---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION
Minutes of Interim Meeting
House Hearing Room 3 -- 10:00 a.m.
CoChairman Crandall called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. and roll call was taken by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Rich Crandall, CoChairman Representative Doris Goodale, CoChairman
Senator Steve Smith Representative John Fillmore
Toni Badone Margo Seck
Tim Carter Andy Smith
Don Covey David Snyder
Jeffery Crandall Vanessa Whitener
Bob Martin
Members Absent
Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford Representative Ruben Gallego
Patrick Sinnott
Opening Remarks
CoChairman Crandall welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that Mr. Fillmore sponsored the bill that established this Committee, HB2219 - study committee; unification; consolidation (Laws of 2011, Chapter 215).
CoChairman Goodale said unification and consolidation elicit many thoughts, panic and concern, but she hopes that with all the great minds assembled, it will be possible to review the different issues involved.
Introduction of Members
Introductions were made by the Committee Members.
Discussions
Mr. Fillmore related his experience as a small businessman. He stated that education is very important to him and discussed the progress of individuals he worked with in a program called DECA. He said there are 227 school districts in Arizona and only 15 counties. He opined that school districts should consolidate and unify, and possibly share services, to save money. He said he originally indicated that there should be six school districts per county with the understanding that Maricopa, Pima and Pinal Counties may need a few more and Apache and Navajo Counties may need less; however, that is not his decision. He added that he hopes the Committee will be able to accomplish its goal in five meetings and requested that each Member relate what he/she envisions the Committee will accomplish.
CoChairman Crandall stated that in order to be on the same page, the Committee needs to have a defined scope of what to discuss and what not to discuss, a clear goal (deliverable) and stay on task. He recognized Marty Shultz in the audience who chaired the previous School District Redistricting Commission. He added that one of the major changes since this issue was previously tackled is an approximate $1 million cut to school funding, which makes people more serious about unification and consolidation.
CoChairman Goodale conveyed that she served on the previous Commission and sat on the Kingman School Board for 18 years where a successful unification took place in 2000. She said there is such diversity in educational districts around the state, to which the Committee needs to be sensitive. Also, a clear definition is needed of consolidation and unification, which have two different meanings to school districts. She added that Kingman was the only and last school district to unify when the Legislature funded unification projects; it does take money to unify.
Ms. Badone related that she spoke against unification and consolidation during the last round, mainly because the Yuma community believes in collaboration and local control, and the previous effort seemed forced. She stated that the K-12 model is great, but it makes the assumption that the child remains in the community through K-12, so she supports anything that can be done for students that is flexible. Also, there is an advantage with a consolidated high school district so that when students move, the same textbooks, curriculum and expectations are applied. The Yuma community believes in customization and standardization.
Mr. Carter related that Arizona statute currently allows any type of change to take place through the action of governing boards or voters. That is important because he is a local control advocate, which is likely true of most school districts in rural Arizona, and should be kept in mind. He said he is opposed to state-mandated attempts at unification and consolidation for various reasons and he can provide examples in which it does not save money. No one talks about whether instruction is being improved at the same time money is being saved, so he hopes the Committee will look at other options, such as incentives that were available at one time. Eliminating duplication and redundancy can be done through education service agencies (ESA) that work with school districts and charter schools to combine services, save money and provide a more effective product. He said his school district is moving toward regional service centers (RSC) that help smaller counties that may not have the capacity of larger counties. Many people are not aware of what ESAs or school districts can do through intergovernmental agreements (IGA), but shared services is a reasonable option. He agreed that collaboration is key.
Mr. Covey stated that the question is whether unification and consolidation will accomplish the overall goal of K-12 and charter schools to increase academic progress and achievement and ensure that students graduate college- and career-ready. If so, he is willing to move forward. He said he is also an advocate of ESAs and RSCs. The Committee should determine if unification and consolidation will help with the ability to obtain great leaders and teachers in all of the schools, and whether economies of scale can be realized or if other methodologies are already being employed.
Mr. J. Crandall advised that he is from a small school district where people are concerned about loss of local control, but one person does 15 different jobs instead of 15 people doing one job, so the question is whether that can be improved. He opined that the purpose of the Committee is to show school districts a plan that makes sense to unify or consolidate, but then the question will be what to name the school district; he is totally opposed to mandating. He added that if money can be saved now, hopefully there will be more money for schools when the economy improves.
Mr. Martin related that when he was on the Higley Unified School District Board in the 1980s and 1990s, there were only 200 students, and Gilbert Public Schools approached Higley about consolidation. The loss of local control was a very strong concern. If unification or consolidation occur, small school districts should have input and local control.
Ms. Whitener stated that enrollment at Higley is now 11,000. Communication is important in letting people know what is best for students. Some underlying framework for boards, superintendents and the community is an efficiency piece. Even though Higley and Gilbert decided not to merge into one school district, the school districts share services. She said she gained some experience in Washington, D.C. in meeting other school board members on how the school board issue is managed. Also, she would like some foresight on whether it is less expensive to have many smaller schools or more efficient to have larger school districts.
Mr. Snyder stated that over the last
few years, he has been involved in the vote with the
Mingus Union High School District. There was a lot of confusion in the
ballot language and probably more people were interested in unifying than
subdividing. During 2009-2010, he helped work on legislation that Representative
Andy Tobin sponsored to provide financial incentives, but it did not pass. He
said he would like to see those incentives in place at the state or local
level, as well as accountability to taxpayers for that money.
Mr. A. Smith stated that in the Wickenburg to Prescott corridor where his school district is located, there are five small school districts. He tries to find new ways to generate revenue and work out situations that occur in such a remote location, but what is most important to parents, the school board, teachers and the students is having a voice on this Committee. The community is worried about finances, loss of local control and small items such as losing their Halloween carnival. Also, it is important to the community that unification or consolidation is not done only to save money, but that the students are also considered in the process and the voters have a choice. He noted that a vote was taken in the past to consolidate Hillside, Skull Valley, Kirkland Elementary and Yarnell School Districts, which did not pass.
Ms. Seck stated that in the Tolleson Union High School District, there are five feeder school districts, but 25 feeder
schools, and the school district answers to four different cities, so much collaboration
and communication is necessary. A few years ago, voters voted to unify
Tolleson Elementary, Tolleson Union High School, Union Elementary, Fowler
Elementary, Littleton Elementary and Pendergast Elementary School Districts, which prompted the development of the Tolleson Regional Intra-district
Collaborative (TRIC) whereby superintendents, business managers, etc., planned
for unification, but it did not happen. What did happen is more IGAs with other
school districts, which can be expanded. She suggested looking at statutes and
regulations that impede that type of conversation and indicated that she would
like the Committee or someone with expertise to build a model. She opined that
unification or consolidation will initially cost more, but in the long run, it
is necessary to determine whether it is wise for students in terms of
curriculum and articulation.
Senator Smith conveyed that he supports unification and consolidation, which may save money and streamline efforts but, at the same time, it should fit the community.
CoChairman Crandall stated that in relation to defining the scope, the Committee will focus on unification and consolidation.
Current School Consolidation and Unification Process
Mr. Snyder indicated that equalization of salaries was a huge issue with unification because high school district teachers’ salaries were much higher than elementary school district teachers’ salaries, so money was earmarked to move teachers to the same salary schedule over two to three years. The two school boards helped with the process.
CoChairman Crandall remarked that Clifton High School has no interest in consolidation, but is now out of business and all of the students attend Morenci High School. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) may be forcing unification and consolidation because of academic achievement, but no one stepped up in that instance and said consolidation made sense. Two citizen committees, one in Miami and one in Globe, met with legislators last year to advocate for an initiative because both superintendents’ contracts expired at the same time, so it seemed like the perfect time to consolidate. A vote was taken on three separate occasions, but the measures never passed, so conversations were occurring, but no one has taken the step. He submitted that there is no current process; the closest is ADE forcing unification or consolidation when it is necessary.
Historical Barriers to School Consolidation and Unification
Mr. Carter advised that in Yavapai County, Skull Valley, Kirkland Elementary, Hillside,
Walnut Grove (transporting district) and Yarnell School Districts are all
within about 25 square miles of each other. The problem is that in talking to school
boards and voters in those areas, four schools need to be closed in order to
save money; however, people do not want to do that because the school is also
the community center and a place attended by generations of families. If there
is some way to preserve the aspect of what those schools mean to the
communities, there would be a better opportunity to move forward with
unification or consolidation.
CoChairman Crandall stated that one of the challenges in Arizona is providing the same educational opportunities to rural students that are available to urban students.
Mr. Carter stated that if the five schools did unify and consolidate, the argument then would be why transport the high school students to Prescott or Wickenburg, so a new school would have to be built for which the local taxpayers would have to bond, or continue to transport the students. CoChairman Crandall indicated that one school district voted to consolidate, but then realized it would have to build its own high school. Members of the audience indicated that occurred in the Tanque Verde School District.
CoChairman Crandall stated that at a meeting the previous day, he used the Riverside School District as an example of a small urban district and someone told him about good things that are being done academically at Riverside. He questioned where the trade-off is between fiscal and academic when it seems like it would be so easy to say there are six elementary schools within one mile, so why not take one to be “part of the family.”
Mr. Covey noted that is happening already in Maricopa County. In the Tempe Elementary School District, for example, several parents opposed the closing of a school because many generations of their families attended the school. There is a strong emotional attachment to local schools, but it was still closed, which had nothing to do with unification or consolidation. There are several other school districts in Maricopa County closing for economic reasons, and he is aware of three or four recalls that are taking place. He questioned how to overcome the passion people have for community schools.
Ms. Badone remarked that there seems to be an assumption that unification and consolidation are good for the bottom line in getting students ready, without remediation, for college and careers. She said the work done by Mr. Shultz and ADE involved many descriptions of economies of scale. One thing she remembers is that the optimum size of a school district is 10,000 students, so considering that, some school districts, in terms of student achievement and savings, should be split.
She noted that in Yuma there is an elementary school district with 11,000 students, a high school district with 11,000 students and three more elementary school districts with 8,000 students. If those school districts consolidated into a large school district there would be 35,000 students, so one of the questions the superintendent asked is if adding all those layers results in economies of scale. At the same time, a few years ago in East Yuma County when the incentive was still available, three very small elementary school districts and Antelope Union High School District went to the voters to consolidate, but at the last minute, the measure did not pass. Those school districts have declining enrollment and are struggling with budgets. They are not sure what the future holds because of what is happening with employment in that county. The reason the measure did not pass was because of the small community attitude that “if it is not broken, why fix it.”
CoChairman Crandall indicated that Graham County has eight school districts with eight superintendents and eight high school principals, all of which combined are just larger than his daughter’s high school in Mesa, so it seems there should be some economies of scale.
Mr. Martin acknowledged that there would be some savings with unification or consolidation, but questioned the kind of savings. It may be a large number, but if it is a small number, it may not be worth doing because of the loss of local control.
Mr. Fillmore commented that the intent of the bill is for the county superintendent to orchestrate the process and perhaps solve concerns about the neighborhood and local control. There will be a financial cost, so perhaps the state would be willing to provide funding and allow the schools to continue to exist as community centers in some manner.
CoChairman Crandall stated that in a future meeting, he would like to go through a case scenario with one urban and one rural school district. He said Mr. Martin made a good point. For $10,000, unification or consolidation may not be worth the angst, but for $1 million that can be put back into the classroom, it would be worthwhile.
CoChairman Goodale remarked that in going through the first consolidation effort several years ago, one of the key barriers to unification was local interest and the history each school district applied to its school. That is important, but it is still necessary to look at how to deliver education. She asked whether it is fair for students to remain in a small school that does not have the same assets and opportunities as other schools. The Committee needs to consider the community and student achievement and determine how to accommodate those.
Senator Smith said if a school district closes in which there are eight principals and eight superintendents, no one wants to lose their job, so the teachers’ union should be involved at some level, as well as teachers, superintendents, etc.
Mr. Covey said perhaps the Committee would like to see simulations of the impact of pending legislation, such as SB1040 - teacher and principal evaluations (Laws of 2010, Chapter 297), for which assessments need to be developed. There would be economies of scale if school districts work together to develop county-wide assessments. The same is true of K-3 diagnostic prescriptive assessments for third-grade promotion and longitudinal data systems. He offered to develop scenarios showing what would happen if those are done individually instead of collaboratively.
Impacts to Business and Education Services/Impacts to Taxpayers
CoChairman Crandall remarked that he gathered from statements made by Members that if unification or consolidation is not good for student achievement, it is not good all the way around.
Ms. Seck stated that if unification occurs, the schools involved have different bonds, capital overrides and maintenance and operations (M&O) overrides that expire at different times. Taxes could increase, which will take a lot of study. CoChairman Crandall noted that there was a huge issue with the Globe and Miami School Districts where, if consolidation occurred, one school district had an override and the other did not, as well as which would use the benefits of the seven-year override if there are three years remaining.
Mr. Carter submitted that taxpayers break taxes into two sections, one is the governance piece (who is making decisions) and the other is the services piece (how cost effective services are provided to students). Taxpayers want the governance piece as close to home as possible. If five school districts are combined, unless that group is in their town, most taxpayers believe local control is lost despite the benefit of the services piece. In order not to touch the governance piece, five districts with five separate governing boards can consolidate services through an ESA or IGA for food services, transportation and information technology. In Yavapai County, ESAs are used for nurses.
Public Testimony
Becky Hill, Stand for Children, related that Stand for Children is a supporter of the unification and consolidation discussion, mainly because of the potential for positive academic outcomes. There may be cost savings down the road and efficiency can be found from consolidation and unification, but only in the context of resources to help students achieve the desired goals.
She indicated that Stand for Children works with parents in the Northwest Valley who are very involved in the school district and have great relationships with the administrators and school board. The parents are happy with where the K-8 district is taking their children, but much less happy about what happens when the system breaks at K-8 and K-9 and the children move on to a massive high school district where the parents have very little control over what is happening and do not have relationships with the school board or administrators. Local control is not always in the context of redesign, but also in terms of what many parents believe is lost when their children move on to the high school level.
She indicated that the K-12 model is not being looked at because children are expected to live in the same place, but because a seamless, aligned system is needed in which the early grades prepare children for what is expected in high school so the high school can focus on preparing the children for what comes after, and not remediate what came before. It is problematic going through a system where there is a small misalignment between the K-8 district and the neighboring high school district. Sometimes there is a cavernous fracture where the school districts are not communicating and the K-8 did a great job with preparation, but the high school did not, or vice versa. There are many alignment issues that are not necessarily perfected because there is a K-12 district, but it is more difficult when the system is broken down the middle during the most critical transition in students’ academic careers.
Ms. Hill continued that in relation to goals and deliverables, she hopes the Committee can develop ideas that not only administrators can use, but also parents who want to bring the conversation to their local school board about how to fix the fractures that keep children from being as successful as possible. She added that businesses are concerned about making additional investments in schools because of the broken, split school districts, and philanthropy is very nervous about putting money into a system where it is difficult to assess where things break down. She questioned where accountability is from K-8/9-12 versus K-12 when K-12 systems can be held accountable rather than trying to figure out where things went wrong.
CoChairman Crandall remarked that the Yuma Union High School District is implementing the Grand Canyon Diploma and the EXPLORER exam is being offered to eighth graders. He said he hopes Ms. Hill has access to the results of the exam, and if students are not prepared for the rigor of the Grand Canyon Diploma, he questioned how much influence she has to step things up. He added that he would like to discuss that in one of the meetings.
Discussions (continued)
Consolidation of Existing Services
Regarding the scope of work, CoChairman Crandall stated that the Committee does not want to get into third-grade reading and teacher assessments and tools, but does want to discuss shared services, which are often thought of in terms of transportation, food services, and similar items. As far as the deliverable, the Committee needs to determine what it will be, who it will be delivered to and what will happen with the deliverable. In the fifth meeting, the deliverable will be addressed in more depth, but it would be nice if the Members work toward a common goal.
Mr. Fillmore stated that Ms. Hill’s comments lead into items he originally wanted to include in HB2219 that were removed, such as standardization of curriculum, perhaps on a county-wide basis, so that even if the schools do not unify or consolidate, there is a local awareness and all students are performing and obtaining the best education possible. Another item is transparency in the educational system for a better evaluation of over-performing teachers and those who should be rewarded more for their good capabilities. The intent is not just to unify or consolidate, but also to offer opportunities for IGAs and ESAs, etc., for savings, while allowing counties to set what is best within their own school districts.
Mr. Covey questioned if the Committee’s deliverable is a plan that a local school district, regional area or county superintendent may utilize to begin the process of planning how consolidation or unification may take place. CoChairman Crandall stated that the Committee has the flexibility to decide. He saw a school district put together a matrix on school closings, which involves many factors, and he would like a matrix to determine if there is a benefit to pursuing the unification and consolidation route or the shared services route that can be given to individuals to consider.
CoChairman Crandall said he would like to talk about obstacles in a future meeting, noting that school districts do not communicate. He asked what the Committee Members hope to ultimately deliver. Mr. Carter said that he hopes the Committee will develop a series of options with advantages, disadvantages and examples of successful models, as well as some type of incentive and a strategy to disseminate information and educate school districts because people do not know what options are available.
Discussion followed about the county superintendent’s role in the process.
Mr. Carter commented that in Yavapai County, he was fortunate to inherit a well-defined ESA that has expanded since he took office. The creation of five RSCs should be finalized within the next month where agencies with a great deal of capacity work with neighboring counties that do not have the same capacity. CoChairman Crandall said that is something that needs to be talked about, but time is running short. It is part of the Governor’s plan and a fantastic idea.
Ms. Badone recommended elimination
of legislative or legal parameters, which
CoChairman Crandall described as barriers.
CoChairman Crandall stated that
he called Dr. Harold Carlson, Superintendent, Wickenburg Unified School District, when an initiative was started on open education resources on the textbook
side, which has been very successful in two large school districts in Utah. A communication strategy is needed so people know about such efforts. He indicated
that he will invite Janice Palmer, Arizona School Boards Association, Deb
Duvall, Arizona School Administrators, Chuck Essigs, Arizona Association of School
Business Officials and
Andrew Morrill, Arizona Education Association, to make sure that whatever is
decided, everyone hears about it.
Ms. Seck stated that she believes a simulation or model may be a deliverable.
CoChairman Goodale recognized Representative Chester Crandell in the audience who is working on outcome-based education funding. She invited any Member who would like additional information to contact her, CoChairman Crandall or Mr. Fillmore, noting that much information was garnered during the meetings of the previous School District Redistricting Commission.
Senator Smith indicated that he would like to see the delineation between urban and rural school districts, what makes most sense for the smaller communities and counties and what is more feasible in the larger counties. If all of the county superintendents get on board with what the Committee is trying to do, the superintendents can disseminate information and obtain feedback.
Set Date for Next Formal Meeting
The Members decided to continue meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Thursday or Friday.
CoChairman Crandall indicated that an attempt will be made to try to give everyone adequate notice. The agenda for the next meeting will be lengthier and background research will be provided. The next four meetings will address the following:
· Consolidation and unification, going through an actual working model (urban and rural).
· Alternatives (shared services, ESA and RSCs).
· Discussion about options the Committee is leaning toward, advantages and disadvantages.
· Details and deliverables.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:46 a.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
August 4, 2011
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
JLSC ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UNIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION
July 27, 2011
2
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------