New London - The state Department of Education will increase its monitoring of the school board and will conduct an audit of school district operations that, in a worst-case scenario, could result in a state takeover.

The state has had an observer at Board of Education meetings since last year, when former Chairman Alvin Kinsall requested it. Retired Groton Superintendent James Mitchell was assigned that role.

At that time, a technical assistance team from the state already was working with city schools on the plan that outlines the district's goals for improving its standarized test scores.

"I welcome the assistance," Chairman William Morse said Wednesday. "I welcome the findings of this audit, which will look at the interboard relationship, the relationship between the board and administration, the board and council, the board and the mayor and the board and the community.

"I welcome outside professional insight and I look forward to hearing the recommendations that will craft the format of the training the board will have to attend."

Morse received notice of the pending governance and management audit in a March 9 letter from the education commissioner.

The audit will not examine school district finances, but instead will focus on how the school board engages with the City Council, how the board communicates its priorities, what the City Council understands to be the goals of the school board and how visible the school district is within the community, Lol Fearon, chief of the state's Bureau of Accountability and Improvement, said Wednesday.

School board member Margaret Curtin said that she welcomes the audit but that she disagrees with Morse.

"The state oversight was given to the previous board. We have four new members, and I'm wondering why we are still under the state monitoring us," Curtin said. "It's not regarding the board, it's regarding achievement practice, so why is this board being penalized because of the previous board? I don't agree with that."

Fearon said the audit is a continuation of the department's ongoing review of the school district and that from now on he and a member of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education plan to attend school board meetings.

The audit process will begin shortly and will include interviews with school board members, school district administrators, city councilors and a "broader base of people in the community," Superintendent of Schools Nicholas A. Fischer said.

New London is one of 18 "partner districts" - a state designation for school districts with three consecutive years of poor student performance in math and reading.

Independent auditors appointed by the state's Bureau of Accountability and Improvement will conduct the audit, and the final report will be submitted to the school board and to Stefan Pryor, the state's commissioner of education, by the end of April.

Pryor would have a number of options, including recommending that the entire board attend mandatory state-sponsored training.

Fischer said the state can implement as many interventions as they think will help get improve the school board or the district, but that the state ideally would like to see the board do it for itself. The last option for the state is to reconstitute the schools, which means the state could take control of the school system. He said a series of mandatory training and other methods must be implemented before a state takeover would be considered.

"This all ties back to improving student achievement. The issue is what the board is doing or not doing to improve student achievement," Fischer said. "What triggers this whole set of activities is an underachieving district within which there are underachieving schools. Once you cross that threshold, the state can do anything."

Morse said that when the state asked previous and current board members to participate in a training program called Lighthouse, it was voluntary, not mandatory.

"We had board members that didn't feel this type of workshop was appropriate and didn't take it seriously," Morse said. "So the state took note of this and expressed to me and the superintendent its concerns over the lack of cooperation and moving towards better student achievement."

He said the state felt the board was being more "reactive than proactive," and that some board members were "on the borderline of micromanaging the administration" and not fully understanding their roles as board members.

j.hanckel@theday.com