School district administrative costs, regional services, and telecommunications: special study

              SPECIAL STUDY
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS,
REGIONAL SERVICES, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
March 1992
92-3
A STUDY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS,
REGIONAL SERVICES, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DOLlGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
March 23, 1992
Members of the Legislature
State of Arizona
Members of the Joint Legislative Committee
to Study Consolidation of School D i s t r i c t s
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, "A Study of
School D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs, Regional Services, and
Telecommunications." The study was conducted in response to a request
from the Joint Legislative Committee to Study Consolidation of School
D i s t r i c t s and with the approval of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee
by resolution of November 5, 1991.
We appointed an advisory review committee, consisting of persons in the
professional community interested in t h i s study, that made
recommendations concerning our planned research methodology and reviewed
a draft of the report.
This report w i l l be released to the public on Tuesday, March 24, 1992.
Should you have any questions, my s t a f f and I would be pleased to meet
with you to discuss the report.
Sincerely,
cc: The Honorable J. F i f e Symington, Governor
Members of the Arizona State Board of Education
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ' SUITE 700 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 8 5 0 0 4 ( 6 0 2 ) 255-4385 ' FAX (602) 255-1251
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a study of school d i s t r i c t
administrative costs, regional services and telecommunications. The study
was conducted in response to a request from the Joint Legislative Committee
to Study Consolidation of School D i s t r i c t s and with the approval by
resolution of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee of November 5, 19; .
Certain areas discussed below may require additional study because factors
a f f e c t i n g t h e i r implementation were not within the scope of t h i s study. As
a result, several additional areas should be studied in depth to better
assess the need to restructure the public education system in Arizona and
determine appropriate actions.
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Laraer Unified D i s t r i c t s Are More Cost Effective In Terms Of D i s t r i c t
Administrative Costs Per Student And Students Per D i s t r i c t Administrator
(See pages 9 through 26)
Administrative costs were compared at the d i s t r i c t level and the school
level. The number of d i s t r i c t and school administrators and their s t a f f s
were also compared. Arizona school d i s t r i c t s were categorized by average
daily attendance e . , super large, large, medium, small, and small
isolated), type ( i . e . , unified, elementary, and high school), and location
( i . e . , urban and rural) to determine which d i s t r i c t categories spent the
least on administration per student and had the most students per
administrator (i .e., were the most cost e f f e c t i v e ) .
Larger unified d i s t r i c t s are more cost effective in terms of d i s t r i c t
administrative costs per student and number of students served per
d i s t r i c t administrator. Small isolated d i s t r i c t s have the most
d i s t r i c t administrative costs per student.
Two other s i g n i f i c a n t points were found in t h i s area:
School level administrative costs and the number of students per school
* administrator did not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y with d i f f e r e n t size d i s t r i c t s ,
except that small isolated d i s t r i c t s had fewer students per school
administrator.
When union high school d i s t r i c t s and their elementary d i s t r i c t s were
compared t o u n i f i e d d i s t r i c t s of similar average d a i l y attendance,
unified d i s t r i c t s had the most students per d i s t r i c t administrator and
support s t a f f .
Administrative Costs Per Student And Students Per Administrator Do Not
D i f f e r Siani f icant l v Compared To Other States (See pages 23 through 29)
No s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the percentage o f t o t a l operating
expenditures for administration in Arizona school d i s t r i c t s and those of
the sample states was found. D i s t r i c t and school administrative
expenditures in our sample of Arizona d i s t r i c t s were about 12 percent of
t o t a l operating expenditures. Administrative expenditures at the d i s t r i c t
level were about 5 percent, and at the school level about 7 percent of
t o t a l operating expenditures. These percentages were about the same as the
sample states.
The administrative costs of Arizona's school d i s t r i c t s were compared to
those of a sample of states with population growth rates similar to
Arizona. Based on our sample of d i s t r i c t s , Arizona spent an average of
$183 per student on d i s t r i c t administration, while the sample states spent
an average of $190. The number of d i s t r i c t - and school-level
administrators in Arizona was then compared to those of the sample states
and nationally. Arizona's average number of students per d i s t r i c t
administrator was 532; the national average was 526. Arizona had a r a t i o
of 381 students per school administrator, which was higher than the sample
statest r a t i o of 307 and the national r a t i o of 292.
D i s t r i c t Administrative Expenditures Increased A t About The Same Rate As
Ex~enditures For Instruction Over The Past Decade (See page 34)
From f i s c a l year 1981-82 through 1989-90, expenditures for both instruction
and d i s t r i c t administration increased 125 percent in Arizona. However,
t h i s rate of increase was almost four times greater than the increase in
the Consumer Price Index during the same time period. Two primary reasons
for such a substantial increase in administrative and instructional costs
are increases in the number of students and increases in salaries. Another
reason is that health and medical insurance premiums have increased by
about 250 percent over the past ten years.
Arizona's School District Recordkeepinq System Should Be Modified To
Conform With The U.S. Department Of Education's Financial Accountinq Manual
For School Districts (See pages 39 through 40)
The Uniform System of Financial Records, the standard accounting manual
prescribed for Arizona school d i s t r i c t s , should conform to the more
detailed function account codes in the U.S. Department of Education's
manual. In addition, d i s t r i c t s should use detailed function account codes
for a l l funds to improve school d i s t r i c t recordkeeping systems and
comparability of Arizona school d i s t r i c t financial data among school
d i s t r i c t s within the State and nationally.
REGIONAL SERVICES AND TELEWNICATIONS
School Districts Should Be Solely Responsible For Their Fiscal Affairs (See
pages 44 through 45)
Both school d i s t r i c t s and county school superintendents maintain school
d i s t r i c t accounting records. Maintaining duplicate d i s t r i c t accounting
records and processing warrants comprise a major portion of s t a f f time in
county school superintendents' offices. Thus, eliminating t h i s duplication
of e f f o r t would result in cost savings. Additional cost savings might also
be realized i f d i s t r i c t s share costs or join a cooperative that provides
recordkeeping functions.
Educat ion Service Aqenc i es Shou l d Be Es tab l i shed I n Ar i zona (See pages 63
through 68)
ESA systems in other states offer substantially more services to more
school d i s t r i c t s than are currently offered to d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona, either
by county school superintendents or other regional service providers. They
provide a means for d i s t r i c t s to retain local autonomy while maximizing the
impact of limited funds through cooperative e f f o r t s . Such cooperative
e f f o r t s have resulted in cost savings through economies of scale and have
reduced duplication o f programs, services, and personnel. ESAs in these
states have increased the services available to d i s t r i c t s and, thus helped
equitably d i s t r i b u t e the educational opportunities of students across
regions. They have also helped f a c i l i t a t e the use of telecommunications in
school d i s t r i c t s .
Currently, :he services available to school d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona vary
widely according to the d i s t r i c t ' s location. In areas with low-density
populations, many services that could be provided more cost e f f e c t i v e l y
through cooperative e f f o r t s . However, the number of such services offered
cooperatively and the number of school d i s t r i c t s with access to them are
limited in Arizona.
E f f o r t s To Establish And Coordinate Telecomnunications Svstems Throuqhout
Arizona Shou Id Be Increased (See pages 69 through 72)
The use of telecommunications has a1 lowed d i s t r i c t s to expand curriculum
and s t a f f t r a i n i n g , process and report data in a more accurate and timely
manner, and reduce the costs of handling and storing large quantities of
physical records. I n i t i a l investment costs in telecommunications equipment
can be high; how~ver, other states have reported cost savings through the
use of telecommunications provided by ESAs.
Telecommunications serve numerous educational and administrative purposes
such as distance learning, teacher training, and data transmission. The
use of telecommunications in education i s growing nationally and in
Arizona. Arizona colleges and universities, as well as a small number of
school d i s t r i c t s , are currently using teIecommunications in their daily
operations. However, most d i s t r i c t s have had d i f f i c u l t y purchasing and
establishing telecommunications systems, and are not f u l l y u t i l i z i n g the
capabilities sf their systems. Arizona Education Telecommunications
Cooperative (AETC) and the Arizona Department of Education have conducted
studies regarding telecommunications in Arizona. Entities such as AETC
have actively promoted the use of telecommunications throughout the State.
We believe these efforts should be increased and that ESAs would help
facilitate this process.
TABLE uf CONTENTS
INiROWCTlON AND BACK(;ROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART I: SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
CHAPTER 1: COMPARISONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS AMONG ARIZONA'S SCHOOL
DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 2: COMPARISONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS OF ARIZONA'S SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO OTHER STATES . . . . .
CHAPTER 3: COMPARISONS OF CHANGES IN
ARIZONA'S AND OTHER STATES'
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTSOVERTIME . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 4: ARIZONA'S SCHOOL DISTRICT
RECOWmEEPlNG SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART I!: REGIONAL SERVICES AND TELECOMUUNICATIONS
CHAPTER 5: REGIONAL SERVICES
IN ARIZONA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 6: REGIONAL SERVICES
ACROSS ME NATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 7: TELECCMWNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
ACROSS THE NATION AND
INARIZONA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCL' D)
PART I l l : AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A: Scope and Methodology of School
D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs. . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B: Definitions Used in The Study of School
D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs. . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX 6: Database of 213 Arizona D i s t r i c t s
Analyzed in the Study of School
D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX D: Sample D i s t r i c t s Selected
for the Study of School D i s t r i c t
Administrative Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX E: Sample Administrative Organizational Structures
APPENDIX F: Services Provided by Education
Service Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX G: Example Structures of Education
Service Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Unified D i s t r i c t s Compared to
Union High School D i s t r i c t s and
Their Feeder Elementary D i s t r i c t s . . . . . .
TABLE 2 Number of D i s t r i c t s by Student
Population Size in Selected States . . . . . .
TABLE 3 Benefits Provided to Administrators. . . . . .
TABLE 4 Increase of Salaries in Arizona
Compared to National Sample,
1984-85 Through 1990-91. . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES (CONCL'D)
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
CHART 1
CHART 2
CHART 3
CHART 4
CHART 5
CHART 6
Administrative Services Provided by
County School Superintendents. . . . . . . . .
Instructional Services Provided by
County School Superintendents. . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Students and School Districts
PerSquareMile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
County Appropriations Expended for
Administration of County School
Superintendents' Offices in
Fiscal Year 1990-91. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Examples of Other Regional Services
inArizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF CHARTS
District Administrative Costs Per Student
by District Size
Fiscal Year 1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Students Per District Administrator
and Support Staff by District Size
Fiscal Year 1989-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Students Per School Administrator
by District Size
Fiscal Year 1989-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Administrative Costs Per Student
by District Type
Fiscal Year 1989-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
District Administrative Costs Per Student
Arizona and Sample States
Fiscal Year 1989-90. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Students Per District Administrator
Arizona, Sample States, and Nation
Fiscal Year 1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF CHARTS (CONCL'D)
CHART 7 Students Per School Administrator
Arizona, Sample States, and Nation
FiscalYear1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHART 8 Students ?er D i s t r i c t Administrator
Arizona, Sample States, and Nation
From Fiscal Years 1986-87 Through 1989-90. . .
CHART9 Teachers Per D i s t r i c t Administrator
Arizona, Sample States, and Nation
From Fiscal Years 1986-87 Through 1989-90. . .
CHART 10 Increase in Administrative Costs Compared to
Instructional Costs and the Consumer Price
index in Arizona From Fiscal Years 1981-82
Through 1989-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAP 1
MAP 2
MAP 3
LIST OF MAPS
Location of the 30 Sample D i s t r i c t s . . . . .
Composition of School D i s t r i c t s
in Each County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Special Education Services Provided by
County School Superintendents. . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a special study of school
d i s t r i c t administrative costs, regional services and telecommunications in
Arizona and across the nation. The study was requested by the Joint
Legislative Committee to Study Consolidation of School D i s t r i c t s and
approved by resolution of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Budget Committee of
November 5, 1991.
GENERAL SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The study comprised two diverse areas. The f i r s t area consisted of
c o l l e c t i n g and analyzing data on the number of school d i s t r i c t
administrators and administrative costs. The second area consisted of
c o l l e c t i n g and analyzing information about regional services and
telecommunications technology provided to school d i s t r i c t s in Arizona and
across the nation, as well as the functions of Arizona county srhool
superintendents.
The Joint Legislative Committee to Study Consolidation s f School D i s t r i c t s
set out seven tasks for our review:
1. Determine the actual number of administrators, including support s t a f f ,
per d i s t r i c t categorized by d i s t r i c t - and school-level administrators
and the resulting per student ratios for a l l Arizona d i s t r i c t s .
2. Using the data collected above, determine variations among super large,
large, medium, small, and small isolated d i s t r i c t s ; among u n i f i e d ,
elementary, and high s c h o ~ l d i s t r i c t s ; and between rural and urban
d i s t r i c t s . Also determine " t y p i c a l " organizational patterns and the
reasons for variations from these patterns.
3. Through on-site interviews with and analysis of 30 sample d i s t r i c t s
that represented " t y p i c a l " patterns, determine these d i s t r i c t s ' actual
administrative costs and how well t h e i r current administrative
organizational structures represented cost-effective patterns.
4. Compare Arizona's administrative ratios and costs with those of other
states.
5. Develop recommendations on how Arizona's current recordkeeping system
could be modified to provide better, more comparable data on school
d i s t r i c t administrative costs in the future.
6. Review the functions of the county school superintendents' offices in
r e l a t i o n t o the services they provide for the educational system (e.g.,
accounting, smai I schooi services, special education services), and
recommend how these functions could be modified to p r ~ v i d e more
cost-effective services.
4. Review whether regional services and technology in r e l a t i o n t o school
d i s t r i c t management and personnel training functions have resulted in
more cost-effective educational systems across the nation and in
Arizona, and recommend a structure for these within Arizona.
A section of other topics we believe should be studied in greater d e t a i l is
included in the Areas For Further Study section of t h i s report (see page
73).
School D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs
The area of the study that dealt with school d i s t r i c t administrative costs
consisted of data collection and analysis phases. The f i r s t and most
essential step was to define the terms to be used.
A database was establ ished from the information col lected from the Arizona
Department of Education on each d i s t r i c t . Data was collected from fiscal
year 1989-90, the most recent year information could be compared
n a t i o n a l l y . A l l d i s t r i c t s were divided into categories based on student
population ( i . e . , super large, large, medium, small, or small isolated),
type ( i . e . , unified, elementary, or high school), and location ( i . e . , urban
or r u r a l ) . The r a t i o of pupi Is to administrators was then calculated for
each d i s t r i c t . Thirty sample d i s t r i c t s were selected based on the average
number of students per administrator in each category. Through on-site
v i s i t s , we collected administrative cost data and other information from
each of the 30 d i s t r i c t s or their county school superintendents. Data
collected about the number of administrators and administrative costs was
then analyzed and variations were determined among the various categories
of d i s t r i c t s .
lnformation was also collected about the number of administrators
nationally and administrative costs in other states with a population
growth pattern similar to Arizona. This data was then analyzed and
compared with Arizona data.
Problems with the data collection of administrative costs from the sample
d i s t r i c t s were also analyzed and recommendations to improve the State's
school d i s t r i c t recordkeeping system were developed.
Reqional Services and Telecommunications
The second area of the study addressed regional services and
telecommunications technology in Arizona and across the nation, and the
functions of Arizona county school superintendents.
Arizona Revised Statutes and the Uniform Accounting Manual for Arizona
County School Superintendents were reviewed to obtain information about the
functions of county school superintendents.
lnformation about other regional service providers and telecommunications
technology in Arizona was obtained from a questionnaire mailed to county
school superintendents and school d i s t r i c t s . Based on their responses to
the questionnaire, we contacted other regional service providers in Arizona
to obtain information on the types of services and technology they are
providing to d i s t r i c t s in Arizona.
A sample of 14 states was selected to obtain information on regional
services and telecomunications technology across the nation. We contacted
the state department of education and education service agencies
in each state and obtained information about their structure, operation,
the services they provide to their member school districts, and cost
sav i ngs .
Advisory Review Committee
The Auditor General established an advisory review committee of ten members
with either expertise in school finance and administration or in the
operations of county school superintendents' offices. The committee
represented school district governing boards, county school
superintendents, the Arizona Department ~f Education, taxpayers, and school
district administrators from districts of various types and sizes,
including a small isolated rural district. The committee consisted of the
following members:
Dr. Louann Bierlein Assistant Director, Morrison Institute for Public
Policy, Arizona State University
Ms. Starr Busks Director of Business Services, Murphy Elementary
School District
Ms. Sandra Dowling County School Superintendent, Maricopa County
Mr. Eugene Dudo Assistant Superintendent for Finance, Glendale Union
High Scho~l District
Dr. Charles Essigs Assistant Superintendent/Business Services, Mesa
Unified School District
Dr. Mary Lou Garmw>n Superintendent, Bonita Elementary School District
Mr. Kevin McCarthy Executive Director, Arizona Tax Research Association
Dr. Judy Richardson Administrator for School Finance, Career Ladders, and
Legislative Services, Arizona Department of Education
Dr. Paul Street County School Superintendent, Yavapai County
Ms. Marilyn Wilson Board Member, Mesa Unified School District: >resident,
Arizona School Boards Association
The advisory review committee was formed to provide input from the
professions! community interested in the study, and comments and
suggestions on the preliminary draft of our findings and recommendations.
Acknowledqments
The Auditor General expresses appreciation to the o f f i c i a l s and staffs of
the school d i s t r i c t s , county school superintendents' offices, the Arizona
Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics of
the U.S. Department of Education, and the advisory review comittee and
others who assisted i n this study.
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
CHAPTER 1
COUPARISONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AMONG ARIZONA'S SCHOOL DISTRICTS
"he Auditor General conducted a study of school d i s t r i c t administrators and
administrative costs in Arizona and concluded the following questions were
relevant.
Do smaller d i s t r i c t s spend more on administration per student than
larger d i s t r i c t s ? What i s the most cost effective student population
for a d i s t r i c t ?
a Are administrative costs less in unified d i s t r i c t s than in elementary
or high school d i s t r i c t s ?
e Does administrative spending d i f f e r between urban and rural d i s t r i c t s ?
e Do union high school d i s t r i c t s and their feeder elementary d i s t r i c t s
have fewer students per administrator than similar unified d i s t r i c t s ?
D i s t r i c t administrative costs consist primarily of the costs of operating
the offices of d i s t r i c t superintendents, associate superintendents, and
business managers; while school administrative costs consist generally of
the costs of operating p r i n c i p a l s ' o f f i c e s . U.S. Department of Education
definitions were used so our data was comparable with national figures. To
determine the number of administrators and the per student ratios to
identify sample d i s t r i c t s , data was collected for the 213 Arizona school
d i s t r i c t s that have administrators. (See Map 2 on page 11 for composition
of school d i s t r i c t s i n each county.) To determine administrative costs,
data was collected from 30 sample d i s t r i c t s . (See Map 9 on page 10.) In
our analysis, a distinction was made between d i s t r i c t - l e v e l and
school-level administrators and administrative costs. (For more detailed
information about the scope and methodology of school d i s t r i c t
administrative costs and definitions used, see Appendices A and B . )
FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
The number of administrators and administrative costs were analyzed to
determine variations among the different sizes and types of d i s t r i c t s , and
between urban and rural d i s t r i c t s . Administrative organizational patterns
of school d i s t r i c t s were also determined.
MAP 1
LOCATION OF THE 30 SAMPLE DISTRICTS 1
1. Meao USD
2. Tucson US0
3. nagstoff US0
4. Oeof Vally USD
5. Nopolu US0
6. Tmpo UHSO
7. Tmp. €SO
8. Flowing Wollr US0
9. Snowfioke USD
10. Pago US0
11. Tollemn UHSO
12. Coiomdo R l w UHSO
13. Cmno ESO
14. Creighton ESD
15. Avondalo ESD
16- Bullhmd City €SO
17. Tonque Vvde US0
18. Glob. USD
19. R. Thomas US0
20. Show Law USD
21. Mammoth-Son
MonuJ US0
22. Po*u US0
23. Santo Cmz
Voily UHSD
24. Antolop. UHSO
25. Ricnnido ESD
26. Higly ESQ
27. Nodobuq ESD
28. Sdomonvillo ESD
29. Mohawk ESD
50. Owenr-Whitny ESO
Laraer D i s t r i c t s Have Lower Achninistrative Costs Per Student
For our analysis based on average dai ly attendance, d i s t r i c t s were divided
into five categories according to student population: super large (over
40,0001, large (5,000 to 40,0001, medium (under 5,000 but not smal I), and
small and small isolated (under 600 in either elementary or high school
g rades ) .
In our analysis of the administrative costs of the 38 sample d i s t r i c t s ,
d i s t r i c t administrative costs per student vary with d i s t r i c t size and
smaller d i s t r i c t s are less cost effective. However, even though our
analysis indicated that the average student population sf small isolated
d i s t r i c t s i s larger than small d i s t r i c t s , small isolated d i s t r i c t s have
higher administrative costs per student. (See Chart I on page 13.) School
administrative costs do not vary as much with average daily attendance as
d i s t r i c t administrative costs.
10
COMPOSITION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
IN EACH COUNTY
100% Rural w6
85% - 99% Rural r~
1, 50% - 84% Rural
Less than 50% Rural
Note: Small, Medium, and Large
categories are based on average
daily membership for 1990-91. 1 Large
CHART 1
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PER STUDENT
BY DISTRICT SIZE
FISCAL YEAR 1-90
SUPER LARGE LARGE MEDIUM SMALL ISOLATED
Source: Compiled from data of the 30 sample d i s t r i c t s
A.R.S. $15-901.8.23 defines a small isolated d i s t r i c t as any school
I) d i s t r i c t with less than 600 students in either high school or elementary
grades, but a l l schools in the d i s t r i c t are located 30 miles or more from
another school or, i f road conditions and terrain make driving slow or
hazardous, 15 miles or more from another ,no01 with the same grades in
another d i s t r i c t . In selecting our 30 sample school d i s t r i c t s , we noted
several d i s t r i c t s classified as small isolated d i s t r i c t s under this
definition that are not located in remote areas. For example, both
Wickenburg and St. Johns Unified School Districts are classified as small
isolated d i s t r i c t s and, therefore, receive additional funding in accordance
with this statute. However, both d i s t r i c t s are located within the c i t y or
town l i m i ts.
Therefore, the definition of a small isolated school d i s t r i c t in A.R.S.
515-901.8.23 should be reviewed to ascertain whether t h i s d e f i n i t i o n should
be modified and, i f so, to determine a new definition.
Our analysis also showed that the number of students per d i s t r i c t
administrator and support s t a f f decreases as the size of the d i s t r i c t
decreases from super large to small isolated. (See Chart 2.)
Economy of scale i s the apparent reason larger d i s t r i c t s are more
economical in terms of the number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator
than smaller d i s t r i c t s . A minimum number of administrators i s necessary to
manage a d i s t r i c t of any size. However, as the size o f a d i s t r i c t
increases, so does the number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator.
Chart 3 shows that al l size categories of d i s t r i c t s have simi lar ratios of
student-s per school administrator, except for small isolated d i s t r i c t s ,
which have s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer students per school administrator.
There Is A Direct Correlation Between The Size Of A School D i s t r i c t And The
bmolexity Of I t s Administrative Orqanizational Structure
Our study of the organizational structure o f the 30 sample d i s t r i c t s showed
the following general characteristics.
I n t h e s m a l l e s t o f s c k o o l d i s t r i c t s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o
perform more t P 1 - one function.
In medium schoci d i s t r i c t s , d i s t r i c t administration w i l l generally
include one or more assistant superintendents.
Large d i s t r i c t s usually have three or more assistant superintendents.
0 Super large d i s t r i c t s have a deputy superintendent supervising six or
more assistant superintendents.
Appendix E includes sample organizational structures.
According to School Finance and Education Policv, Enhancina Educational
Efficiencv. Eaualitv and Choice, studies concerning the cost-size
relationship among different sckool d i s t r i c t s indicate that "per-pupil
costs are generally -igher in small school d i s t r i c t s than in average-size
d i s t r i c t s " because ler school d i s t r i c t s have "significant economies of
scale" However, tr ~ r t i c l ea lso points out that studies indicate very
large ~ i s t r i c t s have 'significant diseconomies of scale" (Guthrie). Some
CHART 2
STUDENTS PER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR AND SUPPORT STAFF
BY DISTRICT SIZE
FISCAL YEAR 1-90
SUPER LARGE LARGE MEDIUM SMAU SMAU ISOLATED
Source: Compi 1 ed from A r i zona Department of Education data f o r 213 d i s t r i c t s
CHART 3
STUDENTS PER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR
BY DISTRICT SIZE
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
400
350
% E C z 1 250
f "
3 & E Irn
9
k
50
0
SUPER LARGE LARGE MEDIUM SMALL ISOLATED
Source: Compiled from Arizona Depar~nent of Education data f o r 213 d i s t r i c t s
evidence of diseconomies of scale was found when numbers of students per
d i s t r i c t administrator without consideration of their support s t a f f s were
analyzed. barge d i s t r i c t s had 649 students per d i s t r i c t administrator
while super large d i s t r i c t s had only 590 students per d i s t r i c t
admrnistrator.
Unified D i s t r i c t s Have The Lowest Administrative Costs Per Student
Our analysis of d i s t r i c t s by type (unified, high school, and elementary)
found that the number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator and support
s t a f f i s the highest for unified d i s t r i c t s and the lowest for high school
d i s t r i c t s .
Our comparison of the administrative costs of the 30 sample d i s t r i c t s found
that unified d i s t r i c t s have the lowest d i s t r i c t and total administrative
costs per student. High school d i s t r i c t s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher
d i s t r i c t and school administrative costs per student. As shown in Chart 4,
the high school d i s t r i c t s ' administrative costs are considerably higher
than those of unified and elementary d i s t r i c t s .
To understand why high school d i s t r i c t s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher
administrative costs per student and fewer students per administrator and
support s t a f f , a small sample of high school d i s t r i c t s was surveyed. We
determined what programs, i f any, were unique to high school d i s t r i c t s and
what additional administrative costs were incurred as a result of those
programs. Based on the survey, both high school and unified d i s t r i c t s
offer similar programs and incur administrative costs usually not found
in elementary d i s t r i c t s , such as vocational education programs; a t h l e t i c
programs; pregnant teen programs; and bookstore, student a c t i v i t i e s ,
newspaper, yearbook, and advanced placement. Many of these programs and
a c t i v i t i e s incur additional administrative expenses ( i . e . , salaries for the
director, coordinator, or assistant p r i n c i p a l ) . Additional administrative
expenses are also incurred for attendance, d i s c i p l i n e , security, and
scheduling classes in both high school and unified d i s t r i c t s .
CHART 4
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PER STUDENT
BY DISTRICT TYPE
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
UNIRED HIGH SCHOOL
Source: Compiled from data of the 30 sample d i s t r i c t s
I f these were the only factors involved, i t would seem logical that
elementary d i s t r i c t s should have the lowest administrative costs per
student. However, another factor that must be considered i s d i s t r i c t
size. In our sample, unified d i s t r i c t s were on the average larger than
elementary and high school d i s t r i c t s . The average size of elementary and
high school d i s t r i c t s was about the same in our sample.
The organizational charts of the 30 sample school d i s t r i c t s were also
analyzed to determine whether the complexity of the administrative
organizational structure was affected by the type of d i s t r i c t ( i . e . ,
whether type resulted in certain functions being staffed with separate
administrators). However, any correlation between the type of d i s t r i c t and
the complexity of the administrative organizational structure was not found.
Urban D i s t r i c t s Have Lower Administrative Costs Per Student Than Rural
D i s t r i c t s Because Urban D i s t r i c t s Generallv Have More Students
Our comparison of urban and rural d i s t r i c t s found that urban d i s t r i c t s have
s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower d i s t r i c t and school administrative costs per student
than rural d i s t r i c t s . Rural d i s t r i c t s had d i s t r i c t administrative costs
that were 26 percent higher than urban d i s t r i c t s , and school administrative
costs that were 5.3 percent higher than urban d i s t r i c t s . The importance of
this analysis can be seen when the makeup of the d i s t r i c t s i n the two
categories i s considered. Urban d i s t r i c t s generally have a larger student
population than rural d i s t r i c t s and would therefore be able to take
advantage of the economies of scale. Urban d i s t r i c t s may also benefit from
a larger, more convenient, and more competitive supply of goods and
services, allowing them to obtain needed goods and services at lower
prices. By contrast, rural d i s t r i c t s have a predominantly small student
population and are often isolated; however, they s t i l l incur certain
minimum administrative costs to operate.
The organizational charts ~f the 30 sample school d i s t r i c t s were also
analyzed to determine whether the complexity of the administrative
organizational structure was affected by d i s t r i c t location ( i . e . , whether
location resulted in certain functions being staffed with separate
administrators). However, any correlation between the location of the
sample d i s t r i c t s and the complexity of their administrative organizational
structure was not found.
Unified D i s t r i c t s Have More Students Per Administrator When Compared To
Union H i ~ hSc hool D i s t r i c t s And Their Feeder Elementarv D i s t r i c t s
The ratios of students per d i s t r i c t administrator and support s t a f f of
union high school d i s t r i c t s and their feeder elementary d i s t r i c t s were
compared to the average of a l l unified d i s t r i c t s of comparable size. The
purpose o f t h i s comparison was to determine whether the u n i f i c a t i o n of a
union high school d i s t r i c t with i t s feeder elementary d i s t r i c t s may
possibly result in fewer d i s t r i c t administrators and support s t a f f .
Table 1 shows that in a l l cases, unified d i s t r i c t s of comparable size had
more students per d i s t r i c t administrator and support s t a f f than the union
high school d i s t r i c t s and their feeder elementary d i s t r i c t s . Unified
d i s t r i c t ratios were an average of 38 percent higher for a l l size d i s t r i c t s
than union high school d i s t r i c t s and their feeder elementary d i s t r i c t s .
However, decisions to consolidate should not be based solely on t h i s
analysis because many other factors are involved.
TABLE 1
UNIFIED DISTRICTS COMPARED TO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS AND THEIR FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS
STUMMTS PER DISTRICT
ADUIMISTIUTOR AND
SU??ml STAFF
AVERAGE OF ALL SUPER LARGE, UNIFIED. URBAN DISTRICTS -290
PmXNIX UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 13 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 132
GLENDALE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 2 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 253
AVERAGE OF ALL LARGE. UNIFIED, URBAN DISTRICTS -307
TEMPE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 2 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 184
YUUA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 5 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 177
TOLLESON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 5 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 119
AVERAGE OF ALL LARGE, UNIFIED, RURAL DISTRICTS -206
CASA GRANDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 4 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 115
AGUA FRIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 2 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 126
AVERAGE OF ALL MEDIU, UNIFIED. RURAL DISTRICTS -174
BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 4 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 185
AVERAGE OF ALL SMALL, UNIFIED, RURAL DISTRICTS' 126
AVERAGE OF ALL SMALL, ISOLATED, UNIFIED, RURAL DISTRICTS' -101
SANTA CRUZ VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 3 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 9 5
PATAGONIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 2 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 48
VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AN0 3 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 62
ANTELOPE UNION HIGH SCHOOL AN0 3 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 77
BICENTENNIAL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND 4 FEEDER ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS 54
'krul l r u r a l and smal l i s o l a t e d r u r a l d i s t r i c t s r e r e a n a l y z e d t o g e t h e r because s m l l u n i o n
h i g h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s and t h a i r f e e d e r elementary d i s t r i c t s a r e a m i x t u r e o f both C.t.pories.
Source: C o m p i l e d frm A r i z o n a Departmonk of E d u c a t i o n d a t a f o r 213 d i s t r i c t s .
w
Instructional Costs Per Dollar Of Administration Do Not Vary Sianificantly
With D i s t r i c t Size
To determine the relationship between instructional and administrative
costs as the size o f a d i s t r i c t increases, the 30 sample d i s t r i c t s were
categorized by size. The total instructional costs of the d i s t r i c t s in
each size category were added and then this figure was divided by the total
administrative costs of a l l d i s t r i c t s i n the same category. The resulting
amount represents the number of dollars spent on instruction for every
dollar spent on administration. Our analysis indicates there appears to be
no clear correlation between d i s t r i c t size and instructional costs per
d o l l a r o f administration.
However, for each administrative dollar spent, the super large and large
d i s t r i c t s in our sample spent a l i t t l e more f o r instruction than medium,
small, and small isolated d i s t r i c t s .
D i s t r i c t s With Hiah Assessed Valuations And Hiah Student Standard Test
Scores Do Not Necessarily Have Hiah Administrative Costs
Administrative costs were compared to assessed valuation to determine
whethzr d i s t r i c t s with high assessed valuations had higher administrative
costs Administrative costs were also exami :d to determine their effect,
i f ar on the standard test scores of d i s t r i c t students.
The results of our comparisons indicate there appears to be no relation
between administrative costs and assessed valuation, and administrative
costs and standard test scores.
CONCLUS I ONS AND RECOWENDAT I QN
Our review of administrative costs and the number of administrators among
Arizona school d i s t r i c t s revealed the following:
@ Larger-size d i s t r i c t s are more cost effective in terms of d i s t r i c t
administrative costs Der student and number of students per d i s t r i c t
administrator. Small isolated d i s t r i c t s are the least cost effective.
School-level administrative costs Der student and the number of
students per school administrator do not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y with
d i f f e r e n t size d i s t r i c t s , except that small isolated d i s t r i c t s have
s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer students per school administrator.
High school d i s t r i c t s have higher t o t a l administrative costs Der
student than u n i f i e d and elementary d i s t r i c t s . Unified d i s t r i c t s are
the most cost e f f e c t i v e .
Unified d i s t r i c t s have more students per d i s t r i c t administrator and
support s t a f f than union high school d i s t r i c t s and t h e i r feeder
elementary d i s t r i c t s functioning as separate d i s t r i c t s .
A recommendation from our study i s that
@ The statutory d e f i n i t i o n of a small isolated school d i s t r i c t should be
rev i ewed .
CHAPTER 2
COUPARl SONS OF AIM1 Nl STRATI VE COSTS OF
ARIZONA'S SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO OTHER STATES
In comparing Arizona's administrative s t a f f i n g and costs to those of other
states and nationally, the following questions were addressed:
8 What percentage of Arizona's t o t a l operating expenditures i s spent on
administration, and how does t h i s percentage compare with other similar
states?
8 Does Arizona spend more on administration per student than other
similar states?
a Does Arizona have more administrators per student than other states or
when compared nationally?
8 Does Arizona have more school d i s t r i c t s or more small school d i s t r i c t s
compared to other states with a similar population growth rate?
Our analysis of numbers of administrators of Arizona's school d i s t r i c t s to
other states included comparisons with the national average. Our analysis
of administrative costs in Arizona to other states included comparisons
with eight sample states w i tk a high population growth rate l i k e Arizona.
See Appendix A for additional information on the scope of these comparisons
and methodology.
FINIINGS AH) ANALYSES
Arizona's D i s t r i c t Administrative Costs Per Student Are Lower Than Most
States -led
Arizona spent less on d i s t r i c t administration per student than most states
in our sample. However, Utah spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y less per student on
administration than any state selected for comparison. (See Chart 5, page
24.)
Also, when the r a t i o of students to administrators in Arizona was compared
with those of other states, Arizona had a s l i g h t l y higher r a t i o of students
per d i s t r i c t administrator than the national average, but a lower r a t i o
than the sample states. However, Arizona's r a t i o of students per school
administrator was higher than the national average and a l l states sampled,
except Utah. (See Charts 6 and 7.)
We discussed the reason for Utah's low administrative costs with the Utah
3epartment of Education and the National Center for Education S t a t i s t i c s .
Both replied that Utah has r e l a t i v e l y few d i s t r i c t s , most of which are
large- and medium-size d i s t r i c t s ; Arizona has numerous very small
d i s t r i c t s . As a result, Utah is able to operate with fewer administrators
per student. However, we also found that some states with considerably
fewer d i s t r i c t s than Arizona, such as Florida and Nevada, have higher
administrative costs per student.
CHART 5
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PER STUDENT
ARIZONA AND SAMPLE STATES
FISCAL YEAR 198%90
$176
GEORGIA
5219
WASH
$237
CAUF
sat3
FLORIDA w NEVADA
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department of Education and the sample
states
24
CHART 6
STUDENTS PER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
ARIZONA, SAMPLE STATES, AND NATION
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department of Education and the National
Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s . (Nevada was excluded because i t reported c e r t i f i e d
administrators o n l y . )
CHART 7
STUDENTS PER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR
ARIZONA, SAMPLE STATES, AND NATION
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
600
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department o f Education and the National
Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s . (Nevada was excluded because it reported c e r t i f i e d
admi n i s t r a t o r s on1 y . )
Arizona D i s t r i c t s Have A Similar Percentage Of Administrators As Other
States
In fiscal year 1989-90, Arizona's proportion of d i s t r i c t and school
administrators and support s t a f f s to total employees was comparable to the
average of the selected states, but s l i g h t l y higher than the national
average. Administrators and support s t a f f averaged 12.8 percent of total
employees in Arizona, while in the sample states the average was
12.7 percent, and the national average was 11.8 percent.
Based on our sample d i s t r i c t s , Arizona spent 12.3 percent of a l l school
d i s t r i c t operating expenditures on administration (5.1 percent on d i s t r i c t
administration and 7.2 percent on school administration); the sample states
spent an average of 11.8 percent.
Arizona Has More Small D i s t r i c t s Than Many Other States
A comparison of the number of d i s t r i c t s by size clearly indicates that
Arizona has a majority o f small and very small d i s t r i c t s . Arizona has more
small and very small d i s t r i c t s than half the sample states in our
comparison. Only Missouri had a larger percentage of d i s t r i c t s with fewer
than 600 average daily attendance.
Table 2 summarizes the number of school d i s t r i c t s by size in each of the
states selected. (The number of d i s t r i c t s for Arizona and other states and
the d i s t r i c t size categories vary depending on the source of information.
For t h i s comparison, National Center for Education S t a t i s t i c s ' numbers were
used.
F i f t y percent of a l l school d i s t r i c t s in- A,rizona have fewer than 600
students, while Utah, Nevada, and Georgia have r e l a t i v e l y few d i s t r i c t s
with fewer than 600 students, Florida has no d i s t r i c t s that small, and
Florida, Utah, and Nevada have only one d i s t r i c t with fewer than 1,000
students. Other comparisons show that Utah has fewer administrators per
student and spends s i g n i f i c a n t l y less on d i s t r i c t administration per
student than any of the other states studied.
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF DISTRICTS BY STUDENT POPULATION SIZE
IN SELECTED STATES
Large Med i tlrn Srna I I Very Small
Average Total
Dai l y Number Of (5000 or Percent (1000 to Percent (600 t o Percent (Less Percent
Attendance D i s t r i c t s more) o f Total 4999) of Total 999) of Total than 600) o f Total
C a l i f o r n i a 4,437,940 1,074 220 20% 33 1 31% 104 10% 41 9 39%
I Texas 3,075,333 1,062 105 10 320 3 0 159 15 478 45
Missouri 727.777 543 30 6 137 25 88 16 288 5 3
Washington 755,141 295 4 4 15 9 2 3 1 3 8 13 121 4 1
1 Georgia 1,854,097 186 49 26 122 66 6 3 9 5
I 1 F l o r i d a 1,646,583 67 4 3 64 23 3 4 1 2 0 0
/ Utah 408,917 40+ 18 45 16 40 1 3 4 10
Nevada 172,993 17 5 29 8 4 7 1 6 3 18
I * The size o f one d i s t r i c t was not reported.
I Source
: National Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s "Public Elementary and Secondary Schools
and Agencies i n the United States and Outlying Areas: School Year 1989-90".
TABLE 3
BENEFITS PROVIDED TO ADMINISTRATORS
PERCENT OF ARIZONA PERCENT Of NATIONAL
SAYPLE DISTRICTS, SAMPLE DISTRICTS,
BENEFITS' OFFERING BENEFIT OFFERING BENEFIT
Vacation 96.67Z 73.701
Sick Leave 96.67 98.49
Personal Leave 90.00 90.60
Sabbatical Leave 40.08 59.40
Medical Insurance 100.00 98.00
Dental Insurance 90.00 85.20
Vision Care Insurance 50.00 46.90
Prescription Drugs 96.67 76.89
Income Protection Insurance 40.08 41.79
Group L i f e Insurance 96.67 79.50
Severance pay4 56.67 37.79
T u i t i o n Reimbursement 10.09 35.39
Convention Attendance 93.33 81 -28
Professional Dues 83.33 68.76
Transportation 108.00' 96.09‘
Cost of Physical Exam 23.33 38.09
Professional L i a b i l i t y Insurance 53.33 72.56
Retirement Plan (Other than the 10.0Q 4.39
State Retirement Plan)
Housing or Housing Allowance 13.33 N/A'
othera 40.09 MIA'
These benefits are provided to superintendents, associate/assistant
superintendents. and/or principals.
Arizona s t a t i s t i c s are based on our survey of the 39 Arizona sample d i s t r i c t s .
Mat ional s t a t i s t i c s are obtained from the Educational Research Service Report
sumnary published i n School Business A f f a i r s . August 1991.
Severance Pay - includes unused sick and/or vacation leave.
' Transportation - includes provisions f o r mi leage allowance, use of a vehicle
for business only. and use of a vehiele for business and c m u t i n g .
' Transportat ion - Includes provisions f o r mi l cage al lowance. annual al lowranee,
monthly allowance. or some other transportation provision. (This provision i s
not s p e c i f i c a l l y defined by the Educational Research Service.)
' H/A - This information i s not available on a national basis.
Other - includes behefl ts ssch as bereavement leave, cafeter l a plan packages.
tax-sheltered annuity, ana trm l i f e insurance.
r
Comparisons between Utah and Arizona are p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable due to the
demographic s i m i l a r i t y of the two states. Both states have two major
metropolitan areas and numerous small communities scattered throughout.
However, Utah has only 40 school d i s t r i c t s whi le Arizona has 238 and 118 of
these have fewer than 600 students. Utah's small number of school
d i s t r i c t s is considered to be an important factor in the state's a b i l i t y to
maintain lower d i s t r i c t administrative costs per student than Arizona and
national ly.
Arizona Administrators Receive The Same Tvoes Of Benefit Packa~es As A
National Sample
As shown in Table 3, a comparis~n of the percentage sf benefits arovided by
d i s t r i c t s generally without cost to school d i s t r i c t admin :raters in
Arizona and nationally indicates that Arizona administrators receive a
higher percentage of certain benefits and a lower percentage of others, but
for many benefits there were no significant differences.
Our review of administrative costs and the number of administrators in
Arizona compared to the nation and selected states indicated the following:
Arizona spends s l i g h t l y less on administration per student than most of
the other states in our comparison. However, Utah spends s i g n i f i c a n t l y
less on administration per student than the other states in the study.
@ The number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator in Arizona i s similar
to most of the other states selected for comparison, except Utah and
Georgia, which have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher number of students per
administrator.
@ Arizona's total administrative expenditures account for about 12
percent of total operating expenditures. D i s t r i c t administrative
expenditures are 5 percent of total operating expenditures. These
percentages are about the same as other states with similar population
growth.
@ In comparison with other states, Arizona has more very small (5Q
percent have fewer than 600 students) school d i s t r i c t s which may result
in higher administrative costs.
CHAPTER 3
COMPARISONS OF CHANGES IN ARIZONA'S AND OTHER STATES'
SCHOOL DISTRICT ADUlNlSTRATlVE COSTS OVER TIME
This chapter addresses changes in numbers of administrators and
administrative costs over several years, changes in administrative costs
compared to i n f l a t i o n , and changes in instructional costs, and answers the
following questions:
How does Arizona's r a t i o of students per d i s t r i c t administrator compare
with the nation and the sample states over the last few years?
e Are there fewer teachers per d i s t r i c t administrator now than i n the
past?
8 Have d i s t r i c t administrative expenditures increased at a faster rate
than instructional expenditures and i n f l a t i o n ? Do expenditures for
administration represent a larger percentage of t o t a l expenditures now
than i n the past?
8 Have administrative costs increased because of increases i n Federal and
State programs and expenditures?
e Have administratorsR salaries increased at a faster rate than teachers'
salaries, and i n f l a t i o n ?
FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
Arizona's Ratio Of Students Per D i s t r i c t Administrator Has Chanaed Very
L i t t l e Over The Past Several Years
Chart 8, page 32, shows that Arizona's r a t i o of number of students per
d i s t r i c t administrator has varied only s l i g h t l y over the period 1986-87
through 1989-90. These ratios were higher than the national average, but
considerably lower than the average of the sample states. The sample
states' average was 773 in 1986-87 and 908 in 1989-90.
Nationally, the number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator rose s l i g h t l y
over the period, from 495 in 1986-87 t~ 526 in 1989-90. In Arizona, the
number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator dropped s l i g h t l y over the
period from 615 in 1986-87 to 605 in 1989-90.
CHART 8
STUDENTS PER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
ARIZONA, SAMPLE STATES, AND NATION
FROM FISCAL YEARS 1986-87 THROUGH 1989-90
o ARIZONA a SAMPLE STATES o PlATlQNAl AVERAGE
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department o f Education and the National
Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s
Utah, one of the sample states in the comparison, had a markedly higher
ratio of number of students per administrator than any of the other sample
states: 1,841 students per administrator in 1986-87 increasing to 1,345 in
1989-90.
Arizona's D i s t r i c t Administrator Staffina Has Not Increased Uhen Compared
To Teacher Staffina Over The Past Several Years
Chart 9 indicates that Arizona has had s l i g h t l y more teachers per d i s t r i c t
administrator t h a ~ -ne national average, but considerably fewer teachers
per d i s t r i c t administrator than the sample states. Chart 9 also indicates
that the r a t i ~o f teachers to d i s t r i c t administrators for Arizona and
nationwide has remained f a i r l y constant over the past several years.
CHART 9
TEACHERS PER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
ARIZONA, SAMPLE STATES, AND NATION
FROM FISCAL YEAR S-1 THROUGH 1-90
o ARKOM + SAMPLE STATES o NATIONAL AVERAGE
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department of Education and the National
Center f o r Education S t a t i s t i c s
In addition, a May 4988 a r t i c l e published by the Educational Research
Service concluded that nationally, the number of teachers per central
o f f i c e professional s t a f f member, including administrative and professional
s t a f f , has remained constant since 1982-83 at about 33-35 teachers per
central o f f i c e professional s t a f f member (Robinson).
The main reason for the higher number of teachers per administrator in the
sample states i s the s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher ratios of Georgia and Utah.
A h i n i s t r a t i v e Costs Have Increased A t The Same Rate As Instructional Costs
D i s t r i c t administrative and instructional costs have increased at about the
same rate, but at a rate almost four times greater than the increase in the
Consumer Price Index ZCPI) over the same time period. Two reasons for the
large increase in costs in Arizona are an increase in salaries over the
past few years (also, see page 35) and an increase in the number of
students (about 17 percent over the last decade). Another reason for the
substantial increase in administrative costs i s that expenditures for
medical and health insurance increased dramatically in the last ten years.
The Health Insurance Association of America in Washington, D.C., which
monitors national expenditures for employee health and medical insurance
benefits, reported that expenditures increased about 250 percent between
1980 and 1990, although some increases may be due to changes in coverage.
(See Chart 10.)
CHART 10
INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS COMPARED TO INSTRUCTIONAL
COSTS AND THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX IN ARIZONA
FROM FISCAL YEARS 1981-82 THROUGH 1-90
AOnINISTRATIVE COSTS + 1NSTRUCTIO)IAL COSTS 0 CONSUKR PRICE INDEX
Source: Compiled from data provided by the Arizona Department of Education
34
Administrators' Salaries Have Increased A t A Rate Greater Than I n f l a t i o n
For a national sample during the period 1984-85 through 1990-91, salaries
of superintendents, principals, business managers, and teachers increased
about 37 to 40 percent, while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased only
24 percent. The Arizona sample d i s t r i c t s reported that salaries of
superintendents increased 31 percent, business managers about 41 percent,
principals 28 percent, and teachers 27 percent. (See Table 4.)
Therefore, salaries of the sample of Arizona's superintendents, principals,
and teachers have increased more than the CPI during the period 1984-85
through 1990-91, but less than the national sample. The sample of Arizona
business managers' salaries, however, increased more than the CPI and
4 percent more than the national sample.
TABLE 4
INCREASE OF SALARIES IN ARIZONA COMPARED
TO NATIONAL SAMPLE, 1984-85 THROUW 1990-91
Average Salary
Posit ion
1984-85 1990-91 Percentage
(rounded to nearest of Increase
hundred)
Superintendent Arizona Sample $59,700 $78,308 31%
National Sample 57,000 79,900 40
Business Manager Arizona Sample 39,800 55,900 4 1
National Sample 40,300 55,100 37
Principal Arizona Sample 40,800 52,008 28
National Sample 39,400 55,200 40
Teacher Arizona Sample 23,700 30,200 2 7
National Sample 23,600 32,900 39
Source: Educational Research Service, &ri es Paid Professional Personnel i n Pub1 i c
School s , 1984-85 and 1990-91 edi ti ons
Except for business managers, the rate o f increase in salaries for Arizona
superintendents, principals, and teachers has been similar (27 to 31
percent), indicating that Arizona administrators' salaries have not
increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y at the expense of teachers' salaries.
Administrative Costs Were A Small Portion Of Maintenance And O~erationF und
Ex~enditures Over The Past Ten Years
D i s t r i c t administrative costs and instructional costs as percentages of
total Maintenance and Operation Fund expenditures were compared to
determine whether d i s t r i c t administrative costs have increased at a higher
rate than instructional costs over time.
Expenditures for d i s t r i c t administration and for instruction in Arizona
have remained very consistent over the period 1981-82 through 1989-90.
D i s t r i c t administrative expenditures have consistently accounted for about
4.6 percent o f t o t a l Maintenance and Operation Fund expenditures, while
expenditures for instruction accounted for about 60 percent.
Increased Federal And State Proiect Ex~enditures Over The Last Ten Years
Uav Have Resulted In Some Increases In Administrative Costs
On a percentage basis, the increase in Federal projects expenditures has
not been as great as that for State projects. However, other factors (such
as increases in the number of students, salaries, and the costs of health
insurance) have had a greater impact on increased administrative
expenditures than Federal and State projects.
Total expenditures for Federal projects by Arizona school d i s t r i c t s have
increased from $62.6 m i l l i o n i n 1981-82 to $109.5 m i l l i o n in 1990-91, or
approximately 75 percent. Total expenditures for State projects have
increased from $1.7 m i l l i o n to $18.7 m i l l i o n , or 1,000 percent. However,
in f i s c a l year 1990-91, total expenditures for State projects were only 0.6
percent of t o t a l Arizona school d i s t r i c t expenditures, and expenditures for
Federal projects were only 3.3 percent of the t o t a l .
One reason cited by some administrators for increased d i s t r i c t
administrative costs is an increase in paperwork caused by an increase in
the number of programs for Federal and State projects.
A 1987 Stanford University study found that while the Federal government
has become increasingly involved in the funding and management of
education, the high point came in 1977 with programs for rural, urban,
migrant, needy, handicapped, and other specific types of students. The
study also found that Elementary and Secondary Educational Act of 1965
(ESEA) Federal programs resulted in higher administrative and instructional
costs than did non-ESEA programs.
The Stanford study concluded that in comparison to local, Federal ESEA, and
non-ESEA funded programs, State funded projects had resulted in the lowest
levels of administrative expenditures and s t a f f i n g (Administrative Science
Quarterlv).
Our review of changes in administrative costs and the number of
administrators in Arizona over time found that:
at Arizona's r a t i o of number of students per d i s t r i c t administrator has
remained f a i r l y constant over the last few years. However, t h i s r a t i o
is higher than the national average, but considerably lower than the
average of the sample states.
e The r a t i o of teachers to d i s t r i c t administrators has remained f a i r l y
constant over the past several years. Arizona has s l i g h t l y more
teachers per d i s t r i c t administrator than the nation, but s i g n i f i c a n t l y
fewer than the states in our sample.
Costs for instruction and d i s t r i c t administration have increased at
about the same rate since fiscal year 1981-82. However, such costs
increased 125 percent during this period compared to 32 percent for the
Consumer Price Index. increases in student population, salaries, and
health insurance are among several reasons for this disparity.
e As a percentage of Maintenance and Operation Fund expenditures,
administrative expenditures remained f a i r l y constant during the period
1981-82 through 1989-90.
0 In a sample of Arizona districts, the salaries of superintendents,
principals, and teachers increased at a rate lower than the average of
a national sample during the period 1984-85 through 1990-91. The
salary of business managers increased at a rate slightly higher than
the national sample during the same period. However, the salaries of
all employees in the Arizona sample and the national sample increased
at a rate higher than the Consumer Price Index.
CHAPTER 4
ARIZONA'S SCHOOL DISTRICT REWIDKEEPING SYSTEM
In compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes 915-271, the Uniform System of
Financial Records (USFR) was developed by the Office of the Auditor General
in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Education to provide a
uniform system of financial accounting and reporting for school districts.
The USFR chart of accounts requires school districts to classify
expenditures by fund, function, and object code.
Currently, school districts may report expenditures at either a sumnary or
a detailed function code level and neither level is required for capital
expenditures.
School Districts Generally Did Not Properly Use Function Codes Prescribed
In The USFR Chart Of Accounts
Almost all of the 30 sample school districts included in our study used
function codes in a manner that was not consistent with guidelines included
in the USFR chart of accounts. Specifically, the following deficiencies
were noted.
a Administrative salaries were not always charged to the proper function
code category .
Salaries of administrators serving more than one function were not
allocated among function codes.
a Summary function codes were used as detailed function codes. For
example, employee benefits and miscellaneous expenditures were charged
to summary function codes rather than charging these expenditures to
the appropriate detailed function codes.
a Expenditures were not always reported by function code.
The USFR Chart Of Accounts is Not Comoarable With The Federal Chart Of
Accounts
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement has developed and maintains a manual entitled Financial
Accountina for Local and State School Svstems 1990 that is intended to
serve as the standard for a l l states. The manual contains a uniform chart
of accounts for school d i s t r i c t financial reporting that provides a more
detailed system of account codes than is presently included in the USFR
chart of accounts.
The USFR chart of accounts is not presently comparable with the Federal
chart of accounts. Arizona is one of only eight states and Washington,
D.C., that d~ not currently use the Federal chart of accounts, or use a
chart of accounts that cannot be reconciled to the Federal chart of
accounts. The Auditor General was not aware that Arizona did not comply
with the Federal chart ~f accounts prior t o t h i s study.
The following actions should be implemented by the Auditor General, in
conjunction with the Arizona Department of Education and reviewed by the
School Finance Advis~ry Committee, t~ improve school d i s t r i c t recordkeeping
and comparability of school d i s t r i c t financial data among school d i s t r i c t s
within the State and nationally.
e Function codes in the USFR chart of accounts should be revised based on
the chart of accounts developed by the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. This would
s i g n i f i c a n t l y expand function codes to provide greater detail in
recording expenditures, including administrative expenditures, and
improve the accuracy and comparability of financial accounting and
reporting.
8 Arizona school d i s t r i c t s should be required to report expenditures of
a l l funds at the detailed function code level. While the USFR allows
school d i s t r i c t s to report expenditures at the summary code level,
doing so reduces the c o l l e c t i b i l i t y of detailed expenditure
information, and the comparability of financial data among school
d i s t r i c t s .
REGIONAL SERVICES AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CHAPTER 5
REGIONAL SERVICES IN ARIZONA
Our study of county school superintendents and other regional service
providers in Arizona determined that the fol lowing questions were relevant:
What county school superintendent duties are required and allowed i n
statute? How can these duties be modified to provide more
cost-effective services?
@ @ Are Arizona county school superintendents comparable i n relation to the
types of services they provide?
e What other regional services are being provided to school d i s t r i c t s i n
Arizona? Who i s providing these services?
e Are these other regional services resulting i n a more cost-effective
educational system?
We conducted a survey of a1 l counties and then selected the Maricopa, Pima,
Pinal, and Yavapai County School Superintendents' offices for further
on-site review. Our sample was judgmentally selected, based on information
gathered in our i n i t i a l phone survey. The most important c r i t e r i a for
choosing the sample was the number and types sf service programs being
administered by county school s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s b f f i c e s . Other factors
considered were the number of county school superintendent employees and
the number of d i s t r i c t s in the county.
Most Of The Duties Currently Performed Bv County School Su~erintendents Are
Re~uiredB Y Statute
These duties consist of the following:
1. Apportion school monies and n o t i f y the country treasurer and the school
d i s t r i c t s of the amounts apportioned.
2. Process warrants and maintain a warrant register.
3. Maintain school d i s t r i c t revenue and expenditure records.
4. Prepare and receive reports t o a i d in the school d i s t r i c t budgeting
process.
5. Cause a l l regular and special elections to be conducted.
6. Appoint school d i s t r i c t governing board members to f i l l vacancies.
7. Administer the special county school reserve fund, including
accommodation d i s t r i c t s .
8. Maintain records of effective and expiration dates of teachers' and
administrators' c e r t i f i c a t e s .
9. Issue c e r t i f i c a t e s of educational convenience.
10. Provide special education services to handicapped pupils, i f not being
provided by the school d i s t r i c t governing board.
11. Monitor home and private schooling.
12. F i le a report showing amounts received and amounts expended during the
fiscal year with the superintendent of public instruction.
13. Submit school d i s t r i c t annual financial reports to the superintendent
of public i n s t r u c t i o n .
14. Perform other administrative duties.
Records Maintenance And Warrant process in^ Account FOP UD To 61 Percent of
Total Staff Time SoenP In Required Statutorv Duties a
We asked each county school superintendent's o f f i c e in our sample to
d i s t r i b u t e s t a f f time based on the duties required by statute, and in the
operation sf the o f f i c e . The duties and the time required to perform them
were then grouped into the following three categories:
1. Records Maintenance and Warrant Processing - Phis includes the
maintenance of detailed revenue and expenditure records, and effective
and expiration dates of teachers' and administrators' c e r t i f i c a t e s . I t
also includes processing warrants, maintaining the warrant egisters
and making and recording deposits. The time spent in this category
ranged from 37 to 61 percent of total s t a f f time spent on required
statutory duties.
2. Administrative Duties - Phis includes issuing c e r t i f i c a t e s of
educational convenience; maintaining and reviewing achievement test
results f o r students attending a private or home school; transporting
students from unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s ; operating accomtnodation
d i s t r i c t s ; conducting elect ions; appointing governing board members to
f i l l vacancies; assisting d i s t r i c t s i n the budgeting process; and other
miscellaneous duties. The time spent in this category ranged from 21.7
to 32.4 percent of total s t a f f time spent on required statutory duties.
3. Office O~erations - This includes the day-to-day operation of the
o f f i c e and the county school superintendent's position. The time spent
in this category ranged from 21.2 to 30.6 percent of t ~ t a ls t a f f time
spent on statutory duties.
Arizona Revised Statutes Allow Countv School Su~erintendents To Perform
Additional Duties And Provide Additional Services To D i s t r i c t s
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) $15-365 enables county school
superintendents to establish service programs that are defined in statute
as those programs that deliver services most e f f i c i e n t l y and cost
e f f e c t i v e l y as m u l t i d i s t r i c t cir multicounty operations. I f a county school
superintendent decides to establish a service program, i t must be made
available to a l l d i s t r i c t s in the county, and the costs must be shared on a
user basis.
County school superintendents may establish special small d i s t r i c t service
programs to meet the special needs of d i s t r i c t s with a total student count
of less than 600. However, most special small d i s t r i c t service program
costs are paid by the county through county equalization assistance, and
costs not f u l l y covered are paid by users. In some instances, county
school superintendents allocate county equalization assistance monies
d i r e c t l y to small d i s t r i c t s .
Services Proarams Provided Bv Csuntv School Superintendents Vary Wideiv
Among Count i es .
Service programs can be grouped into four general categories:
administrative services, special education services, .instructional
services, and technology.
Administrative services consist of grant administrat ion, cooperative
purchasing , data processing networks, and bookkeeping .
Table 5 shows that 11 county school superintendents administer Federal
grants for d i s t r i c t s . This includes f i l i n g grant applications, accounting
for grant monies, and preparing the related completion reports. These 11
county school superintendents are performing this service through special
small d i s t r i c t service programs. The Mohave County School Superintendent
operates a Statewide purchasing cooperative. Two county school
superintendents (Apache and Pinai) administer their Own data processing
consortiums. A1 l county school superintendents with the exception of
Apache, Navajo, PinaI, and Yuma, serve as bookkeepers for one or more
d i s t r i c t s i n their counties, Bookkeeping duties include making deposits,
i
TABLE 5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROVIDED BY
COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
DATA
GRANT COOPERATIVE PROCESS1 mi
ADMINISTRATION WRCHASI NG CONSORT 1 UY BOOKKEEP1 NG
APACHE X X
COCH I SE X X
COCONI WO X X
GILA X
GRAHAM X X
GREENLEE X
LA PAZ X X
UARICOPA X X
W A V E X
NAVAJO X
PIYA X
PIllAL X
U N T A CRUZ X X
Y AVAPAI X X
YUYA -X - - -
Total --1 1 --1 --2 --1 1
Source: Phone survey of county school superintendents and their staffs.
preparing reports, and maintaining a l l of the d i s t r i c t ' s accounting
records. This is in addition to the accounting records maintained by the
county school superintendent, as required by statute.
County school super i ntendents serve as bookkeepers for al I 11 transport i ng
d i s t r i c t s . Transporting d i s t r i c t s , l i k e regular d i s t r i c t s , are required to
prepare budgets, keep financial records, and f i l e reports. Since they do
not have administrative s t a f f s , budgetary, recordkeeping, and reporting
responsibilities have been assumed by county school superintendents. Nine
county school superintendents are serving as bookkeepers for approximately
59 percent of the d i s t r i c t s with a student population of 100 or less.
S ~ e c i a l education services are designed to meet the needs of exceptional
students, defined i n t h i s study as those students who are gifted or have
physical, mental, or emotional handicaps.
County school superintendents are required by A.R.S. 545-764 to provide
special education to handicapped students i f i t is not provided by the
student's d i s t r i c t . As shown on Map 3, page 49, 12 county school
superintendents provide some special education services to handicapped
students at small d i s t r i c t s . In the counties highlighted in ye1 low on
Map 3, specialists travel to schools so that students may be served in the
least r e s t r i c t i v e environment. Special education services are provided at
central locations in the counties highlighted in red. Centralizing
services at one location may seem e f f i c i e n t ; however, students may not be
able to travel the distance required to reach the central location.
Therefore, distance could prohibit a student from receiving needed
services. Coconino County provides four d i s t r i c t s with funding that is
used to h i r e therapists.
In addition to the services shown on Map 3, several county school
superintendents provide special education resource consultants to assist
classroom teachers in adapting their rooms, lessons, and materials to the
+. needs of exceptional students. qecial education may also encompass
programs for preschool chi ldren, at-r isk populations, and adults.
Currently, Maricopa and Pima County School Superintendents provide
services to diagnose and prescribe programs t o t r e a t a t - r i s k preschoolers.
Pima County also provides many adult education programs.
47
Instructional services may be provided d i r e c t l y through teachers who v i s i t
schools on a shared basis or by means of a distance learning system.
Self-instructional laboratories set up in individual schools are also
d i r e c t instructional services. Indirect instructional support consists of
curriculum assistance in specialized areas from consultants and resource
centers, competency-based objectives (e.g., essential s k i l l s ) , and test
banks (e.g., student assessment plans). Areas of curriculum assistance
include English as a second Ianguage, foreign language, social studies,
science, special education, and vocational education. Instructional
services also include inservice training for teachers, special programs
(e.g., career education, migrant education, and vocational education), and
special presentations (e.g., a children's theater performance) at the
schools. (See Table 6 . )
TABLE 6
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY
CQUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
DIRECT CURRICULUM TEACHER SPECIAL SPECIAL
ASSISTANCE SUPPORT TRAINIM PROGRAYS PRESENTATIONS
APACHE X
COCHI SE X
coconr NO X
GILA
GRAHAM
GREENLEE
LA PAZ
W I C O P A
YOHAVE
NAVAJO
PIYA X
PINAL x X X
UNTA CWZ
Y AVAPAI X
WYA - - - -X -
Totals -2 -6 -4 --2 --3
Source: Phone survey of county school superintendents and their staffs.
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY
COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
Therapists (12)
Psych/Counse~ors (1 0)
a Teachers (6)
Nurses (4)
o Social Workers (1)
A Chem Abuse Program (3)
Itinerant Services
. - Centralized Services
L. L Both
Technoloay serves both educational and administrative purposes. I t
includes hardware, software, and the training necessary to make optimum use
of these materials.
On-line networked data processing systems used by county school
superintendents are examples of technology supporting administrative
purposes. Technology, such as computers and telecommunications equipment,
can also support educational purposes. The addition of a modem allows
students using computers to access databanks and other students in
d i f f e r e n t locations. Some county school superintendents have supplied
hardware and software to smal l d i s t r i c t s by either d i r e c t l y purchasing the
hardware or providing the necessary funding to the d i s t r i c t s .
Maricopa. Pima. Pinal. And Yavapai Countv School Superintendents Offer
Uniaue Service Proarams
As previously mentioned on page 43, four county school superintendents'
o f f i c e s were selected for detailed review because of the unique programs
they o f f e r . A discussion of the unique service programs provided by each
of the four b ounty school superintendents follows.
Mar i copa
The Homeless Education Proaram (HEPI is for K-8 students l i v i n g within the
greater Phoenix area who, because of their homeless condition, cannot be
I)
enrolled in an established d i s t r i c t . Although the program's curriculum i s
closely aligned with the State's essential s k i l l s requirements, i t also
i ncorporates serv i ces necessary to meet the special needs of home less
children. Students are screened for physical, emotional, and psychological
needs, and then taught self-esteem and basic s k i l l s . Students are then
transported to the New Day School for regular education classes. HEP's
main objective i s t o s t a b i l i z e the educational side of these children's
l ives.
The East Valley Alternative Hiqh School (EVAHS) i n Chandler provides an
alternative school for grade 6-12 students who have dropped out or have
been suspended or expelled from t h e i r local d i s t r i c t s . SVAHS consists of
on-site group instruction and ind-:.er:sent study blocks. The program
currently serves 309 students, some of whom travel from as far as Laveen
and Peoria, and has a waiting l i s t of 35 students. Plans are underway to
open an alternative school in the west valley, offer vocational programming
for these students at the East Valley I n s t i t u t e of Technology, and
implement a program of computer-assisted instruction.
The Pima Countv Adu l t Educat ion (PCAE) program provides educat ional
services at no charge to adults l i v i n g in Pima County. The program was
established on the b e l i e f that when parents are more educated, school-age
children w i l l p r o f i t more from their educational opportunities. Therefore,
PCAE provides adults with opportunities for obtaining a basic education and
enhancing work and social s k i l l s .
PCAE offers classes in reading, writing, and math; GED preparation; English
as a second language; American l i f e s t y l e s ; test-taking s k i l l s ; computerized
accounting and word processing; and counseling to help overcome barriers to
education and employment. Free c h i l d care, transportation, job search
assistance, and job placement are also provided.
Pinal
The Pinal Countv Data Processina Consortium i s a data processing network in
which the county school superintendent's o f f i c e and 18 of the 19 d i s t r i c t s
in the county are on-line. This network eliminates duplication of e f f o r t
in entering financial transactions and maintaining accounting records.
Besides accounting and fiscal functions, the Consortium provides report
card processing, class scheduling, attendance reporting, and control of
supplies and fixed assets. The Consortium also offers consultation,
training, software modifications, and upgrades.
The county school superintendent participates in two intergovernmental
agreements (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Education (ADE). The f i r s t
IGA relates to Arizona Student Assessment Plan (ASAP) l e g i s l a t i o n that i s
intended to provide ways to assess a student's a b i l i t y to solve problems by
using what the student has learned. The Pinal County School
Superintendent's o f f i c e has contracted to provide training, technical
assistance, and materials regarding ASAP to 63 Arizona d i s t r i c t s , most of
which are small and rural. Through the second IGA, the Pinal County School
Superintendent i s processing and analyzing annual evaluation data for ADE's
chemical-abuse prevention program.
Yavaoa i
Although Yavapai County i s the 7th largest county in Arizona in square
miles, i t ranks 13th in average student population per d i s t r i c t . The
Yava~ai Countv Small Schools Project (YCSSP) was created to meet the
challenge of providing a variety of high-quality special services to a
low-incidence population in a low-density area. YCSSP, funded through
Federal and State grant monies and county appropriations, provides
i t i n e r a n t speech therapists, psychologists, and a social worker for 12
small d i s t r i c t s in the County.
d
In addition, YCSSP pays other e n t i t i e s for services they provide to small
d i s t r i c t s , such as occupational and physical therapists. The YCSSP also
assists d i s t r i c t s in setting up their own special small d i s t r i c t service
programs. For example, the YCSSP employs a consultant/program coordinator
to integrate the chemical-abuse prevention program into the present
curriculum o f e x i s t i n g health, science, and citizenship classes for a
n i n e - d i s t r i c t cooperative.
Variation In Services Provided BY Countv School Superintendents Mav Be Due
To Differences In County Sizes And Student Pooulations
The o f f i c e s of Arizona county school superintendents are d i f f e r e n t in
relation to the number, compositisn, and" location of d i s t r i c t s in their
counties, the number of students they serve, the size o f their s t a f f , and
county appropriations. These differences may contribute to the variety of
services they provide, Map 2 on page 11 and Tables 7 and 8 on pages 54 and
55, respectively, highlight some of the factors leading to disparities
among Arizona counties.
Map 2 shows that most counties consist of rural dis. .:ts. Arizona has 28
large d i s t r i c t s (5,000 or more students) i n s i x counties representing 12
percent of a l l d i s t r i c t s . The remaining counties have medium (600 to 4,999
students) and small (fewer than 600 students) d i s t r i c t s . The 187 medium
and small d i s t r i c t s comprise 83 percent of a l l d i s t r i c t s in Arizona. The
other 11 d i s t r i c t s , or 5 percent of the t o t a l , are transporting d i s t r i c t s .
Table 7 shows the r a t i o s o f students per square mile and per d i s t r i c t , and
the average number of square miles per d i s t r i c t and i l l u s t r a t e s that
geographical si'ze i s one important difference between counties. For
example, Coconino, the largest county, is 18,562 square miles and has
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF STUDENTSAND
SCHQOL DISTRICTS PER SQUARE MILE
CoCO(I1IIO
YOii 4Vt
APACHE
NAVAJO
PIYA
YMICOTA
YAVATAI
C r n I f L
WYA
PIllAL
GILA
GRAHAM
LA PAZ
GREEWLEE
UllTA can
M E R OF
STUOEllt MIYIER OF WmER OF
COUNTY
STUDENTS/ SQUARE MILES/
WrULATIOW XmKK STUDE WTS/ X' "X
SQUARE MILES ( A N )
SCHOOL
DISTRICTS SQUARE MILE DIS .CT DISTRICT
AW: Average Daily Membership
Source: Local Government Directory, July 1991: Annual Report of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction for fiscal year 1999-91.
8 d i s t r i c t s . Santa Cruz, the smallest county, is only 1,246 square miles
but has 6 d i s t r i c t s . Another important difference i s the density of
student population. Maricopa and Navajo Counties closely resemble each
other in geographic size (9,226 and 9,910 square miles, respectively), yet
there is a tremendous difference in the number of d i s t r i c t s and the density
of their student populations. Maricopa County has 338,384 students
attending 57 d i s t r i c t s . This means that, on average, there are 36.68
students per square mile and 5,937 students per d i s t r i c t . In contrast,
Navajo County has 16,342 students attending 11 d i s t r i c t s , resulting in 1.65
students per square mile and 1,486 students per d i s t r i c t .
Further study of the county school superintendents' offices reveals
variances in funding and staffing among the counties. (See Table 8.)
b
TABLE 8
COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS EXPENDED FOR ADMINISTRATION
OF COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS' OFFICES
IN FISCAL YEAR 1990-91
WUBER OF WYIER OF
APPROPRIATIONS CSS WIBER OF SCHOOL WLBER OF
EXPENDED EYPLOYEES SCHOOLS EYPLOYEES STUDENTS
APACHE S 178,298 9 3 1 2.838 13,532
COCHI SC 219.911 8 5 2 2,134 18,622
COCONI NO 291 ,747 6 3 7 2.065 18.113
GILA 169,247 5 2 4 891 7.328
GRAHAN 186,997 3 14 539 5.386
GREENLEE 95,329 3 3 256 2,888
LA PAZ 97.398 3 9 357 2,684
MARICWA 1,355,198 2 6 453 33,588 338,384
W A V E 168.419 5 38 1,527 15.439
NAVAJO 173,398 7 38 2,952 16.342
PIYA 435,835 14 189 10,771 99,226
PINAL 336.865 29 52 2.636 22.687
UNTA CRUZ 133,735 5 15 673 7,262
Y AVAPAI 279,516 7 45 1,739 15.986
YUYlr 174,375 5 3 3 2.249 21,881
CSS: County School Superintendent
Source: Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction ror Fiscal Year 1998-91.
i
The Tyoes Of Services And Areas Covered BY Other Reaional Service Providers
In Arizona Are Limited
Regional service programs and cooperative e f f o r t s among d i s t r i c t s have
been developed outside county school superintendents' offices. The larger,
more active and long-term programs, as shown in Table 9, formed the basis
of our study.
Data Processina Consortiums Provide Savinas
The Arizona Public Schools Computer Consortium (NAU Consortium) provides
data processing for financial and student service needs. The financial
system provides school d i s t r i c t s with general 'edger accounting, personnel
and payroll management, and supplies inventory and fixed asset control. I t
also generates reports. The student service system maintains records of
student d i s c i p l i n e , health, grades, transcripts, and special program
enrollment. Class scheduling is also provided.
Membership in the NAU Consortium is voluntary, yet 34 of 35 d i s t r i c t s in
Coconino, Mohave, and Yuma Counties and one d i s t r i c t in Maricopa County
currently participate. The Consortium is governed by an executive board.
The NALl Consortium is entirely funded by participating d i s t r i c t s . Each
d i s t r i c t pays a yearly base fee for each system used, as well as a usage
fee. During f i s c a l year 1990-91, the per student cost was $3-4 for the
financial and administrative system and $7-8 for the student service
system. In t o t a l , the cost per d i s t r i c t for services ranged from $3,500 to
$143,000. However the amount of cost savings to the d i s t r i c t s for
subscribing to the consortium rather than i n s t i t u t i n g their own data
processing systems i s not available. Similar consortiums in other states
have documented operating cost reductions of at least 40 percent for data
processing. Data processing eonsortiums provide additional savings by
cooperatively purchasing hardware and software, maintaining equipment, and
providing other related support services.
BASIC SERVICES PROVIDED
TABLE 9
EXAMPLES OF OTHER REGIONAL SERVICES IN ARIZONA
NUlER OF APPROXIHATE
YEAR COUNTIES ENTITIES EXPENDITURES
TYPE OF REGIONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHED SERVED SERVED FM 199b91
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DATA PROCESS1NS
Arizona Public Schools Computer Consortium 1974 4 35 SD S 752,000 Offers financial. student records. inventory, property, and
3 CSS special micro packages.
Navajo County Data Processing Consortium 1976 1 9 SD 371,000 Offers financial, student records, inventory, and property
1 CSS control systems.
2 CD
1 City
1 CCD
INSURANCE POOLS
Arizona School Risk Retention Trust 1986 15 103 SD 2,936,000 Provides property and general l i a b i l i t y insurance coverage.
Arizona Public Employee Trust 1980/ 2 11 SD 3,000.000 Provides health, dental, vision, and l i f e insurance coverage
1983 1 CTY for approximately 1.800 employees. Two trusts merged i n 1991.
3 C i t i e s
Employee Benefit Trust for Small School D i s t r i c t s 1979 2 8 SD 850.000 Provides health, dental, vision, and l i f e insurance coverage
for 450-500 employees.
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING
Mohave Educational Services Cooperative 1971 15 215 SD 200,000 Processed $20 m i l l i o n worth of goods and services (9 000
purchase orders through the cooperat i ve during 1990-91.
Provides some special education services and a media center.
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
VOCATlONAL EDUCATION
East Valley I n s t i t u t e of Technology D i s t r i c t 1973/ 1 10 SD 3,090.000 Offers 24 vocational and technical education programs for
1990 (1991-92 approximately 1.000 students. D i s t r i c t is in f i r s t year
budget ) of operat ion.
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
Maricopa Special Services Consortium 1971 1 3 SD 634.000 Provides special education services and at-risk programs.
Arizona Schools for the Deaf and Blind 1912 15 90 SD 28,370,000 Provides educational opportunitie5 for approximately 1,100
sensory impaired children.
TECHNOLOOY
Arizona Education Telecormnication Cooperative 1987 15 SD 84.000 Plans for coordinated uses of telecomnications, reviews
CCD technology i n i t i a t i v e s , and studies the f e a s i b i l i t y of a
UNIV statewide network.
CCDr Conmunity College D i s t r i c t s CTYr Counties
CDI Other County Departments SDx School D i s t r i c t s
CSSr County School Superintendents UNIVr Universities
i -
There Is A Trend Toward School D i s t r i c t s Establishing Or ~ a r t i c i ~ a t i nIan
Insurance Pools As A Means Of Reducins Costs For Various Tv~esO f Insurance
Legislation in 1986 allowed two or more public agencies to purchase
insurance j o i n t l y or to pool monies and r e t a i n r i s k s for property and
l i a b i l i t y losses, and workers1 compensation and d i s a b i l i t y claims. Arizona
School Risk Retention Trust provides property and general l i a b i l i t y
insurance coverage to d i s t r i c t s within the State. Membership in the Trust
has grown from the original five participating d i s t r i c t s to 103 d i s t r i c t s
representing a l l 15 counties. The Trust is governed by a nine-member board
elected by participating d i s t r i c t s .
Another type of trust is the employee benefit t r u s t . A t least six such
trusts currently provide health, dental, vision, and l i f e insurance
coverage for d i s t r i c t , county, and c i t y personnel. Two of these trusts are
l i s t e d as examples in Table 9, page 57. Most are for self-insurance with
stop-loss coverage provided by an insurance c a r r i e r . Other trusts simply
allow d i s t r i c t s to obtain lower premiums by pooling risks. A l l such trusts
are funded by participating personnel or d i s t r i c t s . Actual cost-savings
information i s not available from any of the trusts.
Coo~erative Purchasina Prooram Resulted In Sianificant Savinas To School
D i s t r i c t s
The Mohave Educat i ona l Serv i ces Cooperat i ve (MESC) provides a cooperat ive
purchasing service to school d i s t r i c t s on a Statewide basis. MESC1s
cooperative purchasing program began in 1985, and by 1991 over 95 percent
of Arizona school d i s t r i c t s participated in the program, MESC processed
9,000 purchase orders for computer hardware and software, and other related
items and services, worth $2Q m i l l i o n . MESC is funded e n t i r e l y by user
charges and grants. Each d i s t r i c t outside the county pays a one percent
service charge on the items i t purchases, The following examples
i l l u s t r a t e specific cost savings provided by the prograin.
D i s t r i c t s purchased computers costing approximately $14 mi l l ion through
MESC during 1990-91. Prices offered through MESC r.;sulted in a net
savings of two percent, or about $280,000, because of the volume. MESC
saved d i s t r i c t s an additional $360,000 on other contracts for hardware,
software, and assorted high-tech equipment. Additionally, through a
Statewide contract for VHS tapes, MESC saved $30-570 per t i t l e for a
total savings of over $200,000 on media purchases.
@ D i s t r i c t s realized savings through reduced bid preparation time.
Developing and approving specifications, drafting and d i s t r i b u t i n g
bids, maintaining current vendor l i s t s , publishing and evaluating bids,
and selecting vendors are time-consuming aspects of the bidding
process. D i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s estimate that i t costs between $500 and
$3,000 to issue one request for proposals. MESC maintains a catalog of
more than 100 bid contracts for which this enti re process has already
been performed, and estimates that this service has saved d i s t r i c t s at
l eas t $250,000.
Joint Vocational And Technical Education D i s t r i c t s Are Just Beginnina To
Develoo In Arizona
Legislation enacted in 1990 allowed the formation of j o i n t vocational and
technical education d i s t r i c t s . The East Vallev l n s t i t u t e of Technology
D i s t r i c t No. 301 was formed to provide vocational education programs.
During i t s f i r s t year of operation, 1991-92, the l n s t i t u t e is offering 24
vocational and technical education programs to approximately 1,000 students
in 10 d i s t r i c t s .
The l n s t i tute is funded through State aid and has appl ied for two grants.
It i s also authorized by statute to charge t u i t i o n for students from
nonmember d i s t r i c t s and assess property taxes, a1 though i t has not done
so. The l n s t i t u t e is governed by a board consisting of elected members.
Cost-savings information on the l n s t i t u t e is not available; however, the
tremendous i n i t i a l investment in equipment and f a c i l i t i e s required by
vocational and technical education programs and the large number of
programs offered by the l n s t i t u t e w i l l l i k e l y make i t f i n a n c i a l l y and
educationally a t t r a c t i v e to many d i s t r i c t s .
Soecial Education Proarams Have Enabled D i s t r i c t s To Provide Services Not
Otherwise Available To Educate Children With S ~ e c i a lN eeds
The Marico~a S ~ e c i a l Services Consortium, established through an
intergovernmental agreement, provides the services of psychologists, speech
pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, tdachers, and aides for
approximately 220 students. I t also provides special transportation for
handicapped students. Services are funded through user d i s t r i c t charges.
The Consortium also uses grant monies to provide preschool, counseling,
special and migrant education, and teacher training programs.
The Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (ASDB) promote and
maintain educational opportunities for sensory-impaired children. ASDB
operates numerous programs to meet Federal and State mandates, and serves
tns special needs of approximately 1,108 students.
ASDB established a p i l o t regional cooperative program to provide
educational services for sensory-impaired children. Currently, only the
North Central Region, based in Flagstaff, is funded to evaluate children,
and provide the specialized services of itinerant teachers, audiologists,
and interpretor tutors d i r e c t l y to students. This generally eliminates the
need for member d i s t r i c t s to h i r e specialists for low-incidence special
education needs or to send students to ASDB f a c i l i t i e s in Phoenix or
Tucson.
ASDB also operates regional services through two schools in Tucson and two
in Phoenix. They serve as examples of clrly childhxd outreach service
delivery to sensory-impaired children and rheir f a m i i ~ e s . ASDB i s funded
primarily by State appropriations; however, Federal monies and private
donations also provide some funding. Specific cost savings information is
not available.
The Maricopa Special Services Consortium and the ASDB programs have enabled
d i s t r i c t s to provide services not otherwise available, and meet Federal and
State mandates to educate children with special needs in the least
r e s t r i c t i v e environment.
TECHNOLOGY
A detailed discussion of telecommunications technology in Arizona begins on
page 69.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMlENDATlON
County school superintendents and school d i s t r i c t s each maintain
accounting records as required by statute thus causing a duplication o f
e f f o r t . County school superintendents are also required to maintain
records of teacher and administrator c e r t i f i c a t i o n dates, prepare warrant
registers, process warrants, deposit monies, reconcile cash balances to the
county treasurer, and prepare and submit Federal grant completion reports
and annual financial reports. We recommend that school d i s t r i c t s be solely
a responsible for performing the duties described above.
Regional services in Arizona have been beneficial to school d i s t r i c t s .
However, the number and types of services offered t o d i s t r i c t s are limited
and vary widely among counties.
CHAPTER 6
REGIONAL SERVICES ACROSS THE NATION
We conducted a study of regional services across the nation and determined
that the following questions were relevant:
What types of services are being provided on a regional basis to school
d i s t r i c t s i n other states?
Does providing services on a regional basis provide cost savings or any
other benefits?
a How are the providers of regional services in other states structured?
Uanv States Have Developed Education Service Aqencies (ESAs) To Provide
Reaional Services Po School D i s t r i c t s
ESAs are defined in this report as units displaying four d i s t i n c t
characteristics. F i r s t , they are usually formed for the purpose of
promoting cooperation among d i s t r i c t s or sometimes as extensions of state
departments of education. Second, they provide many types of services, not
just one. Third, taken together, they compose a statewide or almost
statewide system. Fourth, they are governed by their members.
We sampled 14 states to review the services, cost savings, and structure o f
their ESAs. Based on 1990 population figures, a l l 50 states were
categorized as small, medium, and large. Three states were selected from
each category plus f i v e others based on recommendations from members of the
advisory review committee, referrals from other states, geographic
location, and to include additional medium-sized states for comparison with
Arizona. California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin were selected as our sample states. Of these
states, nine have developed ESAs, at least s i x o f which replaced the o f f i c e
of county school superintendent. Only California maintains t h i s o f f i c e .
Substantiallv More Services Are Offered To D i s t r i c t s Throush ESAs In Other
States Than Are Offered To D i s t r i c t s In Arizona
ESAs o f f e r a substantial number of services. By providing a large number
s f services, ESAs have helped equalize educational opportunities f o r
students. The following are a few examples of services provided by ESAs in
other states.
a The Southeast Kansas Education Service Center (ESC) has developed
SPECTRA, a third-party b i l l i n g system for services provided by schools
to children with special health care needs. Through t h i s program,
d i s t r i c t s receive Medicaid reimbursement training and updates on
pertinent l i t i g a t i o n . D i s t r i c t s are also able to recover costs from
p r i v a t e insurance and/or Medicaid for special education services. The
ESC retains a small p o r t i o n o f the money received from Medicaid or
p r i v a t e insurance to cover administrative costs of operating the
program.
@ The Southwest/West Central Educational Coo~erative Service Unit o f
Minnesota operates a media center that includes science k i t s , a robot,
CPR t r a i n i n g u n i t s , a mobile planetarium, and special education
materials.
The Northeast Florida Educational Consortium operates a testing service
program that purchases testing materials, coordinates a schedule
allowing member d i s t r i c t s to share test booklets, and provides
computerized scoring and bulk purchasing of answer sheets.
See Appendix F for a complete l i s t of the types of services provided by
ESAs .
ESAs Have Documented Substantial Cost Savinqs And Amear To Provide A
Cost-Eftdctive Means Of Deliverins Services To D i s t r i c t s And The State
Many of the services provided to schools by ESAs would not have ~ t h e r w i s e
been available because of the cost or a lack of expertise. Although many
ESAs either have not determined or have not documented the cost savings
they provide, ESAs i n eight states provided us with over 30 examples of
savings i n 20 d i f f e r e n t types of services. Four examples s f these savings
are presented below.
a The cooperative purchasing service of the F i r s t D i s t r i c t Reqional
Educational Service Agencv (RESA) in Georgia serves 15 school
d i s t r i c t s , offers over 1,000 i tems, and made sales of $1,957,399 in
1990-91. The RESA compared i t s prices to four other sources (the
manufacturer's l i s t price, Wal-Mart, The Office Depot, and the state
purchasing system) on $322,723 worth of identical items purchased by
the RESA during the year. The RESA provided savings of 71 percent over
the manufacturer's l i s t price, 33 percent over Wal-Mart's and the
Office Depot's price, and 15 percent over the state purchasing system's
price.
a In July 1991, an efficiency study on the data processing system of the
Reaion I V Education Service Center of Texas compared the data
processing costs for d i s t r i c t s using the Region I V system to d i s t r i c t s
within Region I V that use an in-house system. Only recurring or
operating costs were included in the comparison to insure consistency
among the d i s t r i c t s . The study concluded that, on the average, the
t o t a l data processing cost was $13.89 per student for d i s t r i c t s using
the Region I V system and $23.73 per student for d i s t r i c t s not using the
Region IV system, saving d i s t r i c t s an average of 41 percent.
a The Southwest/West Central Educational Coo~erative Service Unit (ECSU)
provides the services of school psychologists, program coordinators,
special education teachers, and low-incidence consultants, such as
teachers for the deaf and blind. Compared to mental health centers,
hospitals, and private p r a c t i t i o n e r s , the ECSU saves member d i s t r i c t s
an average of 61 percent for psychologists, 57 percent for
coordinators, 48 percent for teachers, and 81 percent for low-incidence
consultants. The state o f Minnesota also realizes cost savings by
working with only one reporting unit rather than 72 separate
d i s t r i c t s . In 1991, the ECSU saved i t s member d i s t r i c t s $2,846,532
just in special education services.
I, Educational Service D i s t r i c t (ESD) #I01 of Washington provides
instructional programs and coursework for students, as well as s t a f f
development and inservice training for s t a f f using telecommunications
through i t s S a t e l l i t e Telecommunications Educational Programming (STEP)
network. The network offered six courses to students in 48
participating d i s t r i c t s during the 1989-90 school year. Each d i s t r i c t
saved an average of $15,705, for a total savings of $753,840. In
addition to cost savings, the STEP network enables schools t o o f f e r
courses that would have been unavailable to them using a t r a d i t i o n a l
classroom setting. ESD #I01 has documented cost savings in excess of
$6,650,000 in just a portion of the services i t offers.
Education Service Aaencies Can Be Created And Operated In Numerous Wavs
Every state has taken a unique approach in creating and operating ESAs.
The structure and operation of ESAs are described below in terms of six
major elements: formation, governance, services, c l i e n t e l e , membership, and
funding. The various approaches to each element may be mixed to form any
number of potential ESA structures.
Formation - There are two primary approaches i n forming geographic
boundaries. The most common approach used by the states we surveyed i s to
specify the exact boundaries for each ESA, either by law or through state
agency regulations. These boundaries sometimes follow the boundaries of a
current or previous governmental e n t i t y . Other states enact enabling
l e g i s l a t i o n allowing ESAs to form wherever two or more d i s t r i c t s wish to
work cooperatively. ESA regions occasionally overlap and may vary greatly
geographically or in the number of d i s t r i c t s served.
Governance - The governance element i s very similar among states. Each ESA
reviewed i n t h i s study had a governing board made up of board members from
p a r t i c i p a t i n g d i s t r i c t s . One ESA board included a number of lay members
equal to 1/3 of the e n t i r e board, and an o f f i c i a l from the state department
of education as an ex o f f i c i o member.
In addition to a governing board overseeing operations, many ESAs have
advisory boards. These advisory boards typical l y consist of
superintendents or other administrators from member d i s t r i c t s . Some states
also include teachers, parents, college representatives, and lay members on
t h e i r advisory boards.
Services - The number and types of services provided by ESAs are general ly
determined by local d i s t r i c t s , and sometimes by law or state agency
regulation. FOP those ESAs that are required to provide c e r t a i n services,
the number and types of required services varies widely from s t a t e t o state.
Clientele - Many ESAs were formed by d i s t r i c t s to provide services to
themselves. A few were f~rmed as extensions of t h e i r respective state
departments of education to provide services for the department. However,
most ESAs provide. services for both d i s t r i c t s and the state department of
education.
members hi^ - Approximately h a l f the states surveyed do not require
d i s t r i 3 t s to use any ESA services. D i s t r i c t s may obtain services elsewhere
or may provide services for themselves. In the other states surveyed,
membership is required for some services but voluntary for others. I t is
more common for the ESA to be required to provide certain services than i t
is for the d i s t r i c t s to be required to use them.
Some states that require d i s t r i c t participation in an ESA have allowed
large d i s t r i c t s not t o p a r t i c i p a t e , or to be considered ESAs themselves.
Other states al low d i s t r i c t s to join ESAs outside their immediate area or
join more than one ESA. Additionally, many states allow ESAs to include
both public and private schools, other agencies, or schools of higher
education.
Fundinq - ESAs are funded by direct state appropriations, user charges, and
grants. Some ESAs rely entirely on user charges and grants, receiving no
direct state appropriations. One ESA included in our study receives 80
percent of i t s funding from state appropriations. Generally, however, we
found that ESAs receive up to 10 percent sf their funding from state
appropriations and the remainder from user charges and grants. States that
provide funding may do so on the basis of a f l a t amount annually, or an
amount based on the ESA's cost of offering state-required services. A few
states have given ESAs limited taxing authority as an additional source of
funding.
ESAs can be structured and operated in numerous ways using almost any
combination of the methods described above. Appendix G explains how
Colorado's and Washington's ESAs operate as examples of how these
approaches can be combined.
Education Service Agency (ESA) systems in other states offer substantially
more services to more school d i s t r i c t s than are currently offered to
d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona either by county school superintendents or other
regional service providers. ESAs provide a means for d i s t r i c t s t o r e t a i n
local autonomy while realizing cost savings by using cooperative services
and reducing duplication of programs, services, and personnel. ESAs have
also contributed to more equitably d i s t r i b u t i n g educational opportunities
across regions.
ESAs should be established in Arizona. I f l e g i s l a t i o n is proposed to
establish suck a system, i t should allow each ESA to meet the specialized
needs of i t s member d i s t r i c t s , and these member d i s t r i c t s should be
involved in the development of their ESA. Once established, ESAs should be
allowed to evolve as necessary. However, the legislature may wish to
review them periodically to ensure that elements such as governance,
boundaries, and the number of d i s t r i c t s served are s t i l l appropriate.
The geographic boundaries of each ESA shou Id be based on cr i ter i a such as
services provided, number of school d i s t r i c t s served, number of students,
distances among and between d i s t r i c t s and the ESA center, and the
topography of the region. However, because of county sizes, shapes, and
population density patterns, county boundaries do not appear to be
appropriate boundaries for ESAs.
Each ESA should be governed by a board made up of governing board members
from p a r t i c i p a t i n g ent i ties. Each ESA may also have an advisory board
consisting of d i s t r i c t administrators, teachers, parents, and others
interested in d i s t r i c t a f f a i r s .
ESAs should be allowed to provide services as requested by member e n t i t i e s
and should not be required to provide any particular service.
Additionally, d i s t r i c t s should participate on a voluntary basis. To
promote even greater cost-effectiveness, d i s t r i c t s should be allowed :o
j o i n ESAs outside their local areas. To increase economies of scale and
promote communication and cooperation, u n i v e r s i t i e s , colleges, private
schools, other governmental units, and the private sector should also be
allowed to participate in ESAs.
ESAs should be funded primarily by user charges and grants to help ensure
that ESAs are responsive to member d i s t r i c t needs and provide services in a
cost-effective manner. I t i s also important to provide s t a b i l i t y and a
base level of support for ESAs through a small mount of direct
appropriation. Such s t a b i l i t y and support is p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n the
early stages of ESA development.
CHAPTER 7
TELECOMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ACROSS THE NATION AND IN ARIZONA
We conducted a study to determine whether technology, in r e l a t i o n t o school
d i s t r i c t management and personnel training functions, has resulted in more
cost-effective educational systems across the nation and in Arizona. The
following questions were determined to be relevant.
What i s telecomnunications technology?
8 What i s the status of telecomnunications technology across the nation?
8 What i s the status of telecomnunications technology i n Arizona?
Has the use of telecomnunications technology resulted in more cost-effective
educational systems?
We collected information from a sample of 14 states across the nation, a l l 15
county school superintendents in Arizona, regional organizations in Arizona,
and other materials and publications. Based on the information gathered, the
relevant technology was determined to be for telecommunications and the most
prevalent educational use ~f telecommunications was determined to be for the
expansion of curriculum.
The National Trend Is Toward The Development Of Sinale Comorehensive Networks
That U t i l i z e Telecomrmnications Technoloav
Telecommunications technology i s the means for transmitting a large volume of
information (e.g., audio, video, and data signals) over distance at great
speed. Telecommunications technology includes cable, microwave, fiber-optic,
and s a t e l l i t e technologies. Instructional television fixed service, a
portion of the microwave spectrum dedicated to educational services, is also
i nc l uded .
There are approximately 155 f u l l y and p a r t i a l l y implemented educational
telecomunications networks within the 50 states. They range from those
serving a single purpose or type of i n s t i t u t i o n , to those serving many
purposes and i n s t i t u t i o n s .
States commonly contain a number of individual or regional networks not
integrated under one system. However, many states are working toward the
development o f s i n g l e comprehensive networks that u t i l i z e current
technologies and serve the needs of the entire state. A t the present time,
the most common use of telecommunications is to provide postsecondary school
courses. For example, universities televise courses taught at one location
to students at remote locations, such as branch campuses. With permission,
school d i s t r i c t s tape programs developed by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting for viewing at a later date. Teleconferencing, useful for
meetings and inservice training, is also possible. With the use of
computers, telecommunications equipment can be used to transfer data, and to
access databanks and electronic bul let in boards.
Arizona Does Not Yet Contain A Fullv lm~lemented Statewide Educational
Telecomnunications Network
Many school d i s t r i c t s are not f u l l y u t i l i z i n g the c a p a b i l i t i e s of their
telecommunications systems. In addition, because o f e i t h e r the lack of money
or expertise in the area of telecommunications technology, many d i s t r i c t s
have been unable or reluctant to purchase equipment and incorporate available
programming into their curriculum. Several county school superintendents
have recognized the need for telecommunications equipment and purchased i t
for some of the small d i s t r i c t s .
The Yavapai County School Superintendent purchased a basic satel l i t e downlink
(receiver) system for each of 1% small rural d i s t r i c t s ( d i s t r i c t s with fewer
than 600 students). The systems are used to receive programming such as
foreign language courses from Northern Arizona University, and broadcasts or
tapes of major news events and science programs. Other county school
superintendents used Special Smal I D , s t r i c t Service Program Fund monies to
provide equipment.
AETC Studv Concludes That A Statewide Network Is Feasible
The Arizona Education Telecommunications Cooperative (AETC), established in
1987, consists of representatives from the Arizona Department of
Administration, the Arizona Board of Regents, universities, community
colleges, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), and the public schools.
The purpose of AETC is to plan for coordinated uses of telecomnunications,
review technology initiatives, and study the feasibility of incorporating the
State's telecornmunicat ions capabi l it ies into a Statewide telecomunicat ions
network. The network would serve educational and administrative purposes.
In January 1990, AETC hired a consultant to study the teIecomnunications
technologies in the State and the technical feasibility of developing a
Statewide network. The study concluded that a Statewide network was feasible
if a satellite and land-based infrastructure for full broadcast video,
compressed video, and high-speed data transmission were added to existing
technologies. The cost of the land-based infrastructure was projected to be
$12,750,000, an amount which did not include the incremental costs for users
to link into the network.
AETC has also developed a comprehensive outline of objectives for
coordinating and implementing a Technology lntegrated Educational Delivery
System (TIEDS) as part of a Statewide network 3corporating universities,
community colleges, and the K-12 system. TIEDS. 4 K-12 Master Plan for the
Infusion of . Technoloclv in Arizona Schools in the TeachindLearning
Environment was published by ADE in July 1990 in response to an Arizona State
Board of Education pol icy directing it to develop a plan for uti lizing
telecommunications technology in the K-12 system. TIED%' first
recommendation is to establish a Statewide telecommunications network to
provide for information transfer among school districts, other educational
entities, and ADE. This would increase productivity by reducing paperwork.
Once such a network is in place, training for teachers and administrators
through Statewide workshops, seminars, conferences, and telecourses could be
provided. A variety of student courses through distance learning programs
and access to inf~rmation through databanks would also be possible.
In working toward establishing a Statewide educational telecommunications
network, AETC's Operating Commi ttee has hi red a development coordinator and
initiated three projects. The projects are to improve ADE's Arizona EdLink
system, provide assistance to schools in implementing instructional
television fixed service, and study options for providing telecommunications
to certain school d i s t r i c t s .
Telecomnunicatisns Provides Cost-Effective Educational Proarams
The use of telecommunications would allow d i s t r i c t s to expand curriculum and
s t a f f t r a i n i n g , process and report data in a more accurate and timely manner,
and reduce the costs of handling and storing large quantities of physical
records. Additional computer programming at the Arizona Department of
Education would allow the agency to use telecomunications in processing
teacher and administrator c e r t i f i c a t e s , and electronically receive documents
such as d i s t r i c t budgets and annual financial reports. The use of
telecommunications to provide courses at remote sites for low-density
populations could also produce cost savings when compared to the cost of
providing site-based teachers.
CONCLUSION AND RECOWENDATION
E f f o r t s to establish and coordinate telecommunications systems throughout
Arizona should be increased. Telecommunications serve numerous educational
and administrative purposes, such as distance learning, teacher training, and
data transmission. The use of telecommunications in education is growing
nationally and in Arizona. Arizona colleges and universities, as well as a
small number of school d i s t r i c t s , are currently using telecommunications in
their daily operations. However, most d i s t r i c t s have had d i f f i c u l t y
purchasing and establishing telecommunications systems, and are not f u l l y
u t i l i z i n g the c a p a b i l i t i e s of their systems.
AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Certain recommendations i n t h i s report w i l l require additional study, because
factors a f f e c t i n g t h e i r implementation were not within our scope.
Consequently, we believe the foliowing areas should be studied in depth
before any attempt i s made to restructure Arizona's public education system.
Arizona Should Studv Whv Some States With Fewer D i s t r i c t s Than Arizona Have
Sianificantlv Different Administrative Costs Per Student
Before Arizona considers consolidation of school d i s t r i c t s , i t might be very
useful to look at states with fewer d i s t r i c t s and low administrative costs,
such as Utah and Georgia. One explanation of the reason Utah has lower
administrative costs compared to the other samples states is that Utah has a
small number of d i s t r i c t s , most ~f which are large and medium unified
d i s t r i c t s , rather than numerous small ones. Utah has 40 school d i s t r i c t s ,
compared to Arizona's 238. Suck a study should also include states with
fewer d i s t r i c t s than Arizona, but with higher administrative costs per
student, such as Florida and Nevada.
A Studv b v Be Performed To Determine I f Administrative Costs For School
D i s t r i c t s In States With ESAs Are Lower Than In States Without ESAs
We have concluded that the use of services on a regional basis has resulted
in cost savings, reduced duplication of services, and equalized educational
opportunities. The impact on school d i s t r i c t administrative costs of using
regional services should be considered with regard to the consolidation of
services and school d i s t r i c t s .
APPENDIX A
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Com~arisons of Administrative Costs Amonq Arizona's School Districts
The procedures fol lowed t~ conduct the study of numbers of administrators and
administrative costs within Arizona consisted of a number of steps.
The terms used in the study were defined.
a The number of administrators and ratios of students to administrators were
determined for all districts and compared among the various district
categories.
a A sample of typical districts was determined.
a Administrative cost data and other information such as the districts'
organizational structures were collected from the typical districts and
compared among the various district categories.
Findings and conclusions were developed.
In order to properly c~nduct the study and assure comparable results, it was
essential to define terms to be used that would be applicable within Arizona
and for comparisons with other states. How these terms were defined directly
affected the results of our study. Auditor General staff spoke with
representatives of the Arizona Department of Education, the National Center
0 for Education Statistics, and Arizona school districts; and consulted with
the advisory review committee, and derived definitions for administrators and
administrative costs (both district and school level), sizes sf districts,
and location (whether urban or rural). (See Appendix B for definitions.)
Average dai ly at tendance (ADA), locale, type, number of employees, and
reported position codes of employees for all Ariz~na districts were obtained
from the Arizona Department of Education.
Average daily attendance was used as this is the attendance figure reported
to the National Center for Education Statistics for comparisons to other
states.
a Listings identifying which districts were isolated and the locale codes of
each district were obtained from the Arizona Department of Education.
Locale codes were used to determine whether a district was urban or rural.
@ Employee position codes were those reported to the Arizona Department of
Education on the School D i s t r i c t Employee Report.
@ Fiscal year 1989-90 was chosen because it i s the most recent year for which
we were able to obtain national administrative numbers and costs from other
states with which to compare our Arizona information.
Excluded from this portion o f our study were: a l l consortiums and special
program d i s t r i c t s operated through the county school superintendent;
accommodation schools l i s t e d as having no employees other than the county
school superintendent; and tran 3rting d i s t r i c t s , as transporting d i s t r i c t s
have no administrators.
Using the above information, the population of 213 d i s t r i c t s was classified
into categories by size, type, and location. Student population categories
include super large, large, medium, smal I , and small isolated; type
categories include unified, elementary, and high school; location categories
include urban and rural. For a l i s t of the 213 d i s t r i c t s within the various
categories, see Appendix C. In a l l , a total ot 27 possible categories were
defined, but d i s t r i c t s existed in only 19 of those.
i
Using definitions provided by the National Center for Education S t a t i s t i c s ,
a l l school d i s t r i c t employees were classified into eight categories according
to their SDER codes and whether they were reported at the school or d i s t r i c t
level. These categories were:
D i s t r i c t administrators Aides, guidance counselors
D i s t r i c t administrative support s t a f f and l ibrarians
School administrators Library support s t a f f
School administrative support s t a f f Other support services s t a f f