, as appropriate.
The district has a need for imaging in many areas. Putting off this decision can only exacerbate
the identified challenges, and inhibit the ability of human resources, payroll and the campuses to
implement more cost effective procedures for handling the massive amounts of paperwork that
flow through the district. Giving the project an immediate priority would allow Richland Two
the ability to implement streamlined processes, and realize productivity savings and efficiencies
more rapidly.
FISCAL IMPACT
Having a single, centralized electronic records and forms unit has been shown to provide
scanning, indexing, storage, destruction, and retrieval services at substantially less than
outsourced services (at roughly $.08-$.19 per page; which is typically 10-20 percent lower than
outsourced costs). The cost of a single office set-up is comparable to what any one department
would spend⎯with additional loads requiring only increased scanning machine capacity and
pro-rated scanning personnel. However, the scanning of documents, trained scanning/indexing
and quality control of records, orderly records destruction and archiving, and records access
controls would be more consistent and efficient.
The cost for this move would be substantially less than individual department’s current
combined expenditures for these services. The net costs for a consolidated records office would
not likely be more expensive than pooling the staffing, equipment, and software costs now in
place across two to three departments. An initial cost of $9,000 is projected for equipment,
software, and training for a centralized records office.
Also, this office could recover costs by providing services to other district departments at lower,
shared-cost levels, provide transcript and other record services (beyond a single-copy limit) for
parents and community members at a fee commensurate with recovering actual costs, and
potentially provide scanning services to other school districts or agencies.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Central
Electronic Records ($9,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Office
FINDING
Accountability and evaluation functions, which include responsibility for all student assessment
programs, data analysis and reporting, are located within the Information Technology
Department. These staff provide critical management and specific data/curriculum and program
knowledge that is a major asset to district and school decision makers working with student
diagnostic and traditional assessments, and to district administrators and Board members who
have need for accountability reports and analyses to address questions relating to a wide range of
issues beyond student assessment.

The staff in this office appear to be very competent and dedicated. While data and information
system tools are essential, the focus of these tasks are more data analysis, reporting, and
evaluative. This is typically an important IT-supported, but not an IT-managed function.
RECOMMENDATION
Relocate accountability and evaluation office to the Planning Office and to the Academics
Office (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5).
The placement of student assessment in the Academic Division can better ensure curriculum
integration and support; accountability should be moved to the Planning Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The expansion and enhancement of both the ERP and student system benefits to users will be
restricted due to the limitations of user support and available documentation/help in the use of
these systems. This limits the rate at which new data/information reports and analyses can be
made available and useful to administrators, school staff, teachers and students/parents, as well
as available for posting within portals and dashboards.
RECOMMENDATION
Relocate the Computer Operator Support position into the Student Information support
group.
This change provides a significant increment in support for student data reporting, applications
development, and user training and support.
FISCAL IMPACT
7.2 TECHNOLOGY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Richland Two has been aggressive in moving forward with new systems and development,
including a new student information system and a new ERP system⎯in addition to a number of
initiatives related to web-based applications, infrastructure improvements, and management data
reports.

COMMENDATION
Bringing the student and ERP systems online, at the pace this was done, and with the level
of success as reported by users and administrators, is an extraordinary accomplishment
reflecting the dedication and expertise of resources within the IT Department.
FINDING
The continuing implementation of features and functionality now possible within the new student
and financial information systems, including the expanded availability of reports and data
analyses from those systems to decision makers at school, district, and classroom levels will
provide significant advantages to Richland Two. The ability to better monitor, report, enhance
data and resources available to students and parents can improve student progress and
educational experiences at all levels, and provide tailored information to all users and decision
makers. A number of functions⎯such as student course fees and grade book report cards⎯can
now move forward as these systems become integrated and data exchanges and updates originate
in one system and are used by other systems.
There are major benefits to be realized in more fully implementing the existing new/upgraded
systems and initiatives (e.g. Alio, PowerSchool, IPEC, and One-to-One computing).
Attending to priority adjustments, in light of multiple requests and maintaining communications

across impacted user groups, will require the involvement and management of priorities and
expectations by program area administrators.
RECOMMENDATION
Actively manage and help adjust expectations commensurate with maintaining critical
service levels and realistic resource limits across major IT systems and applications.
Actively attending to and setting specific priorities for further development targets will be more
critical as resources are not as available as they once were. This is particularly an issue in light
of demand for expanded automated systems data reports and access via the web as the expanded
user base begins to include direct support for tens of thousands of parents and students.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Discussions with staff brought to light certain opportunities relating to regular monitoring of
telephone usage, managing usage, and consideration of further tailoring of telephone service
plans.

Standard usage reports, including the ability to also view individual staff usage, can identify
opportunities for limits or new policies on usage. This deliverable could be a standard report that
can be updated, posted, and made available through an administrative reports portal or web-
posted reporting.
RECOMMENDATION
Regularly generate and review management reports summarizing mobile phone usage and
long distance phone call fees by cost center with the goal of reducing phone costs.
Clustering school sites and departments in order to regularly review extraordinary use situations
across similar departments and schools is typically insightful to the need for possible overuse
situations, as well as the need for usage procedures and guidelines. Having these data will
enable:
• renegotiation of mobile phone rate options based upon districtwide pooled minutes;
• the identification of any deadline fees or instruments that are no longer in use; and
• implementation of high-use controls and procedures.
These steps are estimated to result in savings of 2 percent of the current total communications
funding expenditure at $626,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are likely significant cost reductions through use of districtwide, pooled minutes, better
managing of long-distance users, and elimination of unused or seldom-used lines, equipment, or
mobile devices.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Consolidate
Districtwide Pooled
Minutes and Improve $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Management of Long-
Distance Calls
FINDING
A written IT disaster recovery/business resumption plan was not available in Richland Two.
A written plan needs to be in place, including processes for emergency alert access, having key
systems staff available in event of a major catastrophe with critical system functions identified
(telephone and email communications, payroll, vendor checks, student and staff emergency
information, etc.) with alternative locations for storing and running systems judged to be critical
in short- and long-term business resumption efforts, and contracts/arrangements for critical
systems support and equipment replacement. The disaster recovery plan should be part of a

larger districtwide plan, and periodically tested. This could help to significantly limit damages
and improve service resumption timeframes and costs.*
A one-page disaster recovery/business resumption plan document entitled “IT Disaster

Recovery/Business Resumption policy/procedures” was provided after the site visit, and
completed in response to Evergreen’s data request for a written plan document. The one-page
document provided does not address key contact information; recovery team communications;
student and staff emergency data; or the communications capability necessary to contact
students, employees, or parents.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop a formal, approved IT disaster recovery/business recovery document to provide

specific guidance on steps necessary to limit the impact of a disaster.
A minimum plan and testing of this plan should include:
• district leadership approval of a written plan, to include details of data and scope of
services essential for priority recoverable and the amount of time which is acceptable for
recovery of these data and services (Note: This commitment carries with it consideration
of funding or resources necessary to provide disaster recovery/business resumption and
periodic testing for restoring essential priority capabilities);
• the identification of critical systems which should not be based upon IT staff
recommendations only, but should be confirmed by district leadership as information and
communications system emergency service levels can significantly impact all
areas⎯from transportation/buses, to finance, to security;
• critical data/systems needing to be recovered in less than three weeks in event of disaster
most commonly include:
- essential communications (telephone, email for at least the most critical district staff
for communications and contact with community emergency resources),
- critical system data (student and staff contact and emergency contact information;
payroll and finance records), and
- essential processes (e.g. cutting pay and vendor checks, providing student
transcript/credit and schedule information);
• necessary equipment replacements or options, networking diagrams, and resources for

timely recovery should be specified and key staff should be identified by position/name;
*http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/recovery/; http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/recovery/disaster-
recovery-plan-strategies-processes_564.

• assignment of major responsibilities in a crisis (Note: Communication methods for these

staff and their respective back-up and managers should be identified. There should be
more than one person identified who is capable of carrying out critical responsibilities,
trained, and involved in the periodic testing of the recovery capability); and
• crisis response coordination, for both IT-related events or services, and now the IT team
supports and communicates with the overall district crisis response/business recovery
continuity procedures should be emphasized.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Data exchange and updates across major SIS and ERP applications and databases, individual
user authentications and authorizations across systems, and ready access to web-based resources
and services are a significant part of the challenge for Richland Two to continue to aggressively
move forward⎯particularly with planned portal, dashboard, web and cloud applications.
Consideration of more unified options for basic back-end services shared by these systems has
significant advantages as relates to:
• user authentication, authorizations, identity management, single sign-on and directory

services;
• unified communications (interactive and integrated voice, data, video, email, across
mobile devices and traditional desktops);
• greatly expanded messaging/email capabilities, including an automated meeting

scheduler, automated video conference scheduling, and calendar viewing and sharing,
proxy appointment authorizations, consolidation of attachments and fax transmissions
which have secured viewing from regular offices and remote locations, and direct user-
accessible email archiving and retrieval; and
• better controls and secured movement of data across systems via extended user
authentications, authorizations, and individual office products (e.g. Word, Excel) can
include encryption and password protection options that are easily usable (Note: The
range of information systems data, reports, and applications that require individualized
security and access rights across all user groups⎯staff, teachers, administrators, students,
and parents⎯has grown and will increase to grow. These requirements dictate strong
consideration of a more complete security and user identification systems support and
services from Microsoft).
Richland Two’s move to adopt SharePoint as the web services/application platform for
development of web applications, portals, and dashboards is a very positive move that can
enhance development and productivity across all major applications, information systems, and

user interfaces. Staff and managers interviewed in the applications area indicated that an
Exchange and Directory Services back-end would streamline development considerably.
RECOMMENDATION
Plan for migration to Microsoft directory services and exchange services.
The advantages to this recommendation are likely compelling given the district’s move to
SharePoint web services and management. This specific recommendation is based upon the
recognition that more than 80 percent of applications and systems are designed to utilize and
have Microsoft directory services, data controls, and integrated communications requirements
built in. For those that do not, Microsoft has agents, bridges, and solutions in place that will
likely address these situations with less overhead than any other option available for educational
and web-based applications.
The resources and prototypes available from the Microsoft user community in K-12 education
are unmatched. A strength of the proposed consideration is also that Live.edu/Office 365 is
particularly adept at accommodating phased deployment, including maintenance or delayed
integration of legacy or other system functions already in place in the school district.
In other words, certain functions can be maintained on premise with other products selectively
migrated to or provided from cloud services from Microsoft. This allows for a phased, orderly
and strategic deployment taking advantage of selecting and moving forward with only those
initiatives where the pay-off is highest. This can also significantly reduce the need for links,
conversions, bridges to Novell directory services and email functions. Microsoft tools have
extensive online training and documentation for technical and non-technical users.
The availability of expertise in the use and application of these systems is excellent. Further
Microsoft’s presence and resources in the Columbia area was reported by a company
spokesperson as “…second only to Redmond” in terms of high-level technical support, expertise,
trainers, and consultants. The savings for applications integration, user support, and expanded
functionality across instructional, administrative, and operational functions (integrated video,
fax, calendaring, security, and user/web management) are typically well worth the time and
expenses to transition. Transition support and planning is provided by most major vendors,
including Dell.
The Microsoft statewide consultant recommended a conversion consultant, who lives in

Columbia and who is available at no cost for a more complete discussion on features, functions,
and transition from Novell. This consultant is a Novell-certified network systems and directory
services expert.
Microsoft products and systems meet FERPA, COPA, and federal requirements for data, user,
and content security, and typically are very strong and experienced in dealing with issues
common to the public education space.

The Microsoft Live@edu/Office 365 (cloud-based tools – which include email, unified
communications, and SharePoint) are offered to education entities at no cost; with supplemental
infrastructure services at very steep discounts.
The Forefront Security tools can provide solutions for sign-on and access controls across a wide
range of products and cloud-based systems⎯which can improve the agility of Richland Two in
working with other vendor products and solutions.
There are significant Microsoft resources within Columbia and the nearby area. These resources
offer significant additional advantages in terms of ready availability of expert support. For
further investigation of the potential for a stronger Microsoft migration and partnership, more
specific references can be found at:
• Office 365 – General Information: http://office365.microsoft.com/en-US/online-services.aspx
• Office 365 for Education: http://office365.microsoft.com/en-US/education.aspx
• Forefront – case study:

http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000002698
FISCAL IMPACT
This purchase and migration involves significant products and training costs over more than one
year. However, initial license purchases and the training that has occurred with SharePoint is a
substantial beginning; and it is likely that Microsoft would work with the school district in
helping with much of the migration support costs. The initial costs, while substantial, will very
likely improve development timeframes, simplify user access and authorizations, avoid other
product costs, reduce system maintenance, and facilitate moving to a more full-featured, unified
email system (Exchange/Outlook).
In consideration of the educational templates, documentation, and services that are available
from Microsoft and other district users at little or no cost, the overall net costs are estimated at an
additional $35,000. The applications and user productivity improvement due to ease of
integration with other applications, the ability of users to directly build and utilize commonly
known desktop and office products, and the availability of a broader base of support from the
vendor and expert community, suggests that these costs will be a good investment for Richland
Two.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Purchase and
Migrate to Microsoft ($35,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
AD and Exchange
FINDING
Erate handling is well organized, and current Erate activities and distributions are well-
documented. Erate records are complete, accurate and the processing and support for the

telephone and Internet communication invoices and payments were documented and found to be
effective.
COMMENDATION
The documentation of current Erate funding distribution provided was clear and complete.
FINDING
Two considerations could be significant to the level of Erate funding for which Richland Two
qualifies and receives:
• First, Erate allows an alternative calculation for free and reduced lunch counts called
“sibling match.” This step results in increased free and reduced lunch percentages and
can qualify the schools/school district for additional funding. Specifically, free and
reduced lunch counts can also include non-free and reduced students – who reside at the
same address, with the same guardian, where any of the other siblings at that address
have qualified for free and reduced lunch. It is not unusual for 10-20 percent of high
school students to not participate (i.e. have filed and received approval for free and
reduced lunch). However, these students can be counted, and these are allowed for Erate
site qualifications. This type of cohort free and reduced lunch rate calculation could
result in additional school sites qualifying (in addition to increasing the districtwide free
and reduced lunch count), and increased funding both at these sites, including eligibility
for Priority 2 equipment, LAN, and site networking equipment.
• Second, Erate submittal for individual qualifying school sites⎯ not only districtwide
submittals⎯can result in funding being available for Priority 2 items and services. This
expands the option of Erate funding discounts for a much wider range of services and
devices, and can add up to significant annual income for technology (connectivity,
communications, and infrastructure) which can be rotated to certain other sites following
two years of use at the original site.* Other districts use individual school-based Erate
calculations in order to significantly increase Erate funding for technology.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement two improvements in Erate funding.
Richland Two should contact the Universal Services resource for specific procedures.** The
State Erate Office and the HATS outreach resource*** can assist in preparing the submittals.
Together these strategies can substantially increase the flow of Erate funds to Richland Two.
*For details, review the eligibility list (http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/ESL_archive/EligibleServicesList_110910.pdf)

carefully with expert staff in communications, networking, and web/email services.
**http://www.usac.org/sl/.
***http://www.usac.org/sl/about/hats-outreach/default.aspx.

FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation can result in significant additional Erate funding for
Richland Two for at least seven school sites which are currently above 50 percent free and
reduced lunch. The increase in Erate funding to Richland Two is estimated to be between
$70,000 to $210,000 annually.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Increase Erate Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
FINDING
Richland Two utilizes a systems integrator, TSI, which is a Dell partner, for certain deployment
and disposal services. TSI collects, transports and disposes of most technology devices for the
school district⎯including computers, printers, televisions, and overhead projectors. They
comply with federal and state regulations, and guarantee proper and thorough destruction of data
from computing devices through accepted government standards. Components are not reused or
resold intact. They are destroyed and reduced to their base elements.
Replaced equipment is picked up by the district or subcontractor; yet there was not a formal or
standardized process or consistent procedure for checking on possible re-use or transfer of
equipment that may be usable other locations. Also there are no procedures or guidelines for
the review, cleansing of electronic information, and possible re-use or re-purposing of equipment
either to other in-house departments or via an open-to-employees (or open-to-the-community)
sale of surplus items.
The current situation is potentially a costly security issue, since computer or telephone
equipment that is moved from one person is not consistently or adequately cleansed and
confidential, personally identifiable information from prior users can be passed along to new
users. This could head to costly litigation.
Equipment memory should be cleansed of electronic information from that person, by the prior
user or that user's supervisor. There are potential records access and control problems where
confidential, personally identifiable student or staff information is involved in the prior users’
responsibilities. There should be an understood process, and written reference for this issue.
Further, FERPA requires that notice and training on confidential records access be provided to
administrators/parents at least annually.*
It was reported that old equipment is sent to the district, then placed into secure Richland Two
owned trash-containers (there are two) at the district location behind a high school. A contractor
then takes these away for recycling or disposition. Based upon interviewee information, surplus
equipment tracking or recycling by the school district does not exist.
*www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html.

RECOMMENDATION
Establish a process for re-use, re-deployment, or re-sale of computer or technology

equipment no longer used, but fully functioning.
Cleansing of electronic memory/storage on machines transferred within, across, or out of schools

is essential. When a program, grant, or school is closed⎯or when certain programs no longer
have use for that type or level of equipment⎯the equipment should be appraised according to
established guidelines and criteria (similar to the criteria for acceptable donated equipment), and
qualifying items could then be processed to maximize the re-use or possible re-sale of that
equipment. Non-qualifying items should be cleansed and processed as surplus.
Clear guidelines on cleansing of electronic records in equipment moved or relocated to other

staff or locations (including surplus equipment) are essential to protection of personally
identifiable, confidential information. Re-imaging and DBAN (http://www.dban.org/ ) or a
comparable process is necessary to protect the confidentiality of records.*
A periodic public sale of surplus equipment can include technology, since much of which is not
cost effective or affordable within schools could be used by employees, in community centers,
church-based tutoring programs, and other education-related agencies⎯with sale proceeds used
to fund the work needed for recycling these items. A process for review and possible re-
purposing or distributing donated or school/district equipment can help address other needs.
Given the potential for confidentiality breaches, damages, and records access, the cleansing of
equipment and surplus/re-use procedures should be reviewed at least annually with district and
school administrators, and with those responsible for equipment control and reassignment.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Senior Mangers in Richland Two were not aware of QZAB (Qualified Zone Academy Bonds) a
provision of the taxcode which provides a source of funding that may be used for renovating
school buildings, purchasing equipment, developing curricula, and/or training school
personnel.**
RECOMMENDATION
Pursue and evaluate applicability of QZAB funding for Richland Two.

*http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/mndirectoryinfor.html ).
**For further specific information on QZAB funding consultant (http://www.qzab.org).

The return on investment is typically worth the effort and can result in substantial resources
($50,000+ per year) to many school districts. Funds can be applied to technology funding. As
the IT Department considers Q2AB funding, it should coordinate with the Finance Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources, but could result in revenue
for Richland Two.
7.3 INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

IT administrators, applications development staff, and managers reported planned migration to
Microsoft SharePoint. Staff training has occurred and work has begun with this product.
SharePoint is a common standard for many school districts and statewide implementation is a
highly integrated solution⎯one which works well with a very wide range of instructional and
administrative applications, reports, dashboards, and functions. SharePoint allows users to
readily utilize and incorporate Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook email (including
calendaring).
There is a wide range of existing web portals, dashboards, templates, workflow, and forms online
available at no cost. There are already available integration/bridging solutions for most existing
instructional, administrative, and support systems which can save significant staff time in setting-
up and maintaining these systems. A wider range of already developed solutions are available as
shareware, and there are many conferences and training options for SharePoint users: teachers,
staff, administrators, and technical specialists. SharePoint is designed for ease of user (in
particular, updates and communications) for non-technical staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Standardize SharePoint web development and templates for school, department, and
services websites⎯including teacher and curriculum resource/learner support websites.
The extensive compatibility of this product, expertise and resources are available at very highly
discounted rates and often at no charge for education. The Microsoft tools are typically a very
significant, if not compelling, asset and technology support partnership for school districts.
Training support for SharePoint and other Microsoft products via the Microsoft IT Academy
option* can be a very cost-effective asset to schools and the district, and also provides national
recognition for IT Academy schools and programs in Richland Two. IT Academy sites can also
generate funding by including others in the training and certification offerings.
*http://www.microsoft.com/education/msitacademy/default.mspx

Microsoft training options generally are extensive, including grants (typically with partner
vendors) that are commonly provided to schools for training and technical advancements.
Specific templates, example teacher and curriculum lesson plans, learner support websites, and
student projects are extensive and can expedite the widespread use by teachers, students, and
operational areas at Richland Two.*
FISCAL IMPACT
The purchase of SharePoint licenses, technical staff, and user training has already been initiated
and the implementation of Sharepoint is in progress. The district is also likely to benefit by
savings from the use of existing templates, and user and expert support resources provided at no
cost from Microsoft and affiliated partners currently working with the school district. Costs for
training and user licenses may require further funding which is estimated at $20,000 per year.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement
($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000)
SharePoint Training
FINDING
School-based technology support is commonly cited as the most productive strategy for
facilitating technology integration and teacher/instructional support. Just-in-time learning
interventions and consistent access to teachers⎯during planning, after-school, and during
breaks⎯from colleagues who are respected and readily available, are consistently referenced as
among the more effective strategies for improving technology integration.**
COMMENDATION
Richland Two’s commitment and implementation of ITS and its site technology contact
model are highly enabling means for success in the integration of technology at the
classroom and school levels.
FINDING
The district uses Novell for email services, and is considering moving to Google apps for hosted
email services.
RECOMMENDATION
Convert to Outlook and Live.edu/Office 365 cloud hosted services.
*www.microsoft.com/education/solutions/default.aspx
**http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/research.html .

Some advantages for this conversion include:
• The calendaring (including sub-calendar consolidations), event scheduling, and shared

levels of access to individual calendars by those specifically authorized, and the range of
unified communications (fax receiving, phone messaging and conference scheduling,
interactive video conferencing, etc.) are examples of functionality within Exchange.
When coupled with Active Directory, these are generally considered a very significant
advantage to productivity at all levels, and across curriculum and operational areas.
• Microsoft Active Directory is very common, and typically the most common, deployed
user directory services, identity and user management system in school districts for most
major IT/IS and instructional systems: IMS, ERP, SIS, assessment, curriculum, parent
and student portals, operational support, and security systems/products. Most software
systems (instructional, administrative, and support) are ready to work with
Outlook/Exchange/MS Directory Services “out-of-the-box.”
Moving to Outlook does not preclude also using free cloud-based desktop productivity options
from Microsoft (e.g. Microsoft Live.edu and the pending new releases of cloud-based Microsoft
365) or Google Apps (for student or non-staff functions). These options are designed to integrate
well with Outlook/Exchange, as well as data reporting, web, and user identity management
systems.
The Microsoft Live@edu/Office 365 (cloud-based tools – which includes email, unified
communications, and SharePoint) are offered to education entities for free⎯with supplemental
infrastructure services at very steep discounts. These tools can be blended with existing licenses
and used with other applications to maximize current knowledge and skills, and the maintenance
of legacy applications so that a migration can be strategically planned and cost effective.
FISCAL IMPACT
Product license costs for WordPerfect could displace product license costs for Outlook. Staff
and user orientation, conversion of mailboxes, archives, and back-ups require substantial work.
However, this system provides a full-featured email and unified communications system⎯which
can fully integrate into a wider range of applications, systems, and infrastructure support tools.
The costs can be off-set by other product cost reductions, increased applications deployment and
integration, and by the availability of Microsoft training and support resources resulting in
relatively small net costs over time.
The cost estimate of $15,000 is a rough projection and will depend upon the current license term
commitments and staff training requirements.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Convert to
($15,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Outlook/Live@edu

FINDING
The IT Department did not consistently have paid work time during the summer period for start-
of-school preparations.
RECOMMENDATION
Schedule IT services during the summer for the start-of-school preparations and support.
ITS, along with the district technical staff, can most efficiently set-up, tailor to individual users,
locate or re-locate equipment, and get the school ready for teachers and students.
FISCAL IMPACT
Additional costs can be minimized if hours are reserved from current annual contract hours for
summer preschool use. Estimated costs reflect 200 hours @ $50/hr or $10,000.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Summer
($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000)
Work Groups
FINDING
Richland Two has in place a centralized work order system. Access to use and update this
system is restricted; the technology support specialists do not have access. Only a few ITS and
site technology contacts have access to the system. The current system does not provide
equipment repair histories nor allow for tracking of service requests status by ITS or district
technology support staff. The current system is not integrated with the assets management
system, and does not show equipment model, type, configuration, software, and settings.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement a comprehensive Help Desk System, including assets management and repair
histories and service tracking by equipment, service requestor, and site; installed software
and software usage; and an associated knowledgebase to consolidate manuals,
documentation, and prior service resolutions.
These types of data and management reports are helpful in tracking and managing hours,
responsiveness, and break-fix problems. Analyzing frequency and types of repairs are useful in
working with vendors to reimburse or assist with reimbursement for discovered problem issues,
and to tailor service (whether outsourced, warranty or contract-based) most effectively. These
data and reports are also of value in terms of administrators, project managers, and staff having
documented service hours and service requests information by site and project.

Schools and major departments should have access to the service requests, asset inventories, and
problem histories for their equipment and users. Warranty periods should be based upon actual
repair demands and cost comparisons. When Help Desk calls are received, technology support
staff can view the equipment type, configuration, recent and pending services calls, and fixes
associated with specific equipment or reported problems. This modification can improve service
responsiveness, and reduce downtime and the cost for repairs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The tracking of use and limiting of software license fees,, elimination or phase-out of costly
TCO equipment options, replacement of high-frequency repairs equipment, and more efficient
repairs/maintenance can save significant dollars and make technology staff operations more
timely and less expensive for the amount of technology and sites covered. Combined with
network-based desktop management and desktop management, repairs/fixes can be diagnosed if
not made made remotely⎯along with direct user support while the user works and
options/solutions are shown right on the desktop and operator errors can be observed and
corrected remotely.
It is projected that, over a few years, the net cost impact would be matched by savings in reduced
technology support hours and travel savings due to fewer return trips with needed parts,
elimination of costly equipment identified through repair hours tracking for specific equipment
items, and more tightly controlled software licenses and potentially reduced license fees through
consolidation of common software into districtwide and site licenses, with renewals tied to actual
product usage.*
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Advanced
Equipment and $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Software Management
FINDING
Richland Two has a parent portal for accessing student assignments and teacher reports of
progress. The registration process for parent users is in place. The new student information
system provides many opportunities for additional information sharing that can be a significant
asset for both parents and students. Teacher and course web portals⎯which provide specific
resources, course information, example lessons, and additional practice and learning
options⎯are not yet in place.
Currently, students borrow parent sign-ons to get to their data.
*http://www.sassafras.com/licensing.html; http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/software-management/software-asset-
management.aspx.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Provide a tailored view for students own use of the portal.
Students, provided individual student sign-on with authorizations/passwords tracked through the
SIS, can more effectively take on their own responsibilities for learning, meeting deadlines,
completion of assignments, independent research, and graduation requirements. This is
particularly true for high school students.
Existing web development staff would need to further define and study this project in order to
target priority learning and curriculum goals for students, and for a reliable costs projection.
This is a major project, and requires student authentication/authorization support mechanism

(potentially Active Directory); tailoring of the parent view; and developing portal instructions
and training for students. The student view is likely of highest benefit to high school students,
who can track course credit requirements, and also learn and adapt to the new web portal
requirements and additional instructional resources very quickly.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation is within current district application resources and
covered with the recommended staffing reassignment (see Recommendation 7-13).
Create consistent districtwide teacher course websites.
Teachers should have websites, including online course materials, lesson plans, examples of
reports and projects, and additional learning resources for students and their parents to
supplement. A link to each teacher’s individual course website should be included on the Parent
Portal web-page for that teacher’s class.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this recommendation requires adding a link to each course view on the
portal. Web development staff would need to further define the scope of work and provide a cost
projection. ITS development of teacher web templates and training materials could be done
through summer workgroups, including representative subject area teachers (estimated at 3
positions for 20 days/160 hours or $24,000).
This is a multi-year project given the range of courses and content potentially involved. There
are large numbers of example templates and web designs which are made available via Microsoft
and partners at no cost. The staff hired for development of the web-page templates and training
materials would also provide a pool of trainers to be used at the home school sites and
districtwide.

Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Create Teacher Web-
($24,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Page Templates
FINDING
Based upon reports from school and district staff, web-based dashboards were recognized as a
priority, but not one with significant activity at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Advance more quickly with the development and data-sharing capabilities of web-based
dashboards.
The implementation of this recommendation will require more advanced integration and merging
of data across systems, and the implementation of differential user data access (a function that
SharePoint handles well). Cross-planning is needed; priorities need to be set. Moving to
SharePoint and MS Exchange/Outlook can expedite progress and sharing of more commonly
used and available templates, services, currently available resources, and integrated data and
management systems.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. This implementation could
be a priority within existing web developer priorities.
FINDING
Based upon reports from district and site technical staff, it appears there is not a consistent
process for termination and renewals of user password or access authorizations.
RECOMMENDATION
Attend to terminations of individual network access rights and system/data authorizations

in a timely manner for those with access to personally identifiable, confidential student
data, or those authorized to make changes in sensitive student, payroll or
financial/purchasing data.
Access rights need to be set for all users with those responsible for these functions (e.g.
personnel, instruction, finance, registrars, assistant principals), and confirmed and
renewed/updated at least annually by the respective supervisors.

Terminations of access rights and authorizations for those working with confidential data or for
those having critical system update capability should routinely occur within 24 hours of
individual position changes or terminations. In order to help assure that necessary steps and
procedures are working, it is recommended that there be periodic reviews the lists of those
persons who have critical systems or confidential data access to compare their position
termination or transfer dates to network access and authorization terminations.
Procedures for changing authorizations, confidential materials purging, and reassignment of

saved files and archives access prior to the position termination or transfer dates will expedite
this process. Exceptional instances for authorization terminations should be handled by
supervisors/administrators on an emergency call basis to IT. The ERP system should
automatically trigger changes to employee access and update authorization changes.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented within existing resources.
FINDING
Internet security awareness, and procedures for confirming student/parent responsibility and
expectations for appropriate computer systems user and content access, are not consistent at
school and department sites. This finding applies to both employee and student access rights.
RECOMMENDATION
Require all parents, employees (regular and contracted), and volunteers who are provided
Internet access to have on file a signed Internet access and computer systems authorization
agreement.
The requirement should include training on Internet security, threats, and district
policies/procedures relating to Internet and computer systems use.
The understanding of confidential data limitations and requirements can reduce damages and
costly litigation (e.g. FERPA parent rights to information). The seriousness of threats due to
predators, bullying, and inappropriate content available on the Internet, and the need for
understanding what intervention and steps should be taken when there is an incident, warrants a
regular program of training and awareness.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
There was a structure and some notable status reporting on outcomes included in the district’s
Technology Plan. However, there was not evidence of consistent use of client/customer
feedback on operations or services.
IT leaders should be concerned about the quality of service they are providing to end-users, and
those with whom they are responsible for supporting (ITS and site technology contacts). Good
quality assurance tracks downtime, quality of service, and responds to customer feedback. The
most effective quality assurance is conducted randomly throughout the year and drives changes
in support strategies.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement a regular customer feedback system, including key user/client surveys, and
incorporate the feedback into planning and procedure improvements, as well as general
quality control over processes and support services.
User feedback and systematically collected data regarding perceived service satisfaction and user
input on applications, equipment, training, and user support should be consistently analyzed as
projected needs are reviewed and budgeted resources are re-aligned. The feedback should also
relate to confirming service levels funded, and to proposed alternatives for improving or
changing service delivery.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The district’s central server room has temperature, humidity, and water sensors which will
automatically alert identified staff if any problem conditions exist. There are video recorders
over the door to the adjoining office, and there is an entry scan which logs entry at that
door⎯which is the only entry. There is not a fire prevention system for the electronics
equipment. There are bars over the outside window to the equipment room. A Leibert back-up
system provides at least 40 minutes of reserve power. In addition, there is back-up air
conditioning and a portable fan available for AC outages.
RECOMMENDATION
Install a logging entry scan device at the door into the main central server, networking, and
storage room, as well as an appropriate fire system for the electronic equipment located in
that room.

The computer and network communications control center is a very sensitive area and the
potential for disruption to services and operations could be significant⎯whether personnel in
this location intentionally or unintentionally interfered with the status of equipment, connections,
or production operations. Custodians, unescorted visitors, and anyone not having a regular,
clear and compelling need to be in this area should be precluded from ready access.
Having an entry scan lock to the computer room⎯which limits access to only those who have a
regular and compelling need to enter and work within this area⎯is essential. Accidental or
informal access into this area must be restricted. There should be a continuing record of anyone
entering this area, with the entry logs reviewed regularly and archived for a reasonable period of
time (a minimum of three weeks).
There should also be understood incident response procedures by those involved in monitoring
and managing access and maintenance of this area by the IT manager assigned security officer
responsibility. This recommendation is consistent with best practice security practices.*
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of an additional scan entry lock is estimated at less than $1,000. An installation of
upgraded or appropriate electronic fire prevention system is needed at an estimated cost of
$4,000.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Upgrade Fire
System and Improve
($5,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Access Security to
the Main Server
7.4 STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Non-instructional staff (IT techs, systems, networking, and applications support/development),
and ITS and technology contacts need consistent training and professional development and
access to appropriate user and technical manuals⎯both prior to deployments and on an ongoing
basis. This need was raised in interviews with district and site-based technical support staff and
managers. Delays in implementation, redone implementation steps, and delayed repair costs and
impacts can be substantially reduced.
*http://oa.mo.gov/itsd/cio/architecture/domains/security/CC-PhysicalandEnvironmentalSecurityControls03-23-07ARC.pdf;
http://www.smartsficsolutions.com/downloads/whitepaper/Server_Room_Security_and_Sarbanes_Oxley.pdf;
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723506.aspx; http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DM3510-001.htm; .
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc723506.aspx.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide more consistent implementation and user support training for new deployments
and upgrades.
The implementation of this recommendation is essential for all those expected to efficiently
install and support the equipment. The impact on teaching and learning activities, and support
for teachers and staff, can be improved and occur more quickly when technicians, ITS, and
technology contacts have had orientation to new equipment and applications they are called upon
to support.
District and site techs should have regular meetings/conferences, including training and best
practices sharing from other school district staff in similar roles. Posted technical and user
manuals, and knowledgebase/FAQ are also recommended (see also Recommendation 7-34).
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional funding is necessary to implement this recommendation.
FINDING
Currently ITS, site technology contacts, and district staff do not have access to network-based
desktop management, imaging, or service tracking information.
Having these tools available and used by ITS, technology contacts, and technical support staff
can substantially improve the effectiveness of these staff. Broader use of these tools provides a
much broader level of support and improved services availability and responsiveness.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide regular training and direct access to network-based imaging and desktop
management tools, as well as access to knowledgebase documentation and Help Desk/work
order systems, to both the district and school-based technology staff.
The ITS and site tech contacts are an extension of the district’s technology support. As such,
district IT staff should be included in setting minimum requirements, and pre-screening
candidates under consideration by principals. They should also provide feedback on technology
support services and training updates necessary for the ITS and site tech contact positions.
Joint orientation, training, hands-on experience, continuing inservice and further adjustments as
recommended by and developed with this broader range of technical support types will require
regularly scheduled training and sharing sessions. Joint work groups could be commissioned for
developing many of the procedures and training support documentation.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no net cost to implement this recommendation. The non-service time cost of initial
training and half-day sessions, eight times a year, will be off-set by improved skills and
communications across these key groups, wider sharing of best practices across schools and
support professionals, and faster service and repairs.
FINDING
Major deployments are scheduled for active school periods when installations are continually
disrupted or changed due to classroom and instructional activities at the respective schools.
ITS training and working experience, along with the district technology specialists, help to
establish a good working relationship and more in-depth knowledge of the specific school sites
and specific staff needs and preferences.
RECOMMENDATION
Schedule technology roll-outs during the summer with technology “SWAT” teams.
The focus of this recommendation is on major deployments occurring during the summer period
(or during major scheduled breaks around the holidays or between semesters), when there is less
student and curriculum interruptions and conflicts.
Having the respective school site ITS and technology contacts, as well as district technology
specialists, working together fosters good working relationships, skills and best practice sharing.
FISCAL IMPACT
Subcontracting with ITSs to participate in major deployments at respective sites is a significant

hourly expense. However, work during the summer will proceed more quickly without heavy
student loads and staff as in the regular school year. Having the ITS and site tech contacts
involved will expedite the placement and set-up of equipment at the respective sites. Cross
training and user requirement understanding, between district and school site technical staff, can
be a continuing advantage to user support and services. These costs can be part of the funding
“bundle” approved when new technology or upgrades are purchased. These costs can be
recovered by reducing deployment contracts with Dell and other vendors.
The use of site and district work teams during the summer, instead of contracted installation
services, will save some direct costs, but will pay dividends in terms of site technology
specialists training, experience and orderly preparations for school start-up and school site users.
It is estimated that the cost to contract with the site ITS and tech contacts as part of a deployment
team would not exceed $5,000 for a major school deployment – which is likely comparable to
the costs that could be recovered from current negotiated equipment/installation contracts.

Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Increase IT Activity
($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000)
During Summer
FINDING
An Internet/network-based technical knowledgebase for use by technical support staff and users
does not exist in the district.
Access to complete user manuals, technology support documentation, break/fix documentation,

and updates were reported as an issue for school and district technical support staff. Materials
are available online for the new student and ERP systems, but consistent and organized
resources⎯through a single online mechanism⎯are not currently in place for users or technical
support. As instructional, operational, and administrative applications, reports, and web-based
services are expanded, having readily accessible technical and user documentation (text, video,
and FAQs with linked resources) will become a rapidly expanding requirement for user support,
training, and technical staff.
Staff time requirements for posting of vendor, application or developer information and updates
will be returned in more rapid response and less time being needed to find and research
information related to fixes or product/system use.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement an electronic knowledgebase⎯acting as a repository for all user and technical

manuals and procedures (including specific issue answers, break-fix steps, and references
on common set-ups or installations).
Knowledgebases are a more efficient way to develop and have accessible documentation and
training⎯including access by staff, teachers, parents and students themselves. These are web-
based systems, that can replace the need for user and technical manuals, provide access to
specific procedures and best practices, and can be set-up to allow or restrict different views
according to the user ID/profile.
User manuals, videos, documents, and frequently-asked questions should be included with links
to references and resources. Having online documentation, readily available through a
commonly understood and shared online knowledgebase system which can be used by all areas
(not only IT – but instructional, operational, and administrative applications; parent and student
support such as emergency instructions, field trip form instructions, etc.) is critical. This system
would be helpful in making available documentation and procedures unique to Richland Two
policies and systems.*
*Example hosted knowledgebase services include: http://www.webqa.net/index.asp; http://www.knowledgebase-

script.com/knowledgebase-features.php ; http://www.web-site-scripts.com/hosted-knowledge-base-service;
http://www.knowledgebase-manager.com/hosted-knowledge-base-service?gclid=COSQnp-H2KcCFYXu7QodlFc4-A .

Having this knowledgebase online will consolidate documentation into a single location, and
provide ready access to all manuals, checklists, forms, technical support notes and references, as
well as policies and procedures. This is a significant enhancement utilizing the network and
web-based availability, and incorporating the ease of electronic updates (update once, available
to all). Selective user access and authorizations based upon individual user sign-on are
necessary.
Time should be provided for Help Desk support, applications, systems, and the technical
specialists to collaborate on, and jointly update and share knowledgebase/FAQ systems.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are hosted, subscription knowledgebase/FAQ available, designed for multiple users and
accommodating multiple views, at less than $20,000 per year. The savings in manual
production and distributions, and saved time due to easier access to references and solutions will
more than compensate for this cost.
Much of the cost for an online hosted knowledgebase can be reduced or eliminated due to
savings on purchased or printed user and technical manuals, and user guides. Those who
develop the materials and updates can also be hired or assigned responsibility for training users.
This encourages more thorough understanding and improved knowledge to those in the field.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Purchase and Implement
($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000)
Knowledgebase
FINDING
Direct support and availability to teachers are critical. A challenge consistently emphasized in
interviews with site technology support is being readily available as help is needed, and the need
to move all teachers and staff forward⎯not only those interested or requesting assistance.
School technology support typically reported having key technology users in each
department/grade level who they worked with as an exemplary resource for all teachers.
The reports from school administrators and managers at sites visited and through Evergreen’s
surveys indicate high levels of appreciation for the support provided; the dedication of the
technical support staff; and the consistent recognition that these resources are essential to the
deployment, operation, and technology advances in the schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Address, in each individual’s annual evaluation goals, required technology integration

training and skills development appropriate to that position’s responsibilities and to the
individual needs of each employee.

Teachers and other key staff should have certain skill development and action goals required and
part of the individual employee annual evaluation process in conjunction with new initiatives and
deployments.
New technology initiatives involve new methodologies, new user training requirements, and
orientation to new policies and procedures. These initiatives can be facilitated by checklists for
site and district staff implementers; prior understanding and planning among principals and
district administrators; preparation plans and help/work order requests prioritized to ensure
smooth implementation; and processes to accumulate and share practices.
There was consistent recognition that the speed and timeframe for many of the deployments
precluded the advance notice and orderly preparations that would have been helpful. The pace
of new systems and tools is aggressive, and the overall success of these efforts was consistently
recognized. Long-range (multi-year) plans and coordination for deployments and training are
essential to consistently realize the wider functionality and services that come with the new
systems.
Equity and comparability across schools must exist in both the technology systems and tools
available, and in the effective use and management of those technologies. Comparability in
standard technology equipment, across users and instructional spaces and classrooms, has been a
goal for Richland Two. Technology integration skills and management changes translate into
new requirements for administrators, teachers, technical and operational support staff⎯at the
school and district level.
Appropriate technology skills objectives and integration use goals should be a part of each
employee’s annual plan and evaluation goals. District and school administrators, managers,
and lead teachers should exemplify effective technology integration. Behavior change in
leadership and staff, as well as teachers, is imperative to the desired improvements in student
experiences and outcomes. The evaluation process should address these goals as a priority, at
all sites, in all areas.
The Herbst& Associates recommendations relating to core technology competencies and the
need for a formalized, systematic technology integration professional development plan, are
sound strategies and should remain as priorities for advancing the integration and effective use of
technology (2006, Sections 1.3 and 3.2).
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a specific enhancement to an existing annual goals and evaluation process and should not
be an additional cost.
Commission joint work groups (including teachers, ITS, technical staff, and users) to
research, tailor, and develop new training and documentation for technology deployments
in Richland Two.

When those who are responsible for the training and support, and knowledgeable of the users to
be supported and the specific work situation requirements, work with the system vendor and
technology experts to develop orientation materials, videos, FAQ, and plan training strategies,
the result is typically very productive.
Continuing training and updating of staff skills and knowledge will directly impact services,
support, and efficiency. Provision for regular and continuing staff training⎯including access
and interactions with other school district best practices⎯ are essential for the district to
continue to have competitively high quality resources and services. This is an area that needs to
be addressed as new initiatives and technologies are further implemented.
FISCAL IMPACT
ITS, teacher, and consultant hour costs relating to the specific work group activities can be
significant, but the benefits of the specifically tailored products and the development of a pool of
site staff with more advanced skills and experience who can also serve as trainers/expert
resources to other sites over time recommends this approach as more cost effective than having
vendor training or contracted workshops alone.
A summer work group is estimated to cost approximately $4,000 for the inclusion of school site
staff and teachers. Staff development funds could be used for the development of training
materials. If additional funds are necessary, these costs are estimated at $20,000⎯which is the
projected cost for five workgroups during the summer period. One of the contracted staff can
serve as the workgroup leader to minimize the impact on regular 12-month district or school
staff.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Summer
($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000)
Workgroups
FINDING
The pace and success of recent deployments reflects the commitment of district leaders to user
support and training, clear dedication to doing what is necessary to get the job done, and the
effective use of supplemental resources in Richland Two.
COMMENDATION
Contracted services are used for project development and implementation support on an
as-needed basis, and staff augmentation resources are effectively used to provide training
and support for specific projects.

FINDING
Major vendor representatives currently doing business with the school district indicated available
training resources and expert assistance that could be made available at little or no cost.
Vendor resources are scarce and also spread thin. However, the visibility and reputation of
Richland Two can further improve the sales and prospects for these vendors, and Richland
Two’s support capabilities for technical staff and users can be further enhanced by active and
close work with vendors.
RECOMMENDATION
Engage and more aggressively work with major vendors in order to provide continuing
resources to assist in the training of technical development staff, ITS and technology
contacts, user training, and documentation.
Contact with major vendor representatives currently working with the school district indicate that
they are willing to do more to assist Richland Two. Making sure that continuing support needs,
vendor grant opportunities, and showcase commitments are part of initial and continuing vendor
contract negotiations can directly, or indirectly, add significant assets.
Columbia has significant local vendor assets that are available and willing to contribute.
Vendors are very interested in working with highly talented school districts, such as Richland
Two, which are likely to serve as models and help lead further development in products, systems,
and services. Services, grants, and training can be made available at little or no additional cost to
the school district.
The effort to solicit vendors and establish business partnerships, and to engage vendor resources
to keep the staff updated and trained⎯particularly relating to best practices and emerging trends
from among other top-rated institutions⎯can further open up available resources for Richland
Two.
FISCAL IMPACT
Strategic planning meetings with major vendors to explore grants, trends and current best
practice opportunities, locally available resources and other vendor resource options will not
involve additional costs to the district.

CHAPTER 8:
TRANSPORTATION

8.0 TRANSPORTATION
This chapter focuses on the the efficiency and effectiveness of the Richland Two transportation
function. Transportation is provided for over 11,200 regular, special needs and homeless
students. The school district’s Transportation unit reported expenditures of $4,936,577 for
2009-10 school year.
The management of student transportation services throughout our nation is one of the most
important responsibility of any school district. Each school day several million students board
school buses for travel to and from school. Providing school bus transportation for young men
and women (our nation’s most precious cargo) has the lowest accident rate of any mode of public
transportation (air, rail, or air).
The management of student transportation requires effective managers who are capable of
selecting, organizing, maintaining and adjusting staff to meet demands. Transportation managers
must be able to establish strategy and action plans, train employees, effectively supervise
personnel, repair and maintain equipment, and adopt and adjust to new technologies as part of
ongoing efforts to achieve transportation operations that are safe, efficient and successful.
The Code of South Carolina on student transportation states, in part, that school districts provide
students free of charge bus transportation to and from school up to a distance of one-mile from
his/her residence within the student’s attendance area. Transportation is also provided between
the home or school and other educational facilities operated by Richland Two in which the
student is enrolled. The district also provides transportation to a significant number of homeless
students. Students may be required to meet a bus at an assigned stop a distance up to one-half
mile from his/her residence.
The State of South Carolina, Department of Education provides Richland Two with school buses
and maintenance support for those buses. Richland Two is in compliance with South Carolina
Department of Education student transportation policies and procedures providing student
transportation services in a safe manner. However, the Evergreen Team found transportation
issues that should be improved. Initiating recommended improvements outlined in this chapter
should increase efficiency, personnel retention, and operational integrity.
The major sections in this chapter are:
8.1 Organization and Management

8.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness
8.4 Routing
8.5 Maintenance and Fuel
8.6 Student Discipline
8.7 Recognition

Transportation Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
Evergreen conducted a survey of Richland Two central office school administrators,

school administrators and teachers as part of this organizational efficiency and effectiveness
study. Employee opinions and attitudes gathered at the time of the diagnostic review, though not
a complete picture of the transportation function, are valuable observations. Employees were
asked questions focusing on school arrival time, sufficient number of buses, field trip support,
transportation efficiency, safety, and bus driver operations. Responses to the survey were
compared to other districts in Evergreen’s database.
Exhibit 8-1 through Exhibit 8-3 provide survey results for Richland Two central office
administrators, school administrators and teachers as compared to school districts in Evergreen’s
survey database.
Exhibit 8-1 summarizes central office administrator results compared to peers. Overall, these
administrators are satisfied with student transportation services. The primary negative rating is
for the length of bus ride times, where 38.8 percent of central administrators feel that bus ride
times are too long; however, the majority indicated no opinion. Richland Two central
administrator feedback generally correlates with the opinion of the peer group, with the
exception being for discipline issues on the buses and the length of bus ride times. While
Richland Two central administrators feel bus drivers effectively handle discipline issues on
buses, the peer group does not; this demonstrates a positive response for Richland Two. Exhibit
8-1 also indicates that buses deliver students to school on time; there are sufficient buses and bus
drivers to meet extracurricular needs; bus service is dependable; students feel safe riding buses;
and the process for requesting field trips is efficient and effective. In summary, central office
administrators in Richland Two have a positive perspective on transportation services in the
district.
Exhibit 8-1
Transportation Survey Responses
Richland Two Central Office Administrators Compared to
Districts in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Survey Statement SA+A SD+D SA+A SD+D
Students are often late arriving to and/or departing from
10.20% 42.86% 11.16% 63.77%
school because the buses do not arrive to school on time.
There are sufficient buses and drivers to meet
42.85% 22.45% 46.09% 40.77%
extracurricular needs of students.
Buses are often broken down, disrupting services. 18.36% 46.94% 11.34% 65.30%
The process for requesting a field trip is efficient and
53.06% 6.12% 62.06% 15.48%
effective.
Bus drivers effectively handle discipline issues on the
47.82% 8.70% 29.57% 42.12%
buses.
Students do not feel safe riding school district buses. 10.41% 54.16% 12.78% 58.96%
Bus ride times are too long. 38.77% 16.33% 11.88% 23.95%

Exhibit 8-2 summarizes school administrators results compared to other districts in the database.
Exhibit 8-2 shows overall satisfaction with student transportation services. Again, the weakest
rating is on the length of bus ride times; however, unlike central office administrators, school
administrators disagree slightly more than agree with this statement. Furthermore, school
administrators continue to support the ability of bus drivers to effectively handle discipline issues
on the buses. The overall satisfaction with transportation services by principals is very high and
shows a greater overall satisfaction level than the comparison group.
Exhibit 8-2
Richland Two School Administrators Compared to
Survey Statement SA+A SD+D SA+A SD+D
30.38% 63.29% 11.79% 65.62%
50.64% 31.01% 50.12% 42.86%
77.07% 7.64% 67.58% 15.57%
effective.
44.94% 36.07% 35.03% 47.20%
buses.
Students do not feel safe riding school district buses. 10.12% 68.98% 13.50% 63.44%
Source: Evergreen Survey Results, 2011.
Exhibit 8-3 shows the results of the Richland Two teacher survey. Overall, Richland Two
teacher responses reflect the same trend as central office and school administrator survey
respondents. However, like central office administrators, teachers agree that bus ride times are
too long. The remaining statements favor a positive view of Richland Two transportation
services in that teachers agree that students feel safe riding school buses; students get to school
on time; there are sufficient buses to meet extracurricular needs; buses are dependable; the
process for requesting field trips is efficient and effective; discipline issues are handled well by
bus drivers; and students feel safe riding school buses. As teachers are, in many cases, closer to
delivery of transportation services than central office administrators or school administrators, and
have a better perception of transportation-related services, these survey results are positive for
the district.
In summary, the three surveys show overall satisfaction with the transportation function as
assessed by Richland Two central office administrators, school administrators and teachers.

Exhibit 8-3
Richland Two Two Teachers Compared to
Evergreen’s Survey
Survey Statement Richland Two Database
SA+A SD+D SA+A SD+D
26.51% 48.72% 12.27% 70.33%
34.41% 18.31% 45.03% 27.96%
54.28% 14.88% 55.59% 16.63%
effective.
33.48% 17.03% 26.69% 18.58%
buses.
Students do not feel safe riding school division buses. 16.38% 38.62% 10.27% 48.62%
Source: Evergreen Survey Results, 2011.
The remainder of this introductory section examines additional perceptions.
School transportation statistical data ending in the 2006-07 school year is the most recent
provided by the South Carolina Department of Education for comparison with selected peer
selected school districts. In conversation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation,
comparative data are not compiled every year because of the time required to complete this task
at the state and district level. Comparative data therefore, were not compiled by the State for
2007-08 or 2008-09. However, comparative data for 2009-10 is scheduled to be released in early
April. Comparative analysis of Richland Two Transportation unit with the five school districts is
derived from these sources along with other information and the on-site visit by the Evergreen
Team.
Exhibit 8-4 provides a peer comparison of student enrollment, transportation cost per student
enrollment, and state funding transportation cost per mile. The exhibit shows that in 2006-07,
Richland Two compared favorably with its peers with a student enrollment of 22,557 vice the
peer average of 21,943. Richland Two does considerably better than its peers on transportation
costs per total student being significantly below the peer average of $314.86. State funding for
student transportation cost per mile shows that Richland Two was above peer districts at a cost of
$2.15 compared to the peer average of $1.86 in the 2006-07 school year.

Exhibit 8-4
Transportation Statistics
Richland Two and Peer Districts
2006-07 School Year*
Transportation Costs State Funding Student

Student Per Total of Transportation Cost
School District Enrollment Student Enrollment Per Mile
Richland Two 22,557 $220.58 $2.15
Beaufort 19,276 $309.88 $1.81
Berkley 27,877 $334.45 $1.85
Dorchester Two 20,274 $299.45 $1.82
Richland One 24,663 $459.93 $1.77
Rock Hill (York Three) 17,009 $264.84 $1.75
Peer District Average 21,943 $314.86 $1.86
Source: South Carolina, Department of Education, 2011.
*latest data available from State of South Carolina.
Exhibit 8-5 shows Richland Two in excess of peer district for passenger per bus per year, except
Dorchester Two, and Richland Two is significantly above the peer district average. The Average
Route Miles/Minutes of 4.16 for Richland Two is the highest among its peer comparisons and is
significantly above the peer district average.
Exhibit 8-5
State Bus Use and Routes
2006-07 School Year
Passenger Per Route Minutes/ Daily Route Average Route

School District Bus Per Year Route or Trip Miles/Daily Trip Minutes/Mile
Richland Two 193 50 12.42 4.16
Beaufort 146 70 23.9 2.94
Berkley 155 81 25.03 3.23
Dorchester Two 230 60 16.76 3.57
Richland One 144 66 23.64 2.8
Rock Hill (York Three) 171 69 23.4 2.96
Peer District Average 173 66 20.9 3.3
Exhibit 8-6 shows a comparison of regular student routes, special needs routes, district permitted
100 percent district funded, regular and special needs buses (district-owned, and total buses used
with peer districts. Exhibit 8-6 shows that Richland Two compares favorably with its peer
districts in all variables cited.
Baseline data of 91 school buses shown for the 2006-07 school year have increased to 113 school
buses for 2010-11, according to data provided by the Richland Two Transportation unit. This
increase in school buses was necessary to transport an increasing student population. The
Transportation unit reported an increase of 247 students since the 2009-10 school year and this
trend is expected to continue as more families relocate to the Columbia area.

Exhibit 8-6
Regular and Special Needs Student Bus Transportation
2006-07 School Year
Regular and
Special District Permitted Special Needs
Regular Students Needs and 100 Percent Buses (district- Total
School District Routes Routes District Funded owned) Buses Used
Richland Two 70 21 0 0 91
Beaufort 103 20 3 16 142
Berkley 144 41 2 0 187
Dorchester Two 89 19 0 6 114
Richland One 120 46 0 15 181
Rock Hill (York Three) 65 17 0 3 85
Peer District Average 98.50 27.33 0.83 6.67 133.33
Exhibit 8-7 shows the use of state-owned buses miles, district-owned bus miles, total miles, and
miles per bus per year. These data afford transportation managers the opportunity to compare
the bus fleet mileage use with peer districts and to determine the effectiveness of bus fleet
management.
As can be seen, Exhibit 8-7 shows a favorable comparison of Richland Two with its peer
districts. Richland Two has the lowest state funded miles at 915,156 among its peer districts and
has the lowest total miles for all buses. This may be construed that effective management
practices are in effect at Richland Two that keep bus mileage low in the transportation of its
student population. Richland Two puts almost 12,000 miles per bus per year on its bus fleet
making this variable the lowest among its peer comparisons. Disciplined school bus mileage use
equates to additional vehicle life for the bus fleet.
Exhibit 8-7
Bus Miles
Richland Two Compared to Peer Districts
2006-07 School Year
District Other Miles Using Miles Per

State Funded Permitted District Owned Total Miles All Bus Per
School District Miles Miles Buses Buses Year
Richland Two 915,156 173,830 0 1,088,986 11,967
Beaufort 1,842,134 102,194 160,000 2,104,328 15,431
Berkley 2,869,837 468,070 0 3,337,907 17,850
Dorchester Two 1,942,015 109,921 60,000 2,111,936 18,999
Richland One 2,727,844 591,744 150,000 3,469,588 19,998
Rock Hill (York Three) 1,472,229 1735,637 30,000 1,537,866 18,389
Peer District Average 1,961,536 246,899 66,667 2,275,102 17,106

Exhibit 8-8 shows transportation funding and expenditures for Richland Two compared to peer
districts. Richland Two for the variable of total for all expenditures state and district amounts to
$4,975,684 and is second lowest among peer districts. In addition, it is below the peer district
average of $7,031,897.
Exhibit 8-8
Transportation Funding and Expenditures
2006-07 School Year
District Non Total All

State District $ Expenditures Percent Percent
Transportation Expenditures State and Funded By Funded By
School District Funded Services No State Funds District State District
Richland Two $42,531 $3,005,630 $4,975,684 39.59% 60.41%
Beaufort $195,522 $2,636,115 $5,973,294 55.87% 44.13%
Berkley $383,587 $4,020,767 $9,323,436 56.87% 43.13%
Dorchester Two $0 $2,537,603 $6,071,038 58.20% 41.80%
Richland One $0 $6,510,744 11,343,237 42.60% 57.40%
Rock Hill (York Three) $2,397 $1,927,827 $4,504,693 57.20% 42.80%
Peer District Average $104,006 $3,439,781 $7,031,897 51.72% 48.28%
Perhaps a most significant variable associated with student transportation services is the average
cost per student to ride the yellow bus on a daily basis. Exhibit 8-9 shows data on average cost
per student daily trip enrollment. The exhibit notes that there are both district funds and state
funds associated with daily transit service. As can be seen, Richland Two spent $171 per
student matched with $112 by the State for a total of $283 per student. This peer district average
was $328 for 2006-07 and the Richland Two average was $283. The average cost transporting its
students daily is less than the peer district average. However, during Evergreen on-site
discussions with Richland Two transportation personnel and a review of current transportation
expenditures, the cost for 2010-11 is estimated to have increased by 17 percent or $339 as
compared to $283 for 2006-07 school year. This is a $56 increase per student. These increases
are related to operational costs for fuel and personnel. Confronting fuel and operational costs
challenges, it will be important for transportation managers to take every opportunity to reduce
costs and improve operational efficiencies.
The preceding exhibits using South Carolina Department of Education data combined with
evaluations by central office administrators, school administrators, teachers and Evergreen on-
site observations show that Richland Two compares favorably with its peer districts.
Surveys, examination of verified data and information, numerous interviews with key personnel,
focus group sessions with bus drivers and bus monitors, data and information provided by the
Transportation unit, and other information are incorporated as necessary to present an assessment
of the Richland Two transportation function.

Exhibit 8-9
Average Cost per Student Daily Trip Enrollment
2006-07 School Year
District Funded Total State and

School District (non-state funds) State Funded District Funded
Richland Two $171 $112 $283
Beaufort $143 $181 $324
Berkley $139 $183 $322
Dorchester Two $102 $142 $244
Richland One $273 $203 $476
Rock Hill (York Three) $137 $184 $321
Peer District Average $161 $168 $328
The Transportation Department has some functions that could be improved and are
acknowledged in this chapter. Conversely, there are other areas that meet or exceed South
Carolina Department of Education and Richland Two standards and constitute best practices.
Making improvements recommended in this chapter could reduce costs, improve operations,
improve personnel retention, and increase efficiency.
8.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 8-10 illustrates the organizational structure of the Transportation Department. As can be
seen, the Transportation Manager is in charge of all transportation operations and as such is
responsible for what the Transportation unit does or fails to do. He is ultimately responsible for
routing and scheduling; field trips; personnel actions; vehicle repair and servicing; operation of
all transportation hubs; and all other transportation functions. He reports to the Executive
Director for Operations.
The Transportation Manager is in his third year. The Evergreen on-site team met with the
Transportation Manager several times. His job responsibilities include the following:
• supervising all aspects of the school transportation function;
• overseeing all training and staff development;
• overseeing transportation for field trips and activity events
• working collaboratively with school administrators to meet transportation needs;
• supervising and ensuring recruiting of bus drivers, substitute drivers and bus monitors;
and
• ensuring competent supervision and evaluation of bus drivers, substitute bus drivers,
monitors, and all other personnel assigned to the Transportation unit.

Exhibit 8-10
Richland Two
Transportation Organization Chart
2010-11 School Year
Manager
Transportation
Support Support
Specialist Supervisor
Safety Training
Officer
Routing
Specialist
Northeast Special Education Killian Activity Vehicles

Supervisor II* Support Services Supervisor II* Spring Valley
Supervisor II* Supervisor *
Supervisor 1 Supervisor 1 Supervisor 1 Supervisor 1 Administrative

Assistant
Administrative Administrative Administrative 9 Route buses

Assistant Assistant Assistant Activity vehicles:
5 van type
4 mid-size
8 transits
Source: Richland Two Transportation unit, 2011.

* The Northeast Supervisor II manages 23 buses; the Support Services Supervisor II manages 28 buses (all special needs buses);
the Killian Supervisor manages 39 buses; and the Activity Vehicles and Spring Valley Supervisor manages 9 buses regular
school buses and 17 activity vehicles. According to the organization chart provided by the Transportation unit, they use 99 of
113 buses for student transportation and the remaining 14 buses are spares.
FINDING
Centralizing special needs buses at the Spring Valley Transportation Hub is not functioning as it
should.
During the on-site visit, an Evergreen consultant rode school buses as a passenger observer. It
was observed by the Evergreen team member that special need buses did not meet State guidance
of 90-minute student ride time. For example, three special needs students were observed having
a student ride time in excess of two hours. This unacceptable student ride time is discussed in a
later section of this chapter with proposed recommended solutions. In addition, the Evergreen

on-site team held focus group sessions with school bus drivers and monitors. A majority of
school bus drivers reported having student ride times in excess of the State guidance of 90
minutes. A subsequent review of Richland Two routing and scheduling substantiated their
assertion of buses in excess of a 90-minute ride time for student transportation.
Evergreen examined special education bus transportation routes; and held interviews with the
Special Education Support Services Supervisor who manages special needs student
transportation, special needs bus drivers, and special education buses. From these sources, it is
determined special education transportation services for special needs students is deficient and
should be reorganized.
Examination of special needs bus transportation routes show a haphazard pattern to pick up and
discharge these students from their residence. The routing and scheduling of this student
population is a manual process because automated routing and scheduling are not in use by the
Transportation unit. Special needs buses are manually programmed and this results in haphazard
movement of these buses from one location to another within the district’s school transportation
area. In the process, buses crisscross the Northwest, Spring Valley, and Killian zones.
Transportation managers do not appear to have a full appreciation of the importance of providing
adequate transportation for special needs students. The Special Education Support Services
Supervisor is comfortable with the use of a three to five day window after notification by the
representative for the Executive Director for Special Services to provide transit service for a
student.
All special needs bus drivers responding to the Evergreen on-site questionnaire indicated that
their ride times picking up and discharging special needs students are excessive. In addition,
Evergreen made a random selection of a special needs bus and rode the route to observe. The
first student was picked up and subsequently discharged two hours and fifty minutes later at his
school. Few students on the bus came close to the 90-minute timeframe for student transportation
service mandated by the State of South Carolina.
The system of providing special needs students with bus transportation in Richland Two must be
improved. These students with special issues should have advocacy in Richland Two ensuring
they receive acceptable transportation service. Richland Two needs to monitor closely transit
service for this special student population to preclude possible litigation resulting from not
providing adequate service for these students in compliance with state and federal requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-1:
Decentralize the Special Education Support Services Section and provide more effective
school bus transportation service for special need students.
Richland Two should decentralize and relocate the Special Education Support Service Section
(now at Spring Valley), redistribute these buses and drivers to the three other hubs, and also:

• eliminate the positions of Support Services Supervisor II, Supervisor I, and the
Transportation Administrative Assistant;
• reorganize transportation special education zones among the three hubs and eliminate
haphazard transit service for special need students; and
• activate the authorized Supervisor II position and appoint the individual as Activity
Vehicles Spring Valley Supervisor responsible for the regular school and activity buses
functions. The position is authorized and funded, but has not been activated.
This recommendation can be implemented by more efficient routing and scheduling, and holding
supervisors responsible to effectively and efficiently provide special needs transportation service
for those students in their zone of responsibility and meet the 90-minute mandated State of
Carolina goal to transit these students. The proposed reorganization is shown in Exhibit 8-11.
Exhibit 8-11
Proposed Organization Chart
for the Transportation unit in Richland Two
Transportation
Manager
Support
Specialist Support
Supervisor
Safety Training
Officer
Routing
Specialist
Northeast Killian Activity Vehicles Spring

Supervisor II* Supervisor II* Valley Supervisor II
Administrative
Supervisor I Supervisor I Assistant
Supervisor I
9 Route buses
Administrative Activity vehicles:
Administrative
Assistant 5 van type
Assistant
4 mid-size
8 transits

*Under this reorganization, the Northeast Supervisor II would manage 32 buses, the Killian Supervisor II would
manage 49 buses, and the Activity Vehicles and Spring Valley Supervisor II would be given an additional 9 buses
increasing his management to 18 regular buses in addition to activity vehicles (including buses) for the district.

The redistribution of buses to the Northeast, Killian and Spring Valley transportation hubs would
be determined by number of students and bus routes in each respective hub. The number of buses
shown in Exhibit 8-13 is the approximate number of buses projected for each hub. The final
number of buses is the responsibility of the Transportation Manager who must consider the
number of students requiring transportation in each hub and the number of routes.
The current centralization of the 28 special needs buses is not effective. Richland Two has its
regular buses distributed among its three hubs to provide more efficient transportation for the
regular student population, reduce deadhead time, and to meet the 90-minute South Carolina
Department of Education mandate. The supervisors of the three hubs are knowledgeable in
providing student transit service and can perform more efficient routing and scheduling for
special need students in a decentralized mode as well.
The implementation of this recommendation should provide acceptable transportation service for
special needs students and generate cost savings.
FISCAL IMPACT
Decentralizing the specials needs transportation function and relocating buses among the three
hubs results in the Spring Valley Special Education Support Services Section no longer being
needed. The three supervisors (Northwest, Killian and Spring Valley) will assume special needs
transportation responsibility in their respective zones of responsibility. Accordingly, the Support
Services Supervisor II, Supervisor I, and Administrative Assistant, currently responsible for
special needs transportation at the Spring Valley facility, are no longer needed. Salary
calculations for eliminating positions of the Support Service Supervisor II (salary - $46,618.64),
Supervisor I (salary - $41,472.00), and administrative assistant (salary - $27,748) including 33
percent benefits as shown below.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Support
$62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000 $62,000
Service Supervisor II
Eliminate Supervisor I $55,154 $55,154 $55,154 $55,154 $55,154
Eliminate
$36,072 $36,072 $36,072 $36,072 $36,072
Administrative Assistant
TOTAL SAVINGS $153,226 $153,226 $153,226 $153,226 $153,226
FINDING
Drivers and other workers in transportation receive full benefits. During Evergreen on-site
interviews with transportation personnel and focus group meetings with bus drivers and bus
driver monitors, these benefits were identified as being positive.
Richland Two and other school districts in South Carolina with full-time employment and
benefits to include retirement are unique. This is a significant accomplishment compared to
many other school districts throughout the nation.

COMMENDATION
School bus drivers and other transportation personnel are classified as full-time employees
with benefits.
FINDING
Special needs students are not being provided timely transportation upon completion of the
individualized education (IEP) plan.
The Support Service Supervisor is responsible for special needs student transportation.
Transportation service is provided to this student population within three to five days after the
Supervisor is notified by a representative from the Office of Special Services. Richland Two
student transportation service for special education students is not timely.
At issue is at what point in the IEP process are transportation and other support services notified
and the date to begin services. Senior mangers indicated a willingness to take steps to remedy
the problem. School districts must ensure that student transportation services and the special
needs manager work closely in supporting the special needs population. Essentially the
resolution is for these managers to work together and determine a competent and workable
transit alert notification process in order to have sufficient reaction time to meet the needs of this
special student population.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-2:
Provide more timely response to the transportation of special education students.
The Transportation Manager should be given sufficient time to begin transit service for special
need students upon completion of the IEP. The problem of special needs students not being
provided timely transportation upon completion of the individualized education (IEP) plan
should be resolved. The Transportation Manager should meet with the Executive Director of
Special Services and remedy the problem.
FISCAL IMPACT
8.2 EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

The Richland Two Transportation unit does not have adequate performance measures to monitor
its operations.
The Transportation Manager provided a verbal description of how the Transportation unit
measures its performance. He indicated the Transportation unit assesses training, cost efficiency,
pickup and delivery of students, training, and other related measures. These variables describe

functions of the Transportation unit, but they do not document a process for monitoring
performance measures for continuous improvement.
Evergreen, in discussions with the Transportation Manager and supervisors, observed practices
that could be used to strengthen and improve existing safety, cost effectiveness, training, and
performance. Exhibit 8-12 provides examples of performance areas and performance indicators
which Richland Two could improve existing management tools.
Exhibit 8-12
Recommended Performance Indicators for
Safety, Cost Effectiveness, Training, and
Maintenance Performance
PERFORMANCE AREA PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Safety • Accidents per 100,000 miles
• Incidents per 100,000 miles
• Pre-performance and post performance bus operations vehicle checks
• Safety Orientations
Cost Effectiveness • Average rider trip time in minutes
• Driver absentee rate
• On-time performance
• Open routes due to unfilled positions
• Operation cost per mile for buses and other vehicles
• Bus and vehicle replacement costs
• Fuel (amount used and cost)
• Cost associated with substitute driver procurement
• Labor hours and labor costs
Training • Driver Training
• Safety Training
• Bus Driver and bus monitors student discipline training
Maintenance Performance • Operational rate/percentage for buses and vehicles
• Driver requested bus repairs
• Effectiveness of support maintenance
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-3:
Implement additional performance indicators to more effectively assess efficiency,

effectiveness, and the performance of the transportation operation.
Performance indicators are important to assess and evaluate efficiency, effectiveness, and
accomplishments of the Transportation unit. These indicators may be benchmarked against state
and national standards as well as with peer school districts.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.

FINDING
Richland Two does not have a computer kiosk for transportation and other classified personnel to
access financial records and other personnel information at their work site.
The Payroll and Accounts Payable Managers indicated that though approval for the kiosk had
been made, the kiosk had not been installed. Subsequent discussions with the Chief Financial
Officer addressed the kiosk issue. He spoke with the Payroll and Accounts Payable Manager and
subsequent steps were being taken to correct the situation.
Bus drivers, bus monitors, other classified personnel working at one of the three transportation
bus hubs encounter difficulty accessing their financial and personnel information. To alleviate
the condition, Richland Two planned to install a kiosk at one of the transportation bus hubs. The
kiosk is to be set up so the user inserting his/her secure pin number would be able to access
his/her account.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-4:
Install and maintain a computer kiosk in the Transportation unit for use by transportation
and other classified personnel at this location.
The implementation of this recommendation assures transportation and classified personnel at

Transportation unit hubs that they would have a kiosk for their use to access their financial and
other personnel information. See Chapter 4 for recommended improvements in the automated
timekeeping system.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Richland Two purchases its activity buses; these buses are not provided by the State of South
Carolina. Activity buses are painted a blue and white pattern distinguishing them from the rest
of the yellow bus fleet. Evergreen evaluated activity fleet records, and interviewed teachers and
principals on activity bus support for their assessment of support by activity buses for their field
trips and extracurricular activities. These employees were uniform in their praise of the
Transportation unit responding to their requests for the use of activity buses. Drivers provided
for these services were reported by principals as exceptional in performing transportation
services of taking and returning students to events in a safe and professional manner.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for an innovative and responsive program enhancing activity
buses and bus driver availability to support field trips and extracurricular activities.

8.3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Evergreen conducted an examination of policies and procedures. Policies on bus routing and
scheduling, school bus safety program, school bus replacement and spare buses were reviewed.
A brief synopsis of transportation policies and procedures currently in effect include:
• School Bus Safety Program. States that all buses and other vehicles owned and operated
by the district will be inspected for safety in accordance with the regulations prescribed
by the South Carolina Department of Education. Policy update recommended.
• School Bus Replacement. Acknowledges the South Carolina Department of Education

supplies all school buses and controls school bus replacement.
• Spare Bus Policy. The number of spare buses (normally ten percent) is used by the South
Carolina Department of Education to issue spares. Richland Two policy needs to be more
proactive to justify spare buses for its fleet.
• School Bus Routing and Scheduling. Stipulates bus scheduling and routing will be in
compliance with the regulations of the South Carolina Department of Education. Policy
update recommended. (This procedure is discussed in Section 8.4).
The above policies and procedures are important for a successful transportation operation. If
managed prudently, they can produce cost savings for Richland Two.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-5:
Conduct a regular review of transportation policies and procedures for accuracy and
applicability, and revise when needed.
Sound planning, policies and procedures are essential function to managing the transportation
operation. They provide managers, supervisors, and workers with guidelines to more effectively
and efficiently execute their responsibilities. The Transportation Manager should review these
policies and procedures annually.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
There is misunderstanding in the Transportation unit about workers’ compensation procedures.
Evergreen discussed workers’ compensation with the Transportation Manager and supervisors
and its impact on the Transportation unit. At issue is filling the positions of Transportation unit
bus drivers and other personnel on workers’ compensation. It is the understanding of the

Transportation Manager and transportation supervisors that they could not fill the positions of
those not working or unable to perform their jobs due to being on workers’ compensation.
Managers believe that the position has to remain unfilled until the person returns. At time of the
on-site visit, there were six bus driver positions that were not being filled temporarily due to the
Transportation unit’s understanding of the process as explained above.
Subsequent discussions were held with the Human Resources Director for Classified Personnel
and the Risk Management Coordinator. From these meetings, it was determined there was a
misunderstanding and that when personnel are on workers’ compensation it is expected their
positions are to be filled on a temporary basis. In other words, the six unfilled bus driver
positions could and should be temporarily filled with the understanding that if and when the
individual on workers’ compensation returned to work, he /she could reclaim the position. Prior
to departure of the Evergreen Team, the Transportation Manager initiated action to begin filling
the bus driver positions with temporary workers.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-6:
Ensure that issues involving workers’ compensation are imbedded in standard operating
procedures, and provide transportation managers with the procedures for workers’
compensation.
The implementation of this recommendation should resolve the misunderstanding in Richland

Two about workers’ compensation.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The school bus training and safety program in Richland Two meets South Carolina Department
of Education standards.
The Transportation unit safety program begins with the driver certification and qualification
program, and is reinforced in annual in-service training required of all drivers. In discussions
with the Safety and Training Specialist and a review of safety and training, Evergreen found that
the safety driver training includes:
• defensive driving;
• accident review procedures;
• evaluation/emergency equipment;
• accident/breakdowns;
• first aid and fire extinguisher use;
• hostage awareness; and
• special needs equipment.

There is also training on student loading and unloading, student relations, CPR/choking
procedures, student management scenarios, violence prevention, and student control. In the area
of safety management, Richland Two collects accident data by rate of per 100,000 miles. Safety
posters are in conspicuous locations at all transportation hubs and, during bus driver focus
groups, drivers were found to be knowledgeable of training and safety.
COMMENDATION
The Richland Two Training and Safety Program for transportation employees is
commendable.
FINDING
The bus replacement policy for Richland Two exceeds the nationally recommended norm of a
12-year life cycle for the school bus fleet.
Bus replacement is an important policy that school boards must establish. The South Carolina
Department of Education determines the age of the school bus fleet because the State purchases
buses, and issues them to school districts. Thus, the State determines the number of buses, age
of bus fleets, operational buses for student transportation, and the number of spare buses. School
Bus Fleet Magazine and nationally recognized experts suggest school districts maintain not more
than a 12-year replacement policy. This means that the average age of all buses in the fleet
should not be more than 12-years old (some may be older and some younger in age). However,
terrain, maintenance support and other factors may dictate that a school district have an 11-year
or younger bus replacement policy.
In establishing a bus replacement policy, the Board and Superintendent should consider the
recommendation of the Transportation Manager, state availability of buses, funds, safety, and
bus maintenance support. School boards cannot be complacent with aging bus fleets. The
Richland Two bus fleet is slightly over 15 years old and could be improved by purging older
buses from the fleet and adding new buses to improve age and operational efficiency. Such
action would require state support.
Richland Two does not purchase its buses; they are purchased by the State and subsequently
issued to the district. This situation does not preclude the district from raising this issue with
appropriate state officials to improve this condition. Notwithstanding, the district should have a
dialogue with the South Carolina Department of Education and explore options to receive new
buses from the State, purge older buses, and improve the age and bus replacement status of its
fleet.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-7:
Initiate a dialogue with the Department of Education and take positive action developing a
strategy to improve bus replacement in Richland Two.

Richland Two should be more proactive in advising the State that it does not want to use buses
that have excessive age. This dialogue should include the Superintendent, Board, and elected
state and local officials.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Spare buses are used to replace any bus that may have a mechanical malfunction or other cause
rendering it inoperable to transport students. Spare buses also provide field trip and
extracurricular transit support. The normally recognized variable for spare buses in any fleet is
ten percent. Richland Two has 113 buses in its inventory, as shown in Exhibit 8-13, of which 71
buses transport regular students, 28 buses transport special needs students, and the remaining 14
vehicles are spares.
Exhibit 8-13
Buses in Current Inventory in Richland Two
Regular/Special Education and Spare Buses
2010-11 School Year
14 Spares Buses
71 Buses for Regular Students

28 Buses for Special Ed
Source: Prepared by Evergreen from information provided by the

Richland Two Transportation unit, 2011.
Ten percent of the 113 buses in the fleet generates 11.3 or 11-12 spare buses. With a Richland
Two spare bus policy of ten percent (allowing for 12 spares), there are two excess spare buses.
Richland Two may elect to keep the two extra buses should it determine they are justified.
The spare bus policy should be reviewed and adjusted as the number of buses in the fleet change.
The Board should work with the South Carolina Department of Education and adjust the
Richland Two ten percent spare bus policy to the desired 14 buses. The spare bus policy should
be reviewed regularly by the School Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-8:
Reduce the number of spare buses from 14 to 12, and return the extra two buses to the
South Carolina Department of Education.

Operating extra buses is costly and should be avoided. Some school districts want extra buses
beyond what is operationally required because it provides a cushion. Effective Transportation
units use only the number of spare buses required. Reducing the spare bus fleet by two buses is
justified.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Transportation unit should return the two oldest buses in the fleet to the State. Since the
state owns the buses, there would be no cost savings for Richland Two.
FINDING
The Richland Two Transportation unit is optimizing passenger bus capacity to transport its
student population.
School bus capacity involves the prudent use for assigning the number of students who will
occupy a seat on a bus, and taking into consideration bus capacity of the vehicle (the seats on a
bus are designed to accommodate a certain number of passengers). The Evergreen Team found
that Richland Two is effectively making use of student seating on buses.
The Richland Two Transportation unit provided data shown in Exhibit 8-14 on bus capacity for
its bus fleet.
Exhibit 8-14
Richland Two
School Bus Capacity Utilization
2010-11 School Year
BUS NUMBER OF TOTAL BUS

PASSENGER BUSES BY SEATING
SIZE PASSENGER SIZE CAPACITY
60 9 540
62 4 248
65 10 650
66 6 396
70 5 350
27 3 81
72 12 864
78 37 2,889
12 2 24
13 1 13
14 5 70
16 4 64
27 3 81
33 10 330
35 5 175
TOTAL 113 6,775
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions from Richland Two
Transportation data, 2011.

COMMENDATION
The Transportation unit assigns an adequate number of students on school buses and
makes prudent use of passenger seating on school buses.
FINDING
Richland Two Transportation unit has adequately documented procedures used by transportation
staff.
It is important that procedures used to execute the transportation function are documented.
Documentation provides easy reference for transportation personnel to use as guidance in
performing their responsibilities. The Transportation Manager has documented procedures for
the following:
• School bus incident procedures. These procedures address student infractions on buses
and disciplinary action taken. They integrate actions taken by bus drivers, school
administrators, and teachers, and are required by the central office.
• Maintenance. The maintenance arrangement between the State of South Carolina and
Richland Two for vehicle maintenance, state-required inspections, preventive
maintenance, and other support maintenance are performed by the State.
• Performance of daily pre-trip and post-trip by bus drivers. Bus drivers are required to
execute pre-trip and post-trip inspections of their buses and use guidelines set forth in the
driver training guide provided by the Department of Education and Department of Motor
Vehicles. Any problems found during these inspections, which can not be resolved by
drivers, are recorded and buses are sent to the state maintenance facility for repair.
• Field activity and extracurricular activities procedures. These procedures support

school bus policy and detail how trips are initiated, who can initiate field trip, support
provided by the Transportation unit, and compensation for bus drivers.
COMMENDATION
The Transportation Manager values the importance of standardized procedures.
FINDING
Richland Two has acceptable traffic policies and procedures.
Traffic policies and procedures are essential for efficient and effective bus fleet operations in any
school district. The Transportation unit reports that, for the 2009-10 school year, the combined
mileage for its school bus fleet was 1.83 million miles. The operation used an average of 103
buses on 589 bus routes with a transportation budget of $4,936,577. The district purchases and
maintains a fleet of activity buses to support field trips and extracurricular activities. In 2009-10,

activity buses traveled over 88,710 miles, repairs amounted to over $111,790, and fuel costs
were reported at $77,000. These transportation miles and operational costs demand that
Richland Two enforce sound traffic policies and procedures.
During Evergreen’s on-site visit, Richland Two traffic policies and procedures were examined.
These include:
• School Bus Routing and Scheduling. The focus is on organizing and implementing bus
scheduling and routing on major roads and side roads to pick up and discharge students.
Transportation unit personnel personally inspect each student pick-up and discharge point
to ensure that it is safe and that buses can execute the route in a safe and efficient manner
in keeping with traffic policies and procedures.
• Special Use of School Buses. Stipulates the use of buses for purposes other than
transporting children for the regular school hours is permitted with prior approval of the
Superintendent in accordance with regulations pertaining to field trips and extracurricular
activities. Traffic policies and procedures also ensure that the Superintendent or his/her
designee be responsible for the approval of the use of any buses for and purposes other
than transportation of student to and from school for regular school hours. The
submission process for teachers requesting buses for field trips and extracurricular
activities are covered. Community members desiring use of school buses are to submit
requests in writing to the Superintendent. Administrative guidelines are included.
• Student Transportation Services. Policy states that the district may provide for the
necessary transportation of students under conditions stipulated by the Code of South
Carolina, regulations of the South Carolina Board of Education, and policies and
regulations of the school board. Under these circumstances, it indicates conditions under
which student traffic policies and procedures impact the location of student pick-up and
discharge, because only those students authorized will be provided transportation
services.
• School Bus Safety Program. States that all buses and other vehicles owned and operated
by the district will be inspected for safety in accordance with the regulations prescribed
by the Department of Education. Accident reporting and prohibition of using any
telecommunications devices (bus radios on buses excluded) on school buses except in
case of emergency is emphasized.
• Bus Driver Orientation of Bus Routes. Prior to running his/her bus route, bus drivers
are required to perform a reconnaissance of the bus route to ensure familiarity of the
route and knowledge of traffic policies and procedures relating to his/her route.
• Safety. The Safety Specialist and Transportation Manager are required to assess traffic
policies and procedures at each transportation hub. Emphasis is on safety and movement
of buses and other vehicles in and around the three transportation hubs. Bus drivers are
trained to be safety conscious operating their vehicles in the congested area of school bus
transportation hubs.

• Training. During operation of school buses picking up and discharging students, bus
drivers are trained in defensive driving and what to do when confronted with reckless
drivers.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 8-9:
Continue to enforce acceptable traffic policies and procedures.
Effective traffic policies and procedures are important to any school district because they help
ensure practical application by vehicle operators, reduce accidents, and improve safety.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
There are inconsistent and unsafe school bus loading and unloading procedures at some schools
in Richland Two.
School bus loading and unloading at some schools are not as productive or efficient as they
should be. In several instances it was observed that simply switching the bus loading/unloading
vehicle loops with car loading/unloading vehicle loops could solve this issue. At Langford
Elementary School, for example, the car rider’s loop uses a section that would prove more
productive if it was to become the school bus loading/unloading loop. Buses on the current loop
are congested due to the shorter loop and load/unload one bus at a time. This impacts the bell
schedule and forces school buses to operate behind schedule because of additional time spent at
Langford.
It was observed that several schools do not use the bus loading/unloading loops to discharge or
pick-up special need(s) students. At several schools, special need buses use other locations at the
schools for student discharge and pick-up. These locations were found to be at the rear or side of
the school. After or before discharging special need students, buses have to move forward and
backwards to get in a favorable position. This is done without a guide outside the bus to direct
bus movement. This is dangerous for students in the area walking to school. When bus drivers
were queried on why they use these locations that should be considered unauthorized, they reply
that principals required non-bus loops to load/unload special need students.
School principals have tremendous influence on the loading and unloading of school buses at
their schools. In interviews and focus group with school bus drivers and Transportation unit
personnel, loading and unloading problems were cited as existing at Windsor Elementary School,
Summit Parkway Middle School, Spring Valley High School and Richland Northeast High
School. Evergreen discussed school bus loading/unloading with school administrators at several
schools. It is noted that school administrators responded to the survey statement “students are
often late arriving and/or departing from school because the buses do not arrive to school on

time” in Exhibit 8-2 at the beginning of this chapter⎯63.3 percent of school administrators and
48.7 percent of school principals strongly disagree with the statement.
However, in the random sample of school administrators interviewed by Evergreen Solutions

they were overwhelming in their satisfaction with school bus arrival and departure times. Their
personal comments reflected satisfaction with school bus service with only an occasional
reference to arrival of buses and extremely high praise for bus drivers. From these interviews, it
became evident that decisions on prioritizing and use of school bus loops may be driven by what
satisfies parents on priority of use competing with safety and efficiency issues not in the best
interest of Richland Two. For example, it was observed at two schools that some automobiles
used the same bus loops used by school buses to load/unload students. It is not prudent for
automobiles to use bus loops for obvious safety reasons.
There are strong indications that school administrators and the Transportation Manager need to
dialogue on the most convenient and safe manner to use school and automobile bus loops.
Current practices at some Richland Two schools should be reviewed and revised. The
Superintendent or her designated representative working with school administrators, and the
Transportation Manager should examine each school loading/unloading (including special needs)
process and procedures to determine if they meet standards of safety and efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
Examine each school’s loading and unloading plan, and determine if it meets safety and
efficiency standards set by the district.
This recommendation is important to ensure school bus loading/unloading plans at schools are
consistent, take advantage of each school’s physical plant, are carefully planned, and in the best
interest and safety of Richland Two students. Combined meetings of school administrators and
the Transportation Manager should result in sound traffic procedures relating to the
loading/unloading of students.
FISCAL IMPACT
8.4 ROUTING
Richland Two has not implemented an automated, computer-based routing and scheduling
system to manage bus routes and student pickup points.
The Transportation Manager has primary responsibility for all routing and scheduling of student
transit services. This is accomplished using a manual process that has not changed over the
years. The Transportation Manager reported using pre-existing routes from prior years, adding
any new students to be transported, and deleting those no longer requiring transit services due to
graduation, transfer or other reasons. Changes are made as required for new students or those no
longer qualified for transportation. Bus routes are adjusted accordingly using a manual process.

The routing and scheduling of bus operations is decentralized. The three transportation hubs
perform routing and scheduling independently and submit the routes in their respective zones to
the Routing and Scheduling Specialist where they are consolidated. The routing and scheduling
at each transportation hub is also performed manually.
Exhibit 8-15 shows the number of morning, afternoon, and mid-day routes.
Exhibit 8-15
Regular and Special Needs Bus Routes
2010-11 School Year
Regular Special Need Special Need

Students Regular Students Students Students Special Needs
Morning/am Afternoon/pm Morning/am Afternoon/pm Mid-Day Total
Daily
228 228 44 41 15 556
Morning
228 44 272
Afternoon
228 41 15 284
Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2011.
As can be seen, the Transportation unit performs a total of 556 bus routes daily. Of the 556 bus
routes, 272 are performed in the morning and 284 in the afternoon.
Exhibit 8-16 shows all categories of students (regular, special needs and homeless students)
provided transportation services. The Transportation Department uses a combination of
conventional buses for regular students and specially equipped buses for its special needs
population. Homeless students are provided transportation primarily by commercial taxi cabs.
Exhibit 8-16
Regular, Special Needs, and Homeless Students Transported
2010-11 School Year
Number of Number of
Students Buses Or Other
Student Category Transported Mode
Regular Student 10,550 71
Special Needs Students 540 28
Homeless Student 124 Taxi
Total 11,214 99
. Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, 2011.
The Transportation unit reports that it plans to integrate Power School and US Computing for
automating routing and scheduling. According to an industry analysis conducted by School Bus
Magazine, computerized bus routing software can be used effectively in school districts “with at
least 2,500 students”.
A school district in North Carolina with a bus fleet of 250 was able to park 60 of its buses after
making changes suggested by the computer program. An even smaller district in Westchester

County, New York with a bus fleet of 45 buses was able to park some of its buses after installing
a computerized routing system.
Richland Two incurs additional transportation costs each day by not implementing an automated
computerized routing system.
Evergreen offers the information in Exhibit 8-17 of vendors who have systems for automating
school bus routing and scheduling.
Exhibit 8-17
Routing and Scheduling Software Vendors
COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE
NAME OF VENDOR VENDOR NAME AND LOCATION NUMBER
Bustops MicroAnalytics, Ontario, Canada 416-691-3541
Edulog Education Logistics, Missoula, MT 406-728-0893
MapNet Ecotran Corporation, Beachwood, OH 352-546-2614
Transfinder Forth & Associates, Ltd., Schenectady, NY 518-377-3609
Versa Trans Creighton Manning, Delmar, NY 800-433-5530
As stated, currently the supervisors at the Northeast, Spring Valley, Killian, and Spring Valley
Support Services do routing and scheduling for their respective areas of responsibility. They all
use a manual process. This information is then submitted to the Routing Specialist, who under
the supervision of the Support Supervisor, compiles the routing and scheduling information into
a centralized mode for the Transportation Manager.
School Bus Fleet Magazine, computer experts, and other school districts throughout the country
report at least a ten to 15 percent or more reduction in routes is achievable initially using
automated route scheduling to manage bus routes and student pickup points. Richland Two is
capable of achieving not less than a 15 percent reduction in its routing and scheduling of school
buses.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement automated routing and scheduling not later than the 2011-12 school year, and
achieve costs savings by reducing five buses and five bus driver positions.
Richland County is mostly urban, and therefore provides the opportunity to initially achieve at
least a 15 percent reduction of its school bus routes. Richland Two executes 556 bus routes. The
15 percent reduction should be based on reduction of 272 routes by 15 percent or 40 routes and
this equates to 5.5 buses.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since buses are owned by the State of South Carolina, they would be returned to the State with
no cost savings for Richland Two. The average salary for the bus driver is $14,580 plus benefits
of 33 percent times five which is $72,900.

Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Eliminate Five Bus
$72,900 $72,900 $72,900 $72,900 $72,900
Driver Positions
8.5 MAINTENANCE AND FUEL

Pre-operation and post-operation bus maintenance checks at the Northeast and Killian
transportation hubs are exceptional.
Evergreen observed pre-operations bus maintenance checks by bus drivers of their vehicles at the
Northeast transportation hub during the early morning hours. Initially all bus drivers were
observed checking exterior lighting including headlights, flashing warning lights, tires and visual
inspection. This was followed by checking engine fluid levels (oil, transmission, water, etc.) to
ensure operational acceptable levels. Drivers then checked the inside of their vehicle lighting,
and instruments, and then started their buses to provide heating prior to commencing their bus
route.
Evergreen observed post-operations bus maintenance checks performed by bus drivers at the
Killian bus transportation hub. Upon returning their buses to the transportation hub, all bus
drivers checked lighting, and fuel and engine fluid levels (oil, transmission, water, etc.), and then
conducted a physical inspection on the outside and inside (to ensure no child was still on board)
of their vehicles. The buses were in their assigned parking slot during post-operations
maintenance checks.
COMMENDATION
The Northeast and Killian bus drivers are commended for conducting outstanding pre-
and post-operation bus vehicle maintenance operational checks of their assigned buses.
FINDING
The Spring Valley hub was also observed by the Evergreen consultant. Maintenance checks at
this hub were less than satisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION
Enforce pre- and post-operations maintenance checks by bus drivers at the Spring Valley
hub, emphasize the importance to conduct this required procedure, and not to leave busses
running unattended.
Conducting daily pre- and post-bus operation checks by bus drivers is not only sound
maintenance management practice, it is also important to student safety. Pre- and post-bus
operation maintenance checks by bus drivers on a daily basis is one of the most important
functions conducted in school districts.

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Fuel accountability procedures and security for the gas refueling pump used by warehouse and
ground support personnel are deficient.
The fuel pump for use by warehouse, maintenance, and grounds personnel was found by
Evergreen to be unsecured. The diesel fuel tank record is located in the warehouse area with the
key to the diesel pump attached inside the book. Diesel fuel tank record keeping is not effective;
the key to the fuel pump is available to anyone since it is not secured. This was brought to the
attention of the Transportation Manager and the Executive Director of Operations who observed
the situation and initiated prompt corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION
Secure fuel operations and security at the Spring Valley fuel pump used by warehouse and
ground support personnel.
It is imperative that stringent efforts are enforced and maintained for fuel accountability and
security. Stringent measures not only ensure accountability, they also protect against pilferage
and negative acts designed to cause damage to fuel storage and disposition sites.
FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Control and security of transportation school bus fueling operations are exceptional.
Fuel pumps for refueling buses are secured and have automated accountability procedures to
identify who refueled, the amount of fuel dispensed, date and time of refueling, and aggregate
amount of fuel for the vehicle.
The Transportation Manager has charged the Warehouse Supply Supervisor with responsibility
for all school bus transportation refueling operations. During Evergreen’s on-site visit, this
supervisor provided well-documented records on transportation security and control of
transportation fueling operations. This individual does not have responsibility for warehouse and
ground support fueling operations. It was found that all school bus drivers requiring refueling are
issued a card that must be inserted into the automated system at the refueling point. This could
initiate the automated accountability procedures described above. The automated fuel security
and control operation eliminate the possibility of misuse or pilferage of fuel for buses.

COMMENDATION
The accountability and security of the transportation fuel operations are commendable.
FINDING
The vehicle bus parking hubs facilities at Northwest, Killian, and Spring Valley do not have
vehicle and bus washing facilities or oil-water separators.
School buses are washed in the open from water sources at the bus parking facility hubs; there is
runoff of oil and gases spilled at these locations. Oil separators are devices commonly used as a
method to separate oils from a variety of wastewater discharges that collects oil, fuels, anti-
freeze, and other spills or discharges common to bus fleet parking locations. The parking hub
facilities do not have adequate vehicle wash facilities or a water treatment system to collect oil
and other contaminants when buses are washed. Evergreen observed that bus wash run-off was
allowed to enter storm drains and seep into adjacent soil.
Section 301, 33 USC 131, Effluent Limitations of the Clean Water Act, prohibits a point source
discharge into waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. Discharge of industrial wastewater is regulated in the State of South
Carolina augmenting United States law. Vehicle washing that allows wash water to flow into a
storm drain is prohibited without a NPDES permit. Failure to treat oil and other contaminants is
violation of U.S. law and State of South Carolina environmental regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Install oil-water separators at all three vehicle parking hub facilities.
All Richland Two bus-washing areas should be connected to oil-water separators. The
Transportation Manager, with assistance from facilities management, should prepare a
maintenance facility action upgrade plan for oil-water separator installation at each
Transportation unit bus parking hub immediately.
FISCAL IMPACT
Oil-separator units vary in cost depending on size and area to service. Commercial sales for a oil
separator of the size and capacity to service a Richland Two transportation hub sells for
approximately $15,000. The cost of three oil separators is $45,000 and does not include
installation that could be completed by Richland Two Support Services Unit. Installation is
estimated at $4,000 each.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Purchase Three
Commercial Oil ($45,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Separators
Install Three Oil
($12,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Separators
TOTAL COSTS ($57,000) $0 $0 $0 $0

8.6 STUDENT DISCIPLINE

Student discipline on buses is a problem in Richland Two.
Richland Two central office administrators, school administrators and teachers indicated in
Exhibits 8-1 through 8-3 indicate that bus drivers are not effectively handling discipline
problems on school buses and bus ride times are too long.
The school bus is an extension of the classroom and as discipline is resolved in the classroom it
should also be resolved on buses as an extension of the classroom. Evaluations by central office
administrators, school administrators and most teachers about discipline issues on school buses
are often based on perception and not observation. During Evergreen interviews and focus
groups held with bus drivers, it was pointed out that these employees do not make periodic visits
to the transportation hubs and rarely if ever do they ride a school bus to observe discipline issues
on school buses.
Perceptions about discipline on school buses come from reports provided by bus drivers. Bus
drivers may write-up a student who misbehaves on a bus and provide the incident report to the
school the student attends. The incident report is documented and the results of discipline
measures imposed by school officials are provided to the Transportation unit. Some schools have
a good reputation enforcing corrective action for student incidents on buses and some do poorly.
Employees must work together in a team effort to reduce student discipline issues on Richland
Two school buses.
RECOMMENDATION
Improve student discipline on school buses.
Recommended actions to reduce discipline issues on school buses include:
• Principals should take expeditious action on student bus incident reports provided by bus
drivers (24-hour turnaround). The message should be sent to students that
nonconforming behavior is not tolerated in school or on school buses.
• Principals, teachers, bus drivers, and bus driver monitors should be encouraged to
develop a more collegial relationship.
• Bus service for students who are chronic school discipline problems should not be
provided.
Implementing policy in recommended actions will alleviate the current problem of discipline
problems on school buses that, if unchecked, will lead to more serious issues. The school bus is
an extension of the classroom and student discipline on buses should require prompt action by
Richland Two employees.

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
The use of radios and cameras on school buses is effective.
All school buses in the fleet had working cameras and radios. The use of radios provides bus
drivers with the capability to maintain radio contact with the Transportation unit. This action
provides the opportunity for the bus driver to receive important information while completing
his/her bus route. For example, Evergreen observed a bus driver received two radio
transmissions from the base station reporting that two students on the route would not be going
to school. This information provided the bus driver with up-to-date information, and she did not
have to stop at those student pickup points. Conversely, radio communications provide drivers
with a source to report any problems, emergencies, or accidents.
The use of cameras is very useful to providing documented evidence on any student discipline
issues on school buses. It is a valuable tool for use in Richland Two.
COMMENDATION
The installation and use of radios and cameras on school buses in Richland Two is
commendable.
8.7 RECOGNITION
FINDING
The elimination of work attendance and other incentive award programs for bus drivers in
Richland Two has impacted adversely on morale.
Exhibit 8-18 compiled from data provided by Richland Two show the number of full-time, part-
time, substitute bus drivers, and bus monitors.
Exhibit 8-18
Full-time, Substitute Drivers and School Bus Monitors
Richland Two
2010-11 School Year
Full-time Part-time Substitute School Bus Part-time

Drivers Drivers Drivers Monitors Monitors
121 11 16 12 15

As stated previously, full-time bus drivers and other transportation personnel receive benefits,
this is a significant morale booster. Yet, there are other issues of concern to bus drivers and
other transportation personnel that deserve attention by transportation managers.
For several years, cash awards for perfect work attendance (not missing any days of work) was
awarded to bus drivers and other transportation personnel. The cash award was $100. It was
reported by bus drivers and transportation managers that Richland Two made a decision to
discontinue the award.
Discontinuing the award appears to have resulted in a corresponding increase of bus drivers
being absent from work. When bus drivers are absent, their routes must be filed by substitute
drivers who are paid the prevailing wage for replacing bus drivers. According to data provided
by the Richland Two Transportation unit, $7,900 was paid to bus drivers for perfect attendance
in 2009-10. It is reported that there has been a rise in absenteeism in 2010-11. As stated, when
bus drivers are absent they are replaced by substitute drivers and payment to these individuals is
estimated to exceed the perfect attendance awards.
The average beginning pay for a six-hour day for a substitute driver is $12.40 or $74.40 for the
day. Being extremely conservative, and estimating three substitute drivers employed each day for
the 180-day school year, amounts to $40,176 versus the approximately $7,500 awarded as part of
the Richland Two bus driver work attendance program. It may be economically advantageous
for the district to restart the perfect bus driver work attendance program.
In addition, during Evergreen’s on-site visit, focus group sessions and interviews with bus
drivers and school monitors resulted in a recurring theme expressed by these employees that
there is lack of recognition for their services. They stated that there are few award recognition
programs in Richland Two focusing on their contributions.
School districts throughout the nation have bus driver recognition programs giving bus drivers
and transportation personnel recognition for their achievements. Exhibit 8-19 shows some
recognition initiatives being considered by the Transportation Manager for use in Richland Two.
RECOMMENDATION
Reinstitute the bus driver work attendance recognition award program and implement
transportation recognition awards currently being considered.
The implementation of this recommendation will achieve a cost savings and also implement
additional considerations recognizing bus drivers and bus monitors for their accomplishments. In
addition, since this was a major discussion with drivers and monitors in focus group sessions,
positive action implementing this recommendation sends recognition from senior managers that
their voices are being heard.

Exhibit 8-19
Possible Transportation Recognition Awards
for Richland Two
Type of Recognition Description of Recognition

Bus Driver of the Month Post in a prominent area of the Transportation Department, a framed photo of the
driver of the month recognizing exceptional achievement. Monetary compensation
or a plaque may also be given.
School Bus Monitor In a prominent area of the Transportation Department, a framed photo of the bus
of the Month monitor is placed recognizing exceptional achievement. Monetary compensation
or a plaque may also be given.
School Bus Rodeo A combination picnic and competition of driving skills. Competition consists of a
number of challenging courses which competing drivers must negotiate to earn
points. Winners can be determined by those who score the highest. Bus drivers
enjoy competing and the rodeo is a morale booster. Fairfax County Public
Schools, Virginia and Hillsborough County Schools, Florida have some of the
best school bus rodeos in the country. Their respective transportation departments
could be contacted for more details.
Superintendent’s Awards Plaques, letters, and certificates recognizing outstanding performance of
transportation personnel in categories determined by the Superintendent.
Monetary awards may also be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are costs and cost savings associated with the recommendation to implement a bus driver
attendee award program budgeted at $7,500 yearly. There is no cost associated with
implementing recommended transportation recognition awards (photos recognizing bus driver
and monitor of the month, etc.). The fiscal impact of implementing transportation recognition
awards, restarting the work attendance awarding $100, and reducing demand for substitute
drivers could generate annual cost savings of $40,176 (Conservative projected cost saving for not
hiring three substitute drivers daily for the school year at $12.40 hourly for six hours per day).
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Implement Bus Driver
($7,500) ($7,500) ($7,500) ($7,500) ($7,500)
Attendee Award Program
Reduce Bus Driver
Absenteeism and Use of $40,176 $40,176 $40,176 $40,176 $40,176
Substitute Drivers
TOTAL SAVINGS $32,676 $32,676 $32,676 $32,676 $32,676

CHAPTER 9:
SAFETY AND SECURITY

9.0 SAFETY AND SECURITY
Traditionally, most school safety actions involve surrounding schools with fences to create safe
zones and creating alternative education programs for violent or disruptive students. In today’s
environment, school districts need a more comprehensive approach that involves awareness,
prevention and intervention, and recognizes school violence as part of a community problem that
requires community involvement.
According to most experts in the field, the best action plans continue to implement
comprehensive policies that make safety a priority and that are well-organized, predictable, and
ongoing. Experts also suggest some common elements schools should consider in developing
comprehensive school safety policies. These elements include:
• eliminating the philosophy that “it can’t happen here” - a focus on safety and orderly
behavior is appropriate in all schools and at all levels;
• developing clear rules and high expectations for behavior and school performance and
enforcing them consistently;
• adopting clear statements of student and staff responsibilities;
• providing professional development for teachers, staff, and volunteers in all aspects of
safety, supervision, classroom management, and crisis intervention; and
• adopting procedures for identifying and responding to the needs of at-risk/disruptive

students; and ensuring adequate presence of adult supervision.
In Richland Two, the foregoing elements appear to be largely present as part of a comprehensive
security and safety program. Evergreen’s recommendations are therefore aimed at fine-tuning
what is already a well-functioning safety and security operation.
Exhibit 9-1 shows the results of responses by central office administrators, school
administrators, and teachers to safety and security. The ratings for Richland Two are highest
among district administrators, and decline slightly for school administrators and, finally,
teachers. However, these ratings show a significantly high appreciation for safety and security
programs at Richland Two, whereas other district responses have been much lower. For Richland
Two, these ratings appear to be justified.
Exhibit 9-2 displays the current organization of safety and security functions within Richland
Two Support Services. The Security Officers report to the Assistant Emergency Services
Manager, who, in turn, reports to the Emergency Services Manager. The Emergency Services
Manager and the Safety Officer both report to the Executive Director of Operations. Not shown
in Exhibit 9-2 are School Resource Officers SROs. One SRO is assigned to each of the high
schools and middle schools, reporting directly to each principal or the principal’s designee.
SROs are employees of the Richland County Sheriff’s Office.

Safety and Security Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
Exhibit 9-1
Rating of Safety/Security Function by Richland Two
Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Compared to
School Districts in Evergreen’s Survey Database
Compared to
Richland Two School Districts in Evergreen’s
Survey Database
Need Major/Some Adequate/ Need Major/Some Adequate/
Survey Group Improvement Outstanding Improvement Outstanding
District Administrators 4.44% 91.11% 51.21% 36.68%
School Administrators 10.87% 89.13% 51.43% 45.60%
Teachers 12.15% 79.98% 25.04% 34.22%
Exhibit 9-2
Richland Two Safety and Security
Current Organizational Chart
Executive Director
Operations
Emergency Services
Manager Safety Officer
Assistant Emergency
Services Manager
Security Officers
20 full-time & 12 part-time
30 substitute
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data supplied by Richland Two, 2011.
FINDING
Richland Two operates an outstanding, well-organized comprehensive safety program under the
guidance of the Safety Officer. Richland Two officials have credited this program with a
significant reduction in workers’ compensation claims (see Chapter 4, Finance).
The Safety Officer conducts frequent walk-through inspections to identify safety issues and
report them to school administrators for correction. All schools and kitchens are visited three
times per year. In addition, the Safety Officer accompanies fire marshal representatives and
insurance company auditors on inspections.

The safety program is structured with two working committees:
• Safety Risk Management Committee: This Committee meets every three months. Its
membership consists of top management, including principals of each school. Its purpose
is to set procedures regarding safety after evaluating results of walk-through findings.
• School Safety Committee: The School Safety Committee meets once per month.
Assistant principals, a district office representative, and representatives of key functions
(food service, security, custodial, maintenance, transportation) are members of the
Committee. Its purpose is to implement safety policy and procedures, and to administer
the safety incentive/reward program.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its design and operation of a highly
effective safety program.
FINDING
The current Safety Officer is designated part-time by his own preference. However, it is clear
that the safety program has expanded and the number of schools has grown. By many accounts
from Richland Two officials, the position is rapidly changing to one requiring a full-time
commitment.
In addition to inspecting all school and kitchens a minimum of three times per year, the Safety
Officer works as staff to the two aforementioned committees. He also serves as the recycling
contact person. The incumbent is OSHA Safety and Health Certified. A succession plan is
needed to groom and train a new Safety Officer.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-1:
Upgrade the present Safety Officer position to full-time status and prepare a succession
plan.
The Safety Officer position should be upgraded to full-time status. This action should be
justifiable on the basis of a desk audit, as well as because of the considerable funds the safety
program has saved, and will continue to save, the district.
In addition, the incumbent is likely to retire in a few years. If he is offered the full-time position
and accepts it, plans should provide for an OSHA-certified successor to work with him for a
minimum of six months for training.
If the incumbent will not be continuing on a full-time basis, then a successor should be identified
as soon as possible, and transition into the full-time position.

FISCAL IMPACT
Evergreen consultants estimate that the annual, full-time salary for the Richland Two Safety
Officer should be $50,000 plus 33 percent benefits or $66,500. Currently, the incumbent is listed
as a temporary employee with no set hours and annual compensation of $12,120.
The fiscal impact shown below is an estimate of approximate costs for the full-time position
which is in addition to what part-time person is making.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Make Safety Officer a
($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380)
Full-Time Position
FINDING
The current safety procedure at Richland Two relies almost entirely on the Safety Officer to find
and report unsafe conditions in buildings and on grounds. Although safety awareness training has
been conducted and has been effective in reducing accidents and injuries, it does not appear that
emphasis has been placed on the fact that all building users can and should use their powers of
observation to identify safety concerns in their buildings.
By adding active surveillance by teachers, administrators, maintenance workers, custodians,

energy managers, security officers, resource officers, and even students, to the walk-throughs of
the Safety Officer, a great synergy can be achieved. By bringing students in as full participants,
the safety observation/reporting program becomes at the same time a learning experience, a
continuous succession of teachable moments. The greater the safety consciousness, the more
effective the safety program.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-2:
Train all building users to be safety conscious.
The means of reporting safety concerns and problems could be made part of the already existing
incentive/reward program, with occasional individual prizes and awards given.
Building users could simply contact the Safety Officer via e-mail, telephone, or in person. The
Safety Officer could screen and/or verify the identified problem or issue, and at his discretion
decide to bring it to the attention of the principal, or to members of the Safety Risk Management
Committee or the School Safety Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT

FINDING
Richland Two operates a districtwide, well-organized emergency management program, which

includes intensive training during the summers and staged emergency drills. District officials
have noted the following:
There is one team comprised of representatives from each school and several District level
departments. At each school there are key people who are prepared to assist in the time of a
crisis, primarily at that school but in the case of Nurses, Psychologists and other staff with
specific skills, they may be called upon to assist if the crisis is elsewhere. The purpose of the
other team, the district level team, is to ensure schools are prepared to respond in the event
of a crisis and District level support structure is available to assist as needed.
We meet with representatives of local and state first responder agencies (Law Enforcement,
EMS, Fire, Coroner, etc) to exchange information and build relationships that are key in
responding to a crisis. Most schools are represented on the District team by an assistant
principal while most District level departments are represented by the people who will
respond to the school where a crisis occurs. A District Emergency Procedures Guide is the
governing document.
Exhibit 9-3 shows the Table of Contents of Richland Two’s District Emergency Plan for 2010-
11. This plan demonstrates the comprehensiveness, seriousness, and uniform approach of
Richland Two’s emergency planning and preparedness programs. The Emergency Plan is
updated every year to reflect new ideas and approaches concerning emergency preparedness. All
staff are trained in the new provisions each year, and new staff are given training to familiarize
themselves with all aspects of the plan.
Exhibit 9-3
Richland Two Emergency Plan
Table of Contents
2010-11
Emergency Communications A
Fire B
Bomb Threat And Explosion C
Severe Weather D
Chemical / Biological / Nuclear E
Hazardous Materials E
Earthquake / Utility Emergency F
Crime Reporting G
Student Disturbance H
Campus Intruder / Suspicious Person I
Student Runaway / Abduction J
Weapon On Campus J
Death Or Serious Injury By Violence K
Hostage Situation L
Communicable Diseases L
Accident / Serious Illness / Injury M
Off Campus Emergency – Pre Planning N
Off Campus Emergency – Action Steps N
Assessing The School Crisis 0
Media Plan P
Emergency Evacuation Q
Source: Richland School District Two District Emergency Plan, 2010-11.

Drills in emergency procedures are scheduled as part of training sessions. New procedures are
highlighted, and new staff are especially trained to catch up with others who have worked for the
district for more years. Exhibit 9-4 describes how lockdown drills are handled. Exhibit 9-5
shows a succinct procedure for a high level injury or death.
FINDING
Although the permanent facilities at Richland Two are fully alarmed for intrusion and fire, many
portable classrooms and other portables used as offices are not alarmed. This comes about
because portable units are more easily and readily evacuated because doors open directly to the
outside.
Yet fire and intrusion alarms are advisable for portable units⎯fire alarms not only put teachers
and students on alert, but also report the fire instantly to the fire department. Intrusion alarms are
also important for portables because these small buildings are often more easily broken into or
vandalized than the permanent school buildings. In addition, intrusion alarms can also be linked
directly to local law enforcement.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-3:
Install intrusion and fire alarms in portables.
This recommendation should be implemented in conjunction with Recommendation 6-3, which

calls for a reduction in portable units, and the replacement of the remaining units with better-
constructed ones. These better quality portables are usually equipped with fire and intrusion
alarms at the factory.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the portable units is already accounted for in Recommendation 6-3. The only
ongoing costs not yet enumerated are the monthly charges for each of the 63 portables.
Evergreen estimates this amount to be up to $5 per month for each of 63 new portables, or
approximately $315 per month, or $3,780 per year.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Install Fire and Burglar
($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780)
Alarms in Portables

Exhibit 9-4
Lockdown Drill Procedures
Emergency Drills for Lock Down Procedures

1. Authority to call drills
The sounding of an alarm for the purpose of a drill or a lock down is an authority possessed solely by the principal or his or her designee.
2. Purpose
These drills are conducted to familiarize the occupants of a building with the signals and lock down procedures so that in case of
emergency there shall be no hesitation or confusion in directed student action. These drills are for the safety of all persons involved, and
each person must realize that the success of the drill is dependent upon his/her actions and cooperation. Therefore:
2.1 All persons in the building must take part in the drill.
2.2 Every alarm should be considered as a warning of an actual emergency.
3. Frequency of Drills
There shall be a minimum of two (2) drills per school year.
3.1 The first drill shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days of the first day of school.
3.2 The second drill shall be conducted at the principals discretion.
4. Warning Signal
The warning signal shall be “Intruder on campus.” There should also be a plan for signaling in the event of power failure.
5. Responsibilities of Principals
Principals shall:
5.1 be responsible for all matters pertaining to organizing and conducting drills on the campus and for the efficiency of the drill and
corrective actions taken for violation of the rules and problems identified during the drill:
5.2 appoint a subordinate staff person to supervise particular areas of need and instruct him/her in the general plan for lock downs and
details of his/her specific duties, such as instruction regarding:
5.2.1 how to send an alarm to the Sheriff’s Department, including how the alarm system operates, both electrical and emergency;
5.2.2 the importance of quick action in sending an alarm;
5.2.3 how to secure all building exits;
5.2.4 which building location shall be the command center when a lock down is in progress; and
5.2.5 what method of communication shall be used if an intruder is in the building before lock down can be established;
5.2.6 be prepared to direct first responders to incident location and give them any necessary information;
5.2.7 ensure that teachers and students perform all activities assigned to them during the event;
5.2.8 notify the superintendent’s office.
5.3 Designate an administrator or staff person to coordinate with public safety personnel at their command post ; and make sure a site map
and keys are available.
5.4 Be prepared to deal with parents and media who respond to the school.
6. Responsibilities of Teachers
Teachers shall:
6.1 be in charge of their respective classes;
6.2 issue all commands relative to participation in the drill;
6.3 ensure proper lock down procedure;
6.4 keep students in a safe area until advised personally by administration or public safety personnel to move or that the all clear has
been given;
6.5 be prepared to lead their class to designated secure areas.
6.5.1 students shall walk briskly (do not run) without talking or breaking from the line.
6.5.2 teachers shall check roll when the assigned area is reached
6.5.3 teachers shall notify the principal immediately of any missing student
6.5.4 teachers shall not leave the students unless they are relieved by an administrator.
7. During Lock Down Drills
Building staff shall follow the directions laid out in each individual building’s lock down plan.
8. Type of Lock Downs
8.1 LOCK DOWN: This is a total lock down of the facility. All exits are secured. Classrooms are locked and only necessary
staff
8.2 MODIFIED LOCK DOWN: Exits are secure and staff will monitor until incident is resolved. Normal classroom schedule
will continue.
9. After a Lock Down Drill
Principal and staff shall meet to evaluate effectiveness of the drill and make possible changes.
Source: Richland School District Two, District Emergency Plan 2010-11.

Exhibit 9-5
Exempt on Death or Serious Injury from District Emergency Plan
DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY ON CAMPUS (Level III) K
Whenever a student, staff member, or visitor on campus is seriously injured, the following procedures should be
followed:
1 Notify 911 and provide details of the incident. Request law enforcement and emergency services. Provide 911
with all details of the incident.
2. Determine injuries and provide first aid.
3. Restore calm and move students away from the scene. Students should not be allowed to leave class to go to the
scene.
4. Fax or send medical emergency information to hospital on victims.
5. Assess extent of situation by determining who was involved or committed the act. Identify witnesses and
remove them to a secure area. Keep witnesses separated. Keep the scene a secure area. Do not disturb possible
evidence or remove the victim if determined to be dead.
6. Notify Support Services at 736-3774.
7. Follow emergency procedures for communication of information to staff and students, evacuate (if necessary).
8. Follow crisis response follow-up plan for necessary counseling or other trauma reduction activities.
Source: Richland School District Two District Emergency Plan 2010-11.
FINDING
All Richland Two schools and other facilities, including school grounds, are monitored by closed
circuit television cameras.
Arguments in support of installing CCTV cameras and monitors* include the following:
Provides officials with evidence that would not be available otherwise -- With constant video
monitoring, school officials have access to detailed evidence of any suspicious or criminal
activity.
Acts as a crime deterrent -- It is a proven fact that people are less likely to commit a crime if
they know that they are being watched. If students are aware of the fact that their school is
being monitored, vandalism and other acts of violence may be greatly reduced. In addition,
in the event a crime is caught in action, emergency officials will be better able to contain the
situation.
Instills a sense of security for both parents and students -- It is a comfort to many to know
that their school is being monitored on a daily basis. Care must be taken though to ensure
that video footage is actually being monitored on a regular and timely basis. A sense of
security can be dangerous if the security measures implemented are not being properly
utilized.
*http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/pros-and-cons-to-school-security-cameras.htm

COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for installing and maintaining CCTV cameras
in its schools and school grounds.
FINDING
The cameras currently in service at Richland Two schools are placed throughout the buildings
and also on the school grounds. The cameras have, in many cases, a panning range of motion and
the capability of zooming in on an object. According to Richland Two officials, the cameras are
of less than desirable resolution, and have limited range of motion.
Consequently, Richland Two is now replacing its existing camera stock with improved cameras,
in view of the fact that new products and technologies are becoming increasingly less costly and
more flexible, and are also offered in high definition.
COMMENDATION
Richland County School District Two is commended for its program to improve its
inventory of CCTV cameras.
FINDING
Although numerous cameras have been installed inside and outside of all schools, the current
camera configuration has blind spots in areas where some potentially unsavory activity (possibly
fights, drugs, alcohol and sex) can occur unobserved. The following report is from an
anonymous school district in the United States:
In October of 2006 a high school junior was assaulted in a restroom. He went into a coma at
the hospital and died a few weeks later. The assault took place in an area of the school that is
referred to as a “blind spot”.
Even the best-planned CCTV installations will have some blind spots. Yet, it is important to
make sure such areas are small, and that the larger blind spots are removed.
Of special concern are restrooms, but cameras are not installed there for reasons of privacy.
However, the access paths to restrooms should be fully observable, and the restrooms themselves
should have no acoustical privacy. Restrooms in very remote areas of a school should be
considered for removal or restricted access.
In many schools, outdoor areas created by clusters of portable classrooms can create
unintentionally remote, shielded, and unobservable courtyards. Such areas should receive special
attention for camera coverage. Areas under stairs can create similar circumstances, especially if
the stairs are not part of the main circulation paths of a school.

RECOMMENDATION.
Recommendation 9-4:
Install cameras where blind spots currently exist.
In some instances, blind spots may be removed or decreased in size simply via the installation of
cameras that can pan a wider area, and zoom in more closely to an object.
In other cases, such cameras may need to be wired into the existing cable distribution.
FISCAL IMPACT
The timeline below therefore accounts only for an additional 20 cameras per year that would
need to be installed with new wiring in blind spot areas. Evergreen estimates the added
installation cost per such camera to be $500, resulting in $10,000 per year. If Richland Two
succeeds in obtaining grant funds (see Recommendation 9-5), then the fiscal impact of this
recommendation will be zero.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Install Cameras to Remove
($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000)
Blind Spots
FINDING
The U.S. Department of Justice operates grant programs to fund security equipment costs, as
well as related costs of security and resource officers.
According to its website, “the Community-Oriented Policing Services Office (COPS) offers
grants to help law enforcement agencies to hire more policing officers, to acquire new
technologies and equipment, and to hire civilians for administrative tasks.” *
Richland Two may be able to secure grant funding for much of its new technology needs, and to
support security and resource officers.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-5:
Apply for grant funds to help fund new surveillance technologies and police personnel.
School districts have successfully applied for funds to support in whole or in part the purchase of
security cameras and other surveillance technologies. Exhibit 9-6 shows a grant request by
another school district under the COPS Grant Program. It is shown here for illustrative purposes
to provide information about the types of services and equipment purchases supported by the
COPS Grant Program.
*http://www.justice.gov/10grants/index.html.

Exhibit 9-6
Example Funding Request under COPS Grant Program
EQUIPMENT
ITEM COMPUTATION COST
30 VDC-455V03-20S Camera 30 each @ $300 ea $9,000.00
30 SMB455BX Surface Mounted Box 30 each @ $26.00 $780.00
1 MHW-W66M20-US High Performance Management System 1 each @ $4675.66 $4,675.66
1 D7212GV2K2 Alarm Panel 1 each @ $321.13 $321.13
1 D8125INV INTERFACE MODULE FOR G SERIES 1 each @ $58.04 $58.04
1 FA400 REMOTE RECEIVER 1 each @ $126.39 $126.39
6 FA575 HIGH POWER INOVONICS REPEATER 6 each @ $303.85 $1,823.10
4 D8129 OCTO-RELAY 8 RELAY MODULE FOR G SERIES 4 each @ $78.67 $314.68
4 D1260W ATM STYLE ALPHA COMMAND CENTER 4 each @ $127.68 $510.72
30 FA210 REDUCED-SIZE UNIVERSAL TRANSMITTERS 30 each @ $40.95 $1,228.50
sub-total per school $18,838.22
2 42" LCD Flat Screen Monitor 2 each @ $1,019.56 $2,039.12
2 UPS 2 each @ $248.16 $496.33
1 DIBOS Recorder, 30 CH 1 each @ $10,384.19 $10,384.19
65 Video Baluns NVT 65 each @ $54.78 $3,560.70
2 RJ 45 Connector pack of 100 2 paks @ $123.16 $246.32
10 CAT5 Cable 1000 1000 LF. @ $2.196 PER LF. $2,196.00
2 24V Power Supply 2 EACH @ $205.30 $410.60
200 3/4" EMT Conduit/clamps/fastners 200 EACH @ $20.08 $4,016.00
1 DVR RACK 1 each @ $3,516.70 $3,516.70
2 BATTERY, 12V 7 AH 2 each @ $25.35 $50.70
1 DUAL BATTERY HARNESS 8.82 1 each @ $8.82 $8.82
2 SIREN, 12V 15 WATT 144.19 2 each @ $72.10 $144.20
30 BACK BOX 653.47 30 each @ $21.78 $653.40
30 12V 15-75C Wall Strobe Lights 1,294.90 30 each @ $43.17 $1,294.10
30 Panic Buttons 746.43 30 each @ $24.88 $746.40
sub-total per school $29,763.58
Total equipment cost per school $48,601.80
Labor and Installation per school $22,040.00
Total equipment & labor cost per
school $70,641.80
x 4 schools $282,567.20
PT25 Compliant Motorola XTS Radios Model 1.5 4 each (1 per high school) @ $1400 $5,600.00
PT25 Compliant Motorola XTS Radios Model 3 2 each @ $3000 $3,000.00
Total Communications equipment $8,600.00
Consultants/Contracts:
Alarm System Monitoring Services 4 each @ $30 mo. X 24 mo. $2,880.00
Platinum Repair Service 4 each @ $607 mo. X 24 mo. $58,272.00
On-Call IDS/CCTV Consult/Data Extract Fee 4 each @ $400 per session for 6 sessions $9,600.00
CCTV/IDS User Training Session 4 each @ $760 x 2/ 4 hour sessions $3,040.00
$73,792.00
Other
Basic & Advanced Video Surveillance $250 per course (16) $0.00
Grand Total for all 4 schools $364,959.20

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
All Richland Two schools are designed to receive visitors in ample lobbies that are closed to
school access, until visitors pass a screening procedure. A driver license with picture ID sign-in
is required. The procedure screens for sex offenders and any other verified negative information
entered into a database. Persons seeking admittance who do not pass the screening process are
detained by being issued a void visitor tag. Visitors passing the screening are admitted school
entry through the receptionist’s office, usually via a “buzzer.”
The entry control system used by Richland Two is exemplary because it uses driver license
information to perform an instant database check. This system allows an instant decision to give
or refuse entry.
COMMENDATION
Richland School District Two is commended for its use of state-of-the-art entry screening
technology.
FINDING
In some schools, secondary entrances are unattended and can serve as a covert entry point for
visitors, especially at the beginning and end of the school day. Persons who think they might
likely be refused after a check of their driver license records, will actually seek out other entry
points, if they are easily accessible.
Secondary entry points exist usually at those schools where students walking to and from school
would be forced to walk completely around the school to the front entrance. However, if these
secondary entrances are not monitored or secured, then the primary entry with the screening
device might as well not exist.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-6:
Secure and alarm secondary exterior doors at all schools, or reconfigure any other side or
back doors if they are used as major access and egress points to match the existing front
door security.
It may be acceptable to the Board of Trustees and district administrators to place a security
officer at each secondary entrance during the morning and dismissal time when students come in
and out. The purpose of the security officer would be to have him or her direct non-students to

the front door for screening. This does not represent a high security option – certainly not
equivalent to the access screening provided at each school’s main entrance.
While school is in session, all doors should be secured and alarmed; the doors should carry
signage directing visitors to the front entry and the screening process. All other doors should be
locked, preventing access to the building, but allowing fire egress as per building code. While
this should be a default condition at all schools, it is not always monitored or enforced. Doors
were found propped open or left unlocked.
Only in very rare instances should a secondary entrance also be equipped with a screening
device, and a remote camera link to a receptionist’s office. This might be appropriate in those
situations and sites where the parking configuration would cause visitors to approach the school
from more than the front door direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
Security Officers and/or Resource Officers already on staff can be used to monitor the secondary
entrances before and after school, and when schools are in session.
FINDING
The Support Service Center does not have a screening device nor a secure lobby. A receptionist
is located opposite the main entrance. Visitors are not typically screened, nor given badges.
Although fewer unbadged visitors come to this facility, and the Watch Commanders of the
Richland Two Security Officers have an office off the lobby, the same security does not exist as
it does elsewhere in the school district.
In addition, the Support Service Center is entered easily by bypassing the front entrance. The
gate admitting buses to the yard next to the building is open during the day, and so are several
side and back entrances.
The rationale given for this difference in security is that the Support Service Center is not a
school, and few parents come to the facility. Parents that do come are not there
confrontationally, but to pay a child’s lunch bill, for example.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-7:
Reconfigure the Support Service Center lobby to create a secure entry with a screening
device identical to those found in schools.
The Support Service Center should be given the same security as other district buildings. The
bus gate should also be secured to permit entry only by remote activation devices carried by
authorized personnel.

District administrators should consider the following actions:
• redesign and reconfigure the Support Service Center lobby in a manner similar to the
lobbies found at Richland Two school buildings, whereby building access is available
only if it is granted by the receptionist;
• install a driver license screening device;
• permit entry after the screening machine has issued a valid visitor badge;
• secure the bus access gate so that it is operable with a remote control from buses or other
authorized drivers; and
• secure side and back doors currently allowing uncontrolled egress, but requiring access
via card key, CCTV camera identification by receptionist, or similar means.
FISCAL IMPACT
Evergreen consultants estimate a one-time expense of about $100,000.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Secure the Support
($100,000) $0 $0 $0 $0
Service Center
FINDING
Metal screening devices, similar to those in use at airports and other secure facilities, are used at
Richland Two for entry to the district stadium’s football games, and for high school basketball
games. Wands are also used when the screening device registers the possible presence of a large
metal object⎯such as a gun, knife, or other weapon. The district owns 16 screening devices;
they are not used for routine entry to the schools.
Security Officers are trained to work these devices and the wands.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for its pro-active security at large sporting events attracting
many students and visitors from other districts.
FINDING
Security Officers are Richland Two employees. They are unarmed and cannot make arrests.
They serve to control traffic, assist with security at the beginning and end of the school day, and
maintain order and security at their assigned schools, as well as at sporting events. They work in
shifts under Watch Commanders. The Officers interact with sworn Sheriff’s deputies when law
enforcement intervention is needed.

Exhibit 9-7 displays staffing assignments of the Security Officers. This exhibit shows the strong
emphasis at Richland Two on around-the-clock Security Officer assignments and staffing.
COMMENDATION
Richland Two is commended for maintaining a Security Officer Program to keep schools
secure and safe.
FINDING
Although security officers have served Richland Two very well over the years, some peer school
districts have made security arrangements that may lead Richland Two officials to rethink the
use of such a large contingent of security personnel as employees.
Exhibit 9-8 compares the security officer staffing at Richland Two with the arrangements at the
five peer districts. As can be seen, three of the four responding districts outsource their security
officers. School districts that have outsourced security services have cited the following
advantages:
• liability issues and concerns have been effectively removed from the school district;
• a private security company furnishes officers on an hourly basis when needed and
charges only for the hours worked, which saves money;
• the security company’s logo is on the officers’ cars; not the district’s name; and
• poorly performing individuals can be removed immediately.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-8:
Outsource security services to a private security company.
Richland Two should outsource the security services to a private company for the reasons that
were cited by other districts that have outsourced these services.
While cost savings are an expected result, important additional issues are that the liability burden
is largely shifted to the contractor, and there are no protracted personnel procedures when a
contractor, or an individual officer, must be dismissed because of performance or deportment
issues.

Exhibit 9-7
FTE Security Officer Staffing and Shift Assignments by Functional Area and Location
First Shift, Weekdays (0700-1500 hrs)

Captain - Located at Support Services Center. Has District-
wide functional area
Security Officer - Located at Support Services Center. Monitors communication systems and dispatches officers as needed.
Security Officer (S2)- Based out of Ridgeview High School.
Responsible for: Bridge Creek Elementary
Center for Inquiry
Clemson Rd. CDC
Killian Elementary
Little Red Schoolhouse
Longleaf Middle
North Springs Elementary
Rice Creek Elementary
Sandlapper Elementary
Summit Middle School
Security Officer (S3)- Based out of Spring Valley High School
Responsible for: Bookman Rd Elementary
Center for Knowledge
EL Wright Middle School
LB Nelson Elementary
Polo Rd Elementary
Pontiac Elementary
Spears Creek Rd CDC
Windsor Elementary
WR Rogers Adult Ed. Ctr.
Security Officer (S4)- Based out of Richland Northeast High School
Responsible for: Anna Boyd School
Center for Accelerated Prep.
Conder Elementary
Dent Middle School
District Office
Forest Lake Elementary
Keels Elementary
Security Officer (S5)- Based out of Blythewood High School
Responsible for: Bethel-Hanberry Elementary
Blythewood Academy
Blythewood Middle School
Center for Achievement
Kelly Mill Middle School
Lake Carolina Elementary
Langford Rd Elementary
Roundtop Elementary
Security Officer (S6)- Based out of Support Services Center. Does crossing guard duty for Bridge Creek Elementary and
custodial services at SSC
Second Shift, Weekdays (1500-2300 hrs)
Same staffing, locations and functional responsibilities as First Shift Weekdays except:
Lieutenant - Based out of Support Services Center. Monitors communication systems and dispatches
officers as needed.
Security Officer (S6)- Based out of Support Services Center. Is responsible for answering phones at SSC, responding as
needed to high call volume or to back-up other officers as well as relieving other officers from duties at:
Bookman Elementary
Bridge Creek Elementary
Center for Inquiry
LB Nelson Elementary
Third Shift, Weekdays (2300-0700 hrs)
Same staffing, locations and functional responsibilities as Second Shift Weekdays.
First Shift, Weekends (2300-1100 hrs)
Second Shift, Weekends (1100-2300 hrs)
“Allocated” Crossing Guards, School Days (0700-0900 hrs and 1300-1500 hrs)
1- Conder Elementary, Brookfield Rd at East Boundary Rd.
2- Forest Lake Elementary, Brookfield Rd at Wedgefield Rd.
Substitute Security Officers
As of January 26, 2011, there is a staffing level of 25 Substitute Security Officers. These Officers are used on an as-needed basis to
work traffic control points at schools, special events, sporting events, etc.
Source: Richland Two Operation Department 2011.

Exhibit 9-8
Security Officer Staffing Arrangements in Peer Districts
School District Security Officer Staffing

Richland Two All security officers are district employees – see Exhibit 9-7 for
details. One SRO is assigned to each high school and middle
school.
Beaufort All security officers are 100% outsourced; Beaufort uses a small
number of officers (1-2) on as-needed basis. SROs are the
emphasis.
Berkeley Berkeley officials did not respond.
Dorchester Dorchester School District Two employs one Safety/Security
Coordinator, two full-time Security Guards, 12 SROs, and 88
hourly security personnel who work as needed at ball games, etc.
Richland One Outsourced 100%
Rock Hill All security officers are 100% outsourced; Rock Hill uses a small
number of officers on as-needed basis. SROs are the emphasis.
Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from data provided by peer districts, 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total payroll for 17 year-around security officers is $729,810, including benefits, for an
average of $42,930 per year, or an hourly average of about $22. The security officers’ payroll is
$165,950 for ten persons, or about $17.30 per hour. Currently, the total security staff payroll at
Richland Two is approximately $896,000, plus the cost of vehicles, fuel, and vehicle
maintenance.
A security contractor would furnish vehicles (with the company’s logo – not the district’s).
According to the peer districts that outsource security officers, the savings can range from 15 to
20 percent of the in-house costs.
Exhibit 9-9 lists the current security vehicles.
Exhibit 9-9
Richland Two Security Vehicles
2010-11 School Year
Year Type Mileage as of 01/11 Deployment

2010 Chevy Suburban 12,066 Security Supervisor
2009 Ford SUV 74,106 SVHS Security
2009 Ford SUV 64,937 RNE Security
2009 Dodge 2500 Pick Up 77,132 Reserve
2008 Chevy Trail Blazer 116,826 Reserve
2008 Chevy Trail Blazer 117,845 RVH Security
2006 Chevy Trail Blazer 72,171 BHS Security
2003 Chevy Blazer 2 Door 158,640 Reserve
Source: Richland Two Operations Office, 2011.

These vehicles could be sold or redeployed in the district. If sold, an average value of $8,000
could bring a one-time income of $64,000. Assuming the current average monthly cost per
vehicle as $200 for fuel and maintenance, a yearly savings would be $19,200. A 20 percent
savings over the current payroll would amount to $178,667. The first year includes the one-time
savings from the sale of the vehicles. The other years reflect the payroll savings plus annual
vehicle maintenance and fuel costs.
Recommendation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Outsource Security
$261,867 $197,867 $197,867 $197,867 $197,867
Services
FINDING
Site-based management can result in the uniform emergency response procedures being
interpreted and implemented differently at the various schools. This lack of uniformity makes
sense when it is due to differences in the physical configuration of the schools. However, it
cannot be permitted if it is simply the result of a site administrator’s decision to be different for
no justifiable reason.
Differences in emergency responses⎯if not defensible on the basis of a clear feature of the
school population, building location, or other unique site aspect⎯can lead to unequal treatment
of segments of the student population or in reducing the relative safety of all persons in the
district.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 9-9:
Identify specific needs and reasons for non-uniformity in emergency responses at certain
school locations in the next update of the Richland Two Emergency Plan.
By examining the procedures included in the Emergency Plan, and studying unique needs of
particular school locations, it may be possible to identify specific reasons why a certain
procedure that should be uniform for all other schools, should be re-written for a particular
school or other building. For example, if a parking lot at one school is surrounded by hills, or by
structures permitting an elevated vantage point, then the evacuation should be directed to a less
vulnerable location. Another example might be a building with large glass areas that cannot be
closed with blinds or screens. The lockdown procedure might involve keeping persons away
from this permanent goldfish bowl.
The implementation of this recommendation may be coupled with the actions of

Recommendation 9-2, and include reports not only to the writers of the Richland Two
Emergency Plan, but also to members of the Safety Risk Management Committee or the School
Safety Committee.

FISCAL IMPACT
FINDING
Basic school building configurations can either simplify or complicate security efforts.
Examples of complicating factors are:
• nooks and other recesses in building exteriors where persons can hide in darkness or
shadow;
• shrubbery and other plantings that act like nooks and recesses; and
• locations outside of a school building that permit persons to scrutinize the comings and
goings and daily routines, without being detected.
Examples that advance security and safety include the many concepts related to “Defensible
Space” and “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).”*
Richland Two has a building inventory ranging from over 50 years ago to very recent. More new
buildings, additions, and renovations are planned as the district grows and changes.
RECOMMENDATION
Require architects to incorporate the guiding principles of “Defensible Space” and “Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design” in all new school plans, and to the extent
possible, in renovations and additions.
As part of the design program and design guidelines furnished by Richland Two to its architects
and construction managers, the guiding principles of Defensible Space and CPTED should be a
requirement for incorporation in new designs, additions, and renovations.
The resulting school buildings will have fewer blind spots requiring additional CCTV cameras.
Security officers will be able to observe the buildings more easily for suspicious activity. And
the buildings will present less of a temptation for persons to engage in attempts at burglary,
vandalism, and other destructive activities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. Buildings designed with
Defensible Space and CPTED principles do not, as a rule, cost more to design or build.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design .

CHAPTER 10:
FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

10.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Evergreen Team has developed 161 recommendations in this report. Fifty-nine (59) of the
recommendations have fiscal implications. Exhibit 10-1 shows the total costs and savings for
study recommendations that have a fiscal impact. As can be seen, the total net savings is
approximately $57.3 million over five years for operational efficiencies in Richland Two.
Specifically, this stems from total costs of $7.6 million (includes one-time costs) and overall
savings of $64.9 million (includes one-time savings). It is important to keep in mind that the
identified savings and costs are incremental and cumulative.
Exhibit 10-1
Over Five Years Recommendations
Total 5-
Years Year One-Time
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 (Costs) or (Costs) or
Costs/Savings Savings Savings
TOTAL COSTS ($500,986) ($771,901) ($1,052,816) ($2,243,731) ($2,475,463) ($7,044,897) ($546,500)
TOTAL SAVINGS $9,362,875 $12,722,432 $13,668,957 $14,086,815 $14,796,532 $64,637,611 $214,000
Exhibit 10-2 shows costs and savings by chapter for recommendations in Chapters 2 through 9.
Some of these savings will have an immediate direct impact whereas others are estimated
projections. Highlights from Exhibit 10-2 include:
• Two recommendations, or 3.4 percent of all recommendations, exceed a savings or costs

value of $10 million. To be specific, these two recommendations are the elimination of
excess school administrative positions and the alignment of Richland Two staffing with
AdvancED levels. The savings realized from these recommendations together is $35.2
million, or 61.5 percent of total five-year overall savings.
• A total of ten recommendations, or 16.9 percent of total recommendations, have

associated savings or costs ranging from $1 million to $10 million. Within this group, the
recommendations with the largest associated savings include phasing out working retirees
($5.8 million) and reducing clerical staffing in schools ($4.7 million).
• The remaining 47 recommendations have associated savings or costs that are less than $1
million (not considering one-time costs or savings). This group of recommendations is
also the only group that has associated one-time costs or savings. Specifically, 25.5
percent of these recommendations have associated one-time costs that total $332,500.

Fiscal Impact of Recommendations Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
There are 102 additional recommendations in this report that do not have a fiscal impact. These
recommendations are included in Chapters 2 through 9 of the full report. In general, these
recommendations do not have associated costs or savings because they can be implemented with
existing Richland Two resources or their fiscal impact is undetermined based on the specific
recommendation.
As Richland Two looks toward the future, and plans for the sustainment of efficient and effective
operations, these recommendations will serve as a research-based, best practice approach to
structuring the way in which Richland Two delivers educational services to the students of today
and tomorrow.

Exhibit 10-2
Estimated (Costs)/Savings Total 5-Year One-Time

Chapter/Recommendation (Costs) or (Costs) or
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Savings Savings
CHAPTER 2: DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Reorganize the Central Office of Richland
2-5 $502,906 $502,906 $502,906 $502,906 $502,906 $2,514,530
Two
2-6 Eliminate Excess School Administrators $2,137,596 $4,275,192 $4,275,192 $4,275,192 $4,275,192 $19,238,364
2-7 Reduce Clerical Staffing in Schools $518,700 $1,037,400 $1,037,400 $1,037,400 $1,037,400 $4,668,300
2-9 Reorganize Planning Office $90,819 $90,819 $90,819 $90,819 $90,819 $454,095
2-11 Require Detailed Invoices for Legal Services $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
Create Director of Public Information and
2-12 $124,625 $124,625 $124,625 $124,625 $124,625 $623,125
Community Relations
Chapter 2 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $3,399,646 $6,055,942 $6,055,942 $6,055,942 $6,055,942 $27,623,414 $0
CHAPTER 3: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DELIVERY
Eliminate Positions from Curricular and
3-1 $197,031 $197,031 $197,031 $197,031 $197,031 $985,155
Instructional Offices
3-3 Reduce Grant-Funded Positions $358,454 $358,454 $358,454 $358,454 $358,454 $1,792,270
Align Richland Two Staffing with
3-9 $2,703,554 $2,703,554 $3,058,413 $3,413,271 $4,122,988 $16,001,780
AdvancED Levels
3-13 Develop a Magnet School Budget ($25,000) ($50,000) ($85,000) ($120,000) ($155,000) ($435,000)
Reorganize the Special Education
3-15 ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444) ($196,444) ($982,220)
Department
3-16 Increase the Number of Social Workers $0 ($245,915) ($491,830) ($737,745) ($934,477) ($2,409,967)
Chapter 3 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $3,037,595 $2,766,680 $2,840,624 $2,914,567 $3,392,552 $14,952,018 $0



2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Savings Savings
CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Reorganize the Business Services/ Finance
4-1 $65,667 $65,667 $65,667 $65,667 $65,667 $328,335
Division
4-4 Hire Internal Auditor ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800) ($79,800) ($399,000)
4-10 Reorganize Warehouse Operations $79,820 $79,820 $79,820 $79,820 $79,820 $399,100
Create a Purchasing and Warehousing
4-11 ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950) ($19,950) ($99,750)
Section
4-15 Implement an Automated Time Accounting $0 $22,594 $22,594 $22,594 $22,594 $90,376 ($250,000)
Issue Non-Building Fund Checks Once
4-17 $50,458 $50,458 $50,458 $50,458 $50,458 $252,290
Every Two Weeks
4-19 Implement Stricter Cash Deposit Procedures ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400) ($14,400) ($72,000)
4-21 Engage the Services of an Actuary $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000
4-22 Contract for a Third-Party Administrator ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($50,000) ($1,500)
4-26 Eliminate the Food Service Bookkeeper $57,497 $57,497 $57,497 $57,497 $57,497 $287,485
Increase High School Meal Participation
4-28 $6,912 $6,912 $6,912 $6,912 $6,912 $34,560
Rates
Chapter 4 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $436,204 $458,798 $458,798 $458,798 $458,798 $2,271,396 ($251,500)
CHAPTER 5: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Reclassify the Human Resources
5-2 ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232) ($7,232) ($36,160)
Coordinator
Terminate Human Resources Consultant
5-3 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000 $205,000
Contract
Conduct Compensation and Classification
5-19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($50,000)
Study



2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Savings Savings
CHAPTER 5: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (Cont’d)
5-20 Phase out Working Retirees $486,667 $973,334 $1,460,000 $1,460,000 $1,460,000 $5,840,001
Reduce Summer Extra Duty Pay by 50
5-21 $389,000 $389,000 $389,000 $389,000 $389,000 $1,945,000
Percent
Chapter 5 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $909,435 $1,396,102 $1,882,768 $1,882,768 $1,882,768 $7,953,841 ($50,000)
CHAPTER 6: FACILITIES
6-3 Reduce and Upgrade Portables $0 $0 $0 ($910,000) ($910,000) ($1,820,000)
Consider Consolidation of Central Office
6-4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
Staff
6-9 Refine the Energy Conservation Incentive $144,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 $1,296,000
6-10 Increase Community Use Revenue $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $750,000
Chapter 6 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $194,000 $388,000 $488,000 ($422,000) ($422,000) $226,000 $150,000
CHAPTER 7: TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
7-3 Cluster Technical Support Assignments $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,000
Provide Tiered Technical and System
7-5 ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($25,000)
Support Positions
Generate Additional Energy and License
7-6 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $230,000 $230,000 $961,000
Cost Savings
Replace Printers and Faxes and Centralize
7-7 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $375,000
Forms Repository
7-9 Reduce IT Staff $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 $1,100,000
7-10 Implement Central Electronic Records Office $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($9,000)
Consolidate Districtwide Pooled Minutes and
7-14 Improve Management of Long-Distance $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $62,500
Calls



2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Savings Savings
Purchase and Migrate to Microsoft AD and
7-16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($35,000)
Exchange
7-17 Increase Erate Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000
7-20 Implement SharePoint Training ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($100,000)
7-21 Convert to Outlook/Live@edu $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($15,000)
7-22 Implement Summer Work Groups ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($50,000)
Implement Advanced Equipment and
7-23 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Software Management
7-25 Create Teacher Web-Page Templates $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($24,000)
Upgrade Fire System and Improve Access
7-30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($5,000)
Security to the Main Server
7-33 Increase IT Activity During Summer ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($25,000)
7-34 Purchase and Implement Knowledgebase ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($100,000)
7-36 Implement Summer Workgroups ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($100,000)
CHAPTER 8: TRANSPORTATION
Eliminate Three Transportation Department
8-1 $153,226 $153,226 $153,226 $153,226 $153,226 $766,130
Positions
8-11 Eliminate Five Bus Driver Positions $72,900 $72,900 $72,900 $72,900 $72,900 $364,500
Purchase and Install Three Commercial Oil
8-14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($57,000)
Separators
8-16 Reinstitute Bus Driver Award Program $32,676 $32,676 $32,676 $32,676 $32,676 $163,380



2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Savings Savings
CHAPTER 9: SAFETY AND SECURITY
9-1 Make Safety Officer a Full-Time Position ($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380) ($54,380) ($271,900)
9-3 Install Fire and Burglar Alarms in Portables ($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780) ($3,780) ($18,900)
9-4 Install Cameras to Remove Blind Spots ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($10,000) ($50,000)
Secure the Support
9-7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($100,000)
Service Center
9-8 Outsource Security Services $197,867 $197,867 $197,867 $197,867 $197,867 $989,335 $64,000
Chapter 9 Subtotal (Costs)/Savings $129,707 $129,707 $129,707 $129,707 $129,707 $648,535 ($36,000)
TOTAL COSTS ($500,986) ($771,901) ($1,052,816) ($2,243,731) ($2,475,463) ($7,044,897) ($546,500)
TOTAL SAVINGS $9,362,875 $12,722,432 $13,668,957 $14,086,815 $14,796,532 $64,637,611 $214,000

APPENDIX
SURVEY RESULTS

Central Office Administrators
Compared to Peers
B. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
SA + A SD + D SA + A SD + D
4. The district’s strategic plan guides daily decision
47.05% 25.49% 85.79% 4.23%
making.
5. I know how my work activities and objectives tie to
78.85% 13.46% 93.20% 1.26%
the district’s strategic plan.
6. School board members know and understand the
educational needs of students in the school 69.23% 17.31% 74.84% 21.47%
district.
80.77% 13.46% 71.83% 24.57%
operations of the school district.
8. The Superintendent is a respected and effective
80.77% 1.92% 78.58% 6.66%
instructional leader.
82.69% 0.00% 75.16% 7.74%
business manager.
10. The district administration is efficient. 78.43% 15.69% 77.18% 12.56%
11. The district administration supports the
98.08% 0.00% 83.44% 7.83%
educational process.
12. School-based personnel play an important role in
76.92% 15.38% 83.44% 7.79%
making decisions that affect schools in the district.
13. Principals are effective instructional leaders in
76.92% 13.46% 76.28% 15.80%
their schools.
14. Principals are effective managers of the staff and
80.77% 1.92% 80.96% 11.93%
teachers in their schools.
15. Most administrative practices in the school district
71.15% 17.30% 76.55% 10.53%
are highly efficient and effective.
16. Administrative decisions are made promptly and
75.00% 19.23% 76.42% 14.22%
decisively.
17. School district administrators are easily accessible
88.24% 5.88% 86.50% 9.45%
and open to input.
18. Authority for administrative decisions is delegated
34.00% 42.00% 50.54% 31.73%
to the lowest possible level.
19. Bottlenecks exist in many administrative
38.46% 48.08% 19.94% 66.97%
processes that cause unnecessary time delays.
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page A-1

Central Office Administrators Survey Results Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
Survey Questions Richland Two Peers

20. The school district has too many layers of
21.57% 72.54% 9.09% 73.40%
administrators.
21. District administrators provide quality service to
93.88% 2.04% 91.09% 6.21%
schools.
C. INSTRUCTION
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
22. The district uses detailed classroom-level data for
58.33% 14.58% 21.87% 30.38%
instructional decision-making.
23. Students find curriculum, course selections, and
62.22% 11.11% 36.95% 9.54%
lessons relevant to their needs and interests.
24. The district has effective special programs for the
following:
a. Honors/Gifted and Talented Education 92.00% 2.00% 68.58% 12.78%
b. Special Education 90.00% 2.00% 72.01% 10.89%
c. Head Start and Even Start Programs 59.18% 4.08% 58.32% 8.91%
d. Advanced Placement 94.00% 0.00% 65.75% 7.43%
e. Alternative Education 74.00% 16.00% 61.07% 12.56%
f. English as Second Language (ESL) 87.75% 0.00% 56.79% 15.08%
g. Career and Vocational 79.59% 12.24% 64.40% 16.29%
h. Dropout Prevention 60.00% 26.00% 45.59% 18.45%
25. Parents are immediately notified if a child is
56.00% 6.00% 60.40% 15.21%
absent from school.
26. Teacher turnover is low. 78.00% 4.00% 52.07% 26.10%
27. Educational programs are regularly and
44.90% 26.53% 69.31% 14.13%
objectively evaluated.
28. Teacher openings are filled quickly. 86.00% 0.00% 64.54% 16.02%
29. Teachers are held accountable for ensuring
62.00% 18.00% 68.99% 19.71%
students learn.
30. Principals are held accountable for ensuring
60.00% 20.00% 76.73% 12.47%
students learn.
31. Teachers are given the skills and knowledge to
effectively differentiate instruction for each 77.56% 6.12% 23.54% 49.28%
student.
32. Teachers/teacher groups use data to tailor
learning experiences for individual 52.00% 20.00% 29.98% 33.39%
students/student groups.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
33. All schools have equal access to educational
materials such as computers, television monitors, 73.91% 19.57% 62.15% 21.33%
and science labs.
34. Our schools can be described as “good places to
94.00% 0.00% 82.76% 6.93%
learn.”
35. NCLB has been effectively implemented in our
53.07% 8.16% 75.51% 8.24%
school district.
D. HUMAN RESOURCES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
36. Salary levels in the school district are
81.63% 12.24% 37.72% 45.86%
competitive.
37. My salary level is adequate for my level of work
74.00% 20.00% 42.26% 41.18%
and experience.
38. Teachers who do not meet expected work
30.00% 42.00% 40.19% 33.93%
39. Staff who do not meet expected work standards
36.00% 44.00% 50.22% 32.40%
are disciplined.
40. The district has a good orientation program for
76.00% 8.00% 71.33% 16.07%
new employees.
41. The district accurately projects future staffing
88.00% 2.00% 49.06% 27.72%
needs.
42. The district has an effective employee
82.00% 2.00% 46.72% 20.16%
recruitment program.
43. District employees receive annual performance
66.00% 24.00% 71.29% 19.26%
evaluations.
44. The district rewards competence and experience,
and provides qualifications needed for 66.00% 24.00% 32.99% 44.69%
promotion.
45. I am satisfied with my job in the school district. 94.00% 4.00% 78.40% 2.34%
46. I am actively looking for a job outside the school
2.00% 92.00% 3.78% 69.44%
district.
47. The district has a fair and timely grievance
72.00% 4.00% 50.86% 15.12%
process.
48. There are not enough high quality professional
4.00% 76.00% 12.74% 71.42%
administrators.

E. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
50. The district regularly communicates with parents. 89.79% 0.00% 72.23% 9.27%
51. Parents play an active role in decision-making in
53.06% 24.49% 54.95% 29.03%
our schools.
52. Teachers regularly communicate with the parents
69.39% 12.24% 66.25% 18.72%
of the students they teach.
53. Most parents seem to know what goes on in our
72.92% 12.50% 53.47% 23.40%
schools.
54. The school district explains test results to parents. 69.39% 6.12% 57.34% 25.47%
55. Schools have plenty of volunteers to help student
61.23% 18.37% 53.29% 23.13%
and school programs.
56. At least some local businesses are actively involved
97.96% 0.00% 69.67% 7.07%
in supporting our schools.
F. FACILITIES USE AND MANAGEMENT
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
57. Parents, citizens, students, faculty, staff and the
71.42% 18.37% 60.26% 15.57%
board provide input into facility planning.
58. Schools are clean. 97.91% 2.08% 86.50% 9.00%
59. Our schools have sufficient space and facilities to
85.71% 10.20% 56.48% 36.41%
support the instructional programs.
60. Schools are well-maintained. 100.00% 0.00% 80.78% 13.19%
61. Repairs are made in a timely manner. 87.75% 4.08% 64.40% 27.32%
62. District facilities are open for community use. 85.71% 6.12% 80.38% 4.05%
63. Emergency maintenance is handled promptly. 89.80% 4.08% 79.93% 10.80%
64. The district has an effective energy management
87.75% 4.08% 57.83% 17.10%
program.

G. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
65. Site-based budgeting is used effectively to extend
71.43% 8.16% 54.86% 15.48%
the involvement of principals and teachers.
66. Campus administrators are well trained in fiscal
28.57% 32.65% 50.45% 13.86%
management techniques.
67. Funds are managed wisely to support education in
93.88% 6.12% 82.67% 6.84%
68. The district’s financial reports are easy to
75.51% 6.12% 47.80% 18.45%
understand and read.
69. Campus and program administrators have
75.51% 6.12% 84.16% 2.25%
sufficient access to the financial data they need.
70. Financial reports are made available to
75.51% 0.00% 71.69% 1.71%
community members when asked.
H. PURCHASING
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
71. The Purchasing Office gets me what I need when I
77.09% 10.41% 68.68% 17.37%
need it.
72. The school district purchases the highest quality
materials and equipment at the lowest possible 83.67% 2.04% 63.37% 13.41%
cost.
73. The purchase order process is efficient and
79.59% 18.37% 52.12% 19.71%
effective.
74. The district provides teachers and administrators
an easy-to-use standard list of supplies and 42.85% 16.33% 75.38% 7.47%
equipment.
I. TRANSPORTATION

75. Students are often late arriving to and/or
departing from school because the buses do not 10.20% 42.86% 11.16% 63.77%
arrive to school on time.
76. There are sufficient buses and drivers to meet
42.85% 22.45% 46.09% 40.77%
77. Buses are often broken down, disrupting services. 18.36% 46.94% 11.34% 65.30%
78. The process for requesting a field trip is efficient
53.06% 6.12% 62.06% 15.48%
and effective.


79. Bus drivers effectively handle discipline issues on
47.82% 8.70% 29.57% 42.12%
the buses.
80. Students do not feel safe riding school district
10.41% 54.16% 12.78% 58.96%
buses.
81. Bus ride times are too long. 38.77% 16.33% 11.88% 23.95%
J. FOOD SERVICES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
82. The Food Services Department provides nutritious
75.51% 2.04% 58.46% 17.60%
and appealing meals and snacks.
83. Vending machines are not available to students
22.92% 22.91% 65.93% 14.13%
84. Snacks and drinks available through the vending
65.30% 12.24% 44.38% 26.82%
85. Bus riders get to school with enough time to eat
34.69% 12.24% 78.67% 10.67%
breakfast.
86. Cafeterias are calm environments in which to eat. 40.82% 14.29% 85.87% 9.90%
87. Students spend too long waiting in line to get their
29.17% 16.67% 27.00% 37.00%
lunches.
88. Many students bring their lunch from home every
34.69% 10.20% 12.33% 36.00%
day.
K. TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
89. Students regularly use computers. 93.88% 2.04% 90.46% 5.22%
90. Teachers receive training in how to integrate
79.60% 2.04% 80.20% 7.79%
technology into the classroom.
91. Teachers are expected to integrate technology into
89.80% 0.00% 85.60% 4.28%
the classroom.
92. Teachers know how to use computers in the
87.76% 2.04% 79.61% 6.93%
classroom.
93. The district Web site is a useful tool. 81.63% 18.37% 83.26% 11.07%
94. I get assistance quickly when I have a computer
79.59% 20.41% 88.97% 7.88%
problem.
95. The school district provides adequate instructional
87.50% 0.00% 79.97% 8.24%
technology.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
96. The school district provides adequate
85.72% 12.24% 84.52% 12.69%
administrative technology.
97. I have adequate equipment and computer support
93.88% 6.12% 91.85% 7.43%
to conduct my work.
98. Teachers and students have fast and easy access to
89.80% 2.04% 86.68% 4.77%
the Internet.
99. Most administrative process (purchasing, payroll
91.84% 2.04% 50.21% 32.24%
etc.) are done on-line.
L. OVERALL OPERATIONS
Richland Two Peers

School District Need Need
Adequate/ Adequate/
Operation Major/Some Major/Some
Outstanding Outstanding
Improvement Improvement
a. Strategic Planning 15.55% 68.89% 53.01% 36.23%
b. Curriculum Planning 6.66% 80.00% 53.33% 30.87%
c. Facilities Planning 4.44% 88.88% 56.79% 27.68%
d. Budgeting 4.44% 88.88% 53.42% 39.52%
e. Financial
Management
2.22% 93.33% 51.08% 41.95%
f. Asset Management 11.11% 68.89% 64.76% 26.46%

g. Risk Management 4.55% 79.54% 51.08% 30.56%
h. Community
Relations
22.22% 73.34% 37.62% 40.24%
i. Program Evaluation 26.19% 57.15% 46.98% 29.07%

j. Instructional
Coordination 6.66% 77.77% 57.02% 23.76%
k. Student Support
Services
2.22% 86.67% 54.45% 26.11%
l. Federal Programs
Coordination
11.11% 62.22% 52.43% 25.65%
m. Instructional
Technology
20.00% 73.33% 51.03% 32.94%
n. Administrative
Technology
20.00% 77.77% 53.96% 33.53%
o. Grants
Administration
11.11% 82.22% 49.64% 31.28%
p. Personnel
Recruitment
0.00% 93.34% 59.27% 27.68%
q. Personnel Selection 11.36% 86.36% 51.48% 27.55%

r. Personnel Evaluation 25.58% 72.09% 56.48% 24.17%

Richland Two Peers

Adequate/ Adequate/
s. Personnel Retention 6.66% 88.89% 70.11% 20.51%
t. Professional
Development
11.11% 86.66% 52.11% 38.30%
u. Safety And Security 4.44% 91.11% 51.21% 36.68%

v. Facilities
Maintenance
2.27% 97.73% 48.65% 40.73%
w. Custodial Services 15.56% 75.55% 45.72% 42.31%

x. Food Services 13.33% 73.33% 27.32% 55.85%
y. Transportation 22.22% 62.22% 30.06% 47.62%

School Administrators
Compared to Peers
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
68.29% 12.81% 87.54% 8.50%
making.
89.57% 6.74% 81.80% 2.00%
educational needs of students in the school 85.27% 5.52% 55.57% 31.25%
district.
84.15% 7.32% 60.77% 29.38%
77.92% 2.45% 85.96% 5.31%
72.39% 1.84% 85.85% 6.12%
business manager.
11. The district administration supports the
96.95% 2.44% 86.68% 4.59%
educational process.
87.12% 5.52% 69.40% 19.44%
13. Principals are effective instructional leaders in
87.73% 7.36% 88.57% 9.00%
their schools.
92.69% 5.49% 94.33% 3.33%
80.98% 9.82% 71.18% 13.70%
79.88% 10.37% 71.74% 13.32%
decisively.
75.61% 14.02% 84.88% 4.95%
and open to input.
18. Authority for administrative decisions is delegated
46.35% 25.61% 42.32% 32.98%
to the lowest possible level.
19. Bottlenecks exist in many administrative
43.91% 39.64% 37.50% 44.14%
processes that cause unnecessary time delays.

School Administrators Survey Results Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study

28.66% 54.26% 8.64% 60.22%
administrators.
90.85% 4.27% 77.41% 11.34%
schools.
C. INSTRUCTION
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
74.23% 15.33% 65.96% 27.56%
83.23% 11.80% 56.22% 24.84%
following:
25. Parents are immediately notified if a child is
68.95% 21.74% 86.03% 9.65%
absent from school.
27. Educational programs are regularly and
63.80% 25.77% 69.47% 20.90%
objectively evaluated.
29. Teachers are held accountable for ensuring
85.18% 11.72% 89.92% 9.72%
students learn.
30. Principals are held accountable for ensuring
77.16% 14.20% 95.95% 0.00%
students learn.
effectively differentiate instruction for each 88.20% 9.94% 54.26% 32.22%
student.
32. Teachers/teacher groups use data to tailor
learning experiences for individual 85.28% 12.27% 80.54% 15.59%
students/student groups.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
33. All schools have equal access to educational
materials such as computers, television monitors, 82.51% 11.88% 62.07% 32.53%
and science labs.
97.53% 0.00% 88.30% 3.69%
learn.”
35. NCLB has been effectively implemented in our
71.78% 8.59% 78.58% 0.45%
school district.
D. HUMAN RESOURCES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
36. Salary levels in the school district are competitive. 78.88% 13.04% 37.61% 38.99%
37. My salary level is adequate for my level of work
69.62% 22.15% 25.98% 47.00%
and experience.
38. Teachers who do not meet expected work
57.14% 26.09% 64.97% 21.24%
39. Staff who do not meet expected work standards
57.14% 22.98% 66.50% 16.83%
are disciplined.
40. The district has a good orientation program for
89.38% 6.88% 72.58% 18.87%
new employees.
41. The district accurately projects future staffing
87.51% 3.76% 59.46% 22.81%
needs.
42. The district has an effective employee recruitment
89.38% 2.50% 59.44% 22.61%
program.
79.38% 4.38% 82.99% 1.53%
evaluations.
44. The district rewards competence and experience,
66.26% 18.75% 36.49% 34.87%
and provides qualifications needed for promotion.
11.95% 78.62% 7.47% 55.97%
district.
47. The district has a fair and timely grievance
58.49% 2.52% 67.02% 1.71%
process.
18.63% 72.05% 16.67% 66.32%
administrators.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
51. Parents play an active role in decision-making in
77.51% 14.38% 49.29% 28.46%
our schools.
52. Teachers regularly communicate with the parents
90.00% 6.26% 72.89% 22.50%
of the students they teach.
82.51% 14.38% 58.58% 28.01%
schools.
55. Schools have plenty of volunteers to help student
60.00% 30.63% 80.27% 12.24%
and school programs.
56. At least some local businesses are actively
91.78% 5.06% 83.40% 9.38%
involved in supporting our schools.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
65.59% 16.88% 80.58% 7.83%
73.55% 22.58% 55.13% 40.10%
82.16% 7.64% 58.41% 13.05%
program.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
65. Site-based budgeting is used effectively to extend
68.99% 11.40% 70.37% 15.14%
the involvement of principals and teachers.
57.60% 24.05% 62.79% 22.95%

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
86.62% 5.10% 62.97% 15.59%
68. The district’s financial reports are easy to
54.43% 12.66% 52.55% 15.68%
understand and read.
69. Campus and program administrators have
74.52% 7.01% 72.06% 9.31%
sufficient access to the financial data they need.
70. Financial reports are made available to
60.51% 3.18% 63.40% 0.00%
community members when asked.
H. PURCHASING
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
72.78% 8.23% 77.57% 7.11%
need it.
materials and equipment at the lowest possible 75.80% 7.01% 61.73% 7.67%
cost.
73. The purchase order process is efficient and
75.94% 11.39% 65.94% 12.08%
effective.
74. The district provides teachers and administrators
an easy-to-use standard list of supplies and 57.96% 20.38% 48.33% 19.66%
equipment.
I. TRANSPORTATION

75. Students are often late arriving to and/or
departing from school because the buses do not 30.38% 63.29% 11.79% 65.62%
arrive to school on time.
50.64% 31.01% 50.12% 42.86%
78. The process for requesting a field trip is efficient
77.07% 7.64% 67.58% 15.57%
and effective.
79. Bus drivers effectively handle discipline issues on
44.94% 36.07% 35.03% 47.20%
the buses.
80. Students do not feel safe riding school district
10.12% 68.98% 13.50% 63.44%
buses.

J. FOOD SERVICES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
59.61% 28.85% 59.48% 18.38%
43.95% 41.40% 72.51% 15.25%
47.47% 18.35% 38.00% 28.28%
70.70% 18.47% 87.07% 6.93%
breakfast.
45.57% 49.37% 22.79% 75.21%
lunches.
38.61% 48.10% 26.79% 62.28%
day.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
95.48% 2.58% 84.32% 7.31%
98.70% 0.65% 98.00% 2.00%
the classroom.
96.78% 1.29% 78.04% 15.21%
classroom.
90.97% 7.10% 95.10% 2.81%
problem.
93.55% 4.52% 87.63% 12.19%
technology.
96. The school district provides adequate
92.26% 3.23% 87.45% 12.10%
administrative technology.
97. I have adequate equipment and computer support
94.80% 3.25% 92.92% 6.90%
to conduct my work.
99.35% 0.65% 85.47% 14.53%
the Internet.
90.97% 2.59% 69.38% 11.27%
etc.) are done electronically.

Richland Two Peers

Need Need
Adequate/ Adequate/
School District Operation Major/Some Major/Some
d. Budgeting 6.57% 83.21% 30.55% 64.86%
e. Financial
3.60% 87.77% 35.66% 61.01%
Management
h. Community Relations 5.07% 90.58% 36.42% 43.06%
j. Instructional
Coordination 14.71% 77.94% 24.68% 70.28%
k. Student Support
10.95% 83.95% 45.72% 47.08%
Services
l. Federal Programs
5.79% 57.25% 40.32% 57.70%
Coordination
m. Instructional
6.48% 90.65% 46.14% 50.80%
Technology
n. Administrative
8.63% 84.17% 33.34% 48.93%
Technology
o. Grants
9.42% 65.95% 50.40% 38.38%
Administration
p. Personnel
7.20% 88.49% 41.33% 37.16%
Recruitment
t. Professional
17.99% 80.57% 57.12% 42.88%
Development
v. Facilities
12.31% 86.96% 54.85% 42.09%
Maintenance
x. Food Services 51.80% 46.77% 32.78% 47.51%

Teachers
Compared to Peers
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
61.72% 8.39% 65.39% 10.27%
making.
76.12% 11.77% 76.11% 9.82%
66.48% 12.43% 50.75% 33.69%
educational needs of students in the school district.
71.64% 6.83% 56.40% 26.24%
64.25% 2.37% 67.91% 17.80%
66.85% 1.48% 66.94% 16.00%
business manager.
11. The district administration supports the educational
86.93% 5.29% 76.72% 13.54%
process.
68.53% 17.41% 59.45% 24.24%
13. Principals are effective instructional leaders in their
79.32% 12.98% 73.98% 20.06%
schools.
80.16% 12.19% 76.10% 19.26%
61.67% 16.81% 57.22% 20.97%
69.81% 19.92% 57.17% 21.21%
decisively.
76.25% 12.95% 63.74% 19.73%
and open to input.
18. Authority for administrative decisions is delegated to
41.13% 24.52% 28.44% 22.17%
the lowest possible level.
19. Bottlenecks exist in many administrative processes
38.66% 24.35% 30.44% 31.00%
that cause unnecessary time delays.
50.34% 25.55% 30.02% 36.15%
administrators.
72.22% 10.42% 61.19% 16.14%
schools.

Teachers Survey Results Richland Two Effectiveness and Efficiency Study
C. INSTRUCTION
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
70.44% 13.87% 47.98% 32.04%
84.15% 10.89% 51.31% 32.31%
following:
25. Parents are immediately notified if a child is absent
63.62% 12.08% 60.33% 15.83%
from school.
27. Educational programs are regularly and objectively
66.73% 16.53% 59.36% 18.92%
evaluated.
29. Teachers are held accountable for ensuring students
90.86% 5.02% 86.32% 7.11%
learn.
30. Principals are held accountable for ensuring students
70.02% 14.88% 74.65% 11.87%
learn.
85.80% 9.09% 59.16% 30.31%
effectively differentiate instruction for each student.
32. Teachers/teacher groups use data to tailor learning
86.55% 6.91% 71.94% 18.26%
experiences for individual students/student groups.
33. All schools have equal access to educational materials
such as computers, television monitors, and science 73.71% 19.69% 49.36% 33.82%
labs.
94.81% 3.55% 84.52% 7.65%
learn.”
35. NCLB has been effectively implemented in our school
65.02% 6.63% 59.63% 8.19%
district.

D. HUMAN RESOURCES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
36. Salary levels in the school district are competitive. 69.21% 20.43% 34.80% 52.08%
37. My salary level is adequate for my level of work and
48.13% 45.47% 31.77% 59.31%
experience.
38. Teachers who do not meet expected work standards
36.33% 35.68% 29.07% 36.63%
are disciplined.
39. Staff who do not meet expected work standards are
36.46% 30.11% 28.06% 34.00%
disciplined.
40. The district has a good orientation program for new
83.80% 7.46% 49.20% 24.77%
employees.
41. The district accurately projects future staffing needs. 72.60% 7.71% 45.42% 25.35%
42. The district has an effective employee recruitment
79.00% 2.95% 40.03% 21.22%
program.
68.25% 10.51% 84.19% 5.47%
evaluations.
44. The district rewards competence and experience, and
49.39% 29.38% 29.95% 43.53%
provides qualifications needed for promotion.
9.46% 77.28% 19.89% 64.11%
district.
47. The district has a fair and timely grievance process. 36.64% 6.25% 28.83% 13.96%
28.10% 57.78% 26.07% 56.93%
administrators.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
51. Parents play an active role in decision-making in our
66.72% 16.90% 47.23% 28.63%
schools.
52. Teachers regularly communicate with the parents of
94.45% 3.17% 84.16% 12.60%
the students they teach.
74.89% 16.69% 52.78% 29.64%
schools.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
55. Schools have plenty of volunteers to help student and
49.42% 37.59% 38.23% 43.30%
school programs.
56. At least some local businesses are actively involved in
88.64% 4.60% 59.49% 20.34%
supporting our schools.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
59.09% 15.06% 50.85% 22.14%
73.70% 22.32% 44.92% 46.53%
75.57% 6.83% 47.07% 19.53%
program.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
65. Site-based budgeting is used effectively to extend the
47.31% 13.06% 42.77% 24.42%
involvement of principals and teachers.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
38.66% 6.66% 44.84% 7.03%
58.12% 14.21% 41.70% 24.42%
68. The district’s financial reports are easy to understand
34.16% 7.40% 25.76% 16.68%
and read.
69. Campus and program administrators have sufficient
44.52% 1.75% 35.84% 5.14%
access to the financial data they need.
70. Financial reports are made available to community
44.34% 2.11% 35.40% 2.70%
members when asked.

H. PURCHASING
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
49.34% 15.15% 54.68% 23.19%
need it.
56.66% 10.67% 39.72% 19.04%
materials and equipment at the lowest possible cost.
73. The purchase order process is efficient and effective. 63.67% 18.76% 54.13% 23.77%
74. The district provides teachers and administrators an
56.09% 26.62% 43.05% 31.41%
easy-to-use standard list of supplies and equipment.
I. TRANSPORTATION

75. Students are often late arriving to and/or departing
from school because the buses do not arrive to school 26.51% 48.72% 12.27% 70.33%
on time.
34.41% 18.31% 45.03% 27.96%
78. The process for requesting a field trip is efficient and
54.28% 14.88% 55.59% 16.63%
effective.
79. Bus drivers effectively handle discipline issues on the
33.48% 17.03% 26.69% 18.58%
buses.
80. Students do not feel safe riding school district buses. 16.38% 38.62% 10.27% 48.62%
J. FOOD SERVICES
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
49.74% 33.38% 44.88% 32.21%
45.59% 29.01% 62.59% 18.42%
30.53% 24.19% 23.92% 31.02%
57.40% 16.05% 68.98% 7.33%
breakfast.

Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
47.79% 38.31% 39.68% 35.48%
lunches.
38.82% 43.45% 13.85% 50.25%
day.
Richland Two Peers

Survey Questions
94.08% 4.51% 79.80% 14.78%
98.28% 0.74% 91.44% 3.42%
the classroom.
96.43% 1.26% 75.85% 10.29%
classroom.
83.99% 12.90% 67.33% 26.00%
problem.
93.61% 3.87% 72.34% 21.68%
technology.
96. The school district provides adequate administrative
80.54% 2.30% 56.79% 12.65%
technology.
97. I have adequate equipment and computer support to
90.18% 8.70% 70.07% 25.86%
conduct my work.
96.87% 2.31% 69.02% 19.16%
the Internet.
85.78% 1.50% 30.94% 10.93%
etc.) are done electronically.

Richland Two Peers

Adequate/ Adequate/
d. Budgeting 20.73% 58.05% 49.76% 27.20%
e. Financial
Management
16.08% 52.69% 35.80% 32.69%
h. Community
Relations
13.60% 74.31% 47.13% 42.45%
j. Instructional
Coordination
21.28% 57.11% 47.73% 38.69%
k. Student Support
Services
19.69% 53.06% 52.44% 37.31%
l. Federal Programs
Coordination
12.36% 25.40% 32.44% 42.78%
m. Instructional
Technology
10.37% 81.28% 41.25% 52.07%
n. Administrative
Technology
6.72% 60.21% 5.43% 8.62%
o. Grants
Administration
9.50% 52.43% 23.76% 31.66%
p. Personnel
Recruitment
8.26% 65.35% 30.95% 41.92%
t. Professional
Development
22.64% 72.72% 40.67% 53.64%
v. Facilities
Maintenance
19.02% 72.47% 33.10% 47.69%
x. Food Services 46.18% 42.33% 24.23% 34.27%

Study: Richland District 2 Organizational Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study: Richland District 2 Organizational Effectiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Richland Two School District

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Scope of the Study..............................................................................................................1-1

2.0 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 2-1

2.1 Governance and Board Issues ..................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES DELIVERY .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Organization and Management of Curriculum and Instruction .................................... 3-1

4.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Financial Organization and Management ..................................................................... 4-3

5.0 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Organization and Management ..................................................................................... 5-1

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

6.1 Facilities Planning ........................................................................................................ 6-7

7.0 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Organization and Staffing ............................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Organization and Management ..................................................................................... 8-8

9.0 SAFETY AND SECURITY .................................................................................................... 9-1

10.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 10-1

APPENDIX: SURVEY RESULTS

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page i

• reviewing existing studies, reports, and databases of Richland Two;

• conducting employee surveys;

• making comparisons with national benchmark and best practices databases;

• making comparisons to peer school districts;

• conducting the formal on-site review;

• visiting 14 schools in Richland Two; and

• preparing the draft and final reports.

Review of Existing Records and Data Sources

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page ii

Project Initiation Information Technology

TASK 3: TASK 4: TASK 5:

Conduct Diagnostic Conduct Surveys of Conduct Benchmarking

TASK 6: TASK 7: TASK 8:

TASK 9: TASK 10: TASK 11:

TASK 12: TASK 13: TASK 14:

Prepare Draft and Final Report

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iii

• Board of Trustees policies and administrative procedures;

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iv

Peer School Districts

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page v

The five comparison school districts for this study include:

• Windsor Elementary School

OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vi

• a description of the operation in Richland Two;

MAJOR FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

District Organization and Management

Evergreen commends Richland Two for:

• its paperless school board agenda and meeting operation;

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vii

Major recommendations on District Organization and Management include:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of administrative rules to determine where these

• Reorganize the central office of Richland Two.

• Significantly reduce staffing at the school administrator and clerical levels.

• Evaluate principals and central office administrators annually.

• Expedite plans to develop a new Strategic Plan for Richland Two.

• Hold legal firms accountable.

• Restructure the Richland Two Education Foundation.