Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 1
C O N T E N T S
2 Executive Summary
9 Next Steps
11 APPENDIX A: Task Force on Efficiency and
Accountability in K- 12 Education:
Subcommittee Reports
Accountability Subcommittee ( 12)
Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models
Subcommittee ( 19)
Expenditures Outside the Revenue Control Limit
Subcommittee ( 24)
Consolidation/ Unification of School Districts
Subcommittee ( 28)
31 APPENDIX B: Executive Order 2001- 4
33 APPENDIX C: Task Force Membership Roster
36 APPENDIX D: Research Resources
49 APPENDIX E: Achievement Results
Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards ( AIMS) ( 49)
Arizona Stanford Achievement Test Results ( 51)
History of NAEP Participation and Performance
in Arizona ( 52)
P A G E 2
Student achievement in Arizona is unacceptable by any measure. 1 Our state’s
dysfunctional system fails a substantial portion of our children year after year. There
have been success stories. However, too many of Arizona’s children are not achieving
the results needed for success both in and outside of the classroom. The system is
characterized by mediocrity and commitment to the status quo. With a constantly
changing world that is demanding increasingly complex skills from its workforce, it
is critical, more so than ever, that all students succeed academically.
Many of the teachers and administrators in Arizona’s K- 12 public education system
are talented, hardworking, and dedicated professionals. However, they are trapped in
a system that is failing them. It is one that neither rewards excellence nor penalizes
failure. Furthermore, there is insufficient accountability in the system for student
academic achievement results. Most importantly, such a system has resulted in low
achievement statewide. It is a system that has put Arizona’s economic2 future at risk.
Previous calls for education reform, and particularly for accountability, have gone
largely unheeded. For more than a decade, report after report and task force after
task force3 have concluded that major changes are needed in Arizona’s education
system, but no significant positive change has occurred. The state’s taxpayers have
seen one standards- based accountability system after another developed and, at best,
only partially implemented. This cycle is costly — not only in terms of money but
also in wasted time, as students continue to lag in achievement.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
1 2001 AIMS Results. Arizona Department of Education [ Online]. “ State Tests & Academic Standards.”
Available: http:// ade. az. gov/ state_ tests_ acad_ stds. asp
2001 Arizona NAEP Results. Arizona Department of Education [ Online]. “ State Tests & Academic
Standards.” Available: http:// ade. az. gov/ state_ tests_ acad_ stds. asp
2001 Arizona SAT- 9 Results. Arizona Department of Education [ Online]. “ State Tests & Academic
Standards.” Available: http:// ade. az. gov/ state_ tests_ acad_ stds. asp
2 Five Shoes Waiting to Drop on Arizona’s Future. Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State
University: October 2001.
3 Education Task Force Reports and Prior Reform Recommendations. Arizona Governor’s Office and other
state agencies. See complete resource list in Appendix D.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
Student
achievement in
Arizona is
unacceptable.
Teachers and
administrators
are trapped in a
system that is
failing them.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 3
In response to this increasingly desperate situation and the passage of Proposition 301,
Governor Jane Dee Hull issued an Executive Order4 creating a Task Force on Efficiency
and Accountability in K- 12 Education. 5 The Task Force has developed a comprehensive
set of recommendations that, if adopted, will dramatically improve student achievement
statewide based on performance against the Arizona Academic Standards.
In order not to fail again, Arizona must follow through on the implementation of a
real accountability system that leads to real increases in student achievement. In
1996, the state developed the Arizona Academic Standards to define what our
students should know and be able to do. The state then developed a testing system
— the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards ( AIMS) — around those stan-dards.
This work was based on the development of content standards first written in
1985, rewritten and proposed again in 1990, and used to help develop the current
version of standards in 1996.
What did not happen across the board was curricular change. Today, in at least half
of Arizona schools, curricula are not aligned to the Arizona Academic Standards. 6
Furthermore, some school districts have held off implementing the state’s standards-based
accountability program because of concerns about the timeliness and accuracy
of the AIMS test scoring. Such concerns have reinforced the belief that AIMS, like
previous standards- based accountability tests, will go away.
The Task Force believes that the current versions of standards- based accountability
must be implemented immediately. It calls on the Arizona Department of Education
to take whatever actions are necessary to fix any problems with the test scoring and
thereby remove any hesitations about implementing AIMS- based curricula. Other-wise,
numerous students will continue to fare poorly on AIMS, and accountability
for teachers, administrators, and school boards for student achievement will
continue to be very limited. Simply put, fundamental education reform must be
4 Executive Order 2001- 4: Governor’s Task Force on Efficiency and Accountability in K- 12 Education. Arizona
Governor’s Office. March 5, 2001 ( see Appendix B).
5 Appendix C includes a list of all Task Force members.
6 AIMS As a High School Graduation Requirement: Analysis of Public Survey Data and Recommendations.
WestEd. March 26, 2001.
Arizona must
follow through
on the imple-mentation
of a
real account-ability
system.
Standards-based
account-ability
must be
implemented
immediately.
P A G E 4
implemented to greatly strengthen Arizona’s education system and, ultimately,
ensure our children’s success.
What follows are the Task Force’s five recommendations, along with intended
impact and next steps. [ Note: See Appendix A for subcommittee reports.]
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
Recommendation # 1: Immediately align curricula in all subjects to the
Arizona Academic Standards and ensure accountability for such
implementation.
• All public schools in Arizona must align their curricula in all subjects to the
Arizona Academic Standards by July 2003 — no exceptions, no excuses.
• All schools must give every student access to a fully articulated K- 12
curriculum based on the Standards.
• In the crucial K- 3 grades, literacy skills must be emphasized so that no
student proceeds to the next grade without the literacy skills necessary to
learn in all other academic subject areas.
• Student performance must be continuously assessed, with the results
provided to educators, students, parents, and the public in a timely manner.
• The Arizona Department of Education must correct prior failures to
provide accurate and timely test results.
Impact: After more than a decade of partial implementation of standards- based
accountability systems, implementing this recommendation will finally raise all
school curricula to an agreed- upon level of quality ( i. e., Arizona Academic
Standards) within two years. It also will support measuring the success of every
classroom and school in the state because all students would have access to the
same high- quality standards.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
All public
schools in
Arizona must
align their
curricula.
Literacy skills
must be
emphasized in
grades K- 3.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 5
Recommendation # 2: Implement immediately the Arizona Department
of Education’s “ Purposeful Accountability System.”
• Policymakers, educators, parents, and community members must be
informed of how the state’s schools are performing against the Arizona
Academic Standards.
• The Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards ( AIMS) — the valid measure
of the Arizona Academic Standards — and Measuring Academic Progress
( MAP) student performance data must be reported at all grade levels tested.
Impact: The Arizona Department of Education has a plan — the “ Purposeful
Accountability System” — to measure the academic success of every school,
classroom, and student in the state. The Arizona Academic Standards are at the
heart of the plan. The plan will provide public reporting of all test results and
accountability for teachers. If implemented now, the plan will have an impor-tant,
long- term effect on student academic achievement.
Recommendation # 3: Implement a statewide comprehensive program
of student awards and teacher pay- for- performance with a consistent
evaluation process that is linked to student achievement.
• High- achieving students, as well as those who have the promise of perform-ing
at a higher level than they had before, must receive rewards that help
fund their higher education and participation in school- related, extra-curricular
activities.
• Teachers who help their students meet the Arizona Academic Standards
should receive annual base pay increases and bonuses as part of a pay- for-performance
evaluation system.
• Teachers’ pay must be increased substantially.
AIMS is the
valid measure
of the Arizona
Academic
Standards.
Teachers’ pay
must be
increased
substantially.
High- achieving
students must
receive awards.
P A G E 6
Impact: Holding teachers, administrators, and other employees accountable for
the improvement of student achievement is only the beginning. Adopting a
performance- based pay system with a bonus plan to reward excellence tied
tightly to student achievement is especially important to retain the best teachers
needed in our classrooms, as well as to attract and retain hardworking, begin-ning
teachers dedicated to ensuring academic success.
Recommendation # 4: Correct deficiencies in under- performing schools
and focus on the most effective ways to improve student achievement.
Hold students, teachers, and administrators accountable in all public
schools.
• Under- performing schools must implement proven best practices.
• Students in schools that consistently underperform must be given place-ment
in other schools.
• Teachers and administrators whose students consistently underperform
must not receive base pay increases or bonuses.
• Teachers identified with under- performing classes must be subject to a
review of their teaching skills and provided with targeted professional
development.
• High school students who fail to meet the Standards, as measured by AIMS
or an equivalent, will not graduate. Until the AIMS test becomes a high
school graduation requirement, the State Board of Education must deter-mine
ways for students to take the test seriously.
• Effective plans to evaluate teacher, administrator, and school performance
against the Arizona Academic Standards must be established and imple-mented
by a well- trained cadre of evaluators.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
Teachers
identified with
under-performing
classes must be
subjected to a
review.
High school
students who
fail to meet the
Standards will
not graduate.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 7
• All school board members must be trained to help them perform their
duties more effectively while focusing on student achievement and exposing
them to new ideas regarding school restructuring.
Impact: Every school, including those that are under- performing, has the
potential to be exemplary. This recommendation helps under- performing
schools focus on the most effective ways to improve student achievement.
Schools that continue to be labeled under- performing will face consequences.
Recommendation # 5: Direct the state’s education financial resources to
the primary task — student achievement.
• Small school districts in Arizona must be consolidated, unified, or adminis-tered
in a more efficient and accountable way.
• The amount of desegregation expenditures outside the Revenue Control
Limit ( RCL) must be held constant at the current fiscal year levels for the
next two fiscal years while a statewide review of the expenditures is initiated.
• Excess utilities must be eliminated as an item funded outside the RCL and
supplanted with a system that places each district’s total actual utility
expenditures within the RCL.
• Determine the impact of poor school building maintenance on the Mainte-nance
and Operations budget of school districts.
• Compare the discrepancy of the costs of dollars per student in charter versus
non- charter public schools.
Impact: These recommendations will help equalize the expenditures of financial
resources around the state.
All school board
members must
be trained.
P A G E 8
Summary
Today’s Arizona K- 12 public school system is not producing consistent, improved
student achievement. The state can no longer tolerate low achievement, high
dropout rates, and an overall dysfunctional system. The status of our system is
morally and economically unacceptable.
Successful implementation of the above recommendations in their entirety —
statewide standards and assessment methodology, comprehensive performance
reporting, major new student and teacher incentives and teacher compensation, and
aggressive actions to correct system deficiencies — is designed to bring about
substantive improvement in student achievement. Legislative action, clear empower-ment
to implement, support of all key stakeholders — including educators, busi-nesses,
and parents — and allocation of financial resources to our primary task will
be the driving forces that will bring about meaningful change. These are the essential
components of an aggressive and sustained attack on a major threat to our well-being
— the academic achievement of Arizona’s students.
This report is a call to action; the time to act is now.
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y
The status of
our system is
morally and
economically
unacceptable.
The time to act
is now.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 9
The Task Force on Efficiency and Accountability in K- 12 Education recognizes that
implementing the recommendations in this report is inherently a political process.
In some cases, the recommendations can be implemented through current authority
provided in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) Title 15. In other cases, new legisla-tion
must be proposed and passed. Regardless of the process required, it is the
expectation of this Task Force that action must be taken now to improve Arizona’s K- 12
public education system. This set of recommendations must not suffer the fate of so
many other reports: written, delivered, shelved, and ignored.
The Task Force commends Governor Jane Dee Hull’s commitment to improve
education in Arizona. Her commitment has been demonstrated by a change in the
funding mechanism for building new schools and repairing existing schools, new
funds from a sales tax increase, and continued support of the state’s standards- based
accountability program. Now it is time for the state’s political, business, and educa-tion
leadership to radically improve Arizona’s education system and, ultimately,
ensure our children’s academic success.
The Task Force’s recommendations must be carried out as a whole. Piecemeal,
selective implementation will not achieve the results necessary to improve student
achievement. The following steps are necessary for success:
Step # 1: Immediately give all entities that have the responsibility and authority for
operating Arizona’s K- 12 public education system the opportunity to
review and respond to the Task Force’s recommendations. These entities
include the State Board of Education, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, and organizations representing those who work in and for
the K- 12 public education system in Arizona ( e. g., Arizona School
Boards Association, Arizona Education Association, Arizona School
Administrators, Inc.).
Step # 2: The Superintendent of Public Instruction must immediately determine
which of the recommendations can be implemented immediately without
new legislation. That determination will jump- start the accountability
process and increase student achievement statewide.
N E X T S T E P S
Action must
be taken now
to improve
Arizona’s
K- 12 public
education
system.
The state’s
political,
business, and
education
leadership
must improve
Arizona’s
education
system.
P A G E 10
Step # 3: The Governor and legislative leaders must determine what legislation
should be introduced to implement the remaining recommendations.
The Task Force anticipates that any new legislation will be a “ package” of
recommendations that, if passed, will move the K- 12 public education
system forward in terms of accountability and efficiency and, most
importantly, improvement in student achievement.
Step # 4: Should the initial review of recommendations by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction and others determine that more authority is needed to
ensure that all recommendations are implemented in every school district,
school, and classroom in the state, legislation must be introduced and
passed early in the 2002 legislative session. Aligning the curricula in all
public schools in all subjects to the Arizona Academic Standards is the
foundation for the other Task Force recommendations.
Step # 5: The Governor should appoint a committee as early in the 2002 state
legislative session as possible to evaluate the actual costs of the Task Force
recommendations and to identify possible funding sources to carry out the
recommendations.
Those with authority over, or responsibility for, public education in Arizona must
implement these bold and aggressive recommendations immediately to dramatically
improve student achievement statewide.
In the end, Arizona’s K- 12 education community — teachers, teacher organizations,
principals, school boards, and district superintendents — will largely determine
progress in implementing these recommendations. Improving the system is not only
educators’ responsibility, but is also in their own best interest. Only they can make
the improvements that will ensure a better education for all of Arizona’s children.
N e x t S t e p s
Ensure that all
recommenda-tions
are imple-mented
in every
school district,
school, and
classroom.
Those with
authority must
implement these
recommendations
immediately.
Arizona’s K- 12
education com-munity
will
largely determine
progress.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 11
Task Force on Efficiency and Accountability in K- 12
Education: Subcommittee Reports
A P P E N D I X A
The Task Force on Efficiency and Accountability in K- 12 Education was divided
into four subcommittees, each in response to the specific issues in the Arizona
Governor’s Executive Order. The Executive Order explicitly states that the Task
Force was formed “… to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used in the most
efficient manner in support of K- 12 education.”
The Task Force addressed not only the Executive Order’s four specific charges ( see
Appendix B) but also focused on why the Task Force was formed: that is, to study
the efficiency and accountability in K- 12 public education in Arizona. The Task
Force’s focus goes beyond the normal fiduciary sense of accountability and includes
student achievement.
Per the Executive Order, four areas of study, and hence, subcommittees, were
established: Accountability; Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models; Expenditures
Outside the Revenue Control Limit; and Consolidation/ Unification of School
Districts. Each of these subcommittees studied, and made recommendations in, its
specific area. Each subcommittee also reviewed its area interdependently and under
the umbrella of how to build quality and accountability in Arizona’s K- 12 public
education system.
What follows is a report, including recommendations, from each subcommittee.
>> Accountability Subcommittee
>> Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models Subcommittee
>> Expenditures Outside the Revenue Control Limit Subcommittee
>> Consolidation/ Unification of School Districts Subcommittee
P A G E 12 A p p e n d i x A
A c c o u n t a b i l i t y S u b c o m m i t t e e
The current state of accountability in Arizona is poor. While good learning stan-dards
have been developed ( i. e., Arizona Academic Standards) and assessments have
been implemented ( i. e., AIMS, MAP), several issues remain:
• implementation of Arizona Academic Standards has been left to individual
districts;
• implementation of accountability assessments ( AIMS and MAP) was
initiated without assurances that the Standards had been embedded in the
curricula at all schools;
• little definition has been given to performance reporting scope and purpose;
• awards to students go only to those who qualify for state higher education
scholarships; and
• correction of system deficiencies has focused solely on penalizing the under-performing
student by withholding the graduation diploma.
Recommendations
Because systematic improvement in student achievement requires a comprehensive,
long- term commitment to accountability for student achievement, Arizona must
adopt and implement an Accountability Framework that will guide the design,
implementation, and monitoring of steps intended to improve student achievement.
The proposed Accountability Framework follows ( see Figure 1).
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 13
Figure 1: Accountability Framework
Accountability Framework Recommendations
• Define Standards: The Accountability Framework must begin with a student
profile that articulates what students should derive from a K- 12 education,
both academically and in terms of career readiness. The Arizona Academic
Standards must include specific learning objectives for each content area.
• Define Assessments: AIMS and MAP are appropriate, valid assessments
( tests) of the Arizona Academic Standards for the state’s K- 12 students. To
support increased student performance in reading, K- 3 reading diagnostic
assessments must be defined to maximize the learning curve potential for all
students.
• Implement Standards: Implementation requires that all schools give every
student access to a fully articulated K- 12 curriculum based on the Stan-dards.
A school- by- school affidavit of curricular and instructional compli-ance
with teaching standards must be required. A compliance audit for a
random selection of schools as well as for under- performing schools must be
conducted.
Define
Standards
Define
Assessments
Implement
Assessments
Implement
Standards
Performance
Reporting
Reward
Achievers
Correct
Deficiencies
P A G E 14 A p p e n d i x A
• Implement Assessments: The Arizona Department of Education’s Purposeful
Accountability System must be implemented. Diagnostic assessments for
reading at the K- 3 levels must be implemented.
• Performance Reporting: Using the results of student tests, feedback must be
provided within each K- 12 grade level to:
>> students/ parents ( or guardians);
>> teachers;
>> schools;
>> districts; and the
>> Arizona State Board of Education.
Student achievement performance reporting must include the publishing of
individual class and school data both within a district and statewide.
According to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, privacy of
individual student data must be protected with such information provided
only to the student; parent( s) or guardian( s); and teachers. Teacher perfor-mance
data must be provided to the teacher, administrators, and parents ( or
guardians) for use in teacher evaluation.
• Reward Achievers: Accountability must be reinforced by rewarding students
and teachers for academic achievement and continuous improvement.
Students: An annual Achievement Bonus for students meeting Arizona
Academic Standards must be implemented. The bonus must consider
AIMS results as well as the One Year’s Growth ( OYG) goals measured by
MAP testing. To qualify for the Achievement Bonus, the student and
parent( s) or guardian( s) must meet with the teacher and agree to an
achievement goal for the year. The Achievement Bonus must be available as
a credit against the cost of fine art and athletic program fees in the subse-quent
year. Funding of the program must be sought from a business/
government coalition. In addition, the Board of Regents Honors Endorsement
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 15
must be supported, and expansion of the program must be encouraged. The
Honors Endorsement must recognize students who have demonstrated
exceptional academic achievement.
Teachers: The percentage of students who meet or exceed the Standards as
set forth in the Purposeful Accountability System must be considered as
part of the pay- for- performance evaluation. Teacher teams must be used in
academic situations where a direct correlation of teacher to student achieve-ment
would be difficult to support. Teacher pay for outstanding performers
must be substantially increased to attract and retain the best and brightest
people for our classrooms.
• Correct Deficiencies: Systemic problems must be addressed. Doing so will
lead to a positive long- term impact on Arizona’s education system. At each
level in the system ( i. e., student, classroom, school, district), accountability
for results must be in place with rewards and consequences for those
charged with doing the work.
Specifically:
>> An Education Best Practices Guide must be developed — A guide
published and updated by the Arizona Department of Education
must inventory the best ideas from education systems elsewhere.
Best practices must be considered by each district and must be
used in correcting deficiencies in under- performing schools. A
major focus must be given to best practices in the following areas:
> School Size — Research suggests that a smaller environ-ment
is conducive to quality education. Awareness,
collaboration, attention to specifics, and intimacy of the
education process may yield more improvement than a
single focus on classroom size.
> School Discipline — Numerous initiatives suggest that the
ability to achieve is directly related to security and trust
among students and teachers. Use of student court
P A G E 16 A p p e n d i x A
systems, adoption of uniforms or dress codes, and charac-ter
education are examples of successful efforts to provide a
disciplined academic setting.
> Student Activities — There appears to be a strong correla-tion
between involvement in student activities and student
achievement. The Task Force’s suggested Achievement
Bonus is intended to empower students who achieve
academically to engage in activities that are likely to fuel
continuous academic improvement.
> Standards Implementation — Schools that have adopted
innovative approaches to creating learning situations and
embedding standards in their curricula must be used as
examples of best practices for consideration by others.
>> Under- performing schools must implement a School Improve-ment
Plan that includes education best practices according to the
specifications and timelines in A. R. S. Title 15- 241. Failure to
submit a plan must result in a hearing before the State Board of
Education to revoke the administrative certificates of school/
school district leadership.
>> Failure of a school to implement the Arizona Academic Standards
by the beginning of the 2002- 2003 school year must result in no
base pay increases for teachers and administrators. Implementing
the Standards is defined as meeting the criteria of the curricular
and instructional affidavits, and signing and returning the affidavits.
>> Students in schools that consistently underperform must be given
placement in other schools. In addition, the superintendent must
be considered for termination subject to district employment
guidelines. Statutes will need to be changed to require school
boards to take such action.
>> Teachers identified with under- performing classes for three
consecutive years must be given targeted professional develop-ment,
and their pay and employment status must be reviewed.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 17
>> Elementary school students who fail to meet the Standards, as
measured by performance on AIMS in grades 3, 5, or 8, and fail
to reach One Year’s Growth ( OYG) must attend an intensive
summer or after- school program specific to their areas of low
achievement.
>> High school students who fail to meet the Standards, as measured
by AIMS or an equivalent, will not graduate.
Additional Recommendations
• The subcommittee believes that the current allocation of funds between
Maintenance and Operations ( M& O) in the M& O budget may be ineffec-tive.
A focus on maintenance expenditures and development of mainte-nance
standards should yield significant long- term economic advantage to
the state’s education budget. Specifically, the School Facilities Board must
develop a proposal to integrate Building and Maintenance, identifying
where savings are likely as a result of enforcing standards and removing
maintenance responsibility from those entrusted with operations.
• A group of academic analysts must compare the large discrepancy in
Arizona between the dollars- per- student costs in charter public schools
versus non- charter public schools. An analysis may provide pointers to areas
regarding cost reduction and/ or reallocation of funds.
P A G E 18 A p p e n d i x A
Summary
The subcommittee recommends that the state of Arizona adopt the Accountability
Framework. Local school boards would have responsibility for implementation with
support from the Arizona Department of Education. The performance reporting,
awards, and corrective actions would be a collaborative state and local effort.
Enabling legislation, financial assessment of the proposals, and an overall plan for
adopting the Accountability Framework must be spearheaded by the Arizona
Department of Education.
In addition to the proposal for a business/ government collaboration to fund the
Achievement Bonus, the full implementation of the Accountability Framework
must require resources. The proposals to implement change and take corrective
action to impact student achievement will require additional dollars to be focused
“ on task.”
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 19
Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models Subcommittee
Currently, Arizona experiences the following in relation to teacher performance:
• student achievement in the state is not satisfactory;
• high school graduation rates are low;
• the current salary structure for teachers is not rewarding;
• compensation for teachers does not universally link to accomplishment;
• there is no incentive for teachers to do more than baseline work other than
receiving additional pay for extra duty;
• the base pay for teachers is dramatically low in relation to positions outside
the education market requiring comparable skills, experience, and educa-tion
training; and
• the teacher evaluation process is inconsistently administered.
The Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models Subcommittee addressed the issues above
and, as such, made recommendations.
Recommendations
A set of key principles must be included in all programs designed to reward and
compensate K- 12 teachers. Specifically:
P A G E 20 A p p e n d i x A
• All teacher compensation programs must consist of a base pay salary and an
opportunity for an annual bonus that can be earned for meeting defined goals.
>> The starting pay for new teachers must be adjusted immediately
to at least the market midpoint over a five- year period. In addi-tion,
adjustments must be made for teachers with five years of
service and 10 years of service.
>> To receive an annual base pay increase, teachers, principals, and
administrators must meet or exceed specific baseline performance
standards related to mutually agreed- upon student achievement
goals and professional standards.
>> A teacher’s base pay must not be adversely affected by moving
from one district to another within the state.
>> The bonus must be based on three criteria: student achievement
( the most important), professional development, and client ( e. g.,
students, parents) satisfaction.
>> The bonus amount must equate to a percentage ( no less than
5%) of the teacher’s annual base pay.
>> The bonus must be re- earned each year.
• A quarterly and annual recognition program, including the possibility of
bonuses, must be instituted at both the school and district levels to reward
classroom innovation, contribution to the team, and student achievement.
• Student achievement must be measured annually by examining increasingly
higher levels of pupil academic progress for individual students and classes
similar to the process outlined in the Career Ladder program. Teachers and
principals must discuss and set student and class achievement goals annually.
• Baseline performance standards must be established for K- 12 teachers that
are consistent and universally applicable. Teacher evaluation instruments
and processes must be aligned with those standards.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 21
Summary
The benefits from enhancing the teacher compensation system in Arizona include
improved student achievement, teacher competency, and motivation; and a nation-ally
competitive compensation structure to retain and attract effective teachers.
Suggestions for strengthening the system and reinforcing the above recommenda-tions
include:
• Institute a comprehensive teacher compensation system in Arizona rather
than multiple legislative directives that govern base pay increases, perfor-mance-
based compensation, and career ladders. Inequities among school
district base pay, career- level salaries, those with established Career Ladder
programs, and the required performance- based pay plans under Proposition
301 could be resolved through phased- in funding and development — not
to exceed five years — of the comprehensive compensation framework.
All pay models, regardless of current status, are to be evolved to a career
ladder- type program within five years and must incorporate the specific
principles listed in the recommendations. The following are recommended
for the current Career Ladder program:
>> Establish an oversight process to ensure full implementation of
the program.
>> Include teachers with one to three years of experience in the
program.
>> Require the Arizona Department of Education to annually audit
and report on the effectiveness and impact of the new pay- for-performance
program relative to student achievement.
>> Involve teachers more effectively in the creation of their career
development plans.
P A G E 22 A p p e n d i x A
>> Involve teachers in the development of tools to be used in the
teacher evaluation process.
>> Address additional structural changes that may need to be made
in the Career Ladder legislation ( A. R. S. Title 15- 918) and
Performance Incentive Programs legislation ( A. R. S. Title 15- 919),
as well as Proposition 301. These changes may be needed to
create a comprehensive compensation framework under one piece
of legislation that supports locally designed and implemented
programs that meet the principles inherent in these recommendations.
• Ensure that assessments of teacher performance are consistent, objective,
and fairly administered by using the existing professional standards for
teachers and administrators adopted by the Arizona State Board of Educa-tion.
The existing professional standards must be the basis for developing
consistent processes and instruments. Additionally, ensure that, at the local
level, teachers and principals help develop the enhanced standards. Allow
local school boards to create standards that meet or exceed state standards.
• Align specific outcomes related to student achievement, teacher compe-tency,
and the ability to attract teachers with the investment driven by these
recommendations.
• If the recommendations are not implemented within the prescribed time
frame, hold in escrow the additional funding allocated for base pay increases
and the bonus program until the deficiencies are resolved; otherwise,
funding will be lost for the year.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 23
Following are immediate next steps for the development of a comprehensive com-pensation
plan for Arizona:
• Hire a consultant to perform both financial and relevant model analyses to
effectively and accurately assess the cost to implement a phase- in of the base
pay adjustment and bonus. The impact of the Proposition 301 dollars must
be considered and used in these analyses.
• Hire a consultant to effectively and accurately assess the precise administra-tive,
oversight, and tracking- related costs associated with these recommen-dations.
• Hire a consultant to perform an analysis that objectively assesses and
identifies appropriate funding sources for the subcommittee’s recommenda-tions
by the end of the 2002 legislative session.
P A G E 24 A p p e n d i x A
Expenditures Outside the Revenue Control Limit Subcommittee
The Expenditures Outside the Revenue Control Limit Subcommittee examined
school district expenditures outside the Revenue Control Limit ( RCL). While there
are approximately 10 categories of expenditures outside the RCL, the subcommittee
chose to study and make recommendations in two categories: the provision in state
law allowing school districts to fund excess utility costs from the local property tax
rate outside of the Maintenance and Operations budget; and the impact and effect
of the funds raised by school districts under court- ordered desegregation orders.
Recommendations
Changes in legislation are recommended for funding two of the expenditure catego-ries
currently allowed outside the RCL — excess utilities and desegregation expendi-tures.
Recommendations for excess utilities and desegregation expenditures include:
• Excess Utilities: The provision allowing excess utilities to be funded outside
the RCL must be eliminated. In addition, each district’s RCL must be
modified to include a fixed amount equal to the district’s actual current
utility cost. These changes increase districts’ motivation to manage utility
costs and provide an incentive to address district energy consumption that
does not exist under the current system.
• Desegregation Expenditures: A process must be established to move the
state and local districts toward a more manageable and accountable solution
to the burdensome desegregation expenditures. Specifically:
>> The amount of desegregation expenditures outside the RCL must
be held constant at the current fiscal year levels for the next two
fiscal years while a statewide review of the expenditures is initi-ated.
For districts currently using desegregation funds outside the
RCL, no new programs will be funded outside the RCL. Addi-tionally,
no new districts will be allowed to use this funding
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 25
source unless ordered by a court. While the study is being
conducted, current amounts outside the RCL should increase to
account for inflation at the same annual increase allowed in the
base support level.
>> During the two- year review period, the state must undertake a
study. This study must include:
> a statewide programmatic audit of the current expenditures
to ensure that the expenditures are directed at the issues
mandated by the courts or Office of Civil Rights where
applicable;
> a recommendation for the impact of movement to unitary
status; and
> a recommendation for a system to pay for these expendi-tures
that eliminates both the tax and operational dispari-ties
throughout the state.
Summary
Excess Utilities
The subcommittee recommends eliminating excess utilities as an item funded
outside the RCL and supplanting it with a system that places each district’s total
actual utility expenditures within the RCL. This change would result in more
efficient and accountable management of public funds, requiring district adminis-trators
to bear the impact of this management. Districts would no longer be shel-tered
from poor utility management by simply adding expenditures outside the
RCL. As an incentive for improved management of these expenditures, districts
would retain for their use any savings they achieve from their starting levels.
By accepting each district’s operating history as the starting point for its RCL,
climatic and historic differences are automatically being adjusted. To arrive at the
P A G E 26 A p p e n d i x A
appropriate amount to add to a district’s RCL, the operating history of the district
should be computed over a three- year period and presented on a dollar- per- square-foot
basis. The amount to include in the RCL would be this amount multiplied by
the square footage of facilities currently under district management. Exceptions
could be made for years when the amount of square footage managed by the district
changes by more than a determined percentage.
The allowance for excess utilities outside the RCL must be addressed now despite
the fact that Proposition 301 allows continuation of the excess utility provision until
FY2008. Taxpayers and districts will benefit more quickly by implementing a more
efficient and accountable system now rather than wait until 2008.
Desegregation Expenditures
The current system of funding desegregation expenditures outside the RCL has
numerous flaws. However, given the importance of the desegregation- related goals
and the magnitude of these expenditures, the complex ways these expenditures
create both operation and tax differences throughout the state, and the direct
involvement of the courts, the details of a viable solution require substantially more
time and resources than available to the subcommittee. The subcommittee, there-fore,
recommends a process intended to arrive at a better system rather than a
solution based on the subcommittee’s limited view.
Desegregation expenditures account for almost $ 160 million of total expenditures
per year outside the RCL. These expenditures are viewed with suspicion by some
because they have their origins in court litigation and have been removed from the
familiar process of public scrutiny. Given the large dollar amounts and the public
concerns about the expenditures, the implementation process must receive high
priority. The programmatic audit in the recommendations would provide a consis-tent
and impartial review for the taxpayers and policymakers of the expenditures and
the results being achieved.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 27
Any additional state assistance in funding desegregation expenditures must include
some incentive to encourage districts to reach unitary status. Doing this will
accelerate the date that school boards are individually returned to full responsibility
and accountability for these expenditures.
P A G E 28 A p p e n d i x A
Consolidation/ Unification of School Districts Subcommittee
The Consolidation/ Unification of School Districts Subcommittee studied the
opportunity to either consolidate or unify school districts in Arizona as a way to
improve the efficiency of their operations. The subcommittee also reviewed other
ways that districts could operate more efficiently and effectively if consolidation or
unification were not possible.
Recommendations
• The state of Arizona must require a minimum education course of study for
students based on the Arizona Academic Standards. That is, every school in
the state must have a fully articulated K- 12 curriculum, aligned with the
Standards, within two years regardless of their status as a K- 8 or 9- 12
district.
>> Legislation is needed requiring the Arizona State Board of
Education to mandate that each student have access to a fully
articulated K- 12 curriculum and providing the State Board of
Education the authority to enforce this mandate.
>> Under control of the State Board of Education, districts must
follow the K- 12 curriculum and provide training to school board
members to ensure compliance.
• No Arizona school district will be less than 100 students in size. This
requirement must be mandatory within two years. Although current
legislation [ A. R. S. Title 1549] provides adequate incentives to cause
unification in Arizona, for the most part, the state’s political process has not
allowed such unification to happen. To this end, all small school districts in
Arizona must move toward unification or district reorganization. Specifically:
>> Legislation is needed requiring that all school districts that have
more than 100 students be subject to the mandatory phase- out of
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 29
the small school adjustments when in excess of 10% of the
Revenue Control Limit ( RCL). This consolidation would be
further subject, on a case- by- case basis, to review and modifica-tion
by the Superintendent of Public Instruction as approved by
the State Board of Education.
>> The State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public
Instruction must be held responsible for training school districts
on the benefits of unification. Such training includes:
> coordination of the K- 12 curriculum and common goals;
> increased talent pools for teacher training and improve-ment;
> elimination of costly duplication of services;
> one board, one administration, one vision;
> uniform systems of records management; and
> the potential for improved student achievement.
• Training of board members must be provided by a statewide association of
school district governing boards or another entity with a program approved
by the Arizona State Board of Education. This training will help members
perform their duties more effectively while focusing on student achieve-ment,
and will expose them to new ideas regarding school restructuring.
The rationale for this training is based on the critical decisions made by
governing board members in school districts statewide with the authority
granted by A. R. S. Title 15. Implementation issues related to this recom-mendation
include:
>> Legislation needed to strengthen and support the recommendation.
>> Development of mandated curricula for needed board member
training, which should include, but is not limited to:
P A G E 30 A p p e n d i x A
> the role of the local school board in making policy and
performing their legal and financial fiduciary responsibilities;
> leadership;
> team building;
> performance- based compensation systems;
> innovations in school management and financial efficiencies;
> crisis management;
> school structuring;
> multicultural and multi- ethnic relations; and
> board, administrative, and teacher relations.
>> Failure by a school board member to complete the training
requirements within six months of election makes the person
ineligible to serve on a local school board and would result in
forfeiture of membership and the declaration of a vacancy.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 31
A P P E N D I X B
Executive Order 2001- 4
WHEREAS, the voters of Arizona have approved the “ Education 2000” proposal as
it appeared on the 2000 general election ballot as Proposition 301; and
WHEREAS, this proposition enacted a six- tenths of one percent education sales tax
to be used to enhance public education funding for Kindergarten through 12th
grade, community colleges, and state universities; and
WHEREAS, the new education sales tax monies must be accounted for and tracked
separately from all other state aid to public schools; and
WHEREAS, all of the monies raised must be used in the classroom, and none may
be used for administrative expenses; and
WHEREAS, the program initiated by the State Superintendent for Public Schools,
entitled Student Accountability Information System, shall be implemented and
funded as part of the Education 2000 proposal; and
WHEREAS, business leaders, the legislature, and the public would like to better
understand how public schools are funded, and to be able to better track how public
education monies are spent; and
WHEREAS, there is concern that the allowance of expenditures that are outside the
revenue control limit over the past two decades has created disparities in the per
pupil expenditures among districts; and
WHEREAS, there is interest in determining whether school district unification and
consolidation can help schools operate more efficiently; be it resolved that:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jane Dee Hull, Governor of the State of Arizona, do
hereby establish the Governor’s task force on Efficiency and Accountability in K- 12
Education consisting of no fewer than fifteen business and civic leaders who shall
serve at the pleasure of the Governor. In order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
P A G E 32 A p p e n d i x B
being used in the most efficient manner in support of K- 12 education, the task force
shall institute a systemic review of all maintenance and operating ( M& O) budget
issues. Items for review shall include, but are not limited to:
• How schools can direct the maximum amount of federal, state, and local
funding for public education into the classroom, including a review of
administrative costs and overhead and school district budget balance carry-forwards;
• Whether school districts should be unified, consolidated or eliminated to
lower administrative costs, and if so, how;
• Whether expenditures that are outside the revenue control limit impact the
equality of M& O funding, and if so, recommendations for changes to the
current system;
• How schools can establish teacher performance pay plans that take into
account individual and collective student achievement.
The task force shall present an initial set of findings and recommendations by
December 15, 2001, and shall report on their progress.
This task force shall be reviewed for continuation by December 31, 2002.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 33
A P P E N D I X C
Task Force Membership Roster
Jack Henry, Task Force Chair
Chairman
Greater Phoenix Leadership
Sierra Blanca Ventures, LLC
3117 East San Juan Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602.381.1569
Fax: 602.508.1749
Jahenryphx@ home. com
Don Bliss
Managing Director
Aon Risk Services
1850 North Central Avenue
Suite 1700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602.427.3232
Fax: 602.427.3032
Larry Borgman
Manager
University Relations — Arizona
Intel Corporation
5000 West Chandler Blvd.
Mailstop CH10- 87
Chandler, AZ 85226
480.554.3899
Fax: 480.554.7580
Larry. borgman@ intel. com
Art Calderon
Director of Human Resources
Phelps Dodge Corporation
2600 North Central Avenue
Suite 1500
Phoenix, AZ 85004- 3014
602.234.8390
Acalderon@ phelpsdodge. com
José A. Cárdenas
Managing Partner
Lewis and Roca LLP
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602.262.5790
Fax: 602.734.3852
Jcardenas@ Irlaw. com
Joe Coyle
Senior Vice President
Raytheon Company
P. O. Box 11337
Building 807/ H7
Tucson, AZ 85734
520.794.4041
Fax: 520.794.4002
Jpcoyle@ west. raytheon. com
Chuck Essigs
Assistant Superintendent for Business
Services and Government Relations
Mesa School District
549 Stapley Drive
Mesa, AZ 85203- 7297
480.472.0155
Cressigs@ mpsaz. org
Joan Fleming
President
Prescott Unified School District
Governing Board
P. O. Box 4145
Prescott, AZ 86302
520.778.5062
Jfleming@ mwaz. com
P A G E 34 A p p e n d i x C
Dick Foreman
Manager of Public Affairs
Southwest Gas
P. O. Box 52075
Phoenix, AZ 85072
602.395.4257
Fax: 602.395.4195
Richard. foreman@ groupwise. swgas. com
Phil Geiger
Director
School Facilities Board
1700 W. Washington, 6th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.542.6143
Fax: 602.542.6529
pgeiger@ sfb. state. az. us
Gregg Holmes
The Box Seat & Ad Specialty Company
P. O. Box 15374
Scottsdale, AZ 85267
480.315.0233
g. holmes1@ home. com
Thomas B. Kelly
Retired Managing Partner
Arthur Andersen
186 Ridge Trail Road
Sedona, AZ 86351
520.284.2012
Fax: 520.284.1194
tbkelly@ sedona. net
Penny Kotterman
President
Arizona Education Association
4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
Phoenix, AZ 85012- 1907
602.264.1774 – ext. 136
Fax: 602.240.6887
Pkotterman@ nea. org
Rick Lavis
Executive Vice President
Arizona Cotton Growers Association
4139 E. Broadway
Phoenix, AZ 85040
602.437.1344
Fax: 602.437.5401
acgal@ aol. com
John Lewis
President
Sun Community Bancorp LTD
3104 Camelback Rd., # 726
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602.319.0062 or 522.3744
Fax: 602.468.2941
Jslewis71@ aol. com
Tom Lorig
Retired Vice President
Motorola
1417 E. Colt Road
Tempe, AZ 85284
480.478.4192
Fax: 480.456.8714
Twlor@ aol. com
Janet Martin
Former President
Arizona State Board of Education
522 E. Gemini Drive
Tempe, AZ 85283- 2887
480.838.7841
Fax: 480.456.0290
Janetmartin@ qwest. net
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 35
Lucy Mason
Former Prescott City Councilwoman
301 E. Rosser
Prescott, AZ 86301
520.445.6674
Lucymason@ cableone. net
Rob Melnick
Director
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
P. O. Box 874405
Tempe, AZ 85287- 4405
480.965.4525
Fax: 480.965.9219
Rob. melnick@ asum. edu
Stan Paz
Superintendent
Tucson Unified School District
P. O. Box 40400
Tucson, AZ 85717
520.225.6060
Fax: 520.225.6174
Stan. paz@ tusd. k12. az. us
Jim Perlow
Vice President/ General Manager
Jet Products Co., Inc.
2660 West Quail Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85027
623.869.6749
Jim@ jet- products. com or
Jimmel@ home. com
Bill Schubert
President & CEO
Kitchell Corporation
1707 East Highland, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016- 4658
602.264.4411
Fax: 602.631.9112
Kwolf@ kitchell. com
Jim Strickland
General Partner
Coronado Venture Management
5220 N. Salida del Sol Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85718
520.577.3764
Fax: 520.299.8491
Jim@ coronadoventurefund. com
P A G E 36 A p p e n d i x D
A P P E N D I X D
Research Resources
Accountability Subcommittee
Accountability: Rewards and Sanctions for School Districts and Schools. Ziebarth,
Todd. Education Commission of the States: March 2001.
This issue brief provides a state- by- state look at how rewards and sanctions are
built into education accountability systems across the nation. Tables and
narrative summaries synthesize the data.
Assessment and Accountability Systems: 50 State Profiles. Goertz, Margaret and Mark
Duffy. Consortium for Policy Research in Education: 2001. Available: http://
www. cpre. org/ Publications/ Publications_ Accountability. htm
This document includes survey data on the assessment and accountability
systems in place between 1999 and 2000 in each of the 50 states. Consortium
for Policy Research in Education researchers collected data from state Web sites,
by reviewing state documents, and through interviews with the directors of
assessment, accountability, and Title I programs in each of the states. Survey
topics include: The State Assessment System, Performance Data, The State
Accountability System, Identifying and Assisting Low- Performing Schools, and
Alignment of the State Accountability System and Title.
Benchmarking Best Practices in Accountability Systems: Executive Summary. American
Productivity & Quality Center, in association with the Council of Greater City
Schools and the National Alliance of Business: 2000.
The sponsors of this report convened representatives of 14 urban school districts
and other organizations to identify best practices in accountability systems.
School district representatives were asked to envision a top- level, performance-based
accountability system and list its essential characteristics. This report
includes seven major areas that were identified by these school districts as
critical components of a strong accountability system.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 37
Building a Workable Accountability System: Key Decision Points for Policymakers and
Educators. Ananda, Sri and Stanley Rabinowitz. WestEd: 2001.
This Knowledge Brief identifies and annotates seven key questions that must be
carefully addressed in developing or refining a statewide education accountabil-ity
system: 1) What are its primary goals? 2) What indicators should be in-cluded?
3) Which students should be tested? 4) And when? 5) What account-ability
model best serves the purpose? 6) What consequences can the system
support? and 7) How can intended and unintended consequences be evaluated?
Chapter 115C: Elementary and Secondary Education. North Carolina General
Assembly. North Carolina General Statutes: 2000.
This document provides information on the reward and sanction components
of the North Carolina accountability system.
Does Charter School Attendance Improve Test Scores? The Arizona Results. Solmon,
Lew, Kern Paark, and David Garcia. Goldwater Institute’s Center for Market- Based
Education: March 2001.
While the percentage of academically successful Arizona charter schools has not
been quantified, the Goldwater Institute analyzed how students in charter
schools perform in comparison to those in public schools. This technical report
compares the SAT- 9 scores of Arizona students enrolled in charter schools with
those in traditional public schools ( grades 3 to 12) over three years beginning
with 1997 scores. The report shows some advantages for charter school students.
Education Code. Texas Legislature Online. The Texas Statutes: 1999.
This document provides information on the reward and sanction components
of the Texas accountability system.
P A G E 38 A p p e n d i x D
Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in North Carolina and Texas. Grissmer, David
and Ann Flanagan. National Education Goals Panel: November 1998.
The National Education Goals Panel analyzed national student performance
data for 33 indicators linked to the eight National Education Goals. The
analysis concluded that North Carolina and Texas made the largest average
gains in the nation on the seven National Assessment of Educational Progress
( NAEP) tests given between 1990 and 1996. The gains were significant and
sustained. The most plausible explanation for the test score gains are found in
the policy environment established in each state between 1990 and 1996.
“ Salaries: Per Capita Personal Income.” Arizona Tax Research Association. The
Statistic: 2000.
This report from the Arizona Tax Research Association ( ATRA) explains that,
although the American Federation of Teachers ranks Arizona 41st for average
teacher salaries according to its Interstate Cost- of- Living Index, ATRA’s index
places Arizona 24th for average teacher salaries according to per capita personal
income. Michael Hunter of ATRA explains that per capita personal income is
not a replacement for a cost- of- living index, but most accurately represents the
underlying wealth of a state.
Are Small Schools Better? School Size Considerations for Safety and Learning.
McRobbie, Joan. WestEd: 2001.
WestEd’s Policy Program compiled the most recent research on the effect of
school size on various school experience factors. According to this Policy Brief,
the most conclusive research indicates that schools’ safety and learning environ-ment
are most positively impacted by school size.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 39
Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends 2000. American Federation of Teachers,
AFL- CIO. The Research & Information Services Department: 2000.
This report provides state rankings and trends related to average teacher salaries
through the 1999- 2000 school year. It explains that the American Federation of
Teachers ranks Arizona 41st for average teacher salaries according to its Inter-state
Cost- of- Living Index.
“ The Family and Student Achievement.” RAND. Review of Student Achievement
and the Changing American Family. David W. Grissmer et al.: 1994.
The review summarizes findings of a 1994 RAND study, which found that the
single most important factor influencing student achievement was parents’
education. Family size and income were also found to be significant.
“ Variables Affecting Student Achievement.” Wisconsin Education Association
Council. Education Issues Primer: 1998.
This document, created by the Wisconsin teacher’s union, identifies four main
categories of variables that affect student achievement: school, the family and
the individual, social incentives, and socioeconomic conditions. It represents
widely held, but by no means definitive, views.
Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models Subcommittee
“ Alternative Teacher Compensation.” Goorian, Brad. ERIC Digest, Number 142:
November 2000.
This piece provides a look at various alternative methods of teacher compensa-tion
currently proposed or in practice in school districts around the country. It
provides information on establishing alternative models of teacher compensation.
P A G E 40 A p p e n d i x D
Critical Issue: Rethinking the Use of Educational Resources to Support Higher Student
Achievement. Miles, Karen Hawley. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory:
2000. Available: http:// www. ncrel. org/ sdrs/ areas/ issues/ envrnmnt/ go/ go600. htm
This issue brief discusses the idea that as schools are held increasingly account-able
for results, their need for additional resources grows ( e. g., funding for
teacher professional development and more classroom time in order to focus on
individualized instruction).
“ Designing Performance Pay Structures for Teachers.” Odden, Allan. AASBO, AEA,
ASA, ASBA Joint Conference on Teacher Compensation: November 30, 2000.
This PowerPoint presentation outlines current teacher compensation reform
efforts, knowledge versus skills- based performance pay, and important design
concepts for all stakeholders to be aware of as state and local efforts continue to
be drafted and implemented.
Education Week Articles
• “ Denver Pay- for- Performance Pilot Still Has Far To Go, Report Says.”
Archer, Jeff. July 12, 2000.
• “ Iowa Approves Performance Pay For its Teachers.” Blair, Julie. May 16,
2001.
• “ Lawmakers Plunge Into Teacher Pay.” Blair, Julie. February 21, 2001.
“ Merit Pay and ‘ Pay for Performance’.” Muir, Ed. American Federation of Teachers:
2000. Available: http:// www. aft. org/ newmembers/ k12/ merit. html
This article provides a brief history of merit pay programs in schools. It uses
selected research evidence to create some “ dos and don’ts” for legislators drafting
contemporary merit pay or pay- for- performance systems.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 41
“ Pay- for- Performance and Merit Pay.” National Council on Teacher Quality:
Teacher Quality Clearinghouse. Key Issues [ Online]: 2001. Available: http://
www. nctq. org/ issues/ merit. html
This site provides an overview along with updated categories such as Places to
Watch, Recent Developments, and Research and Reports related to this educa-tion
reform approach.
Performance- Based Pay for Teachers in Wisconsin: Options and Opportunities. Hruz,
Tom. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, Vol. 14, No. 4: June 2001.
This report provides a synthesis of successful merit pay programs for teachers
being instituted around the nation. It suggests that school- based performance
awards may be the best approach for an alternative teacher compensation model
in Wisconsin.
“ Reinventing Teacher Compensation Systems.” Consortium for Policy Research in
Education. Policy Brief: September 1995. Available: http:// www. ed. gov/ pubs/
CPRE/ fb6/ fb6e. html
This piece describes some state efforts to align teacher compensation systems
with organizational reform goals. It also outlines the process and technical
principles involved in designing a comprehensive, skill- based teacher compensa-tion
system, some of the aspects of which include: adequate funding, involve-ment
of all key parties, an objective and credible assessment system, and group-based
performance awards.
School- Based Performance Award Programs: Design and Administration Issues Synthe-sized
from Eight Programs. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. University
of Wisconsin- Madison: 1999.
This report provides an analysis of how eight different school- based teacher
compensation programs operate. The key elements analyzed include the
program’s origin, the process used to design it, the student achievement mea-sures,
and the reward criteria and reward program.
P A G E 42 A p p e n d i x D
“ School Reform, TURN, and Teacher Compensation.” Urbanski, Adam and Roger
Erskine. Kappan, Vol. 81, No. 5: January 2000. Available: http:// www. pdkintl. org/
kappan/ kurb0001. htm
Codirectors of the Teacher Union Reform Network explain how key dimensions
of school reform, specifically improving the quality of instruction through
alternative teacher compensation models, require new forms of labor/ manage-ment
collaboration. The authors delve into reconceptualizing the role of unions,
the importance of partnerships across interests, what new teacher compensation
looks like, and different types of performance pay models.
“ Teachers Approve Merit- Pay System: Cincinnati’s First Public District in U. S. to
Pay for Performance.” Pilcher, James. The Cincinnati Enquirer [ Online]: September
16, 2000.
This article describes the characteristics of the first district pay- for- performance
system and the implementation issues it has and will continue to face in
Cincinnati.
“ Teachers Working into Pay- for- Performance.” Tortora, Andrea. The Cincinnati
Enquirer [ Online]: January 23, 2001.
This article explains that many teachers in Cincinnati, the first U. S. district to
pay teachers based on performance, are struggling with the in- class, unan-nounced
reviews that are part of the reform. This article details Cincinnati’s
program.
The Pros and Cons of Performance- Based Compensation. Solmon, Lewis C. and
Michael Podgursky. Milken Family Foundation: June 2000.
This report provides a historical background as well as the pros and cons of
performance- based pay for teachers to explain some of the rationale used in
creating the Milken Family Foundation’s systemic school improvement effort:
the Teacher Advancement Program.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 43
Third Year Implementation Assessment of the Performance Pay Plan for Teachers ( 1996-
’ 97): Executive Summary. Hall, Gene E. and Edward P. Caffarella. Douglas County
School District, CO: May 5, 1998.
This report summarizes the implementation evaluation of what has been called
the “ most comprehensive performance pay plan in the nation.” Third- year
results evidence the benefits of a multiyear process to conceive the plan and
obtain support from all vested parties, as well as the fact that a group incentive
has emerged as the most powerful and widely accepted component.
“ Why Merit Pay Will Improve Teaching.” Malanga, Steven. City Journal, Vol. 11,
No. 3: Summer 2001.
This article uses the merit pay experiences of private industry to support
arguments related to increasing merit pay for teachers. It examines several cities’
efforts to adopt alternative models of teacher compensation and sites’ increased
teacher recruitment as a rationale for adopting such models.
Unification/ Consolidation of School Districts Subcommittee
“ Bigger School Districts Are Less Efficient, Study Says.” The Heartland Institute.
School Reform News: February 2000.
This article summarizes the findings of a study from the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution. The study’s author, Mike Antonucci, suggests that large school
districts should be broken up as they generally devote a smaller portion of their
resources to student instruction than do smaller districts. This article also refers
to the results of a 1990 Clemson University study, which concluded that
“ school district size is the most significant factor in determining school size,
with consolidation/ reorganization plans generally resulting in larger schools.”
P A G E 44 A p p e n d i x D
Compounding Disadvantage: The Effects of School and District Size on Student
Achievement in West Virginia. Howley, Craig. Appalachia Educational Laboratory,
ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools: 1996.
Howley suggests that policymakers should adjust school and district size to
relevant student circumstances as opposed to arbitrary economies of scale. He
finds that in West Virginia, small schools and districts hold particular benefits
for educating relatively impoverished students, whereas larger schools and
districts do well at educating affluent students. This is important research for
legislators considering district reorganization or consolidation policy.
“ Despite Court, Funds for Schools Still Not Equal.” Lovekin, Kris. The Press
Enterprise, Riverside, CA: December 18, 1994.
This article describes some of the politics around the issue of school district
unification. For example, lowering the salaries of high school teachers creates
automatic opposition to any unification effort. It also discusses the experiences
of California districts in Val Verde and Murrieta Valley in relation to unification.
District Realignment Activities in the States. Sturm, Pepper. Education Commission
of the States: 1996.
This brief identifies state- level efforts at consolidation and deconsolidation of
school districts.
Education Week Articles
• “ Tex. Finance Bill Signed Into Law, Challenges Anticipated.” Harp,
Lonnie. June 9, 1993.
• “ Nebraska Reforms Fuel District Consolidations.” Keller, Bess. September
16, 1998.
• “ District Mergers Continuing to Redraw Educational Maps.” Johnston,
Robert C. March 27, 1996.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 45
“ Jack and the Giant School.” Mitchell, Stacy. National Conference of State Legisla-tures:
1999.
This piece attempts to debunk the myth that “ giant schools” are more effective
than smaller ones in the hopes of curbing school consolidation efforts. It
includes a brief review of characteristics that result in the greater effectiveness of
small schools: high parental involvement, positive/ nurturing environment, and
higher participation in extracurricular activities.
“ Losing Local Control of Education: Cost and Quality Implications.” Walberg,
Herbert J. Heartland Policy Study, No. 59. The Heartland Institute: November 22,
1993.
This article reports on the results of a study, which examined 37 states and the
District of Columbia, controlling for the influence of per- pupil spending and
enrollment of minorities. Researchers concluded that school district size, school
size, and state share of funding are all significantly and negatively related to
student achievement, or as school systems become more centralized, student
achievement falls.
Rural School Consolidation and Student Learning. Fanning, Jim. ERIC Clearing-house
on Rural Education and Small Schools: 1995.
This brief examines the pressures that have led to school consolidation, the
effect of consolidation in addressing social and fiscal pressures, the role of
community in education, and the ways school consolidation undermines that role.
“ School District Reorganization in Illinois: Improving Educational Opportunities
for Students.” Hall, Robert F. and Robert L. Arnold. Annual Conference of the
National Rural Education Association: October 14- 17, 1993.
Using evidence obtained through case studies of five districts in Illinois that
have reorganized/ consolidated since 1983, the authors explain that preliminary
evidence suggests that the advantages of consolidation greatly outweigh the
P A G E 46 A p p e n d i x D
disadvantages. Some of these advantages include: broader curricula, higher
salaries and greater benefits for teachers, and a more efficient school system for
taxpayers.
“ School District Size and School Performance.” Howley, Craig. Rural Education
Issue Digest, Appalachia Educational Laboratory: 2000.
This issue digest examines school district size policy over the last century. It
explores the research related to the relationship between district size and student
achievement. Howley concludes that claims, which link district consolidation to
improved school performance, are not supported by research. Additionally, he
suggests that district leaders should consider the deconsolidation of larger
districts that serve poor communities.
“ Study Says School Consolidation Reduces Student Performance but Saves Costs.”
Edelman, Mark. Iowa State University Extension to Communities: April 23, 2001.
Available: http:// www. exnet. iastate. edu/ newsrel/ 2001/ apr01/ apr0117. html
This article summarizes the results of a school district consolidation study by
Oklahoma State University ( OSU) economists. The OSU analysts concluded
that consolidating small school districts into larger ones lowers achievement test
scores. The decrease in student performance occurs even when adjusting for
differences in sociodemographics and school expenditures. The OSU analysts
concluded by suggesting that part of the negative impact on student test scores
could be offset if the consolidation savings were used for additional instructional
support in the merged districts.
The Rural Education Dichotomy: Disadvantaged Systems and School Strengths. Dunn,
Randy J. Educational Policy Publications, North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory ( NCREL): 2000.
This publication discusses previous and contemporary trends toward district
consolidation in rural districts and explores some other ways that rural districts
can be supported.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 47
Other Reports and Information Provided to the Task Force
Expenditures Outside the Revenue Control Limit Subcommittee
Budgeted Excess Utilities, FY 2000- 2001. Arizona Department of Education.
This report includes data on the budgeted excess utilities for fiscal year 2000-
2001.
Small School Adjustment Districts, FY 2000- 2001. Arizona Department of Education.
This report includes data on the small school adjustment districts for fiscal year
2000- 2001.
Teacher Pay- for- Performance Models Subcommittee
Arizona Career Ladder Program. Arizona Department of Education.
This report describes the Career Ladder program, a summary of its statutory
requirements, and a listing of school districts participating in the program.
Task Force Subcommittees as a Whole
Education Task Force Reports and Prior Reform Recommendations. Arizona Governor’s
Office and other state agencies.
This report includes a summary of prior school reform reports including those by:
• Arizona Joint Select Committee on State Revenues and Expenditures
( 1989)
• Better Schools for Arizona, Arizona Business Leaders for Education ( ABLE)
( 1990)
P A G E 48 A p p e n d i x D
• Report of Governor’s Task Force on Education Reform to the People of
Arizona: Reform, Restructuring, and Rededication ( 1991)
• Reforming Education in Arizona, Morrison Institute ( 1991)
• Education Reform Group ( AEA, ASBA, ASA, Arizona Congress of Parents
and Teachers, Pima County Collaborative, etc.) ( 1994)
• Education 2000/ Proposition 301
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 49
>> Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards ( AIMS)
>> Arizona Stanford Achievement Test Results
>> History of NAEP Participation and Performance in Arizona
A P P E N D I X E
Achievement Results
ARIZONA’S INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE STANDARDS ( AIMS)
Percentage of Students by Performance Standard
P A G E 50 A p p e n d i x E
* Writing scores for grades 3, 5, and 8 are not available at this time due to scoring discrepancies.
Improving Student Achievement in Arizona: A Call to Action P A G E 51
ARIZONA STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS
* Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance
for the grade.
** Offered for the first time in Spring 2001.
*** Only grades 1- 9 were tested in Spring 2001.
P A G E 52 A p p e n d i x E
HISTORY OF NAEP PARTICIPATION AND PERFORMANCE
IN ARIZONA
Source: NAEP State Profiles ( http:// nces. ed. gov)
