ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
C. Diane Bishop, Superiritendent
March 1994
CONTENTS
. .
Introduction - Superintendent Bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Report of the Committee on Decentralization
Definition of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purposes of Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Statements of Consensus About Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Barriers to Decentralization (Refer to Appendix A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Decentralization Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summary of Recommendations
General Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Charter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Areas of ConcernIDisagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A: Barriers to Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B: Selected Charts and Graphs
From the Decentralization Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
INTRODUCTION
Based on continuing calls for educational improvement and the widespread interest in
decentralization as a vehicle for change, I determined there was a need to discuss the subject
from both philosophical and practical perspectives, to review rules and regulations governing
schools, and to formulate recommendations for facilitating decentralization in the public schools.
To that end, I formed the Committee on Decentralization in August 1992, and invited a group
of 26 thoughtful, articulate, progressive-minded individuals known for their dedication to
education, to join me in discussing issues related to decentralization. Committee members were
chosen to represent a cross-section of school personnel, parents, community members, and
policy makers. This document reflects the efforts of the Committee to craft recommendations
on decentralization.
I believe that the purpose of decentralization and accompanying activities is to enhance teaching
and learning, and that change must occur for that reason rather than just for the sake of making
changes. I encouraged the Committee to focus on what occurs in the classroom, and to identify
options for creating the best teaching and learning environments possible.
In an effort to forge meaningful recommendations, the Committee actively pursued information
and input about decentralization in Arizona and elsewhere. Representatives of schools and
others involved in the development and implementation of decentralization activities made
presentations to the committee. Teachers and principals statewide were surveyed to provide data
about decentralization in Arizona. The Committee participated in facilitated processes to identify
issues, establish consensus, and develop recommendations.
It quickly became evident that, try as they might, the Committee was not going to reach
agreement or consensus on all points, not because of an inability to do so but rather because of
the complexity of decentralization issues and the emotional context surrounding them. I believe
it is significant that the Committee, with each of its esteemed members committed to the goal
of improving education, was unable to arrive at agreement about some specific aspects of
decentralization. It seems clear that the points of contention create a foundation for continuing
deliberations about decentralization and education reform.
While there was general agreement for the need to create a legal climate and options for schools
and districts who wish to pursue decentralization, a major point of disagreement by Committee
members was whether decentralization should be voluntary or mandatory. As an interesting
outgrowth of that discussion, Committee members determined that most of the goals they sought
through decentralization could be achieved through the establishment of Charter Schools or
comparable entities. Consequently, the Committee considered parameters that might guide the
development and implementation of such schools, and those parameters are included in this
report.
The Committee on Decentralization offers this report and its accompanying recommendations
to school personnel, business and community members, and policy makers for the purposes of
providing information and insights about decentralization and improving education in Arizona.
I am most grateful to members of the Committee on Decentralization for their participation in
this effort and for their commitment to improving education in Arizona.
C. Diane ~ i s f o ~
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
March 1994
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON DECENTRALIZATION
C. Diane Bishop, Chair
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Kathy Back Ms. Lavern Tarkington
Director of Instructional Technology Principal, McClintock High School
Former Principal, Camelback High School Tempe Union High School District
Phoenix Union High School District
Dr. James Buchanan Dr. Beatriz Arias
Superintendent Parent Representative
Tempe Union High School District Scottsdale Unified School District
Mr. Laverne Carrillo Mr. Ken Bennett
Support Staff State Board of Education
Washington Elementary School District Arizona Department of Education
Dr. Paul Karlowicz
Teacher, University High School
Tucson Unified School District
Mr. Jim Binns
Business Representative
Tempe, AZ
Mr. Art Lebowitz Ms. D o ~Caal vert
Director of Curriculum Parent Representative
Former Principal, South Mountain High School Tucson Unified School District
Phoenix Union High School District
Ms. Julie Letofsky Ms. Jean Donaldson
Teacher, Kyrene de 10s Lagos School Former Governing Board Member
Kyrene Elementary School District Washington Elementary School District
Dr. Joseph Martin
Superintendent
Kayenta Unified School District
Mr. Michael Donovan
Governing Board Member
Yuma Elementary School District
Ms. Carolyn Repp Dr. John Hosmer
Teacher, Arcadia Neighborhood Learning Center State Board of Education
Scottsdale Unified School District Arizona Department of Education
Mr. David Silva Mr. Rick Lavis
Former County School Superintendent Business Representative
Apache County Phoenix, AZ
Mr. Anthony Mason
Business Representative
Phoenix, AZ
The Honorable Lisa Graham
House of Representatives
Arizona Legislature
Mr. Carl Newman The Honorable Bev Hermon
Parent Representative State Senate
Washington Elementary School District Arizona Legislature
Ms. Onnie Shekerjian
Parent Representative
Kyrene Elementary School District
The Honorable Joe Eddie Lopez
House of Representatives
Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Chris Cummickey The Honorable Tom Patterson
House of Representatives State Senate
Arizona Legislature Arizona Legislature
DRAFTING SUBCOMMITTEE
A special thanks is extended to the following persons who assisted in drafting this report for
review and consideration by the fill Committee.
Mr. Ken Bennett Dr. John Hosmer
Mr. Jim Binns Dr. Paul i(;Aowicz
Dr. James Buchanan Mr. Art Lebowitz
Ms. Donna Calvert Ms. Carolyn Repp
Ms. Jean Donaldson Ms. Onnie Shekerjian
OTHEX
A special thanks is also extended to the following organizations whose representatives shared
their expertise with the Committee.
Arizona Business Leadership for Education Arizona School Administrators
Arizona Congress of Parents and Teachers Arizona School Boards Association
Arizona Education Association Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Arizona Federation of Teachers Pima County Collaborative
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STAFF
Ms. Nancy Mendoza Dr. Judy Richardson
Deputy Superintendent Associate Superintendent
Support Services
Ms. Sheila Breecher
Education Program Specialist
Special Education
Dr. Linda Fuller
Director
Arizona Career Ladder Program
REPORT OF THE
COMMITI'EE ON DECENTRALIZATION
DEFTNITION OF DECENTRALIZATION
To decentralize in the educational setting is to shift the locus of and authority for making
decisions which directly impact students from the district level to the local school staff, parents,
students, and community.
PURPOSES OF DECENTRALIZATION
A. To increase student achievement.
B. To support the involvement and empowerment of parents, community members, and
school faculty and staff in decision making at the school level.
C. To encourage and support school-based programs and innovations which meet the distinct
and unique needs of students.
D. To attract and retain quality educators.
BELIEFS RELATED TO DECENTRALIZATION
A. Structures
There is a need:
1. To address and remove real and perceived barriers which prevent decentralization
from occurring.
2. To create tolerance for different visions and needs.
3. For communities, districts and schools to make a commitment to training,
communication and collaborative decision making.
4. For education funding to follow students in the public schools system.
5. For the state and the school districts to focus on and commit to appropriate and
adequate training for school personnel, parents and community members as they
take on new roles and responsibilities.
B. Student Learning
1. Accountability for student learning must be based on high, uniform state standards
for achievement and other performance measures.
2. The rights of all students must be protected.
3. The state's role is to specify performance outcomes, but not the methods and
processes to accomplish them.
1. The inherent resistance to and fear of change must be addressed through
information, communication and training.
2. Issues related to a lack of trust, shifts in authority and power, and fears of
despotism must be acknowledged and addressed.
3. The beliefs that uniformity must be maintained at all costs, that the whole system
must change or nothing can change, that equity equals sameness, must be
challenged and discussed.
4. The unsettling satisfaction with maintaining the status quo must be countered.
5. The resistance to change based on the belief that "this too shall pass" must be
dispelled.
STATEMENTS OF CONSENSUS ABOUT DECENTRALIZATION
A. There are multiple ways to achieve decentralization, including at least the following
situations:
1. A district and its schools initiate a program without external motivation or
incentive.
2. An external legislative incentive model:
a. Motivates a district and its schools to initiate a program;
b. Motivates a school within a district to initiate a program (the Restructuring
Pilot Project as an example); andlor
c. Authorizes the creation of Charter Schools.
B. Decentralization should be a voluntary strategy that districts and schools may use for the
purpose of facilitating change and improvement in education.
C. Decentralization should be an available and potential option for all districts and schools
with the interest, desire and willingness to undertake it.
D. Decentralization should be based on locally developed (districttschool) plans which are
in accordance with state structures and guidelines founded on accountability for results.
E. Decentralization should be supported and encoumged at the state level by the Legislature
and the State Board of Education through:
1. The implementation of regulatory changes, amendments, and waivers which
address and/or remove barriers associated with decentralization.
2. Continued efforts to define and implement high performance standards for
students as well as accountability measures for districts, schools and staff.
3. Efforts to gather and disseminate data and information relative to existing
decentralization models and sites in Arizona and elsewhere.
4. The provision and availability of technical assistance for districts and schools,
perhaps through implementation of a Regional Service Center concept.
5. A focus on and commitment to appropriate and adequate training for school
personnel, parents and community members as they take on new roles and
responsibilities.
6. Incentives for districts to decentralize, such as grants for training and waivers
from regulations based on accountability for student achievement.
7. Opportunities and incentives for individual schools to decentralize when the
district opts not to do so, such as obtaining status as a state Charter School and
waivers from regulations based on accountability for student achievement.
F. Decentralization should be supported and encoumged at the local level by governing
boards and district administrative offices through:
1. Implementation of changes in policies, procedures and negotiated agreements
which address and/or remove barriers associated with decentralization.
2. Establishment of a waiver process.
3. Decentralization of funding and resources.
4. Development and implementation of appropriate and adequate training for school
personnel, parents, and community members.
BARRIERS TO DECENTRALIZATION
A summary of the barriers to decentralization identified by the Committee on Decentralization
is included in Appendix A.
DECENTRALIZATION SURVEY
The following information is derived from Attitudes About Decentralization: A Survey of Arizona
Teachers and Principals, Research and Development Division, Arizona Department of
Education, September 1993. Selected graphs from this report are included in Appendix B.
More than 4,100 public school teachers and principals were surveyed in January 1993
concerning the issue of school decentralization. In addition to assessing who currently holds real
decision making authority in Arizona's schools, the survey probed teachers and principals about
how decentralized decision making might change education. Separate survey instruments were
developed for the two groups, taking into consideration special concerns of teachers and
principals, but allowing considerable overlap for meaningful comparisons. Surveys were
comprised of multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
Responses to the sunreys indicated that a majority of both teachers and principals believed that
students would be best served if decisions were made at the school site, with the exception of
determining salaries. Teachers were identified by both respondent groups as appropriate
decision makers with regard to school curriculum issues. Generally, both principals and teachers
indicated that state and district entities have too much influence over virtually all educational
issues. More than 30 percent of teachers and 20 percent of principals indicated that no steps
toward restructuring had been taken at their schools.
Highlights of Decentralization Survey Results
Educators who currently manage various decisions at their school sites are more satisfied
than educators who do not determine education decisions at school sites.
The majority of teachers believed that student interests would be best served if decisions
were made at the school site regardless of the issue in question. With the exceptions of
determinations of salaries and organization of transportation for students, principals
likewise indicated that student interests would be best served if decisions were managed
at the school site.
Both teachers and principals indicated that influence should be greater for parents and
community members and school-site committees as well as for themselves than it is
currently on virtually all issues presented.
Teachers clearly indicated that they were not prime decision makers on issues of
personnel and money, but that they controlled curriculum to a greater extent.
Conversely, principals indicated they influenced personnel issues and allocation of funds
within their schools, but had only limited influence over curriculum.
Twenty percent of principals and 30 percent of teachers indicated they did not believe
they had the authority to maximize student learning.
The majority of teachers expressed dissatisfaction on only two issues, allocation of funds
within their schools and determination of teacher salaries. The majority of principals
expressed satisfaction on all issues surveyed.
The majority of principals believed their influence was adequate on virtually all education
issues; teachers felt their influence was inadequate over typical administrative issues; both
groups reflected they had little control over salaries.
A moderate to strong relationship exists between satisfaction and influence over education
issues for both principals and teachers.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee on Decentralization supports the following principles:
A. Genuine consideration of decentralization by districts and schools which allows
decentralization to the extent that (1) parents, teachers and other school personnel,
students and community members choose to exercise such powers, and (2) the assumption
of such powers does not violate state or federal laws.
B. Development of a system whereby (1) centralized services and funding are maintained
for the support and benefit of the schools and (2) school sites are granted the authority
to determine how funds are to be expended at the site in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, personnel, and capital.
C. Maintenance of governing board oversight of policy development and school-based
decentralization activities, including spending decisions, to the extent necessary to ensure
that student outcomes and legal requirements are met; the governing board remains as
the sole legal entity to contract for district services and to sue or be sued.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECENTRALIZATION
A. Decentralization Committee - There should be a process for selecting members of the
Decentralization Committee (DC) of each school which includes provisions for:
1. Adequate and appropriate public information and announcements;
2. Selection of their own representatives by each constituent group, including
parents, teachers and other school personnel, students, and community members;
3. Submission of a list of recommended DC members to the governing board for
appointment; and
4. Allowing the governing board, for cause, to request a constituent group to submit
additional names for appointment to the DC.
B. Participation - There should be a process for each school DC to determine whether or
not the school will decentralize and the extent to which it will do so, including the
following provisions:
1. If the school DC determines that decentralization is not necessary, desirable or
appropriate, it should set a date to reconsider the issue, no later than one year
from the date of the original decision.
2. If the school DC determines that decentralization is necessary, desirable or
appropriate, it should proceed to develop a decentralization plan for the school
within an established time frame.
C. The components of the plan should include:
1. Outcomes to be achieved by the school through the decentralization process,
including those related to the improvement of student achievement.
2. Definition of powers and duties for example, the DC could request authority
from the governing board to make spending decisions in areas such as curriculum,
instruction, and selection, termination and transfer of personnel; the governing
board delegates requisite authority, subject to compliance with legal requirements.
3. A governance structure for the school which includes the development of bylaws
or another type of organizational framework.
4. An accountability plan for the school which includes the District Assessment
Plan and the Arizona Student Assessment Program, and which provides for
review at established intervals, perhaps at least every three school years.
D. Amendments to Decentralization Plan - There should be a requirement that a DC give
one year advance notice to the governing board before amending its decentralization plan
(1) to assume decision-making authority in an area where such authority had been left
with the governing board, or (2) to relinquish duties previously assumed through its
decentralization plan.
E. Exceptions
1. A school district of only one school or fewer than 600 students and school
districts which are transporting districts should be exempted from mandatory
decentralization.
2. Schools currently decentralized should be held harmless for omissions in the
decentralization plan requirements outlined in section C above, except for those
provisions regarding student achievement and the District Assessment Plan.
F. Noncompliance - The governing board should develop and implement a process for
documenting compliance and performance based on the school's accountability plan. The
process for addressing issues of unacceptable performance and improvement might
include the following:
1. Notification - The governing board (1) notifies a school of areas of deficiency or
noncompliance and (2) meets with the DC for the school to show cause why the
governing board should not assume control of the school until it is brought into
compliance.
2. Improvement Plan - The school is allowed the opportunity (1) to respond to the
concerns of the governing board and, if appropriate, (2) to submit an
improvement plan which includes specific time lines.
3. Monitoring Improvement - If the school's performance continues to be
unacceptable, the governing board (1) may suspend the authority of the DC and
(2) shall have the authority to control decision making at the school level until
performance reaches acceptable levels.
4. Reinstating the DC - The governing board may allow the school (1) to reinstate
the DC and (2) to submit a revised decentralization plan when performance
reaches acceptable levels.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
The Committee on Decentralization recommends that legislative authority be provided for the
establishment of Charter Schools, Contract Schools, New Initiative Schools or similar entities.
Upon consideration of previous legislative proposals, the Committee recommends inclusion of
the eight elements outlined below:
A. Purpose
The purpose of a Charter Schooi is to provide an aiternative iearning environment to
improve pupil achievement. Charter Schools provide additional choices for pupils and
their parents and guardians. A Charter School may be authorized under the sponsorship
of one or more governing boards; it may be a magnet school, a vocational or
technological school, or some other type of alternative school; it may manifest as a new
school or all or any portion of an existing school. A Charter School endeavors to
improve pupil achievement in one or more of the following ways:
1. The utilization of different and innovative teaching methods.
2. The establishment of a specialized curriculum.
3. The creation of a new school structure.
4. The creation of different and innovative forms of measuring outcomes.
5. The development of educational programs which encourage innovation and
diversity.
B. Application
1. An applicant seeking to establish a Charter School may be a parent, teacher, or
school administrator, or an association of one or more such persons.
2. An applicant seeking to establish a Charter School should submit a written
application, including the following information, to the local governing board(s):
a. A description of the purpose(s) of the school and the reasons for its
establishment.
b. A description of the curriculum and the course of instruction.
c. A description of the population of pupils to be served.
d. A description of admission policies and procedures.
e. A description of staffing, including qualifications of instructional and
administrative personnel.
f. A description of support services to be provided by the school and the
school district and the method of delivery.
g. A description of the organizational and management structures, including
provisions for involvement of teachers, parents and community members.
h. A description of the facility and its location.
i. A description of the extent of community support.
j. Criteria to measure the school's effectiveness.
k. A preliminary estimated budget for the development and first year of
operation.
1. A summary of waivers from rules adopted by the state Board of Education
to be requested.
m. A summary of waivers from governing board rules or policies to be
requested.
n. A summary of employee compensation, benefits and rights, if different
from those offered generally to employees of the school district, including
the right for teachers who choose to teach at a Charter School to return
to the same or a comparable position within the school district within a
three-year period of time without a reduction in employment status or
benefits.
o. Assurances that the Charter School will not discriminate against applicants
for admission based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, income
level, disability, race, athletic ability, or geographic location.
p. Assurances that the Charter School will not discriminate against employees
or applicants for employment based on ethnicity, national origin, religion,
gender, disability or race.
q. A copy of the contract or intergovernmental agreement required in section
C.1. below.
3. If the local governing board approves the application, the school district may
provide assistance to the applicant in developing the detailed plan for the
operation of the Charter School. The detailed plan should be developed within
90 days of the local governing board's final approval of the application.
4. If the local governing board rejects the application, the applicant shall be notified
in writing of the reasons for the rejection. An applicant may submit a revised
proposal for reconsideration by the local governing board. If the application
requires additional funding, a local governing board may condition its approval
on receipt of this funding from either a grant from the Arizona Department of
Education or a private source.
5. If an application is not approved by the local governing board, appeal may be
taken to the State Board of Education. If the application is in conformity with
statutory requirements, the state Board may approve the application after the
applicant has amended such application to include a designation of the legal entity
to sue and be sued on behalf of the Charter School. This entity may be a board
of trustees or another district governing board which has agreed in writing to act
as the governing board for the Charter School.
Operation
A Charter School should:
1. Operate under the governance and administrative authority of the local governing
board@) which approved its application or a board of trustees. A comprehensive
contractual or intergovernmental agreement should be developed to clarify the
following:
a. Ownership of the Charter School's property.
b. Employment of the Charter School employees, including employment
contracts and policies and responsibility for employee benefits.
c. Liability for operation of the Charter School, including the right to
contract, to sue and be sued.
2. Comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances
that are applicable to public schools, including without limitation all federal and
state laws relating to the education of exceptional children as defined in A.R.S.
5 15-761.
3. Design and maintain a process to encourage parental and community involvement
in the school.
4. Participate in the Arizona Student Assessment Program.
5. Submit to financial compliance audits by the state and school district.
6. Function in accordance with the school's detailed plan and contractual or
intergovernmental agreement which, upon approval, becomes the charter for
operation.
7. Submit the contractual or intergovernmental agreement to the State Board of
Education as part of the application process for seeking funds through the Charter
Schools Stimulus Fund (see Section H below).
Length of Charter Renewal
1. An approved detailed plan for a Charter School could be effective for up to three
years from the date of approval and could be renewed at three-year intervals at
the request of the Charter School.
2. The local governing board could deny the request for renewal if it is shown that
the Charter School has failed to:
a. Implement the approved plan;
b. Improve pupil performance; and/or
c. Comply with federal or state laws.
3. In the event the charter is not renewed, the Charter School could seek sponsorship
from another governing board or seek authorization from the State Board of
Education and establish a board of trustees to oversee future operations.
E. Admission Requirements
1. A Charter School should enroll, without payment of tuition, all eligible pupils
who submit a timely application, unless the number of applications exceeds the
capacity of a program, class, grade level or building.
a. If capacity is not sufficient to enroll all such pupils, preference should be
given to pupils who reside in the school district through an equitable
selection process such as a lottery.
b. Transportation should be provided for eligible low-income pupils up to 20
miles each way and for children with disabilities whose individualized
education programs require specialized transportation services.
2. Except as provided below, admission should not be limited based on ethnicity,
national origin, gender, religion, income level, disability, athletic ability, or
geographic location.
3. A Charter School could establish admission criteria as follows:
a. By age group or grade level.
b. For pupils who have a specific learning affinity for the school's teaching
methods, the school's learning philosophy or a specific subject such as
mathematics, science, fine arts, performing arts or a foreign language.
F. Financial Provisions
1. A Charter School sponsored by a school district governing board should receive
per pupil expenditures equal to the average cost per pupil for the district as a
whole. A school district is not financially responsible for a Charter School
authorized by the state Board of Education and sponsored by a board of trustees
or another governing board.
2. A Charter School authorized by the state Board and operating under the
governance and administrative authority of a board of trustees or another
sponsoring governing board should calculate a base support level (A.R.S. 8 15-
943), a transportation support level (A.R.S. 8 15-945), a capital outlay revenue
limit (A.R.S. 5 15-961), and a capital levy revenue limit (A.R.S. 5 15-962) as
prescribed in statute, except that:
a. A.R.S. 8 15-941 (Teacher Experience Index) and A.R.S. 8 15-942
(Adjustment for Rapid Decline) should not apply to Charter Schools.
b. The student count for the first year of operation could be determined
initially using an estimated student count based on actual registration of
pupils before the beginning of the school year. After the first 100 days
in session for the first year of operation, the Charter School could revise
the student count to be equal to the actual average daily membership as
defined in A.R.S. 5 15-901, or the adjusted daily membership as
prescribed in A.R.S. 8 15-902, of the Charter School. Before the 100th
day in session, the state Board could require a Charter School to report
periodically regarding pupil enrollment and attendance. A Charter School
should revise its student count, base support level, transportation support
level, and capital outlay revenue limit before May 15. A Charter School
that overestimated its student count should revise its budget before May
15; a Charter School that underestimated its student count could revise its
budget before May 15.
c. The transportation support level for the first year of operation could be
determined using an estimated transportation support level as prescribed
in A.R.S. 8 15-945 before the beginning of the school year. After the
first 100 days in session for the first year of operation, the Charter School
could revise the transportation support level to be equal to the actual
transportation support level of the Charter School. Before the 100th day
in session the state Board could require a Charter School to report
periodically regarding the daily route mileage and the number of eligible
students transported. A Charter school that overestimated its
transportation support level should revise its budget before May 15; a
Charter School that underestimated its transportation support level could
revise its budget before May 15.
d. A Charter School authorized by the state Board could utilize A.R.S. 8 15-
855 (year-round school). The Charter School and the Department of
Education would prescribe procedures for determining average daily
attendance and average daily membership.
e. Equalization assistance for the Charter School for the budget year should
be determined by adding the amount of the base support level, the
transportation support level, and the capital outlay revenue limit for the
budget year.
f. The State Board of Education should apportion state aid to the state
Treasurer for disbursement to each Charter School authorized by the state.
The apportionments would be as follows:
1. On July 1, one-third of the total amount to be apportioned during
the fiscal year.
2. On each of the following dates, one-twelfth of the total amount to
be apportioned during the fiscal year: October 15, December 15,
January 15, February 15, March 15, April 15, May 15, June 15.
3. A Charter School authorized by the State Board of Education should not charge
tuition, levy taxes, or issue bonds.
G. Transportation Provisions
The school district in which a Charter School is physically located could be considered
a nonresident school district with respect to transportation of Charter School pupils.
1. The governing board could provide transportation for Charter School pupils, or
it could develop an agreement with another school district, or contract with
parents or legal guardians.
2. Parents or legal guardians would be responsible for transportation for resident
transfer or nonresident pupils if the governing board does not provide it.
3. The governing board could provide transportation up to an established limit for
resident or nonresident pupils with disabilities and whose individualized education
plans speciQ that transportation is necessary.
H. Stimulus Fund
1. A Charter Schools Stimulus Fund should be established in the state treasury for
the purpose of (a) assisting in the development of Charter Schools, (b) defraying
start-up costs of Charter Schools, and (c) renovating or remodeling existing
buildings and structures. The fund could consist of legislative appropriations and
gifts, grants, and donations to the State Board of Education for the purpose of
assisting Charter Schools. The Arizona Department of Education could
administer the fund; the state treasurer would, upon notice from the Arizona
Department of Education, invest and divest monies in the fund as provided by
A.R.S. 8 35-313, and monies earned from investment would be credited to the
fund.
2. The State Board of Education should assure that grants to Charter Schools, to the
extent practicable, reflect a balance of urban and rural Charter Schools. The
State Board of Education should adopt such rules and procedures as are
appropriate for the administration of the Charter Schools Stimulus Fund.
3. Nothing in this section should be construed to preclude local governing boards
from seeking and using donations and grants from sources other than the Charter
Schools Stimulus Fund to cover start-up costs of a Charter School.
AREAS OF CONCERNIDISAGREEMENT
Although members of the Committee on Decentralization agreed without exception that the
process of decentralization is a viable option for facilitating meaningful school improvement,
they experienced difficulty in attaining agreement and consensus about all aspects of the subject.
This section highlights major issues of concern debated by Committee members as well as
examples of detailed comments and points of view.
A. Should the process of decentralization be voluntary or mandatory?
1. A basic point of contention and discussion among Committee members centered
on whether a decentralization process should be voluntary or mandatory.
a. Some Committee members raised opposition to state-mandated processes
in general.
b. Some suggested that mandating a process for the consideration of
decentralization was not the same as mandating a particular outcome, and
that in this case mandating the process would provide an equal opportunity
for all school sites to optimize community participation in the decision
about decentralization.
c. Committee members held continuing and lively discussions about the pros
and cons of developing and implementing voluntary and mandated
programs and processes.
2. One Committee member suggested that school districts be required to involve
parents and community members in budget, personnel, and curriculum decisions,
noting that this would (a) not require decentralization as a mechanism and (b) is
consistent with the Committee's belief that parents and community members
should be more involved in the schools. Further, this would strengthen the
policy-making authority of governing boards without usurping local responsibility
and accountability through prescription of a particular mechanism.
B. Should there be a mechanism for funding decentralized schools?
1. The issue of funding for decentralized schools sparked lively discussion among
Committee members. However, the Committee did not reach consensus on this
topic, which is closely linked to the discussion about which roles, responsibilities,
and authority should be granted to school sites.
2. One Committee member noted that, "Without some stipulation as to a set
percentage of the state base-support funding level or specific dollar amount per
pupil, decentralized schools could face the very real possibility of not being
appropriately funding by the local governing board. At a minimum, districts
must be required to fund decentralized sites equal to the average cost per pupil
for the district as a whole or in the same manner as other sites within the
district. "
C. Which entity (governing board, administration, school) should be delegated what
roles, responsibilities, and authority?
1. Some Committee members expressed the belief that there is a need to delegate
limited powers of contract to school-site councils - for example, allowing schools
to hire their own administrators, but maintaining teacher hiring as a function of
negotiated district policy, to avoid possible conflict of interest.
2. Others asserted that there should be a role for the local school site in the teacher
and staff selection process, noting that if one purpose of decentralization is to
create a common vision for the school community, then sharing that vision should
be a selection criterion.
3. A major point of contention in the decentralization discussion revolved around
whether school-site councils should be advisory with limited powers or granted
full decision-making authority.
4. An additional issue concerned the types of decisions the school-site council is
authorized to consider; most Committee members agreed that decision making
relative to curriculum and instruction was an undisputed role for the school-site
council, but were not able to reach consensus about whether or not school sites
should take on personnel and budget decisions.
5. One Committee member thought the group's recommendations did not give
enough authority to governing boards; another suggested that the policy-making
role, rather than the quasi-administrative role, of governing boards should be
strengthened.
D. What points in a decentralization plan need to be clarified and addressed for legal
purposes?
1. The Committee observed that certain powers and authority are delegated to
governing boards by current state laws.
2. Further, it was noted that some legal considerations for schools are derived from
federal guidelines attached to particular programs and funds.
E. What is the relationship of the district and the school with respect to policies, goals,
and accountability?
One Committee member suggested that common district-wide goals must be considered
for decentralization to be successful.
F. Are there special considerations that need to be addressed relative to teachers'
employment rights?
1. One Committee member noted that a lack of incentives for teachers to participate
in suggested reform activities; another commented that she hoped the opportunity
to participate in such activities would be sufficient incentive.
2. Responding to the concern by some of a need to maintain due process for teachers
in decentralized and Charter Schools, it was suggested that specific desired
protections should be clarified and enumerated, as all teachers are afforded due
process by law.
3. One Committee member suggested that, if the purpose of decentralization and
Charter Schools is to allow public choice, teachers must accept some economic
risks and consequences, meaning that salary, continuing contracts, and work
conditions should be negotiated at the local school level.
4. Another Committee member commented that he didn't think any teacher would
accept a position in these schools without establishing a comfort level about these
issues.
G. Other
1. Some Committee members expressed the belief that there is a need to revamp
teacher training by making the Charter Schools internship sites for new teachers.
2. It was suggested that the Arizona Department of Education facilitate bringing
together those engaged in decentralization, for purposes of support, collaboration,
and input.
APPENDIX A
BARRIERS TO DECENTRALIZATION
A. Ideas and Opinions Perceived as Barriers to Decentralization
1. The whole system must change or nothing can change.
2. Equity equals sameness.
3. There is satisfaction with the status quo.
4. The attitude that "this too shall pass."
Comments
There is a need to establish ways to support and encourage both equity and quality.
B. StateIStructural Barriers to Decentralization
1. There is no state mandate to decentralize.
2. There is no state support for decentralization structurally or financially.
3. The basic financial unit is at the district level.
4. Funding does not follow individual students.
Comments
The following issues must be considered and addressed regardless of the model or
structure developed to support decentralization:
1. Creating tolerance for different visions.
2. Balancing rights and responsibilities of all involved.
3. Protecting rights of students, especially of special populations.
4. Maintaining minimum requirements for students.
5. Decentralizing the authority to determine how funds are to be spent in the areas
of personnel, curriculum and instruction.
6. Determining who (district or individual school) makes the decision to
decentralize.
As a means of supporting decentralization, there is a need to:
1. Continue work on measuring performance against standards, such as the Arizona
Student Assessment Program (ASAP).
2. Establish the relationship between school choice and decentralization.
DistrictIProcedural Barriers to Decentralization
1. The lack of:
a. Working models
b. Definition of terms and roles
c. Knowledge and information
d. Communication
e. Time
f. Training
g. Collaborative involvement
h. Local (district) support and commitment
2. The existence of the following attitudes:
a. Lack of trust - powerlturf issues
b. Fear of despotism by principal
c. Jealousy of those who desire to prevent anyone from having what they all
cannot have
3. Previous practices and roles inhibit change.
APPENDIX B
SELECTED CHARTS AND GRAPHS
FROM THE DECENTRALIZATION SURVEY
Attitudes About Decentmlization: A Survey of Arizona Teachers and Principals,
Research and Development Division, Arizona Department of Education,
September 1993.
TEACHER SURVEY: Influence Over Education Decisions
QUESTION: Do you personally feel you have adequate influence over the
following issues?
Teachers Responding: 1,072 Yes No
Classroom Issues
a. selection of core instructional material? 67.1 % 32.9%
b. content, topics and skills that are taught? 74.2% 25.8%
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught?
d. grading paradigm or system?
e. discipline of students?
f. use of physical classroom space?
Schoolwide Issues
g, subjectlclass assignments? 75.4% 24.6%
h. hiring of teachers? 27.6% 72.4%
i. hiring of administrative personnel? 15.6% 84.4%
j. promotion of personnel? 15.6% 84.4%
k. allocation of hnds within your school? 23.0% 77.0%
1. determination of teacher salaries in
your school? 15.3% 84.7%
m. length of class periods? 41.0% 59.0%
n. length of the school day? 29.2% 70.8%
QUESTION: Overall, do you believe you have the authority to make decisions that
maximize your ability to teach students?
Yes No
70.2% 29.8%
PRINCIPAL SURVEY: Influence Over Education Decisions
QUESTION: Do you personally feel you have adequate influence over the
following issues?
Principals Responding: 531 Yes No
a. selection of core instructional material? 78.0% 22.0%
b. content, topics and skills that are taught? 78.0% 22.0%
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught? 77.7% 22.3%
d. grading paradigm or system? 66.7% 33.3%
e. discipline of students? 90.9% 9.1%
f. organization and use of physical plant? 83.6% 16.4%
g. mission and goals of school? 92.7% 7.3%
h. hiring of personnel? 83.9% 16.1%
i. evaluation of personnel? 87.5% 12.5%
j. promotion of personnel? 6 1.2% 38.8%
k. allocation of funds within your school? 70.7% 29.3%
1. determination of salaries in your school? 30.4% 69.6%
m. length of class periods? 82.1% 17.9%
n. length of the school day? 56.6% 43.4%
o. organization of transport for students? 54.0% 46.0%
QUESTION: Overall, do you believe you have the authority to make decisions that
maximize the ability of students in your school to learn?
Yes No
80.2% 19.8%
TEACHER SURVEY: Perceptions of Who Should Influence Education
QUESTION: In your opinion, which group(s) SHOULD have the most influence in decisions
made concerning the following classroom and schoolwide issues?
z Q
k
0 4 w .- a 2 .- i
a m c E
e8 ?28 -ds" ;
0 2 U -E 0 - Q
m 0 5 rn Y w
m .-
w a L.
2 .U- .- Q CVI) - -7
Q L m U 5 E 0
w w U .c- m z 0
m rA C
Teachers Responding: 1,072 G i3 5 k & k U w
Classroom Issues
a. selection of core instructional material
b. content, topics and skills that are taught
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught
d. grading paradigm or system
e. discipline of students
f. use of physical classroom space
Schoolwide Issues
g. subject/class assignments
h. hiring of teachers
i. hiring of administrative personnel
j. promotion of personnel
k. allocation of funds within your school
1. determination of teacher salaries in
your school
m. length of class periods
n. length of the school dav
NOTE: Since as many as three (3) responses were allowed per respondent, row totals exceed 100%.
Bold-italicized items received the largest majority of responses, give or take one percentage point.
Shaded items received a smaller response than in Table 1-H.
PRINCIPAL SURVEY: Perceptions of Who Should Influence Education
QUESTION: In your opinion, which group(s) SHOULD have the most influence in decisions
made concerning the following issues?
Principals Responding: 531
a. selection of core instructional material
b. content, topics and skills that are taught
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught
d. grading paradigm or system
e. discipline of students
f. organization and use of physical plant
g. mission and goals of school
h. hiring of personnel
i. evaluation of personnel
j. promotion of personnel
k. allocation of funds within your school
1. determination of salaries in your school
m. length of class periods
n. length of the school day
o. organization of transport for students
NOTE: Since as many as three (3) responses were allowed per respondent, row totals exceed 100%.
Bold-italicized items received the largest majority of responses, give or take one percentage point.
Shaded items received a smaller response than in Table 1-1.
TEACHER SURVEY: The Best Interests of Students and Site-Based
Decision Making
QUESTION: Student interests would be best served if the following decisions
were made at the school site ...
Teachers Responding: 1,072 Disagree Agree
Classroom Issues
a. selection of core instructional material? 20.5% 79.5%
b. content, topics and skills that are taught? 19.1% 80.9%
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught?
d. grading paradigm or system? 18.1% 81.9%
e. discipline of students? 7.4% 92.6%
f. use of physical classroom space? 5.0% 95.0%
Schoolwide Issues
g. subject/class assignments?
h. hiring of teachers?
i. hiring of administrative personnel? 31.1% 68.9%
j. promotion of personnel? 33.6% 66.4%
k. allocation of funds within your school? 12.9% 87.1%
1. determination of teacher salaries in
your school?
m. length of class periods? 14.2% 85.8%
n. length of the school dav? 23.9% 76.1%
PRINCIPAL SURVEY: The Best Interests of Students and Site-Based
Decision Making
QUESTION: Student interests would be best served if the following decisions were
made at the school site ...
Principals Responding: 531 Disagree Agree
a. selection of core instructional material? 263% 73.7%
b. content, topics and skills that are taught? 24.4% 75.6%
c. sequence in which content, topics and
skills are taught? 17.2% 82.8%
d. grading paradigm or system? 18.5% 8 1.5%
e. discipline of students? 15.1% 84.9%
f. organization and use of physical plant? 13.9% 86.1%
g. mission and goals of school? 7.9% 92.1%
h. hiring of personnel? 14.9% 85.1%
i evaluation of personnel? 12.3% 87.7%
j. promotion of personnel? 28.5% 71.5%
k. allocation of funds within your school? 13.7% 86.3%
1. determination of salaries in your school? 60.0% 40.0%
m. length of class periods? 14.9% 85.1%
n. length of the school day? 29.0% 71.0%
o. organization of transport for students? 56.7% 43.3%
