Arizona Fact Sheet
State Funding Context
From NCES (most current available statistics):
Pre-K to 12 Students, 2004-05: 1,043,298
Annual Public School Expenditures, 2003-2004:
$6.06 Billion
% Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch, 2004-05: 48.0
% in limited-English-proficiency programs, 2004-05:
18.6
Note: The authors use 2002-2003 data
in the study, and they based their numbers off the total
spending figure $5.3 billion, which they say is 2002-2003
expenditures “excluding federal funds, special
revenue funds, and districts not included in the analysis.”
| Study Title: |
“Lead
With Five: Five Investments to Improve Arizona
Public Education” |
| Date Completed: |
February 2005 |
| Definition of Adequacy: |
No specific definition of adequacy was used in
the study, beyond “increasing student performance”
and “making education a success” by
“produc[ing] an educated and talented workforce
that will…form the foundation for future
prosperity.”
|
| Calculated Per Pupil Costs,
Including Base Costs and Special-Needs Weightings: |
Average per pupil cost: $7,628
- Current expenditures: $5,745
- Professional Development for Teachers: $425
- Performance Pay for Teachers: $485
- Decreasing class sizes: $826
- One-on-one tutoring for “at-risk”
students: $107
- Extra help for English Language Learners:
$41
|
| Calculated Additional Costs: |
$1.75 billion, or 34 percent.
Note: Authors include as “current expenditures”
the funding approved for full-day kindergarten
in 2004, though the program will not be fully
implemented until 2009.
|
| Major Recommendations: |
The authors list five major recommendations:
- Provide full-day kindergarten for all students
- Improve teacher preparation and teacher pay
systems
- Increased professional development that is
“school-based, job-embedded, and focused
on the curriculum.” This will include
between 100 and 200 hours of professional development
per year, organized in a meaningful way that
includes “active learning,” opportunities
to work directly on incorporating new techniques
into practices, instructional facilitators or
mentors for teachers, and other forms of professional
development that can be incorporated directly
into other aspects of teaching
- 20 percent more teachers, to cover class size
reductions and increased professional development
- A teaching year of 202 days (up from 190),
to allow for “summer training institutes”
- A new pay system that includes teacher salary
increases, bonuses for working in rural or urban
areas, increased pay for math and science teachers,
and performance pay
- Smaller schools: 500 students for K-5 and
500 to 1,000 students for 6-12. For large schools,
this can be done by creating “schools
within schools”
- Class size reductions: 15 students in K-3
and 25 students in 4-12.
- One-on-one tutoring and other extra help
for struggling students
a. At least one professional tutor per 20 percent
of students from poverty backgrounds, with at
least one per school
|
| Recommendations for Implementation: |
Start by reallocating existing resources to better
fit the priorities outlined in the study
Implement full-day kindergarten as the first reform,
starting with the highest poverty schools
Professional development funds and instructional
coaches should be put in place early, and teacher
performance pay adjustments should only come when
all professional development initiatives are in
place
Class size reductions should be phased in slowly
over at least five years, to prevent unqualified
teachers from being put in classrooms
Implement data systems to allow for feedback on
both student and teacher performance
|
| Methodology: |
Evidence-Based
Authors identified five major areas of reform
that would allow each school to deliver a “comprehensive
and high-quality instructional program,”
based on empirical evidence of the effectiveness
of each strategy. The authors then calculated
the expenditure level necessary to implement the
reforms based on “prototype schools.”
Professional
Judgment
After completion, the authors submitted the report
to two professional judgment panels comprising
52 Arizona educators, along with the study’s
Steering Committee (see Public Input), who recommended
changes and adjustments. Educators on the panel
included teachers, principals, special-educators,
ELL specialists, and other educators, drawn from
a diverse set of Arizona schools.
|
| Special Features: |
Preschool is not included in the study
This study did not consider capital funding for
facilities, etc., transportation, food service,
adult education, or community service costs, which
are ordinarily excluded from adequacy studies.
|
| Public Input: |
A Steering Committee of Arizona business,
education, and community leaders assisted the
authors by providing information, reports, and
special context for education in Arizona. |
| Prepared for: |
The Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona |
| Prepared by: |
Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus, and Associates |
Fact Sheet prepared by Matthew Samberg, July, 2007. |