G-A 0 Accountability ' Integrity * Reliability United States General Accounting Office Accounting and Information Washington, DC 20548 Management Division B-283669 September 21, 1999 The Honorable Robert F. Bennett Chairman The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd Vice Chairman Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem United States Senate Subject: Reported Year 2000 (Y2K) Readiness Status of 25 Large School Districts At your request, we identified the Y2K readiness status, as reported to us by 25 of the nation's largest public school districts,' for systems supporting those districts' key business functions. On September 17, 1999, we briefed your staff on the results of our work. This letter provides a high-level summary of the information presented at that briefing, including background information and the reported readiness of those school districts. The briefing slides are enclosed. Background School districts rely on a number of key business functions. These include administrativesystems such as personnel/payroll and financial management, student records, student transportation(including fuel for buses), food service, facilities/embeddedsystems (such as fire/security, telephones, and lighting), and instructionallabs-hardware,networks, and application software. During the 1997-98 school year, almost 47 million public school students were taught by close to 3 million teachers in 91,000 schools comprising 16,411 public school districts. The top 3 states in terms of student population were California (6 million), Texas (4 million), and New York (3 million). While the number of schools in the average school district was 6, the 100 largest districts had an average of 152. 'The school districts selected were the top 25 in terms of student population for the 1997-98 school year according to the Department of Education, except in cases in which such selection would result in a state being represented more than once. GAO/AIMD-99-296R Y2K Status of 25 Large School Districts o 74 43 Reported Y2K Readiness of Key Business Functions In most instances, surveyed public school districts designated administrative systems, student records, facilities/embedded systems, student transportation, and food service as mission critical functions. All school districts surveyed considered their administrative systems mission critical, and the other functions were considered mission critical by most. While instructional labs were generally not considered mission critical, three districts did report their respective instructional lab systems as such. Of the 25 school districts surveyed, 7 (28 percent) reported that all of their systems which support their mission critical business functions were Year 2000 compliant. Two districts (8%) reported that their mission critical systems would be Year 2000 compliant by the end of this month. The remaining 16 districts (64%) reported that their systems would be ready by the last quarter of 1999 or later, including 9 (36%) reporting that compliance would be achieved after November 30, 1999. School districts vary in the number of business functions each plans to have independently verified; however, the majority of school districts (18 of 25) report that they do plan to have at least one of their business functions independently verified. Seven districts report that with the exception of instructional labs, they plan to have all of their business functions independently verified, while the same number (seven) report that they do not plan to have independent verification for any of their business functions. The majority (22 of 25) of school districts report having compliant data exchanges. Fifteen districts report having contingency plans in development; 10 report completing them, including 5 reporting that testing of these plans has also been completed. Finally, most schools have been designated by their local communities to serve as emergency shelters, and may require additional coordination with other city and county offices in the event of Y2K induced problems. Twenty districts reported such designations, while five reported not being so designated. Objective, Scope, and Methodology Our objective was to identify the reported Y2K status of key functions for large public school districts nationwide. From the Department of Education's list of the 100 largest school districts, according to student population, for the 1997-98 school year, we selected the top 25, except in cases in which such selection would result in a state being represented more than once. We developed a structured set of questions and interviewed school district officials by telephone, obtaining information on the Y2K status of key business functions for elementary and secondary school operations. In conducting the telephone survey, we asked to speak with someone having sufficient knowledge of the district's Y2K status to speak for the district. The information was self-reported, and we obtained a response rate of 100 percent. We also requested supporting documentation and reviewed Internet web sites. After conducting the Page 2 GAO/AIMD-99-296R Y2K Status of 25 Large School Districts survey by telephone, we forwarded the survey results to the responding officials and asked that they confirm the accuracy of their responses and to make any changes if needed. Our work was conducted in Washington, D.C., between August 30 and September 17, 1999. We will send copies of this correspondence to the Honorable JohnKoskinen, Chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. If you have any questions on matters discussed in this letter, please call me at (202) 512-6408 or David B. Alston, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6369. We can also be reached by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com, respectively. Key contributors to this assignment were Michael Fruitman, Gregory Micco, and M. Yvonne Sanchez. Joel C. Willemssen Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems Enclosure (511779) Page 3 GAO/AIMD-99-296R Y2K Status of 25 Large School Districts Slide 1 GAO Accounting and Information Management Division Reported Y2K Readiness of 25 Large School Districts Briefing for the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, United States Senate September 17, 1999 Fi G A 0 Slide 2 GAO Briefing Overview * Objective, Scope, and Methodology * Background · Key Business Functions · School Districts' Reported Y2K Status * Time Estimates for Completing Y2K Activities * Readiness Status * Independent Verification · Data Exchanges, Contingency Plans, and Emergency Shelter Designations 2 Slide 3 GAO Objective, Scope, and Methodology Objective * Identify reported Y2K readiness of key functions for large public school districts nationwide Scope · School districts selected from the Department of Education's list of 100 largest school districts for the 1997-98 school year · Selected the top 25, except in cases in which such selection would result in a state being represented more than once 3 Slide 4 GAO Objective, Scope, and Methodology (continued) Methodology * Developed a structured set of questions * Interviewed school district officials by telephone September 2-17, 1999, and obtained information on the Y2K readiness of each district's key business functions for elementary and secondary school operations · 100 percent response rate * Information was self-reported and was not independently verified * Requested school district officials to confirm survey responses * Requested supporting documentation and reviewed available Internet web sites 4 Slide 5 GAO Background * During the 1997-98 school year, there were 16,411 public school districts consisting of approximately * 47 million students * 3 million teachers * 91,000 schools * California had the most public elementary and secondary school students (6 million), followed by Texas (4 million) and New York (3 million). · The average school district had 6 schools; the 100 largest averaged 152 schools. 5 Slide 6 GAO Background Largest School District by State Number of Number of Number of School District City State County Students Teachers Schools New York City Public Schools New York NY Kings 1,071,853 60,648 1,153 Los Angeles Unified Los Angeles CA Los Angeles 680,430 30,905 645 Puerto Rico Dept of Education Hato Rey PR San Juan 616,470 38,976 1,543 City of Chicago School District 29 Chicago IL Cook 477,610 23,372 585 Dade County School District Miami FL Dade 345,958 17,493 321 Philadelphia City School District Philadelphia PA Philadelphia 212,865 10,999 259 Houston Independent School District Houston TX Harris 210,988 11,606 299 Clark County School District Las Vegas NV Clark 190,822. 9,862 221 Hawaii Department of Education Honolulu HI Honolulu 189,887 10,653 251 Detroit City School District Detroit Ml Wayne 174,730 8,666 271 Fairfax County Public Schools Fairfax VA Fairfax 145,722 N/A 212 Prince Georges County Public Schools Upper Marlboro MD Prince George's 128,347 7,216 182 Memphis City School District Memphis TN Shelby 111,227 6,225 163 Jefferson (KY) County Louisville KY Jefferson 104,338 5,408 165 Milwaukee School District Milwaukee WI Milwaukee 101,253 5,846 206 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Charlotte NC Mecklenburg 95,795 6,007 130 Gwinnett County School District Lawrenceville GA Gwinnett 93,509 5,609 78 Jefferson (CO) County R-1 Golden CO Jefferson 88,006 4,178 156 Albuquerque Public Schools Albuquerque NM Bemalillo 87,274 5,314 124 Orleans Parish School Board New Orleans LA Orleans 83,175 - 4,485 122 District of Columbia Public Schools Washington DC District of Columbia 77.111 N/A 171 Cleveland City School District Cleveland OH Cuyahoga 76,504 4,621 125 Granite School District Salt Lake City UT Salt Lake 74,956 3,264 97 Mesa Unified School District Mesa AZ Maricopa 69,764 3,424 80 Mobile County School District Mobile AL Mobile 65,230 3,683 89 5,573,824 288,460 7.648 6 Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1997-98 school year N/A = Not Available Slide 7 GAO Background School District Location 7 ' - a -- Slide 8 GAO Key Business Functions * Administrative Systems -- personnel/payroll, financial management * Student Records -- attendance, grades/test scores, transcripts * Student Transportation -- fuel for buses, maintenance systems * Food Service -- suppliers, point-of-sale terminals * Facilities/Embedded Systems -- elevators, energy management systems, fire/security systems, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, access systems, lighting, generators, telephone systems, refrigeration systems · Instructional Labs -- hardware/networks, application software 8 Slide 9 GAO Key Business Functions Operations School Districts Consider Mission-Critical 25 i t-t Mission- C ritical Not MisionC riti No Applicabl. 22 22 17 AdminillrslI . Sudenl RHood s Flcllilsle Studant Fod s .rvici god *b Syslem ! Em bedded Ttnepcrlltion Facilities/embedded systems, student transportation, and food service--while not always considered mission-critical--were considered mission-important or high priority functions by some schools. The three school districts that categorized instructional labs as mission-critical did so because certain components in their labs were mission-critical. Several school districts reported that instructional software will be used until 1/1/2000. At that time, if it becomes dysfunctional, it will be discarded. They also noted that instructional software is not considered to be date-sensitive. 9 Slide 10 GAO Key Business Functions Detail by School District Admin Student Facilities Student Food Instructional School District Systems Records EmbLdded Transportation Service Labs New York City Board of Education 0 0 0 0 0· O Los Angeles Unified School District 0· 0· 0 . · O Puerto Rico Department of Education · O0 0 0 0 Chicago Public Schools · · _ 0 0 O Miami-Dade County Public Schools · · O · · Philadelphia City School District · · · ·0 O Houston Independent School District · · 0 . O Clark County School Distnct 0 0 0 * 0 0 Hawaii Department of Education 0· · N/A' 0 O Detroit City School District · · 0· O O Fairfax County Public Schools · · 0· · O Prince Georqe's County Public Schools · O O O O O Memphis City School District · · O O O O Jefferson County Public Schools, KY ·0· 0 0 O Milwaukee Public Schools · · · 0· O 'Chadotte-Meddenburg Schools · O O O O O Gwinnett County Public Schools · · · ·0 · Jefferson County Public Schools, CO 0· 0 O O O Albuquerque Public Schools 0 · · · - O Orleans Parish School Board · 0 O O O O District of Columbia Public Schools 0· · · · 0 Cleveland City School District · · · · O Granite School Distnrict · · · · O O Mesa Unified School District · *· * 0 0 Mobile County School District · · O 0 0O * = Mlsslon-nrical J = NOTMlissor mlCi - /A- NOt App=lcable 10 'Hawaii reported no extensive busing of students; selected busing in rural areas is handled by a subcontractor, managed by another state agency. Slide 11 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Time Estimates for Achieving Y2K Compliance Y2K Ready Y2KReady by Y2KReady by Y2K Readyby 2K Ready School District Now Sept 30 Oct 31 Nov 30 After Nov 30 New York City Board of Education Los AnQeles Unified School District _ Puerto Rico Department of Education _ Chicago Public Schools _ Miami-Dade County Public Schools _ Philadelphia City School District 0 Houston Independent School District _ Clark County School District · Hawaii Department of Education Detroit City School District · Fairfax County Public Schools _ Prince George's County Public Schools = Memphis City School District_ Jefferson County Public Schools, KY _ Milwaukee Public Schools 0 Charotte-Mecklenburq Schools · Gwinnett County Public Schools _ Jefferson County Public Schools, CO _ Albuquerque Public Schools * Orleans Parish School Board 0 District of Columbia Public Schools _ Cleveland City School District _ Granite School District _ Mesa Unified School District _ Mobile Count= School District_ 11 Note: Time estimates for completing Y2K activities exclude completion of instructional labs because most school districts do not consider this function as mission-critical. Slide 12 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Readiness Status Number of school districts reported being Y2K ready now by business function: * administrative systems 16 * student records 19 * facilities/embedded systems 11 · student transportation 15 · food service 18 · instructional labs 3 12 Slide 13 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Summary of Readiness Status by Business Function *Y2K Ready MNot Y2K Ready O3NotAvailable or Not Applicable 19 18 16 16 15 14 Administrative Student IFacilities/ Student Food Service Instructional Systems Records Embedded Transportation Labs Systems 13 Slide 14 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Readiness Status By Business Function Admin Student Facities/ student Food In uctional School Districit Systems Records Embedded Trasportation Service Labs SW tems New York City Board of Education · 0· · · N/A Los Angeles Unified School District · · · · 60%/e Puerto Rico Department of Education 0 0 80% N/A · 60%0/ Chicago Public Schools 95% 75%0/ 90%/ 75% N/A Marrmi-Dade County Public Schools 0· 95% 0 0 Philadelphia City School Distrct 95%/. · 85%l = Houston Independent School District 80%. 65% - N/A Clark County School District 98% 98%/ 95% / 99% 95% 85% Hawaii Department of Education 90%/0 80% 0 N/A 0 80% Detroit City School District 0 · 60%/. 50/ · 60% Fairfax County Public Schools 990/0 99 · 50% Prince Geore's County Public Schools 95% 80% · · 90°% N/A Memphis City School Distnct 99%/ 0· 75% · · 50% Jefferson County Public Schools KY *· 0 Milwaukee Public Schools 95% 0 90°%i N/A 75% 60°% Chart Mecklenbur otte Schoos 0 · 0 96% Gwnnett County Public Schools 0 · · 75% · 90% Jefferson County Public Schools. CO 0· · 90%/0 70% N/A Albuquerque Public Schools 0 0 0 0· 75% Orleans Parish School Board 99/ · 80% 77°% 40% District of Columbia Public Schools 990/ · 99%/· · N/A Cleveland City School District · · 85% · 40°% 10% Granite School District · 85% 90°% 75% 15% 40%/ Mesa Unified School District · *· * 70°% Mobile Cout School District · · · · 90% 14= VY2Rey X%6= NotYZKReady, Pecwatage [cnlete N/AT= N A ablll e orNot AOIablhe 14 Slide 15 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Completion Dates By Business Function Admin Stdent Facilrtiest Student Food Insructional School Dr isaicSystens Records Embedded Transportation Service Labs New York City Board of Education Jun-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 Jan-99 Jun-99 Dec-99 Los Anqeles Unified School District Jun-99 Jun-99 Auc-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 N/A Puerto Rco Department of Education Sep-99 Auq-99 Oct-99 N/A N/A Jun-00 Chcaqo Public Schools Oct-99 Nov-99 Oct99 -99 Oct-99 Sep-99 2000 Miami-Dade County Public Schools Oct-9 Oct-98 Sep99 Oct-98 Sep-99 Aug-99 Philadelphia City School District Sep99 Mar-97 Dec-99 Jul-99 Jul-99 Dec-99 Houston Independent School District Dec-9) Aug-99 Dec-99 Auc-99 IAu-99 2000 Clark County School District Nov-99 Nov-99 Nov-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Hawaii Department of Education Sep-9) Sep-99 Jun-99 N/A Jul-99 Se99 DetroitCiy School District Jul-99 Nov-98 Nov-99 Oct-99 Sep99 Oct-99 Failfax County Public Schools Auq-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Jul-99 Aua-99 Oct-99 Prince Geore's County Pubtic Schools Sep-f) Dec-99 Jul-99 N/A Sep-99 2000 his City School District Sep-) Jul-99 Dec-99 Jul-99 Jul-99 Dec-99 Jefferson County Public Schools. KY Jul-98 Jul-98 Jul-99 Jul-98 Jul-99 Feb-99 Milwaukee Public Schools Nov-9.) Se-99 Nov-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Au Charlotte-Mecdenbur: Schools Jun-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Sep-99 Jun-99 Oct-99 Gwnnett County Public Schools Jul-99 Jul-99 May-99 Oct-99 Jun-99 Oct-99 Jefferson County Public Schools. CO Jul-99_ Au- 99 Auq-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Albuquerque Public Schools Jul-99 Auq-99Auq-99 Sep-99 Jun-99 Dec-99 Orleans Parish School Board Sep-9} Auc-99 Nov-99 Oct-99 Dec-99 Au-99 District of Columbia Public Schools Se May-99 0-99 Aug-99 Jun-99 Nov-99 Cleveland City School District Sep-9I Feb-99 Dec-99 Jul-99 Nov-99 Nov-99 Granite School District Mar-99 Oct-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Jan-01 Jun-00 Mesa LUnified School District Mar-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Jul-99 Jul-99 2000 Mobile County School District SSep-D9 Sep-99 Sep-99 Se 2000 15 15 NVA = Not AplicaMbe or Not Availate Slide 16 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Independent Verification by Business Function Number of school districts reporting independent verification of: Planned or Not Planned or Completed Onoingo - Not Available * administrative systems 5 12 8 * student records 7 7 11 * facilities/embedded systems 2 9 14 * student transportation 3 8 14 * food service 5 4 16 * instructional labs 1 4 20 16 Slide 17 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Independent Verification by Business Function Adrnin Sbtudent Facilities/ Student Food Inslructional Syst4ems Records Embedded Transportation Service Labs Systems New York City Board of Education O O OO O O Los Anoeles Unifed School District C O O O O O Puerto Rico Department of Education 0· O N/A N/A O Chicago Public Schools O O O O O O Miami-Dade County Public Schools 0 · 0 0 0 · Philadelphia City School District O 0· · 0 O Houston Independent School District 0 0 0 0 0 Clark County School District O O O O O Hawaii Department of Education 0 · 0 N/A 0 O Detroit City School District O 0 o0 0 Fairfax County Public Schools , O O O O O Prince Georae's County Public Schools O O O O O O Memphis City School District O O O O O Jefferson County Public Schools. KY · 0· O· 0 O Milwaukee Public Schools 0 O O O 0 O Charlotte-Mecklenburq Schools O O O O O Gwinnett County Public Schools O 0 0 o 0 0 Jefferson County Public Schools, CO _ 0 0 0 0 0 Albuquerque Public Schools O O O O O Orleans Parish School Board O O O O O O District of Columbia Public Schools 0 0 0 0O O Cleveland City School District 0 0 0 0 0 0 Granite School District O O O O Mesa Unified School District 0 0 0 00 0 Mobile County School District 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 * = Complete O Planned or OCioing O = Not Planned N/A Not Applicable or Not Available Slide 18 GAO School Districts Reported Y2K Status Data Exchanges and Contingency Plans * 22 school districts reported a having compliant data exchanges 15 * 15 school districts reported having business continuity and contingency plans (BCCP) in development * 10 school districts reported O:,iartDa CormpC having completed BCCPs, - -Ras? FI? 5 reported also testing IYes 0 b 11XMAFpr, them 18 Slide 19 GAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Schools Used As Emergency Shelters Schools may be designated by their local communities to serve as emergency shelters. This designation may require additional coordination on the part of a school district and completion of Y2K facility readiness. As shown by the data, 20 of the 25 schools in the survey report they are designated emergency shelters for their communities. Blab 19 Slide 20 cGAO School Districts' Reported Y2K Status Data Exchanges, Contingency Plans, and Emeraencv Shelters t Data Exchanges Contingency Plans Con ingency Schools Used as Compliant? Conplete? Plans Tested? Emergency Shelters? New York City Board of Education · Oct-99 0 O Los Angeles Unified SchooldDistrict · O Puerto Rico Department of Education N/A' 0 0 Chicago Public Schools 0 Dec-99 O O Mami-Dade County Public Schools · · O · Philadelphia City School District 0· 0· Houston Independent School District 0 Dec-99 O C Clark County School District Nov-99 Nov-99 O · Hawaii Department of Education 0 * O C Detroit CitySchool District 0 Nov-99 O Fairfax County Public Schools 0 Nov-99 O Prince George's County Public Schools · O O Memphis City School District 0 Oct-99 O 0 Jefferson County Public Schools, KY 0 Milwaukee Public Schools Nov-99 Nov-99 O Charlotte-Meclenburq Schools 0· O O Gwinnett County Public Schools 0 Nov-99 O O Jefferson County Public Schools, CO 0· O 0· Albuquerque Public Schools 0 Oct-99 . O 0 Orleans Parish School Board · Oct-99 O District of Columbia Public Schools · Oct-99 O Cleveland City School District · Dec-99 O O Granite School District · Nov-99 0 0 Mesa Unified School District 0· 0 0 Mobile County School District 0 _ 0 *=Yes O=No N/A= Not Applicable 20 *Puerto Rico uses amanual process for exchanging data
Reported Year 2000 (Y2K) Readiness Status of 25 Large School Districts
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-09-21.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)