Abstract
Problem and purpose. The purpose of this study was to describe purposively selected California school districts' superintendents', district-level administrators', principals', and teachers' perceptions of (1) recommendations received in the curriculum management audit process; (2) extent of implementation of the received recommendations; (3) the curriculum management audit as a catalyst for instructional change; and (4) supports and/or barriers to improvement recommendations received during the audit process. Methodology. The study used a descriptive case study design. Archival and survey data were reviewed. Individual and focus group interviews were conducted in purposively selected districts. Findings and conclusions. The key findings suggested the following conclusions: (1) the curriculum management audit served as a catalyst for change and provided a guide to improved student achievement; (2) superintendents should ensure training regarding the theories behind and the components of an audit prior to participating an audit; (3) district leadership should create a plan for the presentation of a final audit report to trustees, community, media, and staff following audit completion; (4) district leadership or a shareholder committee should establish a timeline for implementation of audit recommendations; (5) district leadership should allocate resources for implementation of audit recommendations; (6) audits are most useful when used to identify opportunities for growth rather than evaluation; (7) a "follow-up" study three years past a district's audit to assess implementation progress would be beneficial. Recommendations. Recommendations from the study include: (1) district leadership should establish incremental steps when instituting change for improved student achievement; (2) superintendents who consider an audit should ensure training for shareholders detailing theories behind the audit; (3) district leadership should create a plan for the presentation of the audit report and findings to trustees and community by district shareholders following audit completion; (4) district leadership should prioritize the recommendations upon receipt of findings and recommendations; (5) district governance and leadership teams should commit to the allocation of resources to support recommended changes; (6) superintendents who submit their district to an audit should promote the purpose as a foundation for change and improvement; (7) following an audit, benchmarks should be built into a timeline for implementation of recommendations.