Performance audit, Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program

              Performance Audit
Technology Assisted
Project-Based
Instruction Program
Division of School Audits
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
OCTOBER • 2007
A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
The is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators
and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to
improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services
to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of
school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Robert Blendu, Chair Representative John Nelson, Vice Chair
Senator Carolyn Allen Representative Tom Boone
Senator Pamela Gorman Representative Jack Brown
Senator Richard Miranda Representative Pete Rios
Senator Rebecca Rios Representative Steve Yarbrough
Senator Tim Bee (ex-officio) Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Sharron Walker, Director
Ann Orrico, Manager and Contact Person
Jason Taylor Jessica Martin-Carscadden
Stephanie George Lorisa Sjaaheim
Lance Lytle Stephanie Smith
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.azauditor.gov
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
October 29, 2007
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor
The Honorable Tom Horne, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona Department of Education
Mr. Vince Yanez, Executive Director
Arizona State Board of Education
Ms. DeAnna Rowe, Executive Director
Arizona State Board for Charter Schools
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, a Performance Audit of the Technology
Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program. This performance audit is in response to Laws
2005, Chapter 323, §2 and was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General
by A.R.S. §41-1279.03. I am also transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights
for this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in their responses, the Arizona Department of Education and the two state boards
agree with all of the findings and plan to implement or implement in a different manner all of the
recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 30, 2007.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction (TAPBI) Program, pursuant to Laws
2005, Ch. 323, §2. TAPBI is Arizona’s primary approach to providing an Internet-based
alternative to learning in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. This audit
provides an overview of the Program and examines three aspects of its operations:
whether TAPBI schools are appropriately applying state enrollment and funding
requirements, how their costs compare to traditional brick-and-mortar schools, and
what efforts they are taking to ensure student achievement.
In 1998, the Arizona Legislature created the TAPBI Program to “improve pupil
achievement and extend academic options beyond the four walls of the traditional
classroom.” Still in a pilot stage, the TAPBI Program has grown from 4 schools to 14
as of fiscal year 2007, including 7 charter schools and 7 school districts. Further,
program enrollment grew from about 500 students to more than 15,000 in fiscal year
2006. Most TAPBI schools serve many different types of students including gifted, at-risk,
and homebound students, but a few target specific student populations, such
as adult-aged high school or at-risk students. Four TAPBI schools provide distance
learning to elementary students in kindergarten through grade 8, while the remaining
10 schools serve only high school students. Distance-learning programs are
operated in all 50 states, and Arizona is 1 of 26 states that provide the program
through individual schools rather than a state-wide program through the Department
of Education.
TAPBI schools typically use Internet-based applications, known as learning
management systems, to create and deliver learning content, such as online reading
materials, interactive exercises, discussion forums, video clips, and quizzes.
Students may also spend time on activities such as reading textbooks, completing
homework assignments, or working with hands-on projects. Several TAPBI programs
allow students to enroll in and start TAPBI courses at any time of the year, and they
are generally self-paced as students are allowed to spend more or less time on
individual lessons than may occur in a traditional classroom.
Office of the Auditor General
SUMMARY
page i
The Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and the State
Board for Charter Schools provide oversight for the TAPBI Program. The schools are
required to file annual reports including descriptions of educational services
provided, the Program’s operational and administrative efficiency and cost-effectiveness,
measures of academic achievement, and results of student and
parent satisfaction surveys. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee, along with the
two state boards, issues a compilation of the TAPBI schools’ individual annual
reports each fiscal year. Further, the state boards are statutorily required to review the
effectiveness of each TAPBI school once every 5 years and determine whether to
renew the school’s participation in the Program.
TAPBI schools are provided state and local funding using the same per-pupil method
as for other public schools, which is based on Average Daily Membership (ADM). In
fiscal year 2006, the 4,475 ADM for the TAPBI Program generated an estimated $23.8
million in funding.
Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI ADM overfunded by about
$6.4 million (see pages 11 through 18)
TAPBI program errors and noncompliance increased the cost of public education by
an estimated $6.4 million. The Program is funded on the same ADM method used
for brick-and-mortar schools, which may not be the best basis for funding online
education. For online programs such as the TAPBI schools, the ADM method is more
susceptible to error. Specifically, while ADM is determined by teacher attendance
records in traditional schools, for the TAPBI schools it is determined by students’ self-reported
hours of time spent on coursework. Current literature does not identify an
ideal funding method for online learning programs. Although Arizona is one of 21
states using a per-pupil funding method for distance-learning programs, some of
these states have additional requirements, such as course completion, to obtain
funding. Also, a full-time equivalent method may address some of the ADM issues
as it would be based on the number of courses taken rather than instruction hours
reported by the students.
Further, trying to apply the ADM method to online programs contributes to program
overfunding. The Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) errors when applying
statutory ADM limits were the primary reason for TAPBI overfunding. First, statute
does not provide for TAPBI students to be funded at more than a total of 1.0 ADM.
However, ADE does not limit students who are concurrently enrolled in brick-and-mortar
and TAPBI schools to 1.0 ADM. The Student Accountability Information
System (SAIS), ADE’s computer-based program that calculates ADM, currently does
not have the capability to adjust for concurrent TAPBI enrollment. Therefore, the
allocation process is done outside the SAIS system using a variety of formulas in a
State of Arizona
page ii
spreadsheet program. However, the spreadsheet process does not include adjusting
the brick-and-mortar school’s funding for concurrently enrolled TAPBI students. For
example, a student who attends a brick-and-mortar school full-time and a TAPBI
school half-time could be funded as 1.33 ADM rather than being split proportionately
so that funding remains at 1.0 ADM.
Another source of overfunding occurs when students enroll in a TAPBI program after
the cutoff date for traditional school funding or attend “summer school.” Specifically,
students enrolling in a brick-and-mortar school after the 100th day of the school year
would not generate any ADM funding. However, because TAPBI schools operate
year-round, students enrolling in TAPBI schools generate funding regardless of when
they enroll. Also, brick-and-mortar schools do not receive state funding for instruction
time provided outside the normal school year, so they typically charge students
tuition for attending summer school. However, ADE does not consider TAPBI
summer enrollments to be limited to 1.0 ADM as with concurrent enrollments, and
therefore, includes this ADM for TAPBI funding purposes.
As a result of ADE not properly limiting TAPBI ADM, in fiscal year 2006, about 6,800
of the 10,600 TAPBI students enrolled in multiple schools were overfunded by
approximately $6.4 million.
The TAPBI schools’ failure to adhere to statutory enrollment restrictions further
contributed to overfunding. Specifically, TAPBI schools must ensure that at least 80
percent of their new enrollments are students who attended public schools during
the previous school year, that enrolling kindergartners already have a sibling enrolled
in a TAPBI school, and that their enrollment growth does not exceed 100 percent in
a fiscal year. However, in fiscal year 2006, 6 TAPBI schools exceeded one of these
statutory limits, increasing the TAPBI program cost by about $88,000.
TAPBI schools’ operations cost less, but further savings
may exist (see pages 19 through 26)
In fiscal year 2006, TAPBI schools spent an average of approximately $5,500 per
pupil, which is about $1,200 less than the $6,750 per-pupil state average. TAPBI
schools achieve lower per-pupil costs because most students take classes at home.
As a result, the schools have little, if any, transportation or food service costs and
significantly lower plant operation and maintenance costs. Further, TAPBI schools
reported that fewer than 6 percent of their students had special needs, which
significantly lowered their special education costs.
However, costs varied significantly among the 14 TAPBI schools because of
differences in their operations. Specifically, TAPBI charter schools’ per-pupil costs
Office of the Auditor General
page iii
averaged $6,140, which is only about $600 lower than the state per-pupil average
and much higher than the $2,900 per-pupil average for TAPBI school districts. These
higher costs occurred primarily in administration costs, which were influenced by
higher administrative staff salary and benefit costs and staff entertainment costs,
such as restaurant purchases and gift cards.
Software licensing agreements also tended to increase TAPBI schools’ per-pupil
costs. For example, in fiscal year 2006, one TAPBI charter school paid nearly $2.5
million, or $3,535 per pupil, as an ongoing cost for its learning management system
and related consulting services. Further, a TAPBI school district’s $8,138 per-pupil
cost was also primarily influenced by its purchase of a learning management system,
which was a one-time cost of about $1,040 per pupil, and the ongoing cost of system
support at about $520 per pupil. In contrast, another TAPBI school district developed
its own learning management system in 1998, and in fiscal year 2006, had the
second lowest per-pupil cost of all the TAPBI schools. Two other TAPBI school
districts use this same system through intergovernmental agreements, which
lowered their learning management system-related costs. One of these two districts
had the lowest overall per-pupil cost of all the TAPBI schools.
Although required by statute, the TAPBI schools have not accurately identified their
costs or properly reported their cost-effectiveness. The TAPBI schools did not always
properly allocate costs between their TAPBI and other operations, making it difficult
to evaluate program cost-effectiveness. Further, the TAPBI schools did not
consistently categorize their reported costs, making it difficult to compare costs
among the different schools.
Student achievement measures and practices can be
improved (pages 27 through 37)
The TAPBI Program’s effect on student achievement is unclear. Currently, the state
boards measure student achievement by comparing TAPBI students’ standardized
test scores to state-wide students’ results. However, many TAPBI students attend
multiple schools or have short tenure in the Program. Also, high school students do
not take the AIMS test each year. As a result, this method of determining the TAPBI
schools’ effect on student achievement is not reliable. National studies are also
inconclusive on how online learning is affecting student achievement.
TAPBI schools can take steps to improve instruction and student support practices
and potentially improve student achievement. First, TAPBI schools should ensure
that students are receiving the required minimum number of instruction hours for their
TAPBI courses. Auditors found that a sample of TAPBI high school students received
an average of 48 percent fewer instruction hours than required, while kindergarten
State of Arizona
page iv
through 8th-grade students received an average of 9 percent fewer hours than
required. Further, finding ways to ensure academic integrity is even more important
in an online learning environment. All but 2 of the TAPBI schools had formal student-teacher
communication policies or measured the timeliness or frequency of
communication. However, only 6 of the 14 schools required students to take exams
in a proctored environment and pass the exams to receive credit for their classes.
Further, some TAPBI schools did not provide teacher training programs that were
specific to working with students in an online environment.
Appendix (see pages a-1 through a-16)
The Appendix provides alphabetically organized one-page information sheets on the
individual TAPBI schools. Each page summarizes the school’s enrollment and costs
and provides other descriptive information.
Office of the Auditor General
page v
State of Arizona
page vi
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
1
11
11
13
14
16
18
19
19
21
24
26
27
27
30
37
Introduction & Background
Chapter 1: Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI ADM overfunded by
about $6.4 million
Traditional funding method may not be the best for online
education
Costly errors in applying ADM to the TAPBI Program
Other states use varied funding approaches
Six TAPBI schools exceeded statutory enrollment limits
Recommendations
Chapter 2: TAPBI schools’ operations cost less, but
further savings may exist
Certain costs are avoided in an online learning environment
Differences in TAPBI schools’ operations affect costs
TAPBI schools were not accurately capturing and reporting costs
Recommendations
Chapter 3: Student achievement measures and
practices can be improved
TAPBI Program’s effect on student achievement is unclear
TAPBI schools can improve instruction and student support
practices
Recommendations
page vii
State of Arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix
Agencies’ Responses
Tables:
1 TAPBI Schools’ Estimated Formula-Based Funding
For Fiscal Year 2006 ADM
2 Other States’ Funding Methods for Distance-Learning Programs
Fiscal Year 2006
3 TAPBI Schools Enrolling Kindergarten Students without
a Sibling Currently Enrolled in and Attending the Program
Fiscal Year 2006
4 TAPBI Schools Exceeding 100 Percent Growth Limitation
Fiscal Year 2006
5 TAPBI School Expenditures Compared to
State-wide Public School Expenditures
Fiscal year 2006
6 Individual TAPBI Charter and District School Expenditures
Compared to State-wide Public School Expenditures Per-Pupil
Fiscal Year 2006
7 TAPBI Students’ TerraNova Test Scores Compared to
State-wide Scores Average Percentile Rank
Fiscal Year 2006
8 TAPBI Students’ AIMS Test Results Compared to State-wide
Results Percentage Meeting or Exceeding State Standards
Fiscal Year 2006
a-1
6
15
16
17
20
22
28
28
continued
page viii
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
concluded
31
32
33
34
36
a-1
Tables (concl’d):
9 TAPBI Schools’ Practices Compared to Common Practices for
Online Schools in Other States
10 Minimum K-12 Instruction Hours
Required by Statute (by grade)
11 TAPBI Schools’ High School Students’ Instruction Hours
Compared to Minimum Instruction Hours Required by Statute
12 Summary of TAPBI Schools’ Course Exam Procedures
Fiscal Year 2007
13 Summary of TAPBI Schools’ Self-reported
Online Teacher Training Requirements
Fiscal Year 2007
14 Individual TAPBI School Page Source Information
page ix
State of Arizona
page x
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction (TAPBI) Program, pursuant to Laws
2005, Ch. 323, §2. TAPBI is Arizona’s primary approach to providing an Internet-based
alternative to learning in traditional brick-and-mortar elementary and
secondary school programs. This audit provides an overview of the Program and
examines three aspects of its operations: whether TAPBI schools are appropriately
applying state enrollment and funding requirements, how their costs compare to
traditional brick-and-mortar schools, and what efforts they are taking to ensure
student achievement.
TAPBI Is State’s Approach to Online Learning
In 1998, the Arizona Legislature created the Technology Assisted Project-Based
Instruction Program (TAPBI) to “improve pupil achievement and extend academic
options beyond the four walls of the traditional classroom.” The law established
TAPBI as a program in which a set of designated schools would provide such
learning options for students throughout Arizona. The law called for creating an initial
pilot program to be operated at two school districts and two charter schools and
expanding it in 2003 to a total of seven school districts and seven charter schools.
The State Board of Education and the State Board for Charter Schools selected the
initial four schools based upon the law’s specified criteria, such as the depth and
breadth of curriculum choices, variety of educational technologies used, ability to
safeguard students during Internet use, and availability of faculty experienced with
technology. The time spent to develop curriculum and technology for the new
education delivery method meant the initial four programs did not begin operating
until 2001 or later. The additional five school districts and five charter schools were
selected in 2003. In 2005, as part of legislation increasing the limit on program
enrollment, the Legislature required the Auditor General to conduct a performance
audit of the TAPBI Program by November 1, 2007.
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
page 1
Program Structure
Arizona uses decentralized approach—Distance-learning programs are
operated in each of the 50 states. However, the states use a variety of approaches
for developing and providing online programs at the K-12 level,
including a state-led program, a decentralized program led by
individual schools, or a combination of the two. Arizona is 1 of 26
states that provide K-12 online learning through individual schools,
rather than through the state Department of Education. According to
a 2006 study of other states’ online learning programs, 4 states have
only state-led online learning programs (programs that are
administered by a state education agency directly funded by a state
appropriation or grant); 20 states have both state-led and
decentralized programs; and 26 states have only decentralized
programs.1 Currently, the 7 school districts and 7 charter schools in
Arizona’s program (see textbox) also generally operate their
programs independently of one another.
Most of the 7 TAPBI school districts have relatively small programs,
serving between 50 and 200 students each, and typically only
serving students residing within the district. Mesa Unified School
District is the exception, serving nearly 1,500 students, 340 of whom
are from other school districts. Mesa USD also serves students in 71
school districts, 17 states, and 3 different countries, some of whom
are on a tuition basis. These 7 school districts typically operate
TAPBI as a separate program within the districts, rather than as a
stand-alone school.
TAPBI programs operated by charter schools also vary significantly in size, with 5
of the schools serving between 1,000 and 4,100 students each, and 2 serving from
100 to 700 students each. The TAPBI charter schools all offer their programs to
students state-wide. Further, the charter schools’ TAPBI operational structures are
more varied. Three charter schools solely operate as TAPBI programs—that is,
they have no students or programs other than TAPBI. Among the 4 other charter
schools, 1 created a separate school entity for TAPBI, while 3 operate TAPBI in
conjunction with other programs.
The Appendix provides further information on the individual TAPBI schools.
Education delivery takes many forms—TAPBI schools typically provide
instruction through Internet-based applications that allow schools to create and
deliver learning content, such as online reading materials, interactive exercises,
discussion forums, video clips, and quizzes. Their comprehensive learning
management systems also typically include tools for monitoring student
1 Watson, J. and Jennifer Ryan. Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy and Practice,
Learning Point Associates, October 2006.
State of Arizona
page 2
Arizona Connections Academy 402 265
Arizona Distance Learning 1,314 464
Arizona Virtual Academy 2,042 1,439
Humanities and Sciences
Academy Arizona 1,175 727
Kids-At-Hope Online Academy 168 27
Pinnacle Virtual High School 4,081 430
Primavera Online High School 3,932 697
Deer Valley USD n/a n/a
Lake Havasu USD 203 17
Marana USD 94 23
Mesa USD 1,494 353
Peoria USD 160 16
Tempe UHSD 71 9
Tucson USD 46 7
n/a—not available. Due to computer difficulties, Deer Valley
USD had not yet reported its TAPBI students for fiscal year 2006.
TAPBI Schools Enrollment
Fiscal Year 2006
participation and progress, such as instruction time logs and
electronic grade books. To ensure that students can access
and interact with learning management systems, the TAPBI
schools generally require students to have access to a high-speed
Internet connection and a computer that meets certain
technical requirements. Most schools also provide small
computer labs for student use, and three schools even lend
students the needed equipment.
Besides using the computer-based instruction, students may also spend time on
activities such as reading textbooks, completing homework assignments, or
working with hands-on projects. The amount of time spent on the computer can
vary by class type or grade level. For example, classes for kindergartners involve
more hands-on activities that require help from a parent or learning coach.
Similarly, physical education classes may include both computer-based
instruction, to learn about a topic, such as cardiovascular health or bowling, and
participation in activities at a partner health facility or bowling alley. TAPBI schools
primarily communicate with their students through phone and e-mail, although
some schools provide on-site testing, open houses, or field trips.
Several TAPBI programs allow students to enroll in and start TAPBI courses at any
time of the year, and they are generally self-paced as students are allowed to
spend more or less time on individual lessons than may occur in a traditional
classroom. The courses, however, must usually be completed within a certain
number of weeks for the student to receive school credit. The allowed course time
may differ considerably, depending on the school. For example, Mesa USD’s
TAPBI Program provides an 18-week limit for course completion, while Primavera
Online High School’s program has a 6-week limit.
TAPBI schools must also comply with the State’s other educational requirements,
such as providing minimum amounts of instruction time, aligning curricula with
state standards, and hiring qualified teachers.
State oversight provided by three main entities—The Superintendent of
Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and the State Board for Charter
Schools all provide oversight for TAPBI. Since the Program’s inception, the TAPBI
schools have been required to self-report certain information annually to the state
boards and to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, including:
􀁺􇩄 Descriptions of educational services provided and the effects of technology
on the delivery of those services;
􀁺􇩔 The measurement of academic achievement of TAPBI students based on: a)
standardized test scores, and b) data identified by the state boards that
compares the academic performance of TAPBI students with non-TAPBI
students;
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
Learning Management System
A comprehensive software system that can be used
to track student progress and course completions
while a teacher controls and guides the learning
process. Most systems are Web-based to allow for
“any time, any place, any pace.”
􀁺􇩔 The results of student and parent satisfaction surveys;
􀁺􇩁 A description of the availability and equitable distribution of educational
services; and
􀁺􇩄 Descriptions of the Program’s operational and administrative efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, including a schedule of costs for the fiscal year.
The 2005 session law also required that, every 5 years, the state boards review the
effectiveness of each TAPBI school and the reports described above to determine
whether to renew the school’s participation in TAPBI.1 As of August 2007, the state
boards’ directors were in the process of developing specific plans for their first 5-
year review, which they plan to begin in fiscal year 2008.
Additionally, the 2005 session law provided that if the Superintendent of Public
Instruction determines that a TAPBI school district is no longer meeting the original
TAPBI application criteria, he may recommend that the State Board of Education
replace that school district with another one. In May 2006, the Superintendent
formed a TAPBI Task Force, which obtained updated application information from
the seven school districts. Based on its evaluation, the Task Force found all districts
to be operating their TAPBI programs in compliance with statute and made no
recommendations for replacement.
Student Enrollment
Enrollment has grown to more than 15,000—TAPBI enrollment has
increased substantially since the Program first started. TAPBI enrollment has
increased from 500 students in 2001, when the first school began operating, to
more than 15,000 students in 2006. The Program no longer has an enrollment cap
but does currently have statutory restrictions on who can enroll and how quickly
individual schools can grow. Eighty percent of new TAPBI enrollees must have
been enrolled in and attending a public school the previous year, new kindergarten
enrollees must have a sibling already enrolled in the Program, and any individual
school’s enrollment cannot increase by more than 100 percent in any fiscal year.2
Schools vary in types of students served—Most TAPBI schools cater to
many different types of students such as gifted, at-risk, homebound, and students
seeking credit acceleration, but a few target specific student populations, such as
adult-aged high school students or at-risk students. Four TAPBI schools provide
1 Laws 2005, Ch. 323, §1.
2 Eligibility requirements have changed several times since the start of TAPBI. Laws 1998, Ch. 224, limited total TAPBI
enrollment to 500 students per year. Laws 2003, Ch. 241, removed the 500-student cap, but required students to have
attended a public school the prior year to be eligible and added a requirement that kindergartners had to have a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI. Laws 2005, Ch. 323, reduced the requirement for prior attendance to 80 percent of new
students.
State of Arizona
page 4
distance learning to elementary students in kindergarten through grade 8, while the
remaining 10 schools serve only high school students. Many students, about 70
percent in fiscal year 2006, were also enrolled at traditional brick-and-mortar
schools during the school year. Additionally, 12 of the TAPBI schools serve special
needs students with mild to moderate disabilities, such as learning or emotionally
disabled students. Special needs students represent about 6 percent of the total
students served.
The Appendix provides more information about the types of students each TAPBI
school serves.
Funding and Costs
TAPBI funding follows traditional K-12 approach—TAPBI schools are
provided state and local funding using the same per-pupil method as other
kindergarten through 12th-grade public schools in the State. This method provides
funding based on Average Daily Membership (ADM).1 As shown in Table 1 (see
page 6), the 4,475 ADM for the TAPBI Program in fiscal year 2006 generated an
estimated $23.8 million in funding.
Although TAPBI funding is calculated using the same basic method as other
schools, the instruction hours are based on student-maintained time logs rather
than the number of students enrolled and physically attending classes as
confirmed by teacher attendance records. Six of the TAPBI schools require parents
to sign (electronically or manually) the student time reports before they are sent to
the school. Also, for students attending more than one school, each student’s
TAPBI and traditional school ADM must be allocated among the schools being
attended so that the student equates to only 1.0 ADM for funding purposes.
Chapter 1 provides further discussion of this issue.
Programs required to report on cost-effectiveness—Statute requires
schools participating in the TAPBI Program to submit annual reports to the state
boards addressing various program aspects, including the cost-effectiveness of
their program.2 In 2006, one school district failed to report on its cost-effectiveness
and two districts provided incomplete data. In general, the self-reported cost data
was neither complete nor consistent. Chapter 2 provides more specific information
about TAPBI costs.
1 School districts’ formula-based funding consists of: a) property tax revenue, and b) county and state aid, if a district’s
property tax revenue is insufficient. Since charter schools do not receive property tax revenue, their formula-based funding
consists only of state aid.
2 Arizona Revised Statutes §15-808(C).
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
Scope and methodology
This audit focused on three specific areas of the TAPBI pilot program:
􀁺􇩗 Whether charter schools, school districts, and ADE are appropriately applying
TAPBI enrollment and funding requirements;
􀁺􇩈 How much the TAPBI schools cost, and how these costs compare to traditional
brick-and-mortar schools; and
State of Arizona
page 6
TAPBI School
Average
Daily
Membership
(ADM)
Formula-
Based
Funding2
Charter Schools:
Arizona Connections Academy 265 $1,457,500
Arizona Distance Learning 464 2,691,200
Arizona Virtual Academy 1,439 7,051,100
Humanities and Sciences Academy 727 3,925,800
Kids-at-Hope Online Academy 27 167,400
Pinnacle Virtual High School 430 2,494,000
Primavera Online High School 697 3,763,800
School Districts:
Deer Valley USD3 n/a n/a
Lake Havasu USD 17 85,000
Mesa USD 353 1,960,200
Marana USD 23 117,300
Peoria USD 16 84,800
Tempe USD 9 44,100
Tucson USD 7 36,400
Total 4,475 $23,824,600
Table 1: TAPBI Schools’ Estimated Formula-Based Funding
For Fiscal Year 2006 ADM1
1 For charter schools, funding for fiscal year 2006 ADM was provided in fiscal year 2006. For school
districts, funding for fiscal year 2006 ADM was provided in fiscal year 2007. Because dollar amounts
are estimated, auditors rounded them to the nearest $100.
2 Auditors’ calculations for average per student funding for school districts was based on grade-level
(Group A) ADM weights for base support level, soft capital allocation, and capital outlay revenue limits.
Auditors' calculations for charter schools were based on charter school funding methods, including
base support level and additional state assistance.
3 Due to computer difficulties, Deer Valley USD did not report any TAPBI ADM in fiscal year 2006 and did
not receive funding for them in fiscal year 2007.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of a) average daily membership (ADM) information obtained from the Arizona Department
of Education (ADE); and b) FY07 APOR55-1 (for TAPBI school districts) and FY06 CHAR55-1 (for TAPBI charter schools)
reports.
􀁺􇩈 How student achievement in the technology-based environment compares to
achievement in traditional brick-and-mortar schools.
In conducting this audit, auditors used a variety of methods, including examining
various records, such as ADE’s fiscal year 2005 through 2007 enrollment data for
participating TAPBI schools; reviewing TAPBI schools’ policies and procedures,
student records, and cost information; reviewing applicable statutes; assessing
applicable internal controls at ADE and TAPBI schools; and interviewing officials at
ADE, the State Board of Education, the State Board for Charter Schools, and each of
the 14 TAPBI schools. Auditors also observed the operations and learning
management systems for each of the 14 TAPBI schools. Additionally:
􀁺􇩔 To assess whether charter schools, school districts, and ADE are appropriately
applying TAPBI enrollment and funding requirements, auditors interviewed
schools about their policies and procedures, and tested school enrollment
records for compliance with statutory enrollment requirements. Additionally,
auditors interviewed ADE school finance officials about enrollment data and
funding procedures, and tested ADE’s enrollment data and related calculations
for accuracy and compliance with statutory ADM limits. Due to errors identified,
auditors also recalculated ADM and estimated proper funding.
􀁺􇩔 To determine TAPBI schools’ costs and to compare costs of TAPBI and
traditional brick-and-mortar schools for cost-effectiveness, auditors analyzed
fiscal year 2006 cost data, the most current completed fiscal year at the time of
the audit, provided by each participating program. To validate the cost data,
auditors compared it to the costs reported on the fiscal year 2006 TAPBI self-reported
annual reports and to source documents such as invoices and
employment agreements. Any identified misclassified expenses were
reclassified to more accurately reflect TAPBI costs. Auditors also assessed the
adequacy of the methods schools used to allocate TAPBI and non-TAPBI costs.
Since charter schools use accounting classifications that differ from the
classifications used by school districts, after validating the data, auditors created
uniformity among TAPBI schools’ data. Specifically, auditors omitted charter
schools’ costs that were not current expenditures, such as depreciation
expense, and reclassified costs into the uniform functional categories contained
in the Uniform System of Financial Records for Arizona Charter Schools and the
Uniform System of Financial Records for Arizona School Districts.
Finally, to assess the cost-effectiveness of the TAPBI programs, auditors
compared the validated and reclassified TAPBI schools’ per-pupil costs to: a)
unaudited fiscal year 2006 state-wide cost data for school districts developed
from summary accounting data provided by school districts as part of the
Auditor General’s annual Arizona Public School Districts’ Dollars Spent in the
Classroom report; and b) unaudited fiscal year 2006 state-wide cost data for
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
charter schools obtained from the Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent
of Public Instruction, Fiscal Year 2005-2006. Auditors also compared each TAPBI
school’s costs by functional category to the average for all TAPBI schools.
􀁺􇩔 To analyze student achievement in the technology-based environment, auditors
interviewed the Director of the State Board of Education, the Director of the State
Board for Charter Schools, various ADE officials, and TAPBI school
representatives to learn about Arizona’s student assessment process and the
characteristics of TAPBI students. Auditors also obtained various studies on the
effect of K-12 online learning on student achievement, including a study that
statistically analyzed the results of numerous related studies known as a meta-analysis.
1 To identify common practices in K-12 online learning, auditors
reviewed various literature and studies about other states’ K-12 online learning
practices and their effectiveness, and interviewed a distance-learning expert
from Arizona State University. Auditors compared the identified common
practices with information gathered through interviews and observations of
Arizona’s TAPBI schools. Finally, to determine whether TAPBI schools supported
student achievement by providing minimum instruction hours, auditors
compared the schools’ reported instruction hours to the minimum hourly
requirements in A.R.S. §15-901(A)(2).
Following are the main conclusions related to the audit objectives:
􀁺􇩅 Enrollment and funding—Based on fiscal year 2006 ADM, the TAPBI Program
was overfunded by an estimated $6.4 million, primarily because ADE’s
calculations allowed students to be counted more than once. TAPBI schools’
noncompliance with statutory enrollment limits added to the State’s cost.
􀁺􇩃 Costs—Per-pupil expenditures were lower under the TAPBI Program, on
average, than for brick-and-mortar schools, primarily from not having to provide
transportation, food services, and classrooms. However, the TAPBI schools
have opportunities to reduce costs. Further, the schools’ cost accounting did not
facilitate compliance with statutory reporting requirements.
􀁺􇩓 Student achievement—Current measures are limited in their ability to
differentiate between student achievement in TAPBI schools and achievement in
traditional brick-and-mortar settings. TAPBI schools can better support the
academic achievement of their students by ensuring they are meeting
instructional hour requirements and mastering course content.
1 Studies included: (1) Blomeyer, Robert, Cathy Cavanaugh, Kathy Jo Gillan, Jeff Kromrey, and Melinda Hess. The Effects
of Distance Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates, 2004.
(2) Blomeyer, Robert L., Tom Clark, and Rosina Smith. A Synthesis of New Research on K-12 Online Learning. Naperville,
Illinois: Learning Point Associates, 2005. (3) Greene, Bernard, Laurie Lewis, and J. Carl Setzer. Distance Education
Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03. National Center for Education Statistics, March
2005. (4) Greenway, Randall, and Gregg Vanourek. “Virtual Revolution: Understanding Online Schools.” Education Next,
Spring 2006. 2006 No. 2. (5) Rice, Kerry Lynn. “A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K-12 Context.” Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, Summer 2006. Volume 38, Number 4. (6) U.S. Department of Education.
National Education Technology Plan 2004. Washington D.C., 2004.
State of Arizona
page 8
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and her staff express their appreciation to the officials and staff
of the State Board of Education, the State Board for Charter Schools, the Arizona
Department of Education, and the school districts and charter schools in the
Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program for their cooperation and
assistance during this audit.
Office of the Auditor General
page 9
State of Arizona
page 10
Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI ADM overfunded by
about $6.4 million
TAPBI program errors and noncompliance increased the cost of public education by
an estimated $6.4 million.1 The Program is funded using the same method as brick-and-
mortar schools, but this may not be the best basis for funding online education,
and it may contribute to the overfunding. However, the Arizona Department of
Education’s application of the funding method was the main reason for the
overfunding. Specifically, many TAPBI students are concurrently enrolled in regular
brick-and-mortar schools, and under ADE’s current student accounting system,
these students are funded more than once. Further, ADE funds TAPBI schools for
summer courses, although traditional brick-and-mortar schools are not funded for
summer school. Other states use per-pupil funding approaches similar to Arizona’s,
but some attach additional stipulations, such as assurance that students actually
complete their online coursework. Six TAPBI schools also failed to comply with
statutory enrollment limits.
Traditional funding method may not be the best for online
education
Charter schools and school districts are funded for their TAPBI schools using the
same Average Daily Membership (ADM) method used for traditional schools.
However, this funding method may be better suited to brick-and-mortar schools with
students attending class in person rather than for online schools where attendance
is measured by students self-reporting time spent on coursework. A significant
problem with the funding method is that the funding basis, students’ self-reported
hours, cannot be verified to determine accuracy or reasonableness.
1 By statute, charter schools are funded for current year ADM while school districts are funded on prior year ADM. Charter
schools' fiscal year 2006 ADM was funded in fiscal year 2006, but school districts' fiscal year 2006 ADM was funded in
fiscal year 2007.
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
CHAPTER 1
TAPBI schools funded based on same method as brick-and-mortar
schools—TAPBI schools are funded using the same ADM method as brick-and-
mortar schools, with an important exception. Although brick-and-mortar
schools receive funding only for students who enroll during the first 100 days of the
school year, ADE funds TAPBI schools’ students regardless of when they enroll.
Arizona’s brick-and-mortar schools typically provide instruction during a 10-month
school year and, by statute, funding is based on their ADM during the first 100
days of school. In contrast, since TAPBI schools allow students to start their
courses at any time of the year, ADE bases their funding on the number of
instructional hours provided throughout the calendar year. To illustrate the
difference, if a student enrolled in a brick-and-mortar school after the 100th day of
school, typically around February for traditional schools, ADE would not include
ADM for these students in calculating the brick-and-mortar school’s funding.
However, because the TAPBI schools operate year-round, if that student enrolled
in a TAPBI school after the 100th day, ADE would include the student in calculating
the TAPBI school’s funding. Current statutes do not authorize this difference in
calculating ADM funding.
Student hours cannot be validated—For TAPBI schools, the ADE uses
student-reported hours as the basis for school funding. Brick-and-mortar schools’
funding is based on the number of days that students are enrolled in and
physically attending school. But TAPBI funding is based on the number of hours
that students report that they have spent completing coursework, which includes
direct instruction time as well as time to complete homework and projects.
Specifically, students report their coursework hours to their TAPBI schools, which
then summarize and report the hours to ADE. ADE then uses these hours to
calculate TAPBI ADM.
The challenge posed by this approach is validating the accuracy of students’ time
logs. For example, although a TAPBI school might track the time a student is
logged on to its learning management system, this does not necessarily mean the
student is at the computer performing related schoolwork. Most TAPBI schools’
officials indicated that teachers can tell if a student’s logged hours are reasonable
compared to the coursework submitted, but none of the schools have specific
reasonableness checks or guidelines in place. In addition, only 6 of the 14 schools
have established an oversight process requiring that parents review and approve
the accuracy of their students’ time logs. Further, the Humanities and Sciences
Academy Arizona did not require its students to log their instruction hours although
it is required by A.R.S. §15-808(E). Instead, the school reported 123 hours of
instruction time for each course that a student completed. Because the school
failed to require students to log actual hours spent on coursework, ADE should
evaluate whether the TAPBI funding paid to this school for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 should be recovered.
State of Arizona
page 12
Costly errors in applying ADM to the TAPBI Program
ADE does not accurately adjust ADM funding to account for students who are
concurrently enrolled in TAPBI and a brick-and-mortar school. Also, ADE funds TAPBI
“summer” courses although summer courses in brick-and-mortar schools are not
funded. Auditors estimate that these errors increased the cost of K-12 education by
an estimated $6.4 million in fiscal year 2006.
TAPBI funding is not authorized to exceed 1 ADM per student—The
manner in which ADE applies the ADM funding method to the year-round TAPBI
instruction environment results in overfunding TAPBI students. At the TAPBI
Program’s inception, its costs were to be covered by existing funding. Students
who could now attend TAPBI programs would have otherwise been in traditional
brick-and-mortar classrooms; thus, the new program would not require new
funding. Although the Legislature relaxed TAPBI enrollment limits in 2003 and
2005, it did not revise the statutes to allow a TAPBI student to result in more than
1.0 ADM funding.1 Therefore, when a TAPBI student is enrolled in more than one
school, the ADM must be split proportionately among all schools that the student
attends. In two different types of situations, however, ADE allows a student to be
counted as more than 1.0 ADM. Specifically:
􀁺􇩁 A student concurrently enrolled in TAPBI and another school is funded as
more than 1.0 ADM—Based on ADE’s records, auditors estimated that 40
percent of TAPBI students in fiscal year 2006 were also
concurrently enrolled in a brick-and-mortar school; thus,
their ADM should have been split between the schools.
However, the Student Accountability Information
System (SAIS), the computer-based program ADE uses
to calculate school funding, currently does not have the
capability to allocate ADM for concurrent TAPBI
students. Therefore, each TAPBI school’s enrollment
information is extracted from SAIS into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet, and then an ADE employee uses a variety
of formulas to calculate TAPBI funding. However, a
procedure is not in place to adjust the brick-and-mortar
school’s funding for the concurrently enrolled TAPBI
student.
The accompanying textbox shows an example of the
statutory ADM allocation for a student enrolled full-time
in a brick-and-mortar school and half-time at a TAPBI
school and the result using ADE’s manual calculations.
Specifically, to meet the statutory requirement of limiting funding to 1.0 ADM
per student, ADE would need to ensure that the brick-and-mortar school
1 In general, statute limits a student to being funded as 1.0 ADM. However, A.R.S. §15-808 (F) specifically allows 1.25 ADM
if the student is also enrolled in a Joint Technological Education District course. But, there is no specific exception for
TAPBI schools.
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
Student ‘A’ is enrolled at a brick-and-mortar
school full-time (1.0 ADM) and a TAPBI school half-time
(0.5 ADM). Since the ADM is greater than 1.0, it
needs to be adjusted to comply with statute.
Brick and mortar ADM: 1.0 ÷ (1.0 + 0.5)=0.667
TAPBI ADM: 0.5 ÷ (1.0 + 0.5)=0.333
Total ADM: 1.0
Brick and mortar ADM: Remains unadjusted at 1.0
TAPBI ADM: 0.5 ÷ (1.0 + 0.5)=0.333
Total ADM: 1.333
Based on the above calculations, ADE overfunded the
brick-and-mortar school by 0.333 ADM for this
student.
ADM Calculation Example
receives two-thirds of the ADM and the TAPBI school receives the other one-third.
But ADE’s spreadsheet calculation results in a total 1.333 ADM for this
example. ADE officials indicated that SAIS is not programmed to identify and
make these adjustments. ADE officials further indicated that adjusting brick-and-
mortar schools’ ADM correctly would require complicated analysis and
adjustments. Therefore, additional state funding has resulted from the TAPBI
program.
􀁺􇩁 ADE provides funding for TAPBI summer school—Total K-12 education costs
also increase due to the funding of TAPBI summer courses. Brick-and-mortar
schools do not generally receive state ADM-based funding for instruction time
provided beyond the normal school year, such as summer school. As a result,
traditional schools typically either charge tuition to students who attend their
summer programs or pay for these programs using other monies such as
state or federal grants. However, ADE allows additional funding for TAPBI
enrollments taking place after the traditional school year. ADE does not
consider these summer enrollments to be concurrent enrollments as defined
by statute since they are not occurring simultaneously. Therefore, ADE does
not allocate this student’s 1.0 ADM between the brick-and-mortar and TAPBI
schools. Because the student does not have to pay tuition for TAPBI summer
classes, and the TAPBI school receives state funding, there is a financial
incentive for both students and TAPBI schools to use summer classes.
The funding calculations that ADE uses means that students who enroll in both
TAPBI and brick-and-mortar schools during the year are often funded for more
than 1.0 ADM. Specifically, based on ADE’s fiscal year 2006 TAPBI funding
calculations, about 6,800 of the 10,600 TAPBI students with multiple enrollments
were overfunded by an average of 0.17 ADM each. Auditors estimated that the
total additional cost of this ADM was approximately $6.4 million.
Other states use varied funding approaches
Because the traditional ADM method does not appear to be the best fit for funding
online/distance learning, auditors reviewed available information about other states’
distance-learning funding approaches to identify possible alternatives to the current
system.1 Current literature indicated that other states use a variety of funding
methods, but the per-pupil approach, such as the one Arizona uses, is fairly common
(see Table 2, page 15). In all, 21 states reported funding their programs using some
type of per-pupil method. Further, the existing literature does not identify a particular
funding method as being the most appropriate for online education programs. For
1 The body of information on funding for K-12 distance learning is limited. The information about other states’ funding
presented here is from Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, a research
study conducted and written by John F. Watson and Jennifer Ryan, Evergreen Consulting Associates, and published by
Learning Point Associates, a nonprofit organization working to improve education systems, in October 2006. The study
was based on research conducted via surveys, interviews with distance-learning program personnel, reviews of state
laws, data collection and analysis, and consultations with the North American Council for Online Learning and the
Southern Regional Education Board, which are nonprofit organizations fostering the improvement of educational
opportunities.
State of Arizona
page 14
example, although the majority, 29
states’ programs, were funded
through legislative appropriations,
according to a national research
study, Keeping Pace with K-12
Online Learning, this method is
viewed as not being sustainable
because it is subject to fluctuations
of the state’s economic and budget
cycles. Similarly, grant funding is
subject to availability, and the
amounts are typically not sufficient
to fully support an online learning
program. Tuition and fees fund the
distance-learning programs in
some states, with the per-course or
per-semester amounts ranging
from about $100 to a few hundred
dollars. However, the report noted
that tuition and fees are also
typically not sufficient to cover all of
the program costs.
Per-pupil methods, such as those used by Arizona and 20 other states, are classified
as being more predictable than other methods, such as legislative appropriations,
because they vary with enrollment rather than being limited to a specified total.
However, per-pupil methods are also considered challenging for several reasons. In
some states, a student’s brick-and-mortar school’s funding may be reduced when
the student is also attending an online school, while in others, a student may
generate more than 1.0 ADM or full-time equivalent (FTE) funding in a fiscal year. The
21 states using a per-pupil method do not have exactly the same funding rules. For
example, Texas and Oklahoma have average daily membership calculations for their
per-pupil funding. However, Florida uses an FTE method that requires that a student
successfully complete six courses to generate 1.0 FTE. Through this method, the
Florida Virtual School receives one-sixth of an FTE in funding for each class that a
student completes. However, Florida’s funding method also allows a student to
generate more than 1.0 FTE of funding in a fiscal year if the student also completes
courses at a brick-and-mortar school. Arkansas funds its online education program
in a similar way except that course completion is not required for the school to receive
funding.
An FTE funding method, such as the ones used by Florida and Arkansas, and in
funding Arizona’s community colleges and universities, may address some of the
ADM funding issues since it can be based on the number of courses taken by a
student rather than the number of instruction hours. Specifically, this method would
address the current challenges in tracking instruction hours through student-reported
time logs. To alleviate other issues related to TAPBI funding, the Legislature could
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
Funding Method
Number of States
Using Method
Per-pupil—Based on student counts or number of
courses taken. 21
Tuition and fees—Per course or per program
funding provided by students, parents, or schools. 22
Course completion—Funding is contingent on
course completion. Usually used in combination
with other methods. 3
Legislative appropriations—Specific funds
designated by the Legislature for online education
programs. Typically used in states with state-led
programs. 29
Grants—State, federal, or private monies awarded
to online education programs. 21
Table 2: Other States’ Funding Methods for Distance-Learning Programs
Fiscal Year 20061
1 Some states used more than one method or a combination of methods and, therefore,
have been counted in more than one category.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy
and Practice and Department of Education, Online Education Performance Audit-October 2006.
specifically address whether it intends for a TAPBI student to generate more than the
1.0 ADM in funding that is allowed for traditional students and whether summer
classes are included in that 1.0 ADM limit. Current statute does not appear to provide
additional funding beyond what traditional schools are eligible to receive.
Six TAPBI schools exceeded statutory enrollment limits
Six TAPBI schools received about $88,000 in funding that they would not have
received if they had adhered to statutory restrictions on new student enrollment.
Specifically, one TAPBI school did not comply with limits on non-public school
enrollments, three schools did not comply with kindergarten enrollment limits, and
two TAPBI schools exceeded total enrollment growth limits.
􀁺􇩏 One TAPBI school enrolled more non-public school students than allowed by
statute—Statute requires that 80 percent of TAPBI schools’ new enrollments
must be students who previously attended public schools. One school,
Humanities and Sciences Academy, exceeded by 17 students the 20 percent
limit for students not attending a public school in the previous year. The funding
associated with these 17 students totaled approximately $55,000.
􀁺􇩔 Three TAPBI schools enrolled more kindergarten students than allowed by
statute—The Legislature further limited enrollments by requiring that, for a TAPBI
school to enroll a kindergartner, a sibling must be currently enrolled and
attending the program. As
shown in Table 3, three TAPBI
schools enrolled 18
kindergartners who did not
meet this requirement.
Auditors estimated that the
related funding totaled
approximately $33,000.
State of Arizona
page 16
TAPBI School
Kindergarten
Students Enrolled
without a Sibling
Estimated
Excess
Funding
Arizona Distance Learning 2 $ 9,000
Arizona Virtual Academy 12 22,000
Mesa USD Distance Learning Program 4 2,000
Total 18 $33,000
Table 3: TAPBI Schools Enrolling Kindergarten Students without
a Sibling Currently Enrolled in and Attending the Program
Fiscal Year 20061
1 A.R.S. §15-808(B) requires that kindergarten students must have a sibling currently enrolled in and
attending the TAPBI Program for the kindergarten students to enroll.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal year 2006 student information provided by ADE; APOR55-1 Basic Calculations
for Equalization Assistance for School Districts reports; and CHAR55-1 Basic Calculations for Equalization Assistance
for Charter Schools reports, including base support level and additional state assistance.
Two school districts exceeded total TAPBI enrollment limits—TAPBI
schools were limited by statute to 100 percent growth in enrollment in any one
fiscal year. As shown in Table 4, Peoria USD and Tucson USD exceeded their total
TAPBI enrollment limits in fiscal year 2006.
ADE allowed Peoria USD and Tucson USD to enroll up to 450 students in fiscal
year 2006. This number was based on a cap established for schools with no TAPBI
enrollment in fiscal year 2005. However, both of these districts had TAPBI
enrollment in fiscal year 2005, as shown in Table 4.
Most of the students attending these two TAPBI schools were also concurrently
enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools within the same school district. Therefore,
because ADE does not properly adjust funding for some concurrently enrolled
students, it is uncertain whether these students resulted in additional
overpayments to the school districts that are not already reflected in the $6.4
million estimate on page 13. However, if the students were not concurrently
enrolled, the TAPBI schools would have received excess funding that is not
reflected in that estimate. Due to the complexities involved, ADE should conduct
additional analysis to determine the precise amounts overpaid.
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
TAPBI School
Fiscal Year
2005
Enrollment
Fiscal Year
2006
Enrollment
Enrollment
Growth
Students
Above
Enrollment
Limit
Peoria USD eCampus 40 160 300% 80
Tucson USD Distance Learning
Program 6 46 667 34
Total 116
Table 4: TAPBI Schools Exceeding 100 Percent Growth Limitation
Fiscal Year 20061
1 A.R.S. §15-808(H) requires that each TAPBI school’s enrollment cannot grow by more than 100 percent in any
fiscal year.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of TAPBI enrollment data provided by ADE for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Recommendations
1. To ensure that the TAPBI Program is appropriately funded, the Legislature
should:
a. Consider whether the current ADM method is the best basis for TAPBI
funding given differences of the online learning environment. If the
Legislature decides that the ADM funding method is appropriate, it could
consider adding other funding criteria, such as requiring students to
complete courses for schools to receive funding.
b. Consider specifically addressing whether it intends for a TAPBI student to
generate more than the 1.0 ADM in funding that is allowed for traditional
students and whether summer classes are included in that 1.0 ADM limit.
2. To ensure that TAPBI ADM is properly calculated and funded, ADE should:
a. Ensure that SAIS is programmed to identify and calculate necessary
funding adjustments for TAPBI concurrent enrollments and summer school
programs.
b. Make appropriate adjustments to TAPBI funding for the fiscal year 2006
ADM calculation errors and any similar errors made in fiscal year 2007.
c. Monitor whether TAPBI schools adhere to statutory enrollment limitations,
including the requirements that 80 percent of new students must have been
previously enrolled in a public school, that kindergarten students must have
a sibling enrolled in the program, and that enrollment growth must not
exceed 100 percent in a year for individual TAPBI schools.
3. ADE should seek legal advice to determine if the overfunding related to
noncompliance with these enrollment limitations should be recovered from the
TAPBI schools.
4. ADE should determine whether to recover TAPBI funding paid to the Humanities
and Sciences Academy Arizona for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 that was not
based on student logs of actual instruction time.
State of Arizona
page 18
TAPBI schools’ operations cost less, but further
savings may exist
As a whole, TAPBI schools spent about $1,200 per pupil less than Arizona public
schools averaged state-wide.1 This cost saving largely occurs in transportation, food
service, plant operation and maintenance, and special education costs. However,
depending on the nature of their operations, TAPBI schools’ costs were higher in
certain areas. For example, TAPBI charter schools’ administrative salaries caused
higher-than-average administration costs, and several TAPBI schools incurred high
costs for software and management agreements. Further, the schools could better
evaluate their cost-effectiveness—and also comply with statutory reporting
requirements—if they more accurately recorded and summarized their costs.
Certain costs are avoided in an online learning
environment
In fiscal year 2006, TAPBI schools spent $1,223 less per pupil than brick-and-mortar
schools, on average. As shown in Table 5 (see page 20), TAPBI schools spent an
average of $5,526 per pupil compared to the state average of $6,749 per pupil. The
TAPBI schools can achieve lower overall costs because of lower costs in four areas:
transportation, food service, plant operation and maintenance, and special
education.
TAPBI schools have limited transportation, food service, and plant
costs—TAPBI schools primarily achieve cost savings over brick-and-mortar
schools because they do not provide certain support services, such as
transportation and food service, and they have significantly lower plant operation
1 The unaudited Arizona public school average cost for fiscal year 2006 represents the average per-pupil cost for school
districts and charter schools. This average was based on Auditor General staff analysis of: a) for school districts, fiscal
year 2006 accounting data from the districts and ADM information obtained from the Arizona Department of Education;
and b) for charter schools, per pupil expenditure information from the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Fiscal Year 2005-2006. TAPBI school expenditures were obtained from the TAPBI schools and classification
adjustments were made by Auditor General staff for consistency.
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
CHAPTER 2
and maintenance costs. Since most TAPBI students take classes from home, there
generally is no need for the schools to provide transportation and meals, saving
the TAPBI schools approximately $600 per pupil each year.1 Similarly, the TAPBI
schools generally do not maintain physical facilities such as classrooms,
cafeterias, bus yards, and athletic fields. TAPBI schools primarily only maintain
offices with accommodations for administrative staff and teachers. Having fewer
facilities provided savings of approximately $500 per pupil in fiscal year 2006, as
TAPBI schools averaged $234 in plant costs per pupil while school districts
averaged $767.2
1 Arizona Distance Learning, Arizona Virtual Academy, and Mesa USD incurred small amounts of transportation costs for
field trips and student activities. These costs were less than $.76 per pupil, or an average of $651.43 per school for fiscal
year 2006. For fiscal year 2006, the average transportation and food services expenditures for each school district pupil
state-wide were $290 and $323, respectively. Comparative information for state-wide charter schools was not readily
available.
2 Comparative information for state-wide charter schools’ plant operation and maintenance costs was not available.
State of Arizona
page 20
State Average TAPBI Average
Function Percent
Total
costs
Per
pupil Percent
Total
costs
Per
pupil
Instruction 57.6% $3,909,693,305 $3,886 70.0% $19,358,640 $3,870
Administration 10.4 705,529,150 701 22.0 6,093,075 1,218
Student Support 7.0 476,453,772 474 1.6 445,069 89
Other Support 25.0 1,697,573,750 1,687 6.3 1,743,248 348
Total Costs $6,789,249,978 $27,640,032
Average Daily
Membership 1,005,992 5,002
Total cost
Per-Pupil $6,749 $5,526
• Instruction—teacher salaries, instructional supplies and materials including on-line
curriculum, and materials associated with schools’ learning management systems.
• Administration—school administrative salaries, costs related to governing boards,
business support services, and other support services.
• Student Support—attendance and social work services, guidance services, health
services, psychological services, and speech pathology and audiology services.
• Other Support—plant operations, food service operations, transportation, and
instructional support.
Table 5: TAPBI School Expenditures Compared to
State-wide Public School Expenditures
Fiscal Year 2006
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of: a) for school districts, fiscal year 2006 accounting data from the districts and average daily
membership (ADM) information obtained from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE); b) for charter schools, per-pupil
expenditure information from the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Fiscal Year 2005-2006; and c)
for TAPBI schools, fiscal year 2006 accounting data from the schools and ADM information obtained from ADE.
TAPBI schools generally have lower special education costs—As a
whole, the TAPBI Program had lower special education costs, which appeared to
relate to the students’ lower level of special needs. Specifically, the TAPBI schools’
average special education cost of $93 per pupil was significantly less than the
state-wide average of $1,069 per pupil. TAPBI schools reported that fewer than 6
percent of the students enrolling in their classes required special education
services, and about 90 percent of those students were classified as having needs
that require less-expensive additional support, such as learning or emotional
disabilities. In comparison, about 12 percent of students state-wide are classified
as special needs students, and about 19 percent of those students have more
severe disabilities that require more costly accommodation, such as special
programs located outside of their home district.
Differences in TAPBI schools’ operations affect costs
Costs varied significantly among the 14 TAPBI schools, primarily due to differences
in their operations. Factors included whether a charter school or school district
operated the TAPBI school, and the types of learning management system
agreements and other professional service agreements selected by the school.
TAPBI charter schools had higher per-pupil costs—As shown in Table 6
(see page 22), TAPBI charter schools’ $6,140 average per-pupil cost was about
$600 less than the $6,749 state average per-pupil cost, but more than the $2,910
per-pupil average cost for TAPBI school districts. Further, administrative costs for
TAPBI charter schools averaged $1,372 per pupil compared to the state average
of $701 per pupil and TAPBI school districts’ average of $562. The TAPBI charter
school administration costs appear to be high largely because of higher-than-average
employee compensation and staff entertainment costs.
􀁺􇩈 Higher salaries and benefits—Compared to other public schools, the TAPBI
charter schools appear to be paying significantly higher salaries and benefits
to their administrative staff. In fiscal year 2006, the TAPBI charter schools that
did not outsource their administrative functions averaged $800 per pupil for
administrative salary and benefit costs compared to $560 per pupil for school
districts state-wide.1 One factor causing the higher administration costs is
higher salaries paid to upper-level TAPBI charter school administrative
employees. For example, the three TAPBI charter schools that reported
administrative staff compensation paid their directors and/or chief executive
officers annual salaries ranging from approximately $71,700 to $187,000. By
contrast, about 100 similarly sized brick-and-mortar school districts paid their
principals and superintendents average annual salaries ranging from
approximately $65,000 to $81,000.
1 Comparative information for state-wide charter schools was not readily available.
Office of the Auditor General
page 21
􀁺􇩓 Staff entertainment costs—A few of the TAPBI charter schools also paid for
staff-related entertainment costs, a cost not found at the school district TAPBI
schools. For example, in fiscal year 2006, Primavera Online High School spent
more than $17,000, or approximately $21 per pupil, on restaurant food and
beverage purchases for its staff. In addition, Arizona Virtual Academy spent
more than $1,200 on gift cards purchased from various stores for its staff.
These costs increased TAPBI charter schools’ administration costs compared
to the district TAPBI programs.
Software and management agreements generally increased
costs—All TAPBI schools use learning management systems, which are
Internet-based applications that allow the school to create and deliver learning
content and monitor student progress. However, eight of the TAPBI schools had
State of Arizona
page 22
Cost
Arizona
Connections
Academy
Arizona
Distance
Learning
Arizona
Virtual
Academy
Humanities
and
Sciences
Kids at
Hope
Primavera
High
School
Pinnacle
Virtual
High
School
TAPBI
Charter
Schools’
Average1
State
Public
Schools’
Average1
Instruction $3,962 $3,541 $4,698 $3,072 $4,504 $6,277 $4,113 $4,434 $3,886
Administration 1,594 3,134 885 1,542 2,333 788 1,563 1,372 701
Student Support 54 37 129 66 47 45 138 88 474
Other Support 373 446 80 516 481 235 56 246 1,687
Total per ADM
equivalent $5,983 $7,159 $5,792 $5,195 $7,366 $7,345 $5,871 $6,140 $6,749
ADM Equivalent 265 464 1,439 727 27 697 430 4,050 1,005,992
Deer Valley
USD
Lake
Havasu
USD
Marana
USD
Mesa
USD
Peoria
USD
Tempe
UHSD
Tucson
USD
TAPBI
Schools
Districts
Average1
State
Public
Schools’
Average1
Instruction $2,219 $4,838 $1,393 $ 920 $6,136 $3,299 $1,734 $1,472 $3,886
Administration 472 3,168 603 407 2,286 538 2,308 562 701
Student Support 0 0 403 81 0 0 2,204 92 474
Other Support 23 131 5 1,092 482 0 0 784 1,687
Total per ADM
equivalent $2,714 $8,138 $2,404 $2,499 $8,905 $3,838 $6,246 $2,910 $6,749
ADM Equivalent 141 28 36 670 16 52 9 952 1,005,992
Table 6: Individual TAPBI Charter and District School Expenditures
Compared to State-wide Public School Expenditures Per-Pupil
Fiscal Year 2006
1 The TAPBI Charter Schools’ Average and State Public Schools’ Average amounts are weighted averages.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of: a) for school districts, fiscal year 2006 accounting data from the districts and average daily membership (ADM) information obtained from the
Arizona Department of Education (ADE); b) for charter schools, per-pupil expenditure information from the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Fiscal Year
2005-2006; and c) for TAPBI schools, fiscal year 2006 accounting data from the schools and ADM information obtained from ADE.
costly software agreements related to these systems, which included software
license fees, system support and maintenance, and curriculum-related costs.
Further, five schools entered into even more comprehensive agreements to
contract out their program management functions.
􀁺􇩓 Software licensing agreements are often costly—Almost all of the TAPBI
schools lease their learning management systems from vendors, which can
result in higher per-pupil costs. During fiscal year 2006, annual learning
management lease fees ranged from $8,400 to $2.5 million, depending on the
system the schools used and the number of students using the system. For
example, Primavera Online High School paid nearly $2.5 million, or $3,535 per
pupil, as an ongoing cost for its learning management system and related
consulting services. This fee drove its total instructional costs to $6,277 per
pupil, which is 62 percent higher than the state-wide average of $3,886.
Further, during fiscal year 2006, Lake Havasu USD purchased certain
components of Mesa USD’s learning management system so that it could
modify the curriculum to meet its own students’ needs. Even so, Lake Havasu
USD continues to pay annual costs for a contractor to provide system
support, which is reflected in its $8,138 per-pupil total cost.
In contrast, the one school that developed its own learning management
system, Mesa USD, had significant cost savings. As shown in Table 6 (see
page 22), Mesa USD’s $2,499 per-pupil cost was the second lowest per-pupil
cost of all the TAPBI schools. According to Mesa USD officials, they spent
nearly $581,000 to develop the system in 1998, when the TAPBI school began
operations. However, Mesa is now able to avoid costly annual licensing fees
that other TAPBI schools pay for their online learning management systems.
􀁺􇩐 Program management agreements significantly increase or decrease costs—
Contract agreements for TAPBI program management have significantly
increased or decreased the schools’ program costs.
􀁼􇱔 TAPBI charter schools paid for various management agreements that
increased their overall costs. For example, in October 2005, Arizona
Distance Learning contracted with a related management services
company to operate its TAPBI program. The school contracted to pay the
company 94 percent of its revenues, which totaled $1.9 million for the last
three quarters of fiscal year 2006. This amount was not based on actual
costs, which, according to the management company’s records, were
less than $1.8 million during the same period. Similarly, Kids-at-Hope
Online Academy paid about $40,000 for a vendor to oversee
approximately 14 students who performed their schoolwork using
computer labs at Boys and Girls Club facilities. The vendor assisted
students with enrollment and orientation, monitored students’ work, and
collected the students’ instruction time logs.
Office of the Auditor General
page 23
􀁼􇱔 Two school districts, Tucson USD and Marana USD, lowered their costs
through TAPBI management-related intergovernmental agreements with
Mesa USD. Rather than developing and operating their own programs,
these two districts enroll their TAPBI students directly into Mesa USD’s
TAPBI program. In fiscal year 2006, Tucson USD’s and Marana USD’s
TAPBI programs generated an average of $5,170 per ADM in funding and
the 2 TAPBI schools each paid Mesa USD an average of $1,188 per
ADM. However, both schools incurred some additional costs. Although
the schools each employed staff who served as academic counselors
and test proctors for their students, Tucson USD’s salary and benefit
costs for these positions totaled $4,410 per ADM, while Marana USD’s
salary and benefit costs totaled only $990 per ADM. As a result, Tucson
USD’s TAPBI costs exceeded the related funding by $774 per ADM, while
Marana USD’s funding exceeded its costs by $2,693 per ADM in the
TAPBI program.
Statute requires that, every 5 years, the two state education boards review the
effectiveness of each TAPBI school to determine whether to renew the school’s
participation in the TAPBI Program. When conducting these reviews, the two
boards should assess the schools’ cost-effectiveness, including the level of
administration expenditures and the fiscal impact of software or management
agreements on cost.
TAPBI schools were not accurately capturing and
reporting costs
TAPBI schools did not accurately identify costs or fully comply with statutory reporting
requirements. Statute requires TAPBI schools to prepare an annual report that
includes a description of their program’s cost-effectiveness.1 However, the schools
have not been complying with this requirement. Prior to fiscal year 2006, TAPBI
schools reported inconsistent types of costs, with several of them not submitting any
cost information. For fiscal year 2006, the State Board of Education and the State
Board for Charter Schools developed a required cost schedule with specific
categories; however, the schools continue to inconsistently report costs. The
following problems contributed to the schools’ inaccurately reporting costs:2
1 A.R.S. §15-808(C)(9).
2 Auditors tested schools’ cost data and any identified miscoded expenses were reclassified to more accurately reflect
TAPBI costs. Auditors also determined whether the methods schools used to allocate TAPBI and non-TAPBI costs were
adequate. Although in some instances the schools could have used more appropriate allocation bases, it was not
feasible for auditors to reallocate the costs.
State of Arizona
page 24
􀁺􇩓 Shared costs not properly allocated—For 11 of the 14 entities operating TAPBI
schools, the TAPBI school generally represented a small portion of their total
operations and costs.1 For example, Mesa USD’s TAPBI program consisted of
353 ADM, but its total population exceeds 70,000 ADM. To properly reflect a
TAPBI school’s costs in this situation, some shared costs need to be allocated.
Typically, these entities allocated shared costs based on the proportionate
number of students enrolled in their TAPBI schools. Although this method is
appropriate for some costs, such as administration and student support, it is not
always appropriate for others, such as building-related plant operation costs.
For example, some entities housed their TAPBI teachers in one of their traditional
brick-and-mortar schools. In this case, the most accurate way to allocate
building costs would be by square footage occupied.
􀁺􇩃 Costs not consistently categorized—TAPBI schools inconsistently categorized
their reported costs. For example, some schools classified teacher training as
professional development, while others classified it as teacher compensation—
benefits and education-related expenses. Further, some schools that purchased
a significant portion of their TAPBI program services did not record sufficient
detail for the costs. For example, Arizona Distance Learning reported its entire
management agreement cost in one cost category. However, since the
management agreement included varied services, such as providing
instruction, student support, and instruction support, this cost should have been
apportioned to the appropriate categories.
Several steps could be taken to help TAPBI schools track and report their costs.
􀁺􇩅 Establish specific accounting codes at the state level—The Auditor General’s
Office and ADE could add a TAPBI-specific accounting code to the Charts of
Accounts provided in the Uniform Systems of Financial Records for Arizona
School Districts and for Charter Schools. Statute requires the Auditor General’s
Office and ADE to develop and maintain these Uniform Charts of Accounts to
provide specific accounting guidance to public schools. The Uniform Charts of
Accounts include accounting codes for other programs that are required by
statute to be accounted for separately, such as drop-out prevention programs
and joint vocational and technological centers. A specific program code would
allow TAPBI school districts and charter schools to track and allocate TAPBI
costs more consistently throughout the year.
􀁺􇩁 Align board reporting requirements with the new accounting codes—The TAPBI
reporting format prescribed by the state education boards is not aligned to the
Uniform Charts of Accounts. These charts are based on the federal chart of
accounts used by the National Center for Education Statistics, and provide a
consistent platform for analyzing education costs. Therefore, to improve the
TAPBI schools’ cost reporting, the state education boards should consider
aligning the required cost categories with the Uniform Charts of Accounts.
1 Of the 14 TAPBI schools, only Arizona Virtual Academy, Arizona Connections Academy, and Arizona Distance Learning
are separate organizations whose operations are exclusively TAPBI programs.
Office of the Auditor General
page 25
􀁺􇩅 Ensure charter schools conform to the state accounting codes—Although
TAPBI school districts are required to follow the Uniform Chart of Accounts for
School Districts, the State Board for Charter Schools granted the TAPBI charter
schools an exemption from having to follow the Uniform Chart of Accounts for
Charter Schools.1 Although four of the TAPBI charter schools generally follow the
Uniform Chart of Accounts, the three other charter schools do not. Action by the
Board could help ensure consistent accounting and reporting by these schools.
Recommendations
1. To ensure compliance with statutory reporting requirements and to improve the
accuracy of costs, the following actions should be considered:
a. In reviewing and compiling the annual TAPBI self-reports, the state
education boards should ensure that TAPBI schools are properly allocating
costs between TAPBI and non-TAPBI operations, using an allocation basis
that best reflects how the costs are incurred.
b. To facilitate this cost accounting, the Auditor General’s Office and ADE
should add a specific TAPBI program code to the Charts of Accounts
provided in the Uniform Systems of Financial Records for Arizona School
Districts and for Charter Schools.
c. To help TAPBI schools accurately report their costs in the Annual TAPBI
Report, the state education boards should consider aligning the Report’s
cost categories to the Uniform Charts of Accounts.
d. The State Board for Charter Schools should consider requiring the TAPBI
Charter Schools to follow the Uniform Chart of Accounts for their TAPBI
programs.
2. In reviewing whether to allow the TAPBI schools to continue in the TAPBI Program,
the state education boards should assess the schools’ cost-effectiveness,
including the level of administration expenditures and the fiscal impact of software
or management agreements on costs.
1 The State Board for Charter Schools is the charter sponsor for all 7 TAPBI charter schools, and granted the schools
exemptions to the requirements of the Uniform System of Financial Records for Arizona Charter Schools, as authorized
by A.R.S. §15-183(E)(6).
State of Arizona
page 26
Office of the Auditor General
page 27
Student achievement measures and practices
can be improved
The TAPBI Program’s effect on student achievement is unclear. The current practice
of comparing TAPBI students’ standardized test scores to scores of other students
is not a reliable way to assess the Program since many TAPBI students attend both
online and brick-and-mortar schools. Although reliable comparisons cannot be
made, several key policies and procedures appear important for ensuring student
achievement. Practices, such as ensuring students receive the required hours of
instruction and ensuring students are mastering course content, were not uniformly
in place for the 14 TAPBI schools. For example, ADE was not ensuring that TAPBI
schools are providing the minimum required hours of instruction, and six TAPBI
schools did not require students to take exams in person and pass exams to receive
credit. Other practices used in other states’ programs can also lead to better support
for student achievement in an online environment, such as establishing requirements
for teacher-student communications and providing teacher training specifically
addressing teaching in an online environment.
TAPBI Program’s effect on student achievement is
unclear
The TAPBI Program’s effect on the achievement of the nearly 15,000 students in the
Program is unclear. The State’s practice of comparing TAPBI students’ standardized
test scores with non-TAPBI students’ scores indicates that the achievement results
are mixed. However, as currently used this approach is flawed as a comparison
method, because it appeared to include students who attend both online and brick-and-
mortar schools as well as students who enroll in the TAPBI Program for only
limited periods of time. National studies are also inconclusive regarding how
online/distance learning may be affecting student achievement.
CHAPTER 3
State of Arizona
page 28
State education boards measure TAPBI student achievement
through standardized test measures—Arizona relies heavily on
standardized test scores to measure student achievement. The federal No Child
Left Behind Act, among other things, requires states to create academic standards
and to annually test how well students are
learning those standards. In Arizona, the
tests used to measure student
achievement include TerraNova and the
Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards
(AIMS).1 Students who are enrolled in a
TAPBI program are generally required to
take the same standardized tests as non-
TAPBI students. To measure TAPBI
students’ achievement, the State Board of
Education and State Board for Charter
Schools compare TAPBI students’ test
results with state-wide student results.
Based on information in the fiscal year
2006 TAPBI Annual Report, students in
the TAPBI schools generally tested at or
below the state averages (see Tables 7
and 8).
1 Students in grades 2 through 9 must take the TerraNova, a nationally norm-referenced test; students in grades 3 through
8 must take the AIMS dual-purpose assessment; and students in grades 10 though 12 must take the AIMS exam until
they have met or exceeded state standards to graduate.
Math Reading Language
Grades State TAPBI State TAPBI State TAPBI
2 58 46 54 47 56 37
3 52 46 47 54 46 51
4 58 55 52 59 53 59
5 52 49 56 62 54 57
6 56 52 56 64 50 55
7 54 47 54 62 58 61
8 58 43 58 56 56 52
9 55 45 57 58 55 53
Average for
the Grades 55 47 54 58 54 54
Table 7: TAPBI Students’ TerraNova Test Scores Compared to
State-wide Scores Average Percentile Rank
Fiscal Year 2006
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the TerraNova test scores from the Annual TAPBI Report
prepared by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, State Board of Education, and State
Board for Charter Schools, fiscal year 2006.
Math Reading Writing
Grades State TAPBI State TAPBI State TAPBI
3-8 Assessment 72% 57% 72% 60% 76% 60%
10-12 Assessment 60 34 71 66 63 53
Average for the
Grades 70% 46% 72% 63% 74% 57%
Table 8: TAPBI Students’ AIMS Test Results Compared to State-wide
Results Percentage Meeting or Exceeding State Standards
Fiscal Year 2006
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the AIMS test results from the Annual TAPBI Report prepared
by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, State Board of Education, and State Board for
Charter Schools, fiscal year 2006.
Office of the Auditor General
page 29
Student enrollment trends affect the reliability of using standardized
test results to assess TAPBI schools’ effect—Several factors limit the
usefulness of measuring the TAPBI schools’ results in the way it is currently being
done. Specifically:
􀁺􇩍 Many TAPBI students attend multiple schools—When a student attends
multiple schools, as more than 70 percent of TAPBI students do, it becomes
difficult to determine which school may have affected the student’s
standardized test scores. Further, depending on the types of classes taken at
each school, more detailed analysis of which scores may have been affected
by each school would also be required to reach more reliable conclusions. Of
the nearly 15,000 students enrolled in TAPBI schools during fiscal year 2006,
more than 10,000 students also took classes at non-TAPBI schools during the
year. In fact, more than 3,700 students took classes at 3 or more schools.
􀁺􇩔 TAPBI students often have short tenure in the Program—About 40 percent of
the students enrolled in TAPBI during 2005 did not re-enroll in 2006, and the
average enrollment length for students in 2006 was less than 3 months.
According to representatives from several TAPBI schools, students often
enroll in TAPBI temporarily to recover credits, take courses that are not
available at their main school, or take summer school classes. As a result, it is
more difficult to link a student’s standardized test achievement with the TAPBI
school.
􀁺􇩈 High school students do not take AIMS every year—As previously noted,
starting in 2nd grade, students must generally take either the TerraNova or
AIMS test every year, and beginning in the 10th grade, high school students
take the AIMS test twice each year. However, once high school students have
met or exceeded state standards on the test, they are no longer required to
take it again. Therefore, many TAPBI students may not even have any
standardized test scores during their term of enrollment in a TAPBI school. In
fiscal year 2006, approximately 10,045, or 67 percent, of the TAPBI students
were in grades 10 through 12.
The state education boards may be able to address some of these limitations
by performing different analyses of test results, such as comparing test scores
of full-time TAPBI students only to state-wide averages. Other potential
indicators of a TAPBI school’s performance would be to consider credits
earned that contributed to on-time graduations or advanced classes made
available that were not available in the student’s traditional school. Another
possible measure could be to require that TAPBI students take learning
assessments at certain points during their enrollment, and measure the
change in the students’ scores. For example, Arizona Distance Learning uses
various benchmark tests to measure change in a student’s reading, writing, or
math skills.
State of Arizona
page 30
National studies are inconclusive—National studies are inconclusive on how
online/distance learning is affecting student achievement. This is largely due to
challenges in comparing online schools with brick-and-mortar schools. According
to some researchers, there are too many variables in how online programs are run
and not enough information about those variables. For example, one researcher
stated that research would be easier if there were standards for reporting
academic outcomes.
Efforts to address the data problems identified by researchers appear to be in
process. In 2004, the National Forum on Education Statistics created a Virtual
Education Task Force, partly to help education officials and policymakers align
“traditional” education data elements with the needs and circumstances unique to
online education. In its July 2006 published report, the Task Force made several
recommendations to all schools that may serve as a starting point for resolving
comparability issues.1 For example, the task force recommended that all schools
maintain data to help clarify differences between online schools’ academic
assessments and data to help track differences in how enrollment is measured
between brick-and-mortar and online schools.
TAPBI schools can improve instruction and student
support practices
The TAPBI learning environment differs from the brick-and-mortar environment in that
students have little or no face-to-face contact with teachers or other students.
However, the success of that instruction is related to many of the same activities as
brick-and-mortar schools—ensuring adequate instructional time, measuring whether
the student has met the instructional objectives, and providing adequate
communication with trained and competent staff. Using information from other
states’ K-12 online learning programs, various K-12 online learning studies, and
auditor observations of the various TAPBI schools’ operations, auditors identified four
types of practices that appear to be key in ensuring student achievement in this
environment.2
􀁺􇩅 Ensuring that the number of instructional hours meets required minimums.
􀁺􇩅 Ensuring academic integrity by testing students’ mastery of the subject and
preventing them from altering grades electronically.
1 National Forum on Education Statistics. (2006). Forum Guide to Elementary/Secondary Virtual Education (NFES
2006–803). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
2 The source of information about other states’ K-12 online learning programs presented here is Keeping Pace with K-12
Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, a research study conducted and written by John F. Watson
and Jennifer Ryan, Evergreen Consulting Associates, and published by Learning Point Associates, a nonprofit
organization working to improve education systems, in October 2006. The study was based on research conducted via
surveys; interviews with distance learning program personnel; reviews of state laws; data collection and analysis; and
consultations with the North American Council for Online Learning and the Southern Regional Education Board, which
are nonprofit organizations fostering the improvement of educational opportunities.
Office of the Auditor General
page 31
􀁺􇩅 Ensuring adequate teacher-student communication.
􀁺􇩐 Providing teacher training specifically related to teaching in an online
environment.
The 14 TAPBI schools did not have these practices uniformly in place. As shown in
Table 9 below, none of the schools had a means to ensure that the number of
instructional hours meets required minimums, and the number of schools applying
the three other types of practices ranged from 6 to 12.
TAPBI School
Providing
Minimum-
Required
Instruction
Hours
Ensuring
Academic
Integrity
Ensuring
Teacher-to-
Student
Communication
Providing
Teacher
Training
Deer Valley USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥌
Lake Havasu USD 􀀹􃥍
Marana USD2 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥍
Mesa USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥐
Peoria USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥔
Tempe UHSD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥔
Tucson USD2 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥁
Arizona Connections Academy 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥁
Arizona Distance Learning
Arizona Virtual Academy 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥋
Kids-at-Hope Online Academy 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥈
Humanities and Sciences Academy 􀀹􃥐
Pinnacle Virtual High School 􀀹􃥐
Primavera Online High School 􀀹􃥔
Table 9: TAPBI Schools’ Practices Compared to Common Practices for
Online Schools in Other States1
Means the school used this practice.
1 Information about TAPBI schools reflects their fiscal year 2007 operations. Information for other states' online programs is
based on Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level Policy and Practice, a research study conducted
and written by John F. Watson and Jennifer Ryan in 2006.
2 Marana USD and Tucson USD enrolled their TAPBI students in the Mesa Distance Learning Program; teachers and teacher
training were provided by Mesa USD.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of student fiscal year 2006 instruction hours reported to ADE, interviews and observations at each TAPBI school,
and district-reported teacher training requirements.
􀀹􃤀
Ensuring the minimum required instruction hours are provided—By
statute, TAPBI schools are required to provide the same amount of instruction time
as other public schools. As indicated in Table 10, these requirements
range from 356 hours in a school year for half-day kindergarten
students to 1,068 hours for 8th-grade students. However, none of the
TAPBI schools were ensuring that each of their students is receiving
the minimum required instruction hours.1 Specifically, as indicated in
Table 11 (see page 33), of the almost 1,400 students whose records
auditors examined, 435 received an average of 18 percent fewer
instruction hours than the state minimums. However, the variance
was more significant for high school students. The 97 high school
students in the sample averaged 48 percent fewer instruction hours,
while the 338 sample kindergarten through 8th-grade students
averaged 9 percent fewer. Further, Arizona Distance Learning and
Pinnacle Education Virtual Academy were not able to provide
information on the part-time status of their high school students so
that compliance with minimum required instruction hours could be
evaluated. In addition, the Humanities and Sciences Academy
Arizona did not require its students to log their instruction hours, as
required by A.R.S. §15-808(E). Instead, the school reported 123
hours of instruction time for each student who completed a course.
Ensuring academic integrity—With limited face-to-face contact between
students and teachers, ensuring academic integrity is a challenge for online
schools. Two practices to help ensure academic integrity are requiring students to
take exams in person in a proctored setting and requiring them to pass course
exams to receive credit. As shown in Table 12 (see page 34), only 6 of the 14 TAPBI
schools have both of these practices in place. However, the other 8 schools lack
one or both of these practices. For example, Peoria USD requires students to take
exams in person in a proctored setting, but the students do not necessarily have
to pass course exams, depending on their grades in other online coursework.
Some schools allow students to take their tests online, providing no assurance that
the student, and not someone else, has taken the exam. One of these schools,
Arizona Connections Academy, conducts testing online, but requires its teachers
to follow up with some of their students by phone, asking some of the test
questions to verify whether the student is able to answer them and seems to have
actually taken the test. Students achieving an "A" or "B" grade are to be called;
teachers are to contact kindergarten through 8th-grade students once every 2
weeks and high school students once during the semester.
Another challenge to ensuring academic integrity is limiting students’ access to
electronic grades. All of the TAPBI schools maintain their students’ grades on the
same learning management system that students use for their coursework.
However, many of these systems have security weaknesses that could allow
State of Arizona
page 32
1 A.R.S. §15-808 (E) requires TAPBI schools to require students to maintain a daily log of their instruction time. ADE
provides funding based on reported instruction hours up to the required amount. Therefore, a student who has logged
50 percent of the required hours is funded as 0.5 ADM.
Grade
Minimum-Required
Instruction Hours1
Kindergarten (half-day)2 356
1 through 3 712
4 through 6 890
7 and 8 1,068
9 through 12 720
Table 10: Minimum K-12 Instruction Hours
Required By Statute (by grade)
1 Hours are prorated for part-time students.
2 Instruction hours for full-day kindergarten have not
yet been established in statute.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of A.R.S §15-901.
Office of the Auditor General
page 33
grades to be altered. Further, for the commercially developed learning
management systems, such as WebCT, various information security researchers
have posted known security concerns about these systems on the Internet.1 Many
of these concerns can be mitigated by installing available security patches or by
developing compensating controls, such as requiring teachers to maintain grade-books
separately from the learning management system. Auditors informed each
1 Auditors’ review identified concerns posted on: a) SecurityFocus’ Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures List
(http://www.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities); b) the Open Source Vulnerability Database (http://osvdb.org/search.php);
and c) the National Vulnerability Database (http://nvd.nist.gov/).
TAPBI Schools’
High School Programs:
Number of
Students
in Sample
Number Receiving
Fewer Hours Than
Required
Average Difference
Between Required
and Actual Hours
Deer Valley USD1 n/a n/a
Lake Havasu USD 20 10 39%
Marana USD 20 9 48
Mesa USD 20 17 55
Peoria USD 20 7 26
Tempe UHSD 20 20 63
Tucson USD2 13 6 38
Arizona Distance Learning3 n/a n/a
Kids-at-Hope Online Academy 20 14 51
Humanities and Sciences Academy School did not require students to log instruction hours.
Pinnacle Education Virtual Academy3 n/a n/a
Primavera Online High School 20 14 36
TAPBI Schools’
K-8 programs:4
Mesa USD 47 41 4
Arizona Connections Academy5 148 68 14
Arizona Distance Learning 38 3 27
Arizona Virtual Academy5 1,010 226 8
Totals 1,396 435
Table 11: TAPBI Schools’ High School Students’ Instruction Hours
Compared to Minimum Instruction Hours Required by Statute
1 Deer Valley USD did not submit its TAPBI students’ hours for funding in fiscal year 2006.
2 Auditors selected the complete roster of 13 students who completed classes in fiscal year 2006.
3 Arizona Distance Learning and Pinnacle Education Virtual Academy were not able to provide information on the part-time
status of their high school students so that compliance could be evaluated.
4 The average difference is derived from all K through 8th-grade students’ instruction hours of students who were at least 75
percent full-time equivalents. Hours were compared to pro-rated minimum instruction hours.
5 Both Arizona Connections Academy and Arizona Virtual Academy serve primarily kindergarten through 8th-grade students
and did not have a sufficient number of high school students to include in this analysis.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of student instruction hours that schools reported to ADE for fiscal year 2006, and high school students’ enrollment
records, including courses completed in fiscal year 2006, from the TAPBI schools.
1 Auditors did not assess the security of 2 TAPBI schools’ learning management systems. Arizona Connections Academy
did not allow access because its system included confidential, non-TAPBI information, and the Humanities and Sciences
Academy did not provide its system information in a timely manner.
State of Arizona
page 34
TAPBI school of its system’s identified weaknesses; the schools should use this
information to improve their systems and controls.1
Ensuring teacher-student communication—Given the limited face-to-face
contact between teachers and students, frequent online or phone communication
appears to be important for supporting student achievement. To ensure this is
happening, school officials should require and measure communication between
teachers and students. Twenty-two other states’ online learning programs have
communication policies providing requirements such as how often teachers
should e-mail or call students or how soon teachers should grade and return
student coursework. For example, Nevada requires teachers to discuss academic
progress with students weekly; Michigan Virtual High School requires teachers to
respond to all student e-mails within 24 hours and periodically monitors this
response time. All but two TAPBI schools—Arizona Distance Learning and Lake
Havasu USD—either had a formal communication policy or measured the
timeliness or frequency of communication.
TAPBI School
Course
Exams
Taken in
Person
Students
Required to
Pass
Course
Exams
Deer Valley USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥌
Lake Havasu USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥍
Marana USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥍
Mesa USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥐
Peoria USD 􀀹􃥔
Tempe UHSD
Tucson USD 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥁
Arizona Connections Academy
Arizona Distance Learning 􀀹􃥁
Arizona Virtual Academy 􀀹􃥈
Humanities and Sciences Academy 􀀹􃥋
Kids-at-Hope Online Academy 􀀹􃤀 􀀹􃥐
Pinnacle Education Virtual High School
Primavera Online High School
Table 12: Summary of TAPBI Schools’ Course Exam Procedures
Fiscal Year 2007
Means the school used this practice.
Source: Auditor General staff interviews and observations at each TAPBI school.
􀀹􃤀
1 As discussed in the Introduction and Background of this report, Laws 2005, Ch. 323, §1, requires that, every 5 years, the
state education boards review the effectiveness of each TAPBI school and the required annual reports to determine
whether to renew the school’s participation in TAPBI.
Office of the Auditor General
page 35
Providing training for teaching in an online environment—Several
states’ online learning programs require their teachers to participate in professional
development activities. For example, Illinois’ Virtual High School requires online
teachers to complete more than 4 weeks of online and face-to-face training on
teaching in an online environment. In addition, several states indicated that they
provide periodic continuing education for online teachers. Florida’s Virtual School,
for example, supports its online teachers by providing structured mentoring to new
teachers during their first year and peer coaching after 1 year. Given the newness
of the medium, teachers may need specialized training on how to effectively
instruct students in an online-learning environment. And, since technology
changes quickly, teacher development activities should include both initial training
and continuing education.
In contrast, Arizona TAPBI schools offered significantly less training. Specifically, 3
schools provide no training, and 4 schools provide only a brief orientation or a few
hours of training, that briefly address topics such as the school’s policy manual
and how to use the learning management system. The remaining 7 TAPBI schools,
however, provide more training. The most extensive of these training programs, as
shown in Table 13 (see page 36), are Arizona Virtual Academy’s 3- to 5-day training
course that covers topics such as adding interaction to distance learning and
managing learning programs and Tempe UHSD’s 4 weeks of initial training for new
teachers.
To help ensure that TAPBI schools are adequately supporting student achievement,
ADE should ensure that the schools are providing the minimum amount of instruction
time required by statute. Further, when conducting the 5-year reviews to determine
whether to renew each TAPBI school’s participation in the Program, the state
education boards should consider whether the school’s policies and procedures,
such as those discussed in this report, support student achievement.1
State of Arizona
page 36
TAPBI School
Formal
Training
Required Comments
Deer Valley USD Currently developing an in-house training program.
Lake Havasu USD
Marana USD 􀀹􃥔 Teachers and training provided by Mesa USD.
Mesa USD
􀀹􃥔
The majority of training occurs at the beginning of the
school year. Other trainings are delivered via e-mail
and other mailings throughout the year.
Peoria USD
􀀹􃥎
New teachers must attend 15 hours of in-house
seminars. Continuing teachers must attend 4 hours of
professional development activities throughout the year.
Tempe UHSD 􀀹􃤴 4 weeks of initial training is required; no formal
refresher courses are required.
Tucson USD 􀀹􃥔 Teachers and training provided by Mesa USD.
Arizona Connections Academy
􀀹􃥁
An initial orientation and ongoing professional
development sessions are required. A university
graduate-level online course is available.
Arizona Distance Learning
Arizona Virtual Academy 􀀹􃥁 A 3-5 day course is required. Teachers must also
take various in-house courses during the year.
Kids-at-Hope Online Academy An initial orientation course is required.
Humanities and Sciences
Academy
An initial orientation course is required.
Pinnacle Education Virtual
High School
An initial orientation course is required.
Primavera Online High School An initial orientation course is required.
Table 13: Summary of TAPBI Schools’ Self-reported
Online Teacher Training Requirements
Fiscal Year 2007
Means the TAPBI school required formal training for teaching in an online environment.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of TAPBI school-reported teacher training requirements.
􀀹􃤀
Recommendations
1. To better measure TAPBI schools' effect on student achievement, the state
education boards should consider the following:
a. Whether they can more accurately analyze standardized test results, such
as only comparing test scores for full-time TAPBI students to state-wide
averages.
b. Whether there are other indicators of a TAPBI school's performance, such
as credits recovered contributing to on-time graduations; advanced
classes made available that were not available in the student's traditional
school; or changes to students' learning assessment scores.
2. In reviewing whether to allow the TAPBI schools to continue in the TAPBI
program, the state education boards should consider whether the TAPBI
schools’ policies and procedures support student achievement, including the
following:
a. Procedures for ensuring minimum required instruction hours are met.
b. Procedures for ensuring academic integrity, such as establishing controls
for limiting student access to online grades, requiring students to take
exams in person in a proctored environment, and requiring students to
demonstrate proficiency through proctored course exams to pass a
course.
c. Policies and performance measures regarding the frequency of teacher-to-student
contact.
d. Policies and procedures for training teachers to instruct students in an
online environment.
3. ADE should ensure that TAPBI courses provide students with at least the
minimum instruction hours required by statute.
4. ADE should determine whether Arizona Distance Learning and Pinnacle
Education Virtual Academy have sufficient student enrollment records to
demonstrate compliance with statutory minimum instruction hour requirements.
Office of the Auditor General
page 37
State of Arizona
page 38
Office of the Auditor General
page a-1
This appendix provides alphabetically organized, one-page information sheets on
the individual TAPBI schools. Each page contains a summary of each TAPBI school's
characteristics, student enrollment, curriculum highlights, compliance with statutory
enrollment limits, use of common practices, and fiscal year 2006 per-pupil
expenditures. Table 14 shows the data sources used on the individual TAPBI school
pages.
APPENDIX
Data Source
Initial TAPBI operations data Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI Annual Reports for each individual TAPBI
school.
Grades served Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI Annual Reports for each individual TAPBI
school.
ADM Auditor General staff analysis of Arizona Department of Education’s
(ADE) TAPBI average daily membership counts for fiscal year 2006.
ADM numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Characteristics Observations of TAPBI schools’ operations, interviews with TAPBI
schools’ staff, and review of fiscal year 2006 TAPBI Annual Reports.
Fiscal year 2006 enrollment Auditor General staff analysis of Arizona Department of Education’s
(ADE) TAPBI average daily membership counts for fiscal year 2006.
Common practices for
supporting student
achievement
Auditor General staff analysis of student fiscal year 2006 instruction
hours reported to ADE, interviews and observations at TAPBI schools,
TAPBI schools’ policies and procedures, TAPBI school-reported
teacher training requirements, and for other states’ online programs,
Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: A Review of State-Level
Policy and Practice, a research study conducted and written by John
F. Watson and Jennifer Ryan in 2006.
Table 14: Individual TAPBI School Page Source Information
State of Arizona
page a-2
Data Source
Enrollment limits A.R.S. §15-808 (B)requires that 80 percent of new enrollments be
from public schools in the prior fiscal year and that kindergarten
students must have a sibling currently enrolled in and attending the
TAPBI program. A.R.S. §15-808(H) limits TAPBI schools’ growth to
100 percent.
Fiscal year 2006 per-pupil
expenditures
Auditor General staff analysis of: a) for school districts, fiscal year
2006 accounting data from the districts and average daily membership
(ADM) information obtained from the Arizona Department of Education
(ADE); b) for charter schools, per-pupil expenditure information from
the Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Fiscal
Year 2005-2006; and c) for TAPBI schools, fiscal year 2006
accounting data from the schools and ADM information obtained from
ADE.
Curriculum Fiscal year 2006 TAPBI Annual Reports for each individual TAPBI
school.
Table 14 (Concl’d)
Common Practices:
Office of the Auditor General
page a-3
Fiscal Year 2006 Enrollment:
Partial year
enrollees
42%
Full year
enrollees
58%
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? 􀀳􃌸 81%
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? 􀀳􃍔
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? 􀀳􃌱 100%
Characteristics:
Homebound, at-risk, and
gifted students; students pursuing artistic or athletic
careers; and families seeking direct involvement in
their child’s education.
Students complete daily
lessons, including both online and offline
assignments. At least 1 to 2 times per week,
students and teachers can communicate in many
ways, including online through microphones.
Testing is done online. The student’s
parent or learning coach is responsible for
supervising the student during testing.
An initial orientation
course and ongoing professional development
sessions are required.
Based on a sample, 80
students recorded 100 percent of minimum
instruction hours, while 68 students averaged 14
percent fewer than the minimum.
Curriculum:
Approximately 226 courses offered as of July 2007,
including:
􀁺􇩃 Computer Technology 􀁺􇩍 Math
􀁺􇩅 Economics 􀁺􇩒 Reading
􀁺􇩆 Foreign Language 􀁺􇩗 Writing
􀁺􇩇 Government 􀁺􇩓 Science
􀁺􇩐 Physical Fitness 􀁺􇩇 Geography
􀁺􇩁 Art 􀁺􇩓 Social Studies
􀁺􇩍 Music 􀁺􇩌 Language Arts
Arizona Connections Academy Charter School, Inc.
Initial TAPBI Operations: 2005
Grades Served: K-9
Fiscal Year 2006 ADM: 265
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Arizona
Connections
Academy
TAPBI
Charter
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $3,962 $4,434 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 1,594 1,372 1,218 701
Student Support Services 54 88 89 474
Other Support Services 373 246 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $5,983 $6,140 $5,526 $6,749
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Arizona
Connections
Academy
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams X 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃌀
State of Arizona
page a-4
Sequoia Choice Schools, LLP
Fiscal Year 2006 Enrollment:
Initial TAPBI Operations: 2001
Grades Served: K-12
Fiscal Year 2006 ADM: 464
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Arizona
Distance
Learning
TAPBI
Charter
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $3,541 $4,434 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 3,134 1,372 1,218 701
Student Support Services 37 88 89 474
Other Support Services 446 246 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $7,159 $6,140 $5,526 $6,749
Common Practices:
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Arizona
Distance
Learning
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams X 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication X 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment X 􀀳􃍅
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? 􀀳􃌸 86%
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? X 2
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? 􀀳􃌱 14%
Characteristics:
Homebound, gifted, and
special-needs students.
Students take online courses
at the school’s computer lab or other locations.
Discussion boards, regular and virtual field trips, and
hands-on learning kits are available depending on
the courses taken. High school and junior high
courses from several universities and community
college distance-learning programs are offered.
Tests are administered in a proctored
setting.
No formal training for
the online environment is required.
Enrollment information was not
provided for high school students. Based on a
sample of K-8 students, 35 students recorded 100
percent of minimum instruction hours, while 3
students averaged 27 percent fewer than the
minimum.
Curriculum:
Approximately 315 courses offered as of July 2007,
including:
􀁺􇩃 Computer Technology 􀁺􇩍 Math
􀁺􇩅 Economics 􀁺􇩅 English
􀁺􇩆 Foreign Language 􀁺􇩓 Science
􀁺􇩇 Government 􀁺􇩒 Reading
􀁺􇩐 Physical Fitness 􀁺􇩈 History
􀁺􇩗 Writing 􀁺􇩊 Journalism
Partial year
enrollees
71%
Full year
enrollees
29%
Office of the Auditor General
page a-5
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Arizona
Virtual
Academy
TAPBI
Charter
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $4,698 $4,434 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 885 1,372 1,218 701
Student Support Services 129 88 89 474
Other Support Services 80 246 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $5,792 $6,140 $5,526 $6,749
Common Practices:
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Arizona
Virtual
Academy
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams X 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍅
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? 􀀳􃌸 81%
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? X 12
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? 􀀳􃌱 100%
Characteristics:
Arizona Virtual Academy
does not target specific student populations.
Information available online
is supplemented with books, workbooks, CDs,
and videos. Students can participate in clubs
and field trips.
Most exams are taken online, and
students are not able to take final exams until
they have completed certain course
requirements.
An initial 3-5 day
course is required. Teachers must also take
various courses during the school year.
Based on a sample, 784
students recorded 100 percent of minimum
instruction hours, while 226 students averaged
8 percent fewer than the minimum.
Curriculum:
Approximately 88 courses offered as of July
2007, including:
􀁺􇩅 Economics 􀁺􇩗 Writing
􀁺􇩆 Foreign Language 􀁺􇩆 Fine Arts
􀁺􇩇 Government 􀁺􇩍 Music
􀁺􇩐 Physical Fitness 􀁺􇩍 Math
􀁺􇩈 History 􀁺􇩓 Science
􀁺􇩌 Language Arts 􀁺􇩁 Art
Fiscal Year 2006 Enrollment:
PPEP & Affiliates, Inc.
Initial TAPBI Operations: 2003
Grades Served: K-9
Fiscal Year 2006 ADM: 1,439
Partial year
enrollees
38%
Full year
enrollees
62%
State of Arizona
page a-6
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Deer
Valley
eSchool
TAPBI
District
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $2,219 $1,472 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 472 562 1,218 701
Student Support Services 92 89 474
Other Support Services 23 784 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $2,714 $2,910 $5,526 $6,749
Common Practices:
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Deer
Valley
eSchool
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment X 􀀳􃍅
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? n/a
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? n/a
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? n/a
n/a—not applicable as Deer Valley did not submit to ADE any TAPBI students
for fiscal year 2006 funding, and did not serve Kindergarten students.
Characteristics:
Homebound, at-risk, and
other students who may benefit from online
instruction.
Instructors use e-mail,
discussion boards, online textbooks, and online
chat rooms/virtual classrooms to provide
instruction to students.
Students are required to take final
exams in person for each course.
Formal training for
online teaching is not required. The district is
currently developing an in-house training
program.
The District did not submit
online student instruction hours for TAPBI
funding in fiscal year 2006.
Curriculum:
Approximately 32 courses offered as of July
2007, including:
􀁺􇩅 Economics 􀁺􇩌 Language Arts
􀁺􇩐 Psychology 􀁺􇩍 Math
􀁺􇩇 Government 􀁺􇩈 History
􀁺􇩐 Physical Fitness 􀁺􇩁 Anatomy
􀁺􇩈 Health 􀁺􇩂 Biology
􀁺􇩃 Chemistry
eSchool Virtual High School
Fiscal Year 2006 Enrollment:1
Part-time
71%
Full-time
29%
Initial TAPBI Operations: 2003
Grades Served: 9-12
Fiscal Year 2006 ADM: n/a
1 This represents enrollment in eSchool Virtual High School. Deer Valley USD
experienced difficulties in submitting to ADE its fiscal year 2006 enrollment
data and did not yet receive TAPBI funding for these students.
Office of the Auditor General
page a-7
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Humanities
& Sciences
Academy
TAPBI
Charter
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $3,072 $4,434 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 1,542 1,372 1,218 701
Student Support Services 66 88 89 474
Other Support Services 516 246 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $5,195 $6,140 $5,526 $6,749
Common Practices:
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Humanities
& Sciences
Academy
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams X 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment X 􀀳􃍅
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? X 78%
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? n/a
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? 􀀳􃌹 99%
n/a—Humanities and Sciences Academy did not serve Kindergarten
students.
Characteristics:
High school students
between the ages of 16 and 21 years.
Online instruction takes
place in small groups and one to one. Students
must complete high school graduation
requirements prior to taking electives.
Students within the Phoenix area
typically take their exams in person. However,
exams can be mailed to students who live in
other parts of the state.
Formal training is not
required. However, staff also must take and
complete the courses they teach.
Although required by
statute, the school did not require students to
log and submit their instruction hours.
Curriculum:
Approximately 24 courses offered as of July
2007, including:
􀁺􇩃 Computer Technology 􀁺􇩅 English
􀁺􇩆 Foreign Language 􀁺􇩒 Reading
􀁺􇩐 Physical Fitness 􀁺􇩍 Math
􀁺􇩗 Writing 􀁺􇩓 Science
􀁺􇩏 Oral Communication 􀁺􇩈 History
􀁺􇩆 Fine Arts Humanities 􀁺􇩗 Workplace Skills
Fiscal Year 2006 Enrollment:
Humanities and Sciences Academy of the United States, Inc.
Initial TAPBI Operations: 2003
Grades Served: 9-12
Fiscal Year 2006 ADM: 727
Partial year
enrollees
49%
Full year
enrollees
51%
State of Arizona
page a-8
Fiscal Year 2006 Per-Pupil Expenditures:
Category
Kids at
Hope
TAPBI
Charter
Average
TAPBI
Program
Average
State
Average
Instruction $4,504 $4,434 $3,870 $3,886
Administration 2,333 1,372 1,218 701
Student Support Services 47 88 89 474
Other Support Services 481 246 348 1,687
Total Per Pupil $7,366 $6,140 $5,526 $6,749
Common Practices:
Practices for supporting
student achievement
Kids at
Hope
Online
Schools in
Other States
Yes = 􀀳􃌠 No = X
Requiring students to meet
minimum instruction hours X 􀀳􃍒
Requiring proctored testing
and passing course exams 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍅
Ensuring teacher-to-student
communication 􀀳􃌀 􀀳􃍐
Providing teacher training for
online environment X 􀀳􃍅
Enrollment Limits
Yes = 􀀳􃌠
No = X
Percent or
Number
At least 80 percent of new enrollments
were public school students? 􀀳􃌸 82%
Kindergarten students had a sibling
currently enrolled in TAPBI? n/a
TAPBI growth was limited to 100
percent of prior year? 􀀳􃌵 54%
n/a—Kids at Hope Online Academy did not serve Kindergarten
students.
Characteristics:
Students pursuing
interests outside the school campus, and
students who desire a nontraditional approach
to high school.
Semester-length courses
are delivered through online course instruction,
e-mail, phone calls, threaded discussions, and
textbook reading assignments.
Mid-term and final course exams are
taken in a proctored environment.
Formal training not
required. Orientation course required.
A sample of 20 students
averaged 51 percent fewer than the state’s
minimum instruction hours.
Curriculum:
Approximately 179 course