Reform, restructuring, rededication: a report of the Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform to the people of Arizona

              FIFE SYMINGTON
Governor
December 17,1991
The Honorable Mark W. Killian
Arizona State Representative
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mark:
Enclosed you will find the final report of my Education Task Force: Reform,
Restructuring, Rededication. This report reflects the work of individuals
representing a broad range of interests and views. Their recommendations were
developed after many months of deliberation which included public hearings in
every Arizona county.
I hope you will have the opportunity to review the report and to consider its
recommendations. I look forward to working with you on education reform during
the upcoming session.
Sincerely,
Fife Symington
GOVERNOR
A Report Of The
Governor's Task Force On Educational Reform
To The People Of
Arizona
Reform
Restructuring
Rededication
Fife Symington
Governor
Table Of Contents
Message from Governor Fife Symington ............................................................. 2
Message from C . Diane Bishop. Superintendent of Public Instruction ................. 3
Members of Governor's Task Force On Educational Reform ................................ 4
Members of Finance And Equalization Subcommittee and Task Force Staff ......... 5
MISSION AND COALS FOR ARIZONA'S CHILDREN ....................................... 7
THE NEED FOR CHANCE .......................................................................... 11
Arizona Needs A Better Prepared Workforce ...................................................... 13
Major Societal Changes Have lmpact On Arizona's Children ............................ 17
Arizona Students Must Be Prepared To Compete In A Global Economy ............ 20
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 25
At- Risk Populations And Barriers To Learning ................................................... 26
Decentralization/ Restructuring ........................................................................ - 30
Accountability .................................................................................................. 33
Training And Professionalism .......................................................................... - 37
Open EnrollmentParental Choice .................................................................... 41
Technology ...................................................................................................... 46
Education Finance ............................................................................................ 47
IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY UNDERWAY .................................................. 53
Academic Standards And Accountability Established ........................................ 53
Performance- Based Pay: Accountability For Teachers And Students .................. 54
Schools Restructure To Improve Student Performance ...................................... 54
At- Risk Students Are Getting Support ................................................................ 56
Teacher Training Needs Under Review .............................................................. 57
APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC .......................................................................... 59
Appendix A: Notes ........................................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Examples of Essential Skills .......................................................... 66
Appendix C: Schedule of Regional Forums ....................................................... 68
Appendix D: Acknowledgments ...................................................................... 68
For the past six months, there has been a tremendous effort in Arizona to focus on our
children - their needs, their education and their future. In case there are any among us who
still wonder why I established education reform as my top priority for the state, let me share
with you the words of Abraham Lincoln -
" A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have
started. He is going to sit where you are sitting. And when you are
gone, attend to those things which you think are important.
" You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are
carried out depends on him. He will assume control of your cities,
states and nation. He is going to move in and take over - and the
fate of humanity is in his hands."
Not only in Arizona, but across this nation, we have been failing our children. They are
not growing up prepared to take over the stewardship they will inherit from us. We can no
longer afford to spend our time assessing blame. We need to build a society and an educational
system that will adequately prepare our children for the future.
For several months now, 41 Arizona citizens representing a broad cross- section of groups
concerned about education, have been meeting under the auspices of the Governor's Task Force
on Educational Reform. I participated actively in all its deliberations.
Each Task Force member brought a different perspective to the process. We often
disagreed, sometimes vehemently. But the one thing we all had in common was a sincere
desire to make improvements for our children.
Arizona is not alone in addressing educational reform. Ever since the 1983 release of the
national report, " A Nation at Risk," educators, parents, business leaders and politicians have
been debating not about the need for reform, but about how it should be undertaken.
The recommendations put forth in this report represent the " how," as defined by the Task
Force after months of research, debate, compromise and input from citizens. They address the
needs of our children as individuals, as well as the broader societal good. They are all founded
in the concept that we cannot expect to have a democracy without an educated citizenry.
Education is big business. Millions and millions of Arizona's taxpayers' dollars are
invested in education every year. The Task Force endeavored to craft a new system which will
ensure that the money is spent wisely and that all of us as investors in the system can be
guaranteed a return on our investment.
We must set high expectations for our children and the adults responsible for teaching
them. With those expectations must come vehicles for measuring our success. We must
celebrate our successes, and reverse our failures. We cannot afford to lose even one child.
Chester E. Finn, Jr., explains it very well in his book, ' We Must Take Charge - Our
Schools and Our Future" -
" Our attitude toward resources, precedents, plans, and
activities needs to become flexible and experimental rather than
dogmatic and controlling. . . . When it comes to results, however,
our stance should be doctrinaire and unbending. We will insist on
them; we will reward them; and, when we do not get them, we will
change the arrangements that are failing to produce them."
We must all have the commitment and courage to embrace and participate in change.
We owe it to our children.
Fife Symington
Governor
C. Diane Bishop
Superintendent of Public Instruction
The report of the Governor's Task Force on Education is the work of 41 individuals
committed to the task of education reform. The recommendations were forged over
months of discussion and intense debate. Many are the result of compromise, but all
represent the best of our collective thinking.
Depending on their point of view, critics will complain we went too far or not nearly
far enough. The truth is that we kept our vision tempered with reality. We chose to focus
on results, not rhetoric; to promote meaningful change, not personal ideology. We kept in
mind that to improve the education of children, and hence the productivity of the state, our
recommendations must be implemented. To that end, they must address the concerns of a
wide and diverse constituency. They must provide solutions to the real problems of
education, not the imagined ones. It is my belief that the recommendations do just that.
I commend the Governor for his commitment to positive change in Arizona's public
schools. And I applaud the monumental efforts of the Task Force and its staff during the
past seven months. I am pleased to have been a part of this important effort.
Governor's Task Force On Educational Reform
The Honorable Fife Syrnington, CHAIRMAN
Governor, State Of Arizona
Karen Jacome, Coordinator
Amphitheater Extension Programs, Inc., Tucson
The Honorable Lela Alston
Chair, Senate Education Committee
Arizona State Senate, Phoenix
Dr. Raymond Kellis, EX- OFFICIO
Superintendent, Peoria Unified School District, Glendale
Dr. Clare Jones, Diagnostic Specialist & Educational
A. Yvette Alvarez- Rooney, Teacher Consultant, Scottsdale
Miller School, Tucson
Rick Lavis, Co- Chairman
Shari Avianantos, President Arizona Business Leadership for Education, Phoenix
Arizona Congress of Parents & Teachers, Scottsdale
Steven Lynn, Chief Executive Officer
Dr. Reginald Ban, President Nordensson Lynn Advertising, Tucson
State Board of Education, Tucson
Margaret Madden, Head of the School
Dr. Raul Bejarano, Principal Phoenix County Day School, Phoenix
Nogales High School, Nogales
Anthony Mason, Co- Chairman
Kim Weatherly Benedict, ParentICitizen Arizona Business Leadership for Education, Phoenix
Casa Grande
Catherine McKee, Vice President & Director
Ken Bennett, Vice President Motorola Government Electronics Group, Scottsdale
Bennett Oil Company, Prescott
Duce Minor, President
The Honorable C. Diane Bishop Arizona School Boards Association, Parker
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Robert Moran, Professor
American Graduate School of International Management
Glendale
Nicholas Clement, Principal
Flowing Wells High School, Tucson
Malcolm Craig, President
Garrett Engine Division Allied- Signal, Phoenix
Joann Mortensen, Chair, Steering Committee
Arizona Citizens for Education, Safford
Terry Forthun, President
Arizona Federation of Teachers, Scottsdale
John Norton, Chairman of the Board
J. R. Norton Company, Phoenix
Dr. Carol Grosse, Superintendent
Alhambra Elementary School District, Phoenix
Albert Olivier, M. D., Physician
Tempe
Darrell Guy, President
Arizona Education Association, Phoenix
Arthur Othon, Senior Public Affairs Reprepresentative
Arizona Public Service Company, Phoenix
Dr. Margaret Hatcher, Executive DirectorJDean
Northern Arizona University
Center for Excellence in Education, Flagstaff
The Honorable Tom Patterson
Minority Leader, Arizona State Senate, Phoenix
Michael Rojas, Teacher
Dr. Victor Herbert, Superintendent Mary Bethune School, Phoenix
Phoenix Union High School District, Phoenix
Margaret Roush- Meier, Member
The Honorable Bev Hermon Quality Education for Students Today, Flagstaff
Chair, House Education Committee
Arizona House of Representatives, Tempe Luz Sarmina- Gutierrez, Community Affairs
Southwest Gas Corporation, Phoenix
Gilbert Innis, Education Director
Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton
Joe Smyth, EX- OFFICIO
Chairman & CEO, Independent Newspapers, Inc.
Paradise Valley
The Honorable Ruth Solomon, District 14
Arizona House of Representatives, Tucson
Fr. Tony Sotelo, Pastor
Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, Phoenix
Paul Street, County School Superintendent
Yavapai County, Prescott
Arnette Ward, Provost
Chandler- Gilbert Community College
Chandler
Dr. Richard Wilson, Superintendent
Amphitheater Unified School District
Tucson
Dr. Paul Wong, Professor
Arizona State University, Tempe
Finance And Equalization Subcommittee
Dr. Raymond Kellis, CO- CHAIRMAN
Superintendent
Peoria Unified School District, Glendale
Joe Smyth, CO- CHAIRMAN
Chairman & CEO, Independent Newspapers, Inc.
Paradise Valley
The Honorable Lela Alston, EX- OFFICIO
Chair, Senate Education Committee
Arizona State Senate, Phoenix
Jose Bernal, Teacher
Amphitheater High School, Tucson
Dr. Michael Block, Professor - Economics and Law
University of Arizona, Tucson
James M. Bush, Director
Fennemore Craig, Phoenix
Barbara Carpenter, ParentICitizen
Mesa
Dr. Robert Donofrio, Superintendent
Murphy Elementary School District, Phoenix
Sandra Dowling, County School Superintendent
Maricopa County, Phoenix
Project And Research
Coordination
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
School of Public Affairs
Arizona State University
Dr. Rob Melnick, Director
Dr. Louann Bierlein, Assistant Director
The Honorable Bev Hermon, EX- OFFICIO
Chair, House Education Committee
Arizona House of Representatives, Tempe
Ruben Luera, General Manager
KTVW TV 33, Phoenix
Kay Lybeck, Vice President
Arizona Education Association, Tucson
Martin Shultz, Public Affairs
Arizona Public Service Company, Phoenix
Allan Stanton, Attorney
Arizona Railroad Association, Phoenix
Clinton Strickland, Principal
Trevor G. Browne High School, Phoenix
Dr. L. Dean Webb, Dean
College of Education, Arizona State University
Tempe
Dan Whittemore, Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs
Maricopa Community College District, Tempe
Marilyn Wilson, Governing Board Member
Mesa Unified School District, Mesa
Governor's Office
Nancy Mendoza, Executive Assistant for Education
Elliott Hibbs, Executive Assistant for Fiscal Affairs
Joan Barrett, Task Force Office Manager
The Process Beains:
Establishing ~ h < Mi ssion And
Coals For Ahzona's Children
The concept of restructuring education is not an effort unique
to the State of Arizona. Across the country, from state to state,
educators, parents, business and public policy leaders are working
together to reform our basic system of education.
Governors in each of the states pledged to take a leadership
role in these efforts. Meeting with President George Bush in 1990,
the National Governors' Association established national goals,
outlining clearly what they hoped to accomplish in educational
restructuring by the year 2000.
Here in Arizona, Governor Fife Symington convened the
Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform in May, 1991.
The charge to the group was to develop specific recommendations
to restructure and reform Arizona's education system, and to issue
a final report to the citizens of Arizona in December, 1991.
Specifically, the Task Force was asked to address the objective
and scope of public education in Arizona; the structure of the public
elementary and secondary school system; and the roles of parents,
teachers, principals, superintendents, district school boards, the
State Board of Education, the Department of Education, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction and others as deemed
appropriate. During its work, the Task Force also looked at the issue
of open enrollment and parental choice; policies and programs to
ensure credible and quantitative assessments of student and school
performance; the role and relationship of social service agencies in
supporting public education; and irnprovelrlents in school finance.
The Task Force consisted of 41 members. These individuals
represented the broad spectrum of the Arizona citizenry with an
interest, or a " stake" in education. Included were teachers,
principals and superintendents. There was representation from
public and private schools. Legislators, parents, business leaders
and school board members were included. Superintendent of
Public Instruction C. Diane Bishop served on the Task Force,
as did leaders from major statewide education associations.
There was representation from both rural and urban Arizona.
Governor Symington chaired the Task Force.
" I believe that we really have no choice about
educational reform. The public is demanding it,
and we owe it to the children of this state. It is no
longer a matter of whether to reform, but how.
In many states the courts have ordered reform.
If we fail, change may be thrust upon us as well.
We either do it right or it may be done for us."
Governor Symington
Task Force
Adopts Mission
And Coals
In addition to the Task Force, a Finance and Equalization
Subcommittee was formed. The 16- member subcommittee was
charged with preparing a report and recommendations to the full
Task Force to assure school funding equity.
After months of intensive research and discussion, and a series
of public hearings around the state to get the public's input, the
Task Force is reporting its recommendations. First among these is
the overall mission and specific goals established for the future of
education in Arizona.
The. people of Arizona desire a quality education
system that prepares our young people to become
productive citizens.
Reaffirming Arizona's three state education goals
adopted in 1989, the mission of such a system is to help
students:
1. master essential skill competencies at the highest
levels of thinking in communication, mathematics,
science, social and economic studies, humanities and
arts, physical and health education, and vocational/
technological areas;
2. graduate from high school;
3. and achieve their post- secondary school goals.
Overall, the current system must be restructured to
help students learn to read, comprehend, interpret, draw
inferences, organize, listen, effectively communicate,
compute, problem solve, analyze data, reason, and
become technologically literate. Students must also learn
to be hard- working, responsible, and respectful of
themselves and others.
Pursuant to this mission, the Task Force, on behalf of
the people of Arizona, endorses the six national education
goals presented by the Governors and the President in
1990. These national goals carry out a commitment to
make the United States internationally competitive with
the recognition that education is not just an endeavor for
our children but a lifelong pursuit. These goals mandate
sweeping, fundamental changes in the U. S. educational
system. Therefore, based upon concepts embedded in the
national goals, the Task Force recommends the following:
Coals For Arizona's Children
1. Readiness.
By the year 2000, all children in Arizona will
start school ready to learn.
2. School Completion.
By the year 2000, Arizona's rate of high school
completion will be at least 90 percent.
3. Student Achievement and Citizenship.
By the year 2000, Arizona students will be
capable of demonstrating competency in
challenging subject matter, and the
educational system will ensure that students
learn to use their minds well, so they may be
prepared for responsible citizenship, further
learning, and productive employment in our
modem economy.
4. International Competitiveness.
By the year 2000, Arizona students will excel in
mathematics, science and the use of English
and other languages.
5. Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning.
By the year 2000, every adult Arizonan will be
literate and will possess the knowledge and
skills necessary to compete in a global economy
and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.
6. Safe, Disciplined and Drug- Free Schools.
By the year 2000, every school in Arizona will
be free of drugs and violence and will offer a
disciplined environment conducive to learning.
As noted above, the Task Force has embraced all six national
goals as adapted to the needs of Arizona. The work of this group,
however, has focused primarily on reforms necessary to address
goals one through four.
Because The World H ~ SCh anged
" Large proportions, perhaps more than half, of our
elementary, middle, and high school students are
unable to demonstrate competency in challenging
subject matter in English, mathematics, science,
history and geography. Further, even fewer appear
to be able to use their minds well."
National Assessment of Educational Progress
September 1990 ( 1)
Many observers of education have concluded this means that
Johnny can't read, Jane can't compute, and our children are not
doing as well as today's adults did back in " the good old days."
The blame for all these educational woes is laid firmly at the school-house
steps. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
( NAEP), which has been surveying the educational achievement
of American students since 1969, asserts this is not the case.
Our math, reading and writing test results have
been basically stable since the 1960' s, according to
NAEP. The real problem is not a decline in the
performance level of our students. Rather, the
problem is that the demands of our changing world
require workers with more knowledge and higher
skills than ever before.
The problem we have regarding our students' performance is a
societal problem, not just an educational problem. We must solve
it as a society, and stop looking to our educators to shoulder all the
blame and create all of the solutions.
Today's educational system has its roots in our former agrarian
economy. The school calendar is nine months long, for instance,
because our children were needed back on the farms to help with
planting and harvesting.
Then America moved into the Industrial Age. Factories were
the fuel that powered our economy, and students who couldn't, or
chose not to pursue challenging academic careers, could easily find
blue collar jobs on our country's assembly lines. Muscle power was
adequate to provide a moderate income and keep America on the
cutting edge as a world leader.
Now, the Information Age has dawned. The amount of
information existing in our world today is doubling every 20
months. Many experts predict that rate will accelerate, so that
by the turn of the century, information will be doubling every
13 months. This " information explosion" has as its natural
fall- out an expanded knowledge base and the need for increased
intellectual skills for modem- day survival.
As the amount of information increases, it is
impossible, as well as impractical, for any
educational system to teach our children all that
they can potentially know. What we must teach
them, however, is how to access information,
analyze, generalize, conceptualize, problem- solve,
create and communicate.
In other words, we must teach them how to think.
The basic fabric of our American society has changed as well.
The " traditional" model of the family in which only one parent
worked and the other parent was the primary caregiver to the
children is a reality for only eight percent of America's families. ( 2)
Today, we have increased numbers of single parent families,
divorced families, merged families, two- income households
and children having children.
Across the nation, more and more students are entering
our schools without the ability to speak English. Of the 670,000
students in Arizona's public schools, more than 100,000 youngsters
have a primary home language other than English. These students
come from 44 different language groups. ( 3)
These children attend class side by side with their physically
challenged friends, their learning disabled classmates dnti
youngsters who are learning in spite of developmental disabilities.
The faces, minds and bodies of American education are vastly
different than as recently as 20 years ago.
Our world is changing and our educational system must
change with it if we are going to successfully prepare our young
people for the world that will be. There is no single factor that we
can point to as the cause of educational failure. We must look at all
the factors that contribute to a changed world, and then design an
educational system that will allow our children to succeed within
these new parameters. This was the challenge to the Task Force.
Arizona Needs A Better Prepared L Workforce
One of the driving forces behind the educational reform
movement is American business. Pick up any magazine these days
and you will find an article about the need for better prepared
workers, coupled with information on what society's responsibility
must be to support a reformed education system.
American business is worried, and well it might be. The U. S.
Department of Labor's 1990- 2005 projections suggest that we will
continue to switch from a goods- producing to a service- producing
economy. ( I) This means that the manufacturing jobs which
required minimal education will continue to disappear. On the
other hand, occupations that require the most education or training
are projected to grow faster than average over the next 13 years.
These include executive, administrative and managerial workers,
professional specialty occupations and technicians. ( 2)
The Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary
Skills ( SCANS) found that more than half of our young people
leave school without the knowledge or foundation required
to find and hold a good job. ( 3) This suggests that students
are not prepared for today's jobs, much less the jobs of the future.
American business leaders are concerned about the impact
an insufficiently prepared labor force has on our ability to compete
in a global economy. Our country's preeminence as a world leader
is declining at alarming rates.
" International economic competition and rapid technological
change will be among the most powerful challenges to our schools,"
according to the Wisconsin report on school reform, A New Design
for Education in Wisconsin. " The pace of technological change
continues to be extremely fast, and the world's public and private
research and development capacity is less and less concentrated in
the United States. The American economy is being restructured in
almost all sectors under a constant barrage of competition powered
by technological advances, international trade and other forces." ( 6)
Unless we change the way we educate our young people,
America's decline in world competition will continue. The message
is clear in studies that compare our students' capabilities against
their counterparts in other industrialized nations.
Among 16 industrialized countries in Europe, Asia
and North America, the United States is the weakest
performer in measures of educational achievement
in science and mathematics.
On internationally administered examinations in
mathematics, the " language" of science and
technology, the avemge score of japanese students
is competitive with the scores of the top 5 percent
of American students. ( 7)
In 1960, the United States
accounted for 35 percent
of the world's economic
output. By 1980, its share
had fallen to 22 percent. ( 4)
In 1960, the United States
was responsible for
22 percent of the world's
exports. In 1980, the figure
was only 11 percent. ( 5)
Studies undertaken by the Educational Testing Service in 1989
substantiate the fact that our students are not successfully
competing with their counterparts around the world.
Science Achievement in Five Countries
Percent of 13- year- olds scoring at or above five levels, 1988
In 1988, American
1 3- year- olds scored
substantially lower than
students from three out
of four other countries
in science. ( 8)
Examples of what students performing at various levels of the International
Assessment of Educational Progress typically know and can do:
Level 300: Have some knowledge about the environment and animals
Level 400: Have basic knowledge of life sciences and physical sciences
Level 500: Can design experiments and use scientific equipment
Level 600: Can draw conclusions by applying scientific facts and principles
Level 700: Can make predictions and interpret experimental data
Figure A. Source: Educational Testing Service, 1989.
Mathematics Achievement in Five Countries
Percent of 13- year- olds scoring at or above five levels, 1988
American students scored
lowest among 13- year- olds
from five nations on an
international mathematics
test in 1988. ( 9)
Examples of what students performing at various levels of the International
Assessment of Educational Progress typically know and can do:
Level 300: Can add and subtract two- digit numbers and solve simple number
sentences
Level 400: Can solve one- step problems and locate numbers on a number line;
understand the most basic concepts of logic, percent, and geometry
Level 500: Can solve two- step problems; can use information from charts and
graphs, convert fractions, decimals and percents, and compute
averages
Level 600: Can multiply fractions and decimals; demonstrate increased
understanding of measurement and geometry concepts
Level 700: Can use data from a complex table to solve problems and apply
skills to new situations
Figure B. Source: Educational Testing Service, 1989.
Nan Stone, managing editor, writing in the Haward Business
Review, March- April 1991, focused on the need for educational
reform and business' role in the changes.
" In a demanding competitive environment, U. S. companies
cannot prosper unless the schools graduate a continuing stream
of well- educated, self- disciplined, motivated young people.
Students who finish high school with minimal reading, math
and communications skills will not be able to work effectively as
part of a team, operate sophisticated machinery, solve problems,
or take initiative on behalf of their customers. In short, they will
not be able to do today's jobs well, let alone tomorrow's." ( lo)
The academic skills identified as critical in the education
reform movement are the same skills that today's work force needs,
and lacks. Hence, business has a vested interest in improving
education, and is anxious to become a partner with educators and
public policy leaders to accomplish the changes that have been
identified as crucial to our nation's economic future. Already, there
are thousands of new business- sponsored projects in more than a
third of the nation's schools. In all, there are more than 140,000
partnerships in over 30,000 schools, and more than half of these
involve business. ( 1 1)
The Committee for Economic Development ( CED), an
independent research and educational organization consisting
of 250 business leaders and educators, has acknowledged that
educational reform is critical to the nation's economic agenda.
Over the past seven years, CED has published a series of reports
which call for restructuring not only of our schools, but of our
health and human service systems. They also call for corporate
America to shoulder greater responsibilities in the successful
development of our children, from birth through higher education.
CED's report, The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for
ChiZd Development and Education, urges the nation to " develop a
comprehensive and coordinated strategy of human investment. . .
one that redefines education as a process that begins at birth and
encompasses all aspects of children's early development, including
their physical, social, emotional and cognitive growth." ( 12)
This report cites many examples of corporate America's
increasing commitment to education and points to several
multimillion- dollar programs that have been announced
recently by Fortune 100 corporations.
a General Electric has set aside $ 20 million to double the
number of disadvantaged youths in its College Bound
program.
w RJR Nabisco is offering $ 30 million over a five- year
period through its Next Century Schools project to help
spur innovation on a school- by- school basis.
a Coca- Cola has committed at least $ 5 million a year for
the next decade to support a variety of programs,
including minority education, innovations in urban
education, leadership training for secondary school
teachers and literacy programs.
a Citibank is committing $ 20 million over the next 10
years to a variety of strategies and programs for school
improvement. ( 1 3)
The Business Roundtable ( BRT), an organization that represents
the chief executive officers ( CEOs) of 213 major corporations, is
taking a major role in bringing business leadership to state- level
education reform. Under the leadership of IBM Chairman John
Akers, the BRT has made an unprecedented 10- year commitment
to restructuring education at the state level. ( 14)
In summary, the message that seems to be coming from
business leaders throughout the country is three- pronged:
a we need better prepared workers;
we are willing to be part of the solution; but
a there must be results- oriented restructuring, and
a system of accountability.
Major Societal Changes
Have Impact On Arizona's Children
The " traditional" family, in which one parent worked and the
other stayed home, no longer exists for more than 90 percent of
modem American families. The ripple effect of mothers and fathers
with less time for nurturing, disciplining and helping with
homework has an impact on how well our children are able to do
in school.
According to economist Victor Fuchs, children have
lost 10 to 12 hours of parental time per week since
1960. ( I) Parental time covers activities such as
talking with children; playing with them; dressing,
feeding and cnauffering them; as well as helping
them with their homework.
Just as alarming, the amount of " total contact time" - defined
as time parents spend with children while doing other things - has
dropped 40 percent in the last 25 years. ( 2) That means that parents
spend less time visiting relatives, doing the grocery shopping or
taking family vacations with their children - all activities in which
family bonds and values are enhanced.
How is the time that used to be spent between child and paren
being utilized now? For many children, it is spent in front of the
television set. According to Yale University's Dr. Victor Strasburger,
" The average child between 6 and 11 years of age spends 25 hours
per week - roughly one- third of non- school hours - watching
television . . .
. . . By the time they graduate from high school,
children will have spent 15,000 hours camped in
front of a N set. . . . During this time they will have
witnessed some 18,000 murders and countless
robberies, bombings, assaults, beatings and tortures.
They will also have been exposed to some 350,000
commercial messages." ( 3)
Television clearly has an impact on what our chldren are
learning and how they're learning. Students who are used to
constant sound, movement and color have difficulty relating to
a teacher lecturing. Major computer companies have recognized
this trend and have developed sophisticated software that delivers
education through the medium children have become accustomed
to - the television screen which serves as a computer monitor.
Affluent families, and even some middle class families in
America, have computers in their homes. This gives their children
an advantage when it comes to being technologically proficient.
But families living in poverty have trouble scraping together enough
money for the basic necessities, such as nutritional meals and
health care for their children. For these families, there are no extra
dollars for books or computers.
In 1989, close to 25
percent of children under
the age of six lived in
poverty. ( 5)
Of all the births in
Arizona in 1989, nearly
one- third were babies
born to single mothers. ( 6)
In 1990, nearly 10 percent
of Arizona women giving
birth had no . . . or fewer
than five. . . prenatal
visits. ( 8)
50 percent of Arizona's
infants and preschool
children are not adequately
immunized. ( 10)
Fewer than 20 percent of
Arizona's children who are
eligible for Head Start are
actually being served. ( 11)
One of the most serious demographic changes in the past
two decades has been the rate of poverty among young
families. Although a number of factors have contributed to this
dramatic increase, one of the key causes has been the increase in
households headed by single women.
The impact of poverty comes to rest clearly on the shoulders
of children. Between 1970 and 1987, the poverty rate for children
increased nearly 33 percent. ( 4)
At the same time that we have increasing numbers of children
living in poverty, there is every indication that the problems of
these children are more acute today than they were in 1965 when
the antipoverty programs such as Head Start were created. In 1989,
nearly 11 percent of babies were born exposed to illegal drugs. ( 7)
In Arizona, women living in poverty continue to lack necessary
prenatal care.
The lack of adequate prenatal care contributes
significantly to the numbers of low birth weight infants,
and the attendant medical and learning problems that
follow these children.
After birth, many of Arizona's children suffer from inadequate
health care. According to the Department of Health Services ( DHS),
62 percent of Arizona's children ages 0 to 7 did not see a health care
provider in the past year for preventive health services. DHS reports
that 32 percent of children did not see a health care provider at all
last year. ( 9)
In additidn to suffering from inadequate health care, many of
Arizona's children are also not receiving the kind of child care and
preschool programs that will help them be ready to start school.
Less than 5 percent of the licensed DHS child care centers
are nationally accredited. And training for certification in early
childhood education is not widely available in Arizona. ( 12)
The increased numbers of women in the work force, and
Arizona's high incidence of divorce, are also societal changes that
have an impact on Arizona's children.
In 1990,25 percent of all American children under 18
were living in single parent families. ( 13)
More than 60 percent of American children will
experience life in a single parent family sometime
between birth and age 18. ( 14)
By 1995, more than 75 percent of all school- aged
children in the U. S. will have mothers in the work
force. ( is) Already, an estimated 70 percent of
Arizona school- aged children have mothers who
work outside the home. ( 16)
Male wages have fallen 19 percent since 1973. ( 17)
During this same period, divorce rates have doubled. ( 18)
Arizona's divorce rate is the fourth highest in the
nation. ( 19)
In summary, there are many changes in society which have
a direct impact on children and their ability to do well in school:
more children are living in poverty;
many women and children are not receiving adequate
health care;
at- risk students are not receiving the early childhood
education they need to be successful in school;
more women have entered the workforce;
male wages have declined; and
record numbers of children are living in single- parent
households due to increased births to single women
and escalating divorce rates.
Arizona Students Must Be Prepared
To Compete In A Global Economy
When Arizonans wanted an answer to the question " How are
our students doing?," we historically looked to comparative
indicators for answers. Standardized test scores have been one of
our indicators. High school graduation rates have been another.
In the global information society where our children will have
to function in the future, these measurements won't be enough.
As essential skill competencies are developed for the curriculum
areas recommended by the Task Force, we will need to measure
our students' proficiency in reaching these levels. More focus
will be placed on critical thinking skills and world class standards.
Even the way we measure success in terms of graduates could
change. While we clearly need to increase the numbers of high
school graduates, tomorrow's diplomas must represent more than
the completion of required and elective classes. Students in the
future will be expected to demonstrate that they are competent in
communication, mathematics, science, social and economic studies,
humanities and arts, physical and health education, and vocationall
technological areas, prior to receiving their diplomas.
How are our students doing today? On a national level.. .
w Just 5 percent of 17- year- old high school students
in 1988 could read well enough to understand and
use information found in technical materials,
literary essays, historical documents and
college- level texts. ( 1)
As for writing, the authors of the 1988 National
Assessment of Educational Progress ( NAEP) report
on student performance found that the " vast
majority of high school juniors still could not write
a persuasive paper that was judged adequate to
influence others to move them to action." ( 2)
Barely 6 percent of 1 lth graders in 1986 could
solve multi- step math problems and use basic
algebra. That means 94 percent of them could
not answer questions at this level of difficulty:
" Christine borrowed $ 850 for one year from the
Friendly Finance Company. If she paid 12% simple
interest on the loan, what was the total amount
she repaid?" ( 3)
Sixty percent of 11th graders in 1986 did not
know why The Fedemlist papers were written;
three- quarters could not say when Lincoln was
president; just one in five knew what
Reconstruction was. ( 4)
The 1988 civics assessment invited high school
seniors to name the current president and then
to describe his primary responsibilities in a short
essay. Nearly all of them correctly identified
Ronald Reagan - although 6 percent did not -
but on the essay portion, not quite one student
in five could furnish a " thoughtful response with
a mix of specific examples and discussion." ( 5)
Presented with a blank map of Europe and asked
to identify certain countries, young American
adults ( ages 18 to 24) supplied the correct answer
fewer than one time in four. Twenty- six percent
spotted Greece, 37 percent France, just 10 percent
Yugoslavia. Given a map of the United States,
fewer than half found New York and only one in
four properly labeled Massachusetts. ( 6)
For a glimpse at how Arizona students are doing, the Iowa Tests
of Basic Skills have been the traditional indicator. They provide a
comparison of Arizona students' performance to the average
performance of students nationwide. The tests are reported for
reading, language and math in grades 1 through 12.
1991 ITBS Mathematics Achievement
The math tests revealed
that our students are
below the national
average in nine out of the
twelve grades, above the
national average in one
grade and at the national
average in two grades. ( 9)
-
55 Arizona 0 National
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade
Figure C. Data Source: Arizona Department of Education, 1991.
In 1991, Arizona students ranked below the national
average on reading in seven out of twelve grades.
They ranked above the national average in reading in
grades 7 through 11. ( 7)
In language, Arizona students scored above the national
average in six grades, at the national average in one
grade, and below the national average in five grades. ( 8)
More than 60 percent
of Arizona's 8th graders
scored at least at Level 250.
Only 10 percent of
8th graders conquered
Level 300.
No Arizona 8th graders
scored at Level 350. ( 12)
While these standardized tests tell us how our students
compare to other American students, they do not address issues
such as competency, proficiency or a core curriculum.
The first alarm for widespread national education reform
was sounded in 1983 by the Excellence Commission in A Nation
at Risk. In this report, Commission members outlined a high
school course package, termed " the new basics," which consisted
of four years of English, three years each of math, science and social
studies, two years of a foreign language and half a year of computer
study. ( lo)
The goals adopted by the National Governors' Association
called for American students to be competent in specific areas.
It was clear that definitions of this new " competency" would have
to be established. This process is underway. By the middle of the
1990' s, the process should result in clear national definitions
of proficiency in English, mathematics, science, history and
geography, at the 4th, 8th and 12th grade national benchmarks.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress took a major
step in this direction in 1990 by assessing math achievement among
eighth graders and, for the first time, reporting state- by- state
comparative results. Instead of just reporting how students tested
compared to other students, NAEP established what they called four
" anchor levels" describing what students were able to do:
Level 200: Simple additive reasoning and problem solving
with whole numbers.
Level 250: Simple multiplicative reasoning and two- step
problem solving;
Level 300: Reasoning and problem solving involving
fractions, decimals, percents, elementary geometric
properties, and simple algebraic manipulations.
Level 350: Reasoning and problem solving involving
geometric relationships, algebraic equations, and beginning
statistics and probability. ( 11)
1990 NAEP Mathematics Test
Percentage of Arizona Eighth Graders
At or Above Four Anchor Levels
Level 200 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350
Figure D. Data Source: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1991.
Nationally, 97 percent of the eighth graders mastered Level
200; 64 percent mastered Level 250; 12 percent were functioning at
Level 300, but none of the students achieved at Level 350 or above.
Arizona's 8th graders who participated in this NAEP testing reflected
the national scores. ( 13)
When the NAEP results were released, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Diane Bishop observed that the NAEP assessment
showed that nearly all 8th graders in Arizona and the nation have
acquired lower- level math knowledge and skills; however, nearly all
were weak in more complex reasoning and problem- solving skills.
" As we examine the results of this and other
assessments," she cautioned, " we should not be
satisfied that the understanding of lower- level
mathematics skills will provide students with the
mathematics background they need for the 21 st
century."( l4)
No matter how we
measure students'
achievement, the results
for most ethnic minorities
are below those of other
students.
Black, Hispanic and Native American students in Arizona
consistently score lower on the ITBS standardized tests in reading,
math and language at every grade level. They also scored lower
than White @ on-> ispanic)- aGd Asian students on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress 8th grade math test.
This is of particular concern in light of the fact that nearly
40 percent of Arizona's elementary- aged students represent ethnic
minorities. ( 15)
Test scores are only one indicator of the challenges before us.
It is important to remember, for instance, that we are only testing
the students who are there and occupy a desk on test days. More
than 25 percent of all America's students fail to graduate each year,
and in many major cities, 50 percent of all poor and minority
students routinely drop out of school. These young people 4.
go out into the world armed with poor skills, few job prospects
and limited opportunities in life. ( 16)
1990 Racial Ethnic
Distribution
Grades Pre K- 8
6.72%
Arizona mirrors these national trends. In a recent Whlte- Non Hkpank
pilot project conducted by the Arizona Department Hlrpank
of Education involving 26 Arizona school districts, American Indlan/ Alaskan
a median four- year graduation rate of 68 percent t_- 1 nlack- NO^ Hispank
was reported. This was an improvement over IAsia/ n/ Pacfflc Island
previous years' graduation rates, according to
the Department, but clearly Arizona must do Figure E. Data Source: Arizona
even better. ( 17) Department of Education, 1990.
The Recommendations
The Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform researched and studied the
changes in the work place, the shifts in our society and Arizona's current educational
system. After months of discussion and debate, the Task Force developed concrete
recommendations designed to address today's problems, and prepare young people
for tomorrow's world. The recommendations cover the following areas:
at- risk populations and bummersto learning
decentralization/ restructuring
rn accountability
rn training and professionalism
open enrollmenVparenta1 choice
technology
rn education finance
Public input was important in developing the final recommendations.
The public responded to the Task Force's preliminary recommendations during
a series of forums throughout the state. ( See Appendix C for forum schedule.)
Task Force members also revrevrewendu merous letters, statements and at- iicles
forwarded to them fiom citizens.
The recommendations are presented here, in their entirety, as adopted
by the Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform.
At- Risk Populations And
Barriers To Learning
Providingprograms that address the needs ofArizona's at- risk students is the
top priority of the Task Force.
The Task Force identifies at- risk students as those who are " at- risk of failing
to achieve academically or ultimately failing to graduate. " Task Force members
recognize that students are placed at greater risk when our society and our schools
fail to meet their needs. With this in mind, the Task Force studied the many at- risk
factors and developed recommendations to address these factors, beginning with the
issue of expectations.
Schools, teachers and parents/ legal guardians must set high expectations for
students. The educational system must establish a rigorous curriculum. This will
provide a partnership between home and school that tells children that we expect
them to succeed, and that we are committed to helping them do so.
The Task Force called for the establishment ofpre- school programs for at- risk
students who are at least four years old. These pre- schools must emphasize the
developmental needs of the students.
A reduction in class sizes will benefit existing at- risk students, while also
preventing other students from becoming at- risk in classes that are too big for
teachers to manage effectively.
The Task Force recommends that the state supportprograms that will extend
the school calendar. This will increase the amount of teaching time, as well as make
it possible for social sewice programs to be available for students year- round.
Meeting the needs ofArizona's at- risk students is not the sole responsibility
of the schools. The Task Force recommends several programs that increase parental
involvement, provide parent training, and call for coordination with health and
social service providers. It is recommended that Family Resource Centers be
established to serve at- risk students and their families at or near school sites.
The Task Force recommends that the state provide finding to support fill- day
kindergarten programs for all students. It is also recommended that a " scholarship
in escrow" program be established. Beginning in third grade, this program would
inform students and their parents/ guardians about state financial assistance that
is available for use at in- state post- secondary schools to students who achieve
academically and who meet established low- income criteria.
Before receiving any additional priding for at- risk students, local schools must
develop plans to coordinate the at- risk programs that are already in place.
Definition
At- risk students are those students " at- risk of failing to achieve
academically or ultimately failing to graduate." This broad, simple definition
of at- risk is favored because it allows for flexible solutions to the multiple
barriers to learning that at- risk students face.
* The Task Force recommends that the reforms set forth within
the At- Risk Populations and Barriers to Learning section
become the number one priority for implementation.
High Expectations
1. Schools, teachers, and parentsllegal guardians must set high
expectations and goals for the academic achievement of at- risk
students. A rigorous curriculum will be required for such
students with adaptations to individual learning styleslneeds.
Preschool Programs
2. Schools will establish comprehensive, integrated educational
preschool programs for at- risk students who are at least four
years of age. Specifically,
a. the state will provide per pupil financial support for preschool
at- risk programs;
b. these at- risk preschool programs will be optional for parentsllegal
guardians;
c. preschool at- risk programs must address the developmental needs
of students and are not to be confused with day care;
d. given the limitations on resources, at- risk students must be given
priority in the eligibility for state- supported preschool;
e. private sector providers of preschools utilizing comprehensive
developmentally appropriate practices ( as defined by the National
Association for the Education of Young Children) will be eligible to
receive the same amount of state funding for at- risk preschool children
as public school programs, perhaps through a request for proposal ( RFP)
process.
Reduced Classroom Teacher/ Student Ratio
3. The state will provide resources to help schools lower their class
size in recitation classes and lower their classroom teacherlpupil
ratio, primarily to assist their at- risk students and secondarily to
prevent students from becoming at- risk.
Year- Round School/ Longer School Year
4. The state will financially support the establishment of
demonstration sites to extend or modify the school calendar
( e. g., year- round schools or longer school year) to improve
student achievement and to deliver coordinated health and
social services year- round.
Parental Involvement
5. Parental education/ involvement is key to student success. To
this end, Arizona will implement a statewide early intervention
parent training model, which includes the following key
components:
a. availability to every parentllegal guardian in the state with children
from birth to age three; includes home visits and group meetings to
help such individuals understand the developmental phases of their
children and to encourage such development; provides early screening
of physical problems ( e. g., hearing loss);
b. services provided by facilitators, not existing school personnel;
c. funded by the state at a certain funding level per family served and per
screening; but supervised by individual schools.
Full- Day Kindergarten
6. The state will provide funding to support full- day kindergarten
programs for all students.
Social Services
7. State level coordination of health and social services which
support at- risk students and their families will be required.
Specifically,
a. the Governor will require state agency heads to identify the services in
their respective agencies which could support at- risk students and their
families, and to facilitate the process of coordination in order to avoid
the duplication of services. Such agencies will then be in a position
to better respond to requests from schools desiring to establish
Family Resource Centers;
b. a state clearinghouse will be established to provide information to
schools regarding the available health and social services to support
their efforts.
8. Social, health, and other human resources will be provided to
at- risk students and their families at or near the school site
( e. g., Family Resource Centers). Specifically,
a. these services will be coordinated or led by state agencies, not
necessarily by the school;
b. the decision to establish Family Resource Centers or other such
mechanisms to coordinate services will be made at the local level;
c. a caseload manager to serve as counselor and/ or a paraprofessional
from the community to serve as an advocate for at- risk students and
their families will be utilized:
d. programs to assist teenage parents in developing child- rearing skills
will be provided as part of these services.
Post- Secondary Financial Support
9. A " scholarship in escrow" program will be established whereby
beginning in third grade, students and parentsllegal guardians
are informed that state financial assistance for use at in- state
post- secondary education institutions will be available to all
students who achieve academically and who meet established
low- income criteria.
Early Prevention
10. The state will provide resources to expand access to prenatal and
early childhood health care.
Funding to Overcome Barriers to Learning
11. As a prerequisite to receiving any additional funding for at- risk
students, local schools are to develop plans for the coordination
of the at- risk programs currently offered.
The Task Force's recommendations in the area of decentralization are designed
to restructure the entire educational decision- making process. Education would
become outcome driven, and decisions would be made by those who are most
accountable for the outcomes.
It is recommended that specific roles be defined for the state and the schools.
The state's responsibility is to create an environment in which decentralized schools
will succeed. The state will also ficus on the achievement of the Mission and Goals
for Arizona's Children.
In addition, it is up to the state to review laws and regulations so that all legal
bummersto this restructuring effort can be removed.
Specific roles for the state include planning and accountability, such as setting
high state uniform outcome standards, and collecting data and reportingprogress
toward state goals. The state will set curriculum and student learning expectations
and will establish general teacher qualification requiremenb. It is the responsibility
of the state to develop an adequate and equitable school financing system. The state
will also be responsible for conducting state- level program evaluations and research,
and for providing star development and school improvement assistance.
Local school boards will delegate decision- making authority in several areas
to the schools. Individual schools will have discretion in the assumption of this new
authority. Decision- making areas that are recommended for the schools include
planning and accountability, such as settinggoals and vision for the school. The
school will be responsible for curriculum and student learning, including the selection
of methods, materials and textbooks. Schools can choose to be responsible for hiring,
setting salaries and evaluating school personnel. In addition, they can assume
decision- making authority in the allocation of operating and capital @ rids.
The Task Force recommends that school boards direct their principals to begin
the decentralization process with a " town hall" style meeting. Included in this
meeting should be parents/ legal guardians, teachers, school- level administrators,
district- level administrators or school board members, school support staff and
community members. It will be up to each of these groups to select representatives to
this process, which will be used to determine which areas of decision making will be
maintained at the school level and which areas will be delegated to the school district.
Definition
Deregulated decentralization/ restructuring is defined as the conscious
and systematic realignment of authority and responsibility to the schools and
persons who are responsible for outcomes. Decentralizationlrestmcturing is
intended to more effectively match decision- making authority with
accountability and outcomes.
Decentralization/ Restructuring Steps
1. The state's role in a decentralized educational system will
involve a locally developed/ state encouraged concept. The state
will continue to maintain an interest in ensuring that a system
which achieves the Mission and Goals for Arizona's Children is
provided, but will focus its efforts on creating a statewide
environment in which decentralized schooling can flourish.
2. The Governor, President of the Senate and Speaker of the House
will appoint a broad- based committee to take immediate steps to
review and modlfy all state education statutes, rules, regulations,
and requirements, as well as applicable federal regulations,
which do not support a decentralized system. This committee
must contain several members from the Governor's Task Force
on Educational Reform and must complete its work within
12 months of its formation. As part of this review process, input
from schools and districts will be gathered in order to determine
those areas which do not support the decentralization of the
system. Specifically, newly revised statuteslregulations
prescribing the state's role will focus on only the following areas:
planning and accountability
4 setting high state uniform outcome standards consistent with the
Mission and Goals for Arizona's Children
collecting data and reporting progress toward state goals
monitoring fiscal and programmatic compliance with Federal and State
laws including the protection of students' health, safety, and civil rights
overseeing a rewards and sanctions system
curriculum and student lwnting
setting competency levels
setting the minimum number of instructional dayslminutes
personnel
4 setting general teacher qualification requirements ( certification)
developing an adequate and equitable school financing system
support sdces
conducting state- level program evaluations/ research
providing staff development assistance and other school improvement
assistance
3. Local school boards will delegate to each school, without
restrictions, decision- making authority for planning and
accountability, curriculum and student learning, personnel,
and budget, as a matter of law and at the discretion of the
school site. These responsibilities will include, but may not
be limited to, the following:
planning and accountability, such as
w setting goals and vision for the individual school
w measuring progress toward state and local goals
4 monitoring compliance
cum* culum and student learning, such as
w instructional curriculum, methods, materials, and textbooks
w school calendar/ school day
w standards for student discipline
w extracurricular matters
personnel, such as
w employment of school personnel
4 salaries of school personnel
w evaluation of school personnel
budget and finance, such as
w allocating operating funds
allocating capital funds
4. The board will direct the principal of each school to initiate a
process to address the decentralization option by calling a
" town- hall" style meeting of parentsPega1 guardians, teachers,
school- level administrators, district- level administrators or
school board members, school support staff, and community
members. Each of these groups will select the person or persons
who will represent that constituency in deciding which areas of
decision making will be maintained at the school level and
those areas to be delegated to the school district. Those selected
to determine such a decentralization plan for the school must
reflect the ethnic composition of the school and community.
5. Until such time as state statutes are reviewed and modified to
the contrary, the school board remains the legal entity for the
schools and the district.
Accountability
With increased decision- making authority comes increased accountability.
The Task Force believes that the people who pay for our state's educational system
should know where the money is being spent, how it is being spent and what
outcomes are being achieved.
The state's role in accountability will be to set outcome standards
consistent with the Mission and Goals. Schools will establish and share with
their communities their own performance goals to achieve the state standards.
The schools and the state will develop annual " report cards." The individual
school report cards will document each school's performance against state standards
and school goals. The state report card will present overall comparison data.
The state will implement a central computerized student/ school information
system. This will be linked to the schools, thus enabling the whole education system
to be accountable.
Schools will establish performance- based evaluation and compensation systems
for teachers and administrators. These will be tied to performance in accounting for
student achievement.
The state will provide recognition and rewards to students for exceptional
academic performance. Schools will be recognized and rewarded for outstanding
accomplishments as well.
Schools will be responsible for continuous student improvement, as measured
against their own goals and baseline data. Sanctions will be imposed on schools
which consistently fail to meet state standards and school goals.
Definition
Accountability means that those who " pay the bill" are entitled to know
where the money is going, how it is being spent, and what outcomes are
achieved. Performance- Based Accountability is measuring and reporting
performance against standards and goals.
State Standards/ Local Goals
1. The state will set high, uniform outcome standards consistent
with the Mission and Goals for Arizona's Children. Schools will
establish, and annually disseminate to their community
members, their own performance goals to achieve the state
standards. Specifically,
a. both " consumers" and " providers" must play a role in setting these
standards- including parentsflegal guardians, students, teachers,
principals, and community members;
b. a demonstrated competency level as specified by the State Board will
define an Arizona standard high school diploma; students with special
needs will be provided with alternate methods to demonstrate such
competencies. Students placed in special education are eligible to
receive a standard high school diploma in accordance with the course
of study and graduation requirements established in their
individualized education plans ( IEP);
c. in addition to the standard high school diploma, endorsements
will be explored in which distinct standards are set for each type
of endorsement ( e. g., honors, vocational/ technological).
Reporting System
2. Individual school " report cards" will be developed documenting
each school's performance against state standards and school
goals, in addition to the development of a state report card
which presents overall comparison data. The distribution of
these annual report cards is viewed as one means to help
parentsllegal guardians make informed decisions within an
open enrollmentlparental choice system. Specifically,
a. a variety of clearly defined and consistently interpreted outcome
information on students and programs ( e. g., norm- referenced tests,
performance- based tests, student portfolios) is reported at the
school level;
b. when reporting data ( both state and school levels), the context of a
school ( e. g., mobility, limited English proficiency levels) must be taken
into consideration and progress against baseline data will be included;
3. The state will implement a centralized computerized student1
school information system as linked to schools to enable the
education system as a whole to be accountable. This information
is necessary to keep track of student mobility and for evaluation
purposes. Specifically, this system will:
a. be consistent with federal and state confidentiality laws;
b. assist the schools and the Department of Education to develop and
distribute report cards to parentsllegal guardians and other community
members;
c. allow for the sharing of information among schools as well as for the
state as a whole.
4. The Auditor General will conduct periodic independent audits
of student and school performance and will monitor the results
of educational reforms.
Performance- Based Evaluation and Compensation
5. Parentsllegal guardians, teachers, and principals will collectively
set performance standards for teachers and principals.
6. All schools will establish performance- based evaluation and
compensation systems tied to teacher performance in
accounting for student achievement; additional funding to
support these efforts will be provided on a per student basis.
Student and School Rewards
7. The state will provide recognition and rewards to students who
demonstrate exceptional academic performance.
8. Recognition and rewards will be provided for schools that
achieve exceptional performance. Specifically,
a. the state and districts will recognize the achievements of particular
schools ( if possible, monetary rewards will accompany the recognition);
b. the state will establish a " Best Practices Network" whereby funding is
provided for schools to disseminate information to other schools
regarding outstanding programs or projects.
Student and School Sanctions
9. State rules/ regulations will be developed to allow schools to
more readily place chronically disruptive students in appropriate
alternative schools and programs.
10. Schools will have the responsibility for making continued
student improvement, as judged against a school's goals and
baseline data. On a periodic basis, the local school board will
review the school's progress and may ask that changes be made
to enhance the ability of the school to improve student
outcomes. Even if student progress is being made, the school
is encouraged to review annually its own decision- making
structure to ensure that the needs of all students are being met.
11. Sanctions will be imposed on schools which consistently fail
to meet state standards and school goals. Specifically,
a. if the public school's performance consistently declines or its level
of performance is unacceptably low, the district will require that the
school submit an improvement plan;
b. when a public school's performance continues to be unacceptable and
the district has failed rectify the problem, the State Superintendent,
with the concurrence of the State Board of Education, will take over
operations of the schools ( i. e., receivership), including installing a new
administration empowered to manage the school in order to improve
student outcomes;
c. for participating private schools, the state will withdraw the
authorization of such schools to receive state funds.
Training And Professionalism
The Task Force determined that professionalism involves four concepts.
Teachers must be committed to their students, provide leadership and firnction
proactively. They must be well prepared, with preparation consisting of their
experience, background, undergraduate and continuing education. Teachers must be
able to make decisions and be held accountable. And finally, they must
understand their role and how it fits into the overall educational system.
In support of these concepts, the Task Force adopted recommendations related
to staff development, certification, teacher preparation, pay for performance and
teacher dismissal procedures.
Retraining and staff development must be a priority, and will focus on
implementing the reforms addressed in this report.
The Arizona Colleges of Education must submit a plan to the Governor,
the Legislature, the Professional Standards Board and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction which addresses the preparation of all educators. Specifically, the colleges
of education are charged with developing course requirements that are consistent
with the state essential skill competencies and goals. This program must also
support the four professionalism concepts of attitude, preparation, empowerment
and vision.
The colleges are charged with strengthening or initiating course offerings which
emphasize the learning needs of at- risk students. In addition, the Task Force
recommends that teacher candidates receive early exposure to actual teaching
through classroom assignments.
The Task Force has called for the establishment of a separate state- level
Professional Standards Board, which will consist of educational professionals and
lay citizens. With the educational professionals constituting the majorify, this board
would determine state licensing requirements and monitor the profession. Among its
duties, the board would determine certification and recertification requirements
which are focused on competency, and would encourage the use of the existing
alternative certification process for those with a bachelor's degree who desire to teach.
Streamlining of teacher dismissal procedures is also recommended. The Task
Force recommends that the timeline for the dismissal of inadequately performing
teachers should be shortened.
Definition
Professionalism involves four concepts: attitude, preparation,
empowerment, and vision. Attitude includes a commitment to students,
leadership, and the willingness to take a proactive stance. Preparation
includes a teacher's experience, background, and educational preparation, as
well as continuing education to stay current in the field. Empowerment refers
to the ability of a teacher to diagnose a problem, prescribe and implement the
solution, and evaluate and account for the results; in short, to make decisions
and to be held accountable. Vision refers to a teacher's ability to see how one
fits into the entire educational system.
Staff Development
1. Retraining/ staff development must be a priority item in any
reform proposal. Specifically,
a. the state will provide additional funding on a per student basis
for school, district, and/ or regional staff development;
b. these staff development efforts will be targeted toward implementing
the reforms addressed in this report ( e. g., decentralization, the
measurement of performance- based outcomes, multicultural
awareness).
Teacher Preparation Programs
The Arizona Colleges of Education ( i. e., University of Arizona,
Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University) will
be required to submit an implementation plan to the Governor,
the Legislature, the Professional Standards Board, and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction which:
a. develops a program of course requirements for the preparation of all
educators ( e. g., teachers, administrators, counselors) that is consistent
with the state essential skill competencies and goals, and which support
the four professionalism concepts of attitude, preparation,
empowerment, and vision. Such course requirements are to be reviewed
periodically and revised in accordance with any changes in essential
skill competencies and goals as established by the state. At a minimum,
courses based upon changes in learning theories and needs of a
restructured system, in addition to multicultural awareness training,
must be provided;
b. strengthens or initiates course offerings to emphasize the learning needs
of at- risk children, leading to a specialized degree in teaching in this
area;
c. establishes a permanent process by which the Colleges of Education
will work more closely with the public school system through a regular
on- site visitation process involving observation, evaluation, and
recommendations for improvement;
d. provides teacher candidates with early exposure to actual teaching
through classroom assignments; ensures more clinical experiences
through stronger partnerships with schools, practicing teachers, and
mentorships with master teachers;
e. requires that the essential skill competencies be demonstrated
as a prerequisite for graduation;
f. recommends to the Professional Standards Board stronger certification
requirements consistent with the essential skill competencies and goals
as established by the state.
3. Some minimum qualifications for admission to teacher
preparation programs will continue to be required but will be
determined by the universities and not state mandated, as long
as performance- based outcomes are established and measured.
4. The current requirement that students must pass the
Pre- Professional Skills Test ( PPST) will be eliminated.
Certification
5. A separate state- level Professional Standards Board will be
established composed of educational professionals ( teachers,
administrators, and staff) currently employed by schools and/ or
school districts as a majority, and lay citizens to determine state
licensing requirements as well as to monitor the profession.
Specifically, this Board will
a. determine certification and recertification requirements which are
focused on competency as determined through performance- based
certification standards.
b. encourage the use of the existing alternative certification process for
those with a bachelor's degree who wish to become certificated.
c. have the authority to establish licensing procedures and have the final
authority in certification and decertification proceedings;
d. eliminate the eight- year requirement to obtain a Master's degree for
recertification; instead, base recertification on performance- based
standards;
e. review and make recommendations to the Colleges of Education
regarding their teacher preparation and graduate programs;
f. ensure that training on multicultural awareness for both administrators
and teachers is required as part of certification and recertification;
g. utilize the staff support of the Department of Education.
Due Process
6. The current state statutes regarding teacher dismissal procedures
( due process) will be modified to:
a. shorten the time requirements for notification, appeal, and the process
to improve performance; under no circumstances will these procedures
exceed 12 months from the time of notification of inadequacy of
classroom performance;
b. allow a teacher or a school board to determine that the hearing for a
specific case be moved from the school board to an impartial authority
( either a hearing panel or a professional hearing officer) which has
binding authority. Limit court appeals to procedural violations;
c. include a strengthening of state requirements for qualified evaluators
so that the evaluation of such persons will include a review of their
performance in reference to effective evaluations.
Open Enrollment/
Parental Choice
The Task Force believes thatparents should be able to decide where to send
their children to school. State monies for this education should follow the students.
Arizona's parental choice program will begin with the public schools.
Private schools will become eligible for participation after certain preconditions
have been met. In order for private schools to participate, the public education system
must be deregulated and decentralized. Funding for public schools on a current year
count must be initiated. Increased finding must be in place for limited English
proficient and special education students.
When the preconditions have been accomplished, private schools may receive
state voucher funding if they meet all state and federal laws, rules and regulations
that are in effect for the public school system. Private schools must also participate
in the same accountabilityprocess as public schools in order to qualift, for state
funding. The Task Force recommends that sectarian private schools be included
in the state's open enrollment system.
Public and participatingprivate schools must annually define their capacity
and take all applicants if capacity petrnits. This includes special needs students.
Schools must establish an equitable system for student selection if demand exceeds
capacity. The intent is to ensure that all of Arizona's children have equal access
regardless of race, creed, color, gender, handicapping condition or family resources.
Public schools must accept all neighborhood students. An independent state- level
appeals process will be available for any parent or legal guardian who may be
concerned with the admission process.
Financial assistance and/ or actual transportation will be provided to low
income students.
The Task Force recommends the establishment of new, innovative schools.
These " New Arizona Schools" are envisioned as innovative and unique settings for
learning which provide additional choices for parents/ legal guardians and students.
" New Arizona Schools" can include, but are not limited to, magnet, charter,
vocational/ technological, and/ or other alternative schools.
Home education is a recognized method of teaching and will be viewed as part
of the state's open enrollment/ parental choice system. However, no finding will
follow the student under this option.
Based on the belief that a significantpercentage of highlypaid jobs created
beyond the year 2000 will be in the vocational/ technological fields, area vocational/
technological centers will be established for multiple school use as an important
means to provide additional choice options for parents and students.
Definition
Open enrollmentlparental choice is defined as the ability of parentsllegal
guardians to decide where to send their children for their education and with
funding following each student on a per student basis.
Public School Involvement
1. Open enrollrnent/ parental choice will be established within
Arizona's public educational system with per student funding
following all students.
Private School Involvement
Private schools will become eligible to participate in Arizona's
open enrollment/ parental choice once the following
" preconditions" have been met:
a. actions have been taken at both the state and school levels to
deregulate and decentralize the state's public school system;
b. funding of public schools on a current year count has been initiated;
c. increased funding for public schools such as the funding of limited
English proficient and special education weights, has occurred;
d. additional revenues have been made available to support the inclusion
of private schools. Per pupil funding for public schools will not be
reduced in order to fund private schools; and
e. no additional dollars will have gone to private schools for open
enrollment during this period.
3. Once the above conditions have been met as determined by
a biennial review process conducted by members of the Task
Force, private schools will become eligible to participate;
however, in order to receiving state voucher funding they:
a. must meet all state and federal laws, rules, and regulations that are
in effect for the public school system, including admission criteria;
b. must be approved by the State Board of Education;
c. must have been in operation for at least one year using private funding
sources prior to accepting students funded through state vouchers;
d. must participate in the same accountability process as the public schools;
4. If the conditions stated in # 3 are met, sectarian private schools
will also be eligible to participate in the state's open enrollment/
parental choice system since the state's system will be designed
in a manner that will pass constitutional scrutiny as outlined in
the five- part test set forth by the Supreme Court decisions
contained in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Bowen v. Kendrick.
In addition, the following requirements regarding admission criteria,
special needs students, ethnic balance, transportation, oversight, and athletic
recruiting will be applied to both public and participating private schools.
Admission Criteria
5. Public and participating private schools will make decisions
regarding specific criteria; however, the following general
provisions will be detailed in statute or rule including:
a. all schools must annually define their capacity and take all applicants
if capacity permits ( including special needs students); schools must also
establish an equitable system for student selection ( e. g., lottery) if
demand exceeds capacity. The intent is to ensure that all of Arizona's
children have equal access regardless of race, creed, color, gender,
handicapping condition, or family resources;
b. public schools must accept all geographically defined residents into
their designated schools, and second priority must be given to
continuing nonresident students and their siblings in concurrent
enrollment;
c. private schools and " New Arizona Schools" are exempt from any
residency priority requirements;
d. uniform state deadlines for information dissemination, application
procedures and parental commitments will be established.
Special Needs Students
6. Provisions for special needs students ( e. g., acceptance,
transportation, program development) must be developed
in accordance with federal laws;
7. Additional state financial support will be provided to cover the
actual costs of educating these students.
Ethnic Balance
8. Provisions will be placed in state law whereby districts under
court- ordered desegregation plans or agreements with the Office
for Civil Rights will be required to participate in the program,
but will be allowed to modify state program requirements as
necessary to promotelhonor the requirements of the court order
or agreement.
Transportation
9. Financial assistance will be provided to ensure reasonable access
for students. Specifically, financial assistance and/ or actual
transportation will be provided to low- income students
( as defined by freelreduced lunch status).
Oversight Functions
10. An independent state- level appeals process will be available for
any parent or legal guardian who may be concerned with the
admission criteria and/ or process.
Athletic Recruiting
11. Interscholastic participation will be governed by appropriate
state rules and regulations.
" New Arizona Schools"
12. Statutes will be enacted which encourage the establishment of
" New Arizona Schools," initially within the public school system
and eventually within the total school system, which are
envisioned as innovative and unique settings for learning and
which provide additional choices for parents/ legal guardians
and students. Specifically, " New Arizona Schools"
a. can include, but are not limited to, magnet, charter, vocational/
technological, and/ or other alternative schools;
b. must apply to the State Board of Education for approval; to receive
and retain approval, a school must participate in the state's student
assessment program and the student/ school information system
and complete an annual school report card;
c. may apply to the State Board of Education for waivers from any rules
and regulations remaining in a deregulated system ( including rules
established by the Professional Standards Board); to maintain its
waivers, a school must consistently exceed its annual performance
plan after five years of operation.
Home Education
13. Home education is a recognized method of teaching and will be viewed
as part of the state's open enrollment/ educational choice system;
however, no funding will follow the student under this option.
Technology Issues
14. Arizona will develop and fund technology as part of implementing
an open enrollmentlparental choice program, specifically,
a. a computerized information system to assist parentsllegal guardians
and the Arizona Department of Education as part of " report cards"
and student tracking;
b. " distance learning" technology ( e. g., satellites) to allow all schools
( especially rural schools) access to local, national, and international
programming in order to provide students with more choices.
Post- Secondary Options
15. The state will develop an appropriate funding mechanism to
support a " post- secondary options" component which allows
students to gain high school credits through concurrent
enrollment at in- state post- secondary institutions with full
tuition being provided.
Vocational/ Technological Education
16. As students progress through their educational experience;
exposure to and discussions about vocationalltechnological
opportunities should be a part of the students' ongoing
assessment. Based on the belief that a significant percentage
of highly paid jobs created beyond the year 2000 will be in the
vocational/ technological fields, students should be aware of all
the options available to them for choosing a satisfymg and
rewarding career in these fields.
a. counseling efforts must focus on the students' occupational
preferences as well as his/ her abilities and skills.
b. partnerships should be formed with businesses in the community
to determine where the job opportunities will occur, what curriculum
adjustments should be made to facilitate training in these areas,
and what other skill development will be needed by students to succeed
in a post secondary training program.
c. area vocational/ technological centers will be established for multiple
school use as an important means to provide additional choice options
for parents and students.
d. the state will provide funding to assist in the development of programs
designed to promote and facilitate vocational/ technological career
options.
Technology
To accomplish the Mission and Goals for Arizona's Children, a major
expansion of technology is essential. 7' he state must develop and fund
a comprehensive long- range technology plan ( preschool through higher education)
that ensures that every teacher and student in the state has access to the latest
technology. The plan must address a broad range of technology ( e. g., computers,
telecommunications, cable television, interactive video, distance learning, film, and
satellite and microwave communications) and provide both instructional and
management support. To this end, the specific recommendations related to
technology are woven throughout this rep06 but are repeated below for ease
of reference.
Technology
1. The state will facilitate, encourage, and financially support the
use of technology in Arizona's schools ( e. g., implement the
statewide plan developed by the Arizona Education
Telecommunications Cooperative), recognizing that each local
level must also develop its own technology plan which is
compatible with the statewide planlnetwork.
2. The state will implement a centralized computerized student1
school information system as linked to schools to enable the
education system as a whole to be accountable. This information
is necessary to keep track of student mobility and for evaluation
purposes. Specifically, this system will
a. be consistent with federal and state confidentiality laws;
b. assist the schools and the Department of Education to develop and
distribute report cards to parentsllegal guardians and other patrons;
c. allow for the sharing of information among schools as well as for the
state as a whole.
3. Distance learning technology ( e. g., satellites) will be expanded
to allow all schools ( especially rural schools) access to local,
national, and international programming in order to provide
students with more choices.
Arizona's new school finance system will have the state distributing basic
education funding which will follow each student. Funding will be provided for
students attending both public and, in the fiture, participatingprivate schools.
The amount of funding that is provided for each student will vary based upon
the characteristics and educational needs of that student and will be sufFcient for
appropriate educational services. Additional basic funding will be provided for
students who are residents of; and attend, small isolated schools. Funding in the
new system will be based upon the number of students receiving educational services
during the current school year, with limited protection for districts with declining
enrollment.
Local funds will be used to finance the building ofpublic school facilities.
However, the state will provide some capital assistance support for districts with
limited taxable property.
The new system provides tax- related revenues on a per student basis and allows
schools to expend available revenues, thus eliminating existing expenditure controls.
Under the new system, all taxpayers of similar circumstances will pay similar
amounts of taxes toward the financing of basic education.
Recognizing the need to find educational refom improvements, a phase- in of
reforms that cost additional money will occur by determining what revenues will be
available Tom reprioritizing state spending in Arizona. In addition, deregulation of
public education may reduce overhead costs at the state, county, district, and school
levels, and any such savings will be directed toward school reform. However,
preschools for at- risk four- year olds ( as determined by limited English proficiency
( LEP) and/ or pee/ reduced lunch eligibility) will be funded immediately.
" Basic Funding" Distributed by the State for Each Student
The Legislature is to be responsible for allocating funds at a level
to provide basic educational services for all students. Specifically,
a. different amounts of funding will be provided for different levels
of schooling, such as preschool, elementary, middleljunior high,
and high school, based on differing relative cost. Additional funding
will be provided to accommodate students attending schools that are
both small and isolated to recognize the need to fully fund those
schools.
b. additional funding will be provided for those students who are more
expensive to educate. The determination of who is eligible for this
funding will be made at the school level in accordance with state
policies and with oversight by the state.
2. The phrase " basic funding" is defined to include the following:
a. the base weight will be revised to equal the current Arizona per pupil
average base expenditure;
b. LEP and special education weights will be fully funded after a current
cost study is completed;
c. an implicit price deflator will be funded annually;
d. a current- year funding count will be utilized;
e. at- risk funding is provided based on established criteria and the results
of a cost study;
f. all current or new mandates from the state will be fully funded or
repealed.
3. In addition, the following will occur:
a. specific vouchers will be provided for at- risk preschool programs;
b. the method of allocation will involve a voucher following the student;
c. the current definition for small and isolated school districts will be
maintained.
4. Funding will be based on students served during the current
school year, although a phase- in period may be necessary. The
reporting will take place three times during each school year.
Funding will be based on average daily membership as provided
in current statute.
5. The funding will include money for maintenance and
operations and for furniture and equipment. The determination
of how to spend these monies is a local decision.
6. Districts that are losing students will be protected from a
precipitous decline in funding. For the purpose of determining
funding, a district's student count for funding purposes will not
be allowed to fall below a set percentage of the actual student
count the previous school year. The set percentage will vary
between 85 percent and 95 percent.
Performance- Based Compensation
7. Additional funding will be provided on a per student basis
for all schools to develop performance- based evaluation
and compensation systems.
Desegregation
8. A funding mechanism will be provided for expenses of
complying with or continuing to implement activities which
were required by a court order of desegregation or administrative
agreement with the Office for Civil Rights to remediate alleged
or proven racial discrimination.
Transportation
9. The state will continue to provide transportation funding for
students receiving transportation services and residing within
the school district.
10. Financial assistance will be provided to ensure reasonable access
for students participating in the state's open enrollment1
parental choice system. Specifically, financial assistance and/ or
actual transportation will be provided to low- income students
( as defined by freelreduced lunch status).
Expenditures for Buildings
11. Consideration will be given to a concept which provides a
broader property valuation base for building public schools.
Voter approval would continue to be required for the
construction of school buildings. For those districts without
sufficient capital resources, the state will operate a capital loan
or grant program.
Participating Private School Funding
12. At the time that private schools become eligible to participate in
the state's open enrollmentlparental choice system, they will
receive the same base funding that has been approved for public
schools.
13. The state will not provide capital grants to participating private
schools.
State Revenue for Education
14. Reforms costing money may not be able to be funded within
existing revenues. Instead, reforms that require additional
funding will be prioritized and implemented as monies become
available. With regard to future sources of funding, it is
recommended that:
a. education be given a high priority for money that might be saved
from less vital state programs;
b. a study be conducted to determine whether any money can be saved
in excess administrative costs in education, and that any savings be
used to implement the highest priority reforms;
c. revenue growth resulting from economic recovery be used to fund
education reforms to the extent possible;
d. an examination be done on ways to increase education endowment
earning for reform funding;
e. the work of the Task Force be extended to assist in evaluating the
financial aspects of reform.
15. For the purposes of eliminating disparate primary property tax
rates in local school districts and in order to establish uniform
primary education property tax rates statewide, the local district
and county education property taxes will be eliminated. Instead,
a statewide property tax will be created. This tax will be combined
with the sales and income tax components and other revenue
sources for the purpose of funding operating and capital outlay
expenditures for K- 12 education. This statewide property tax rate
will be applicable to all taxpayers and will be designed to
generate the proportional level of funding that currently exists
between property taxes and other revenue sources. Local districts
will not be allowed to supplement state funding with local
general maintenance and operations ( M & 0) overrides;
however, they will maintain the authority to seek up to
a five percent override for K- 3 programs.
16. As part of this process, the Legislature should study the current
property tax classification system in an attempt to reduce the
number of classifications from 10 to five. For example:
Class I - mines and standing timber ( I), utilities ( 2)) general and
commercial property ( 3)) and railroads and flight property ( 7);
Class I1 - agriculture and vacant land ( 4) and livestock and
poultry ( 9); Class I11 - owner occupied homes ( 5) and rental
residential properties ( 6); Class IV - historical property ( 8);
and Class V - producing oil and gas ( C).
17. Deregulation of public education may provide an opportunity
to reduce overhead at the state, county, district, and school
levels. Any savings will be directed to the schools, where
decisions can be made about how best to use these funds
to improve the quality of education. However, recognition must
be given to the possibility that new costs may be incurred as a
result of restructuring, which may reduce any savings which
occur through deregulation.
18. It is recognized that two upcoming legislative reports on
consolidation and administrative costs could have a financial
impact.
19. Monies received under federal impact aid and other in lieu taxes
will be taken into account when allocating basic state funding.
20. School districts, schools, and participating private schools will
be allowed to generate and spend monies from other sources of
funding, such as contributions, interest on funds, and fees from
providing services to other districts.
21. The following elements of the current school finance formula
will no longer be necessary under the reformed finance system
of Basic Funding distributed by the State for each student:
rn Teacher Experience Index ( TEI);
rn Interdistrict tuition and state tuition - ( unorganized territory,
state impact aid, certificates of educational convenience);
rn Excess insurance;
rn Excess utilitieslenergy saving devices;
rn Joint Vocational/ Technological Center;
rn Tuition out debt service;
rn Dropout prevention;
rn Costs for registering warrants other than those related
to the roll over of state aid;
rn Incentives for consolidation;
rn Teacher compensation adjustment;
rn Adjacent ways; and
rn Ten percent M & 0 overrides.
a. In the interim between the implementation of the current funding
formula and the proposed new system, it is understood that the
provisions of the current formula will be considered.
b. If the new funding system provides less funding per student than
the district is currently spending, two- thirds of the decrease will be
sheltered in the first year, and one- third of the decrease will be sheltered
in the second year. If the new funding system provides more funding
per student than the district is currently spending, two- thirds of the
increase will be sheltered in the first year, and one- third of the increase
will be sheltered in the second year.
The Process Of Improvement
Is Already Underway
For Arizonans, it is very encouraging to note that despite an
information explosion, unprecedented changes in society, and the
major new demands being placed on schools, significant progress
is being made in education.
Even before the Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform
was convened, educators, business representatives, parents and
public policy makers initiated many efforts designed to improve
education for our state's students. Here are a few examples of the
efforts already underway.
Academic Standards And
Accountability Established
During the second half of the 1980' s, the Arizona Legislature,
the State Board of Education and the Department of Education
jointly spearheaded a comprehensive review and revision of
curriculum standards for Arizona's children. A new set of " Essential
Skills" was defined for key subject areas, based on the competencies
children must have to succeed in our changing world. These
" Essential Skills" represent high standards for student performance
in three grade spans: K- 3,4- 8 and 9- 12. ( See Appendix B for examples.)
The " Essential Skills" are the cornerstone of the Arizona
Student Assessment Program. As part of this comprehensive
assessment program, all Arizona school districts must develop a plan
for measuring student mastery of the Essential Skills, and report
annually on how students are progressing. In addition, the Arizona
Department of Education will administer a statewide test every year
in grades 3,8 and 12 to measure student achievement of the
Essential Skills.
The new statewide assessment of Essential Skills begins in the
spring of 1992 when students will be tested in reading, writing and
mathematics. The next phase of the program will include testing in
social studies and science.
Arizona will continue to administer standardized " norm-referenced''
testing, such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which
compare our students' performance to the " average" performance
of students nationwide. However, more emphasis will be placed on
measuring competency and achievement of standards.
Report cards will be published every year as part of the new
Arizona Student Assessment Program. These report cards will paint
a picture of our students' educational progress in individual schools,
districts and throughout the state. The reports will include
information from the statewide testing of Essential Skills, district
assessments of competency, national " norm- referenced" testing,
and other indicators such as attendance and drop- out rates.
The Essential Skills and Student Assessment Program already
underway provide a foundation for the accountability
recommendations being made by the Task Force.
Performance- Based Pay:
Accountability For Teachers And Students
In 1985186, a pilot project to increase student achievement
by supporting the professional growth of teachers was launched in
seven Arizona school districts. Between 1986 and 1988, another
seven districts were accepted into the Career Ladder Program which
ties teacher compensation to student performance. In 1990, the
legislature made the project " permanent" and began gradual
expansion by authorizing the approval of up to seven additional
districts.
Teachers must be evaluated for placement on the Career
Ladder and they must be willing to be held accountable for student
progress and improved instructional skills. Advancement on the
ladder, and the additional compensation that comes with it, is
based on teacher performance, student academic progress, and
instructional responsibilities. Compensation includes salary
increases, recognition and additional opportunities for leadership
and professional growth.
Individual Career Ladder programs are designed locally
by teachers, administrators and community members, and the
cooperative involvement of these people is ongoing. The increased
focus on student learning has resulted in higher- level objectives
and activities. Teachers and administrators have learned more
about assessments and are using a wider variety of materials.
Teachers have willingly accepted new roles and responsibilities.
Administrators have become more involved in day- to- day
instructional activities. Staff development activities are tied directly
to identified needs of teachers. In addition, staff members
communicate more and share ideas.
Not only does this project demonstrate that restructuring can
be successful, it is also an example of accountability and the kind of
training and professionalism recommendations being made by the
Task Force.
Schools Restructure
To Improve Student Performance
In 1990/ 91,15 Arizona schools were awarded incentive grants
to undertake school restructuring projects as part of a four- year pilot
program approved through legislative action. Each of the
participating schools submitted a plan developed by the local
school community to improve student learning by changing the
way it does business. The restructuring plans vary by school, but
many include or combine some of the following strategies.
Scheduling alternatives
One elementary school provides several approaches for
children to learn outside of the traditional school schedule.
These options include year- round school, as well as
before- and after- school learning activities and homework
supervision. In addition, academic support classes are provided
during the 3- week breaks in the year- round schedule.
Parent education and parent involvement
A number of schools offer classes on active parenting,
promoting children's self- esteem, assisting with homework,
and reading to children at home. Babysitting is provided so
parents can attend. Homework hotlines are operating in a
number of schools. Family Math Nights and Family Science
Nights are featured, as well as brown bag lunches with the
principal and home visits by school staff.
Partnerships with social services
A social worker is employed half- time at one school to provide
intervention and counseling, and link families to social
services. A Community Outreach Center is housed on another
school campus, making food, clothing, temporary shelter and
emergency medical services more accessible to families in crisis.
And at one school, the Department of Economic Security has
established an office on campus. Several schools provide parent
classes in English as a Second Language, GED preparation and
job application skills. Free after- school activities are being
offered on campus for students who would otherwise go
home alone.
Use of technology
One rural school installed an in- house television station, a
satellite dish, and a networked computer system to enhance
the instructional programming available to students. Most of
the staff received intensive training at the Teachers Using
Technology In Schools Institute. A number of schools have
provided a computer for every teacher to increase the
frequency of reporting student progress.
The intent of the pilot restructuring project is to create models
that can be duplicated. The programs underway are being studied
to identify the strategies that positively affect student performance.
This information could be useful to local school communities
who would have increased decision- making responsibility in the
decentralized system being recommended by the Task Force.
At- Risk Students Are Getting Support
In Arizona, the critical importance of meeting the needs of
at- risk students is becoming widely recognized. Educators, business
leaders, children's advocacy organizations and the legislature have
all been moved to action.
The Arizona Legislature in 1990 established a pilot preschool
program to improve school readiness for Arizona's at- risk children.
The legislature appropriated $ 600,000 and The Shea Foundation
contributed $ 500,000 through a public- private partnership with the
Arizona Department of Education. Preschool programs have been
initiated in 13 public schools with large numbers of four- year- olds
considered to be at- risk. The 13 preschools, located in urban and
rural areas throughout Arizona, are currently serving about 350
children. The Shea Foundation has pledged to continue the
partnership to help support this pilot project through the 1992- 93
school year.
In 1991, the Legislature expanded the availability of preschool
programs for at- risk children by appropriating another $ 1 million in
funding. This funding will provide preschool for another 500 at- risk
four- year- olds.
One effort that combined the resources of a children's
advocacy group and the business community is the " Success by 6"
project. Launched in 1989 and modeled after a similar program in
Minneapolis, " Success by 6" was introduced to support one of the
goals of the Children's Action Alliance. Their goal is that by the
year 2000, all Arizona's at- risk three- and four- year- old children will
have an opportunity to participate in a high quality, comprehensive
early childhood program. " Success by 6" was funded primarily by
Honeywell and U S West, and supported by the Arizona Republic/
Phoenix Gazette.
The Arizona Legislature also allocated $ 1.4 million both in
1990 and 1991 for full- day kindergarten programs for many at- risk
children. Elementary schools with a high concentration of at- risk
students are eligible to apply for additional state aid to help with the
costs of providing full- day kindergarten programs. This program
serves 1,000 kindergarten students.
Under other state legislation initiated in 1988, four- year grants
were awarded to 55 pilot programs statewide to serve at- risk
students in grades K- 3 and grades 7- 12. The legislature appropriated
$ 4.5 million to fund these programs for the 1988- 89 school year,
and increased the support to $ 7.7 million for each of the following
three years.
The K- 3 programs focus on providing academic assistance and
involving parents in the educational process. The 7- 12 programs
provide a combination of academic assistance, vocational training
and support services designed to help at- risk students stay in school
or return to school. During the 1990- 91 school year, these programs
served nearly 35,000 at- risk students and over 10,000 parents of
at- risk students. In addition, over 6500 staff members received
specialized training designed to help them recognize and address
the needs of at- risk students.
A Joint Legislative Committee to Study Funding and Programs
for At- Risk Pupils examined all the state- initiated at- risk programs
and utilized the recommendations of the Task Force in order to
prepare legislative recommendations.
Limited English proficiency, a high rate of absenteeism,
low socio- economic status, low achievement on tests and a high
mobility rate are just some of the factors that place a child at- risk
of failing in school. The Task Force recommendations place a high
priority on providing programs and services for these children.
Teacher Training Needs Under Review
The Arizona Board of Regents has been awarded a grant from
the Education Commission of the States to improve the teaching
curriculum in Arizona's colleges of education. A state Commission
on Teacher Education has been appointed to study some of the
current challenges in education and iden* the training and
retraining that will be necessary for teachers to meet those
challenges. Restructuring of schools and meeting the needs
of at- risk students are two of the key challenges being discussed.
The state Commission is expected to present its recommendations
in 1992.
The Task Force recommendations on Training and
Professionalism, which call for updating teacher preparation
programs and designing new courses based on the needs
of a restructured system, will enhance this effort.
Appeal To The Public
In this report, the Task Force has identified specific actions that
must be undertaken by public policy leaders and educators. The
roles of teachers, principals, school boards and colleges of education
are described. Tasks have been identified for our elected officials.
The recommendations include suggestions for ways in which
human service providers can be a part of the process.
The Task Force also recognizes that parents and the business
community have a signficant role to play in the achievement of
educational reform. The education of Arizona's students is not the
sole responsibility of the education system and elected officials.
All segments of our society must actively participate, including
Arizona's children, who must take greater responsibility for
themselves as students.
As a society, we must set higher expectations for our
students, and ourselves. We must set clear standards of academic
performance so that students know what is expected of them.
At the same time, we must demonstrate that as a society we support
the mission of the schools and that we value students and their
academic achievements.
In a restructured and decentralized system of education,
parents will be even more involved in their children's education
than they are today. They will be asked to serve in major decision-making
positions. Educators must assist parents in carrying out
these new responsibilities. Meaningful communication between
school and home, and effective parent training programs will be
essential to the success of a reformed educational system.
Specific responsibilities for parents were suggested by parents
who served on the Task Force. Their suggestions were endorsed by
the Task Force as a whole.
1. Parents need to recognize and act on their own ability
to effect successful change.
To contribute to their children's educational success,
parents will:
become involved on school- based councils,
committees, parent organizations and other groups
established to include parents in decision making;
w work in partnership with educators, businesses and
other community entities to ensure successful
reform;
w initiate, develop or participate in programs which
empower parents to have more involvement in their
children's education;
w open additional lines of communication between
home and school in such a way that parents are
informed of what their children are learning, how
their children are learning, how their children are
progressing on an ongoing basis, and how parents
can support the educational process at home;
w apply their parental perspective in the development
of additional strategies that will help Arizona's
schools provide students the best possible education.
2. Parents must play a vital role as participants and
advocates in a reformed educational system. Parents in
this new system will assume expanded responsibilities
for educational success. They will:
w be the champions of children, and lobby local school
boards, state agencies, the legislature, human service
providers and others on behalf of Arizona's students;
w encourage all parents to become active participants
in their children's education;
H prepare their children to enter school ready to learn;
w serve as mentors to students and each other;
w train educators to understand the parental
perspective;
w expect educators to provide training for parents
regarding ways in which parents can constructively
and appropriately participate in the educational
process;
w work cooperatively with educators to assist all parents
in the identification of their strengths, skills and
talents which can be used to enhance the education
of Arizona's children.
Understanding that a linkage between education and the
workplace is at the very foundation of educational reform,
the Task Force specifically identified recommendations for the
business community. Responsibilities were suggested by business
leaders who served on the Task Force. Their suggestions were
endorsed by the Task Force as a whole.
1. AU business ( large, medium and small) will be a change
agent for, an active participant in, and an advocate for
quality education as defined by the Mission and Goals
for Arizona's Children. As a change agent, business will
exert leadership and support roles in bringing about
structural reform. Specifically, business will:
w provide assistance in raising the awareness of the
general public as to the need for reform and
involvement;
develop the capacity within large firms, associations
and chambers to participate in education reform;
provide systematic feedback to the system on
business' needs and on the performance of the
system's graduates;
link continuous improvement in education to
economic development and business
competitiveness;
1 advocate systemic change and provide related staff
development assistance and resources;
encourage a public climate in which educators,
government, business and the community- at- large
can join cooperatively in the reform process.
2. As a participant in the new quality educational system,
business will play an important, appropriate role.
Specifically, business will:
match state funding for preschool programs for
at- risk four- year- olds.
lobby for policies related to a quality educational
system;
enable employees to become more active in schools;
experiment with new school- business relationships;
w provide management training to principals and
superintendents;
be mentors to students;
invite educators into the workplace so they can see
for themselves the kinds of skills and knowledge their
students will need to succeed;
1 offer teachers summer jobs with work matching their
subject areas to help provide them up- to- date
information;
develop effective school- to- work transition programs;
1 support efforts to encourage career exploration and a
better understanding of basic technological skills;
commit to making educational change part of the
corporate culture;
establish student work schedules to facilitate learning
needs ( for instance, not hiring students to work
all- night shifts on school nights).
change company policies to encourage employees to
be more involved in their children's schools;
The Governor's Task Force on Educational Reform
recognizes that the comprehensive changes
recommended by this report will require both time
and resources. Task Force members are committed
to sustaining the resolve and the collaboration that
will be necessary over the next few years to achieve
full implementation of their recommendations.
Refonn, Restructuring, Rededication . . . These
three words reflect the efforts of the Task Force
to promote significant change and to offer
recommendations that are systemic in nature.
The Task Force members call upon themselves
and upon all who read this report to renew their
commitment to the children of Arizona.
Appendix A: NOTES
Education Must Change
Because The World Has Changed
1. Chester E. Finn, Jr., We Must Take Charge - Our Schools
and Our Future, The Free Press, New York, 1991, p. 5.
2. Harold L. Hodgkinson, The Same Client: The
Demographics of Education and Service Delivery Systems,
Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc./ Center for
Demographic Policy, 1989, p. 3. As cited by the
Committee for Economic Development, The Unfinished
Agenda: A New Vision for Child Development and
Education, New York, 199 1, p. 10.
3. Arizona Department of Education, Bilingual Programs
and English as a Second Language Programs Annual Report
1989- 90, ARS 15- 751, Phoenix, Arizona, 1991, p. 10.
Arizona Needs A Better Prepared Workforce
1. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
News Release, BLS Previews The Economy in 2005,
Washington, D. C., November 18, 1991, p. 1.
2. Ibid., p. 3.
3. U. S. Department of Labor, The Secretary's Commission
on Achieving Necessary Skills, What Work Requires of
Schools, A SCANS Report for America 2000, Washington,
D. C., June 199 1, Executive Summary, p. xv.
4. Robert Reich, Tales of a New America, Times Books,
New York, 1987, p. 44. As cited by Barbara Reisman,
Amy J. Moore and Karen Fitzgerald and the Child Care
Action Campaign, Child Care: The Bottom Line, An
Economic and Child Care Policy Paper, Child Care
Action Campaign, New York, 1988, p. 50.
5. Ibid., p. 44. As cited by Reisman, Moore and Fitzgerald
and the Child Care Action Campaign, Child Care: The
Bottom Line, p. 50.
6. Wisconsin Commission on Schools for the 21st
Century, A New Design for Education in Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin, December 1990, p. 4.
7. Ibid., p. 4.
8. National Education Goals Panel, The National Education
Goals Report, Building a Nation of Learners, Washington,
D. C., 1991, p. 18.
9. Ibid., p. 18.
10. Nan Stone, " Does Business Have Any Business
in Education?," Harvard Business Review,
March- April 1991, p. 47.
64 11. Committee For Economic Development,
The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child
Development and Education, New York, 1991, p. 68.
12. Ibid., preface x.
Major Societal Changes
Have Impact On Arizona's Children
1. Victor R. Fuchs, Women's Quest for Economic Equality,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1988, p. 11 1. As cited by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When
The Bough Breaks, Basic Books, New York, 1991, p. 15.
2. William R. Mattox, Jr., " The Family Time Famine,"
Family Policy 3, no. 1, 1990. As cited by Hewlett,
When The Bough Breaks, p. 73.
3. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When The Bough Breaks,
Basic Books, New York, 1991, p. 287, note # 20.
4. Gary Natriello, Edward L. McDill, and Aaron M. Pallas,
Schooling Disadvantaged Children: Racing Against
Catastrophe, Teachers College Press, New York, 1990,
pp. 30- 31. As cited by the Committee for Economic
Development, The Unfinished Agenda, p. 2.
5. Ibid., pp. 30- 31. As cited by the Committee for
Economic Development, The Unfinished Agenda, p. 2.
6. Steve MacFarlane, ... And Promises to Keep, Alarming
Trends 1990, A report developed for The Arizona
Association of Behavioral Health Programs by Phoenix
South Community Mental Health Center, Phoenix,
Arizona, p. 9, Figure 8.
7. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality,
Troubling Trends: The Health ofAmerica's Next
Generation, Washington, D. C., February 1990. As cited
by the Committee for Economic Development, The
Unfinished Agenda, p. 8.
8. Governor's Office, Arizona's First Annual Report of
Progress Toward the National Education Goals, Phoenix,
Arizona, September 30, 1991, p. 3.
9. Ibid., p. 2.
10. Ibid., p. 2.
11. Ibid., p. 2.
12. Ibid., p. 2.
13. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population
Reports, Series P- 20, No. 450, Marital Status and Living
Arrangements: March 1990, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1991, p. 5, Table E.
14. Arthur J. Norton and Paul C. Glick, One Parent Families:
A Social and Economic Profile, Family Relations,
National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, January 1986, pp. 9- 17.
15. Helen Blank and Amy Wilkins, State Child Care Fact
Book - 1987, Children's Defense Fund, Washington,
D. C., p. 17. As cited by Reisman, Moore and Fitzgerald
and the Child Care Action Campaign, Child Care:
The Bottom Line, p. 52.
13. Ibid., p. 68.
14. Ibid., p. 82.
16. Maricopa Association of Governments, 1990- 91
Human Services Plan for Maricopa County, Phoenix,
Arizona, 1989a. As cited by Steve MacFarlane,
... And Promises to Keep, p. 12.
17. Bob Cleveland, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Telephone
Interview, April 30, 1990 and May 2, 1990. As cited by
Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks, p. 74.
18. Ibid. As cited by Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks, p. 74.
19. Steve MacFarlane, ... And Promises To Keep, p. 5.
Arizona Students Must Be Prepared
To Compete In A Global Economy
1. Steve Al