Joint Legislative Study Committee on School District Unification and Consolidation

---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

Fiftieth Legislature – First Regular Session

JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON

SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION

Minutes of Interim Meeting

Monday, December 19, 2011

House Hearing Room 3 -- 10:00 a.m.

CoChairman Crandall called the meeting to order at 10:04 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 Representative Ruben Gallego

Tim Carter Patrick Sinnott

Don Covey Andy Smith

Jeffery Crandall David Snyder

Bob Martin Vanessa Whitener

Margo Seck

Members Absent

Senator Leah Landrum Taylor

Opening Remarks

CoChairman Crandall stated that the Members will discuss the draft recommendations. Some were provided in written form, but he would like to hear what each Member wishes to include. Public testimony will be heard, after which the Members will adopt final recommendations. He thanked the Members for dedicating their time, especially over the holidays.

CoChairman Goodale welcomed everyone. She related that this Committee is solely about unification and consolidation, and it is separate from any bills that are being introduced.

CoChairman Crandall asked Representative Fillmore to make some comments since there have been emails circulating about different ideas.

Representative Fillmore thanked everyone for attending. He stated that he heard there are concerns about bills he is proposing, but those are separate from consolidation legislation. In February 2011, the Arizona Education Commitment (AEC) published full-page ads requesting additional funding for education. The AEC website states that 28 percent of Arizona’s youth are not proficient in math, only 27 percent of eighth graders are proficient in reading and 30 percent of the students do not graduate from high school. He is introducing bills relating to items he wants to discuss since Arizona is ranked 45^th in the country in school performance. In dealing with consolidation, he said he requested input from the education community. More money is needed for classrooms and teachers to improve the education of students, which can be done through unification or consolidation.

Discussion of Draft Recommendations

Mr. Carter stated that his proposal attempts to eliminate impediments by providing incentives based on the theory that unification or consolidation is voluntary. Referring to a handout, he stressed the importance of the third and fourth bullet points (Attachment 1):

Allow the county superintendent to modify time frames.
If two or more school districts are considering unification or consolidation, the county school superintendent can be asked to assist in providing a feasibility study, with the school district boards deciding what will be included. A fund would be made available to pay for the study, legal counsel, accounting work, an independent consultant, an interim administrator and the cost of the election. The governing boards and voters would review the information and determine if it makes sense to unify or consolidate. Additionally, if the voters decide to unify or consolidate, an incentive would be to raise the
Revenue Control Limit (RCL) by five percent for two years, to equalize salaries and implement changes.

CoChairman Crandall noted that the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has statutory regulations for reporting requirements. If there is a deadline to submit next year’s budget and school districts are trying to consolidate, that requirement will need to be waived because a consolidated budget will be submitted. Mr. Carter responded that he talked to John Huppenthal, Superintendent of Public Instruction, ADE, who agreed that three different school district budgets may be needed, from District A, District B and the consolidated school distinct, and that the time frames can be resolved.

CoChairman Crandall indicated that ADE may have to address the voluntary nature of the process and modifying statutory time frames through the state superintendent rather than the county school superintendent.

Mr. Snyder stated that his recommendations (Attachment 2) focus on the financial aspect, noting that incentives need to be in place. During discussions about unification, it was determined that money would have to be spent before as well as after unification to align computer systems, etc. Funding is needed at the state or local level for school districts to move forward.

Dr. Covey stated that the reason for advocating school district unification or consolidation is so all students enrolled in traditional K-12 school districts graduate career and/or college ready. He reviewed possible recommendations (Attachment 3):

Voluntary process
Conduct a feasibility study
Provide transitional and incentive funding for a period of three to five years
Provide budget authority outside the maintenance and operations (M&O) budget
Authorize county superintendents to modify timelines if it is shown to be beneficial
Provide state funding to county superintendents’ offices to assist with feasibility studies, planning and/or implementation costs

Dr. Covey addressed consolidation of services and concerns regarding unintended actions to unification or consolidation, specifically elimination of small school adjustments for traditional school districts and charter schools (Attachment 3).

Dr. A. Smith reviewed a handout, Unification/Consolidation recommendations (Attachment 4), relating to the need for choice particularly for local, small school districts; phasing out the small school adjustment, except in very rural and isolated areas; and encouraging shared services. He added that he believes much savings would have to be realized in order for small, rural school districts to unify or consolidate.

CoChairman Crandall commented that the decision to unify or consolidate should be about improving performance rather than saving money.

Dr. A. Smith commented that the Yarnell School D istrict is an “A” district, as well as the Congress Elementary School District and Gila County School Districts, all of which are small schools. There is concern that joining other school districts may change the dynamics so much that student performance will be lowered.

Ms. Whitener asked what happens if the community wants to unify or consolidate, but the governing board is hesitant. She noted that there have been discussions about petitioning a board; however, the board can decide not to recognize the petition. Dr. Covey replied that if school board members do not heed the wishes of the community that can be dealt with through the election or recall processes. Mr. Carter clarified that according to his proposal, if the governing board determines that it is not wise to move forward with a unification or consolidation election, the voters could go around the board through the petition process and require a vote anyway. The details would have to be worked out, but if there is disagreement, the voters will prevail.

The other Members related their recommendations, which included the following:

Fluid process
School board member and Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) involvement in the transitioning process and communication
Voluntary and not mandatory process
The feasibility study is important, although it may be difficult for six school districts, such as in the Tolleson School District, to agree to conduct a study
Cost for the feasibility study outside of the RCL; however, a revenue source is needed
County superintendents overseeing the feasibility study, providing resources for the study and choosing consultants to work with the school districts
Phasing in unification or consolidation over three to five years
Incentives for more consolidation of services
Potential fund or pool to provide a loan for the feasibility study
Unify or consolidate so it is in the best interest of the state and students
Without a voluntary process, many school districts will be reluctant to change unless financial incentives are provided
Decrease duplicated services in school districts by using intergovernmental agreements and consolidating services
Consider the mobility of the students
Do not distract school superintendents from their required duties
Consider the culture of the community
Start small with small school districts located near to each other so their success will lead to more small school districts wanting to unify or consolidate

Representative Fillmore read a letter he received from a school board member about duplication of services in certain school districts resulting in the waste of taxpayers’ money (Attachment 5) and referred to an article from the Arizona Tax Research Association newsletter regarding
$1.9 billion in school property tax increases on the November 2011 ballot (Attachment 6). He submitted that consolidation would not only decrease redundancy and duplication; it would also decrease valuations because there would be a broadening of the tax base.

He added that he has always taken the position that unification or consolidation should be to the school’s benefit. He reviewed recommendations that he said he believes address most of the comments by the Members (Attachment 7), except mobility of the students, which he hopes to focus on in separate legislation relating to continuity of curriculum, etc.

Public Testimony

Orlenda F. Roberts, Pinal County School Superintendent; President, Association of County School Superintendents, indicated that the process should not be mandated, but voluntary. She questioned whether the Committee has collected data to determine the level of voluntary sharing of services and programs that is already occurring in many of the school districts due to recent budget cuts. She said being a small school district is not the problem and suggested looking at the level of proficiency of the teachers and curriculum in school districts. In regard to student performance and curriculum, she submitted that factors other than size should be considered. School districts need support for many of the items already mandated for third-grade reading proficiency, and she is already working with school districts in Pinal County to determine how to work together to share services and programs to better utilize funds.

Carl Zaragoza, Advocacy Director, Stand for Children, stressed the importance of incremental change and expressed concern about children being stuck in underperforming school districts. He asked that the Committee consider amending the statutes to eliminate the governing board’s ability to override a parents’ petition for change, not just outright, but specifically looking at performance. He opined that an underperforming school or school district should have the opportunity to unify or consolidate with a higher performing school district.

Bill Blong, Executive Director, Arizona Rural Schools Association, testified that rural school districts differ greatly from one another, so a blanket policy is not possible. In many places, the school is the sole source of community that cannot be taken away. He submitted that small and rural school districts reduce the impact of poverty, are more effective, may have some of the latest technology and are like “A” schools. Many of the administrators wear multiple hats, as well as the teachers. He expressed concern about where the pot of money for county superintendents to use will be derived from considering the budget cuts to education in the last few years. He endorsed a voluntary system with incentives for some school districts. He added that concerns for economic efficiency must not outweigh the impact of consolidation on communities or hinder students.

Representative Fillmore questioned why unification or consolidation has not occurred if voluntary is the way to go, and whether the county level is local enough. Mr. Blong replied that empowering the county superintendents is a good idea because they know their counties better than anyone, but he is advising caution because rural communities predominantly make up the state, except in Maricopa and Pima counties.

Janice Palmer, Governmental Relations Analyst, Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), stated that the ASBA is often viewed as against unification and consolidation, which is not true; unification and consolidation need to be done well and must be about student achievement, voluntary and designed to succeed. For the first time, all stakeholders have the single vision for Arizona of career- and-college-readiness. She said she fully supports the feasibility study to look at issues that may arise and determine if unification or consolidation will or will not work. Also, transitional costs should be provided, so she supports having a fund. She added that
CoChairman Goodale was a member of a school board that did unify, as did the Benson School District, so it has been done, and it can be done under the model presented by
Representative Fillmore.

Dr. Covey stated that there is now a statewide plan for academic improvement and achievement. School districts are doing more with less and he believes unification or consolidation will move forward cohesively because there are no other options. Enabling legislation is needed to incentivize and there are already successful models in Maricopa County.

Adoption of Final Recommendations

CoChairman Crandall noted that Representative Fillmore will sponsor a bill based on the final recommendations, and there will be opportunities to make amendments during the legislative process.

Representative Fillmore stated that he asked for input when he first began working on this issue. He reviewed a letter containing seven suggestions, six of which relate to cost (Attachment 8). He submitted that the reality is that it always comes down to the “almighty dollar,” which he is attempting to provide up front. The Committee should do what is right for children by moving the recommendations forward, and there will be the ability to make changes in Committee meetings.

The Members discussed and agreed to changes to the Draft Recommendations (Attachment 7), which were incorporated into Final Recommendations (Attachment 9).

CoChairman Crandall said a mission statement is needed and the focus should be on children and academic achievement. He said he may address triggers for low performance in the Senate, which is a missing piece that is needed. He added that many ballot propositions did not pass previously because voters in all of the school districts involved had to vote to unify or consolidate, or it was not done; the final recommendations allow for more flexibility.

Ms. Badone remarked that anything worth doing should be done over three to five years so perhaps consideration should be given to providing funding over time. CoChairman Crandall agreed and indicated that the September 25, 2012 date in the first recommendation should be changed to September 25, 2013.

CoChairman Goodale stated that she is very encouraged by the recommendations.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12:41 p.m.

_______________________________

Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary

January 3, 2012

(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

December 19, 2011

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------