ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

 

School District Redistricting Commission

 

Minutes of the Meeting

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

2:00 p.m., House Hearing Room 5

 

 

Members Present:

Martin Shultz, Chairman

Vicki Anderson

Dave Naugle represented by   

  Susanna Sombrero

Dr. Sandra Dowling

George Martinez

Doris Goodale

Thomas Schoaf

Art Harding

Kent Scribner

Michael Hunter

Joseph Thomas

Rita Leyva

 

 

Members Absent:

Jay Blanchard

 

 

Chairman Shultz called the meeting to order at 2:08 p.m. and the attendance was noted.

 

Opening Remarks

 

Mr. Shultz asked the Members of the Commission to introduce themselves.

 

Mr. Shultz commented on the School District Redistricting Commission (SDRC) handout entitled “Frequently Asked Questions About Arizona School Redistricting (As of November 15, 2006)” (Attachment A). 

 

Mr. Shultz stated the questions in the handout were asked of the Commission, solicited by the Commissioners, and the answers are taken from SB 1068 (2005).  The answers have been confirmed, however, school district organization is legally and organizationally complex because there are many moving parts and for this reason it is the commitment of the Commission to accept more questions and continually research every question.  Mr. Shultz added he encourages any information about answers to questions be submitted to the Commission and if there are disagreements to any of the answers it would be helpful because the Commission is attempting to be very transparent and have everyone  understand the complexity of this task.

 

Mr. Shultz commented, by April 30, 2007, the Commission will have developed the specific proposals for the school district redistricting plan that impacts those schools that are not now unified.  The plan will then be sent to the school officials and request that they seriously consider those plans.  By July 31, 2007, after reviewing the Commission’s plans, those school officials will submit comments back to the Commission.  On December 31, 2007, or earlier, the Commission will submit the final plan to the governor and the Legislature.  Finally, the redistricting plan will go to the ballot for the November 2008 elections.

Ms. Leyva stated she has received many e-mails from parents and staff members in the Verde Valley School District regarding the unification of the three districts in the Verde Valley.  Ms. Leyva added the responses seemed to be split in half for and against unification. 

 

Mr. Shultz added the responses will be posted on the ADE website.

 

Review and Discussion of all Unification Proposals for all Counties

 

Mr. Shultz asked Dr. Deirdre Hahn, Assistant Director, Regional Engagement, Decision Theatre at Arizona State University, to explain the information in the handout entitled “The School District Redistricting Commission, State of Arizona” (Attachment B).

 

Dr. Hahn stated the Google Earth display on the front page of the booklet will be the same product that will be used on the ADE website and as the program is uploaded on the website there will be additional information on the districts in the Google Earth product. 

 

Dr. Hahn added for each section of the booklet there is a map of the district, the redistricting plan for that district, and the average daily membership (ADM) listed for each school in the district.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Harding how current the ADM information is.  Mr. Harding said the hundredth day ADM is used because this is the most stable count but there are other counts available.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Hunter to explain the difference between enrollment and the ADM.  Mr. Hunter stated ADM has to do with enrollment and students on the books and is not necessarily related to head count. 

 

Mr. Shultz stated many of the school districts in Arizona are growing and as a result any unification plan will have a short shelf life. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Schoaf to comment on the growth issue.  Mr. Schoaf stated growth is a very significant issue on the west side of Maricopa County.             Mr. Schoaf added many districts are needing to build new schools every year and it is important to look at numbers that are going to be true in the near term.

 

Mr. Shultz said the Commission is planning a meeting with the School Facilities Board to discuss the implications of unifying districts in particular areas.

 

Mr. Schoaf added the Commission needs to be in communication with the actual districts to know if there are high school sites available because one of the problems on the west side of Maricopa County is developers of undeveloped land are not willing to devote the acreage necessary for a high school site.

 

Mr. Schultz stated in previous booklets, data that corresponds to the                 SB 1068 (2005) criteria, plus the additional criteria that has been established by the Commission, were almost all quantifiable on datasets.  Dr. Hahn said that data is on an Excel spreadsheet that is available on the ADE website.

 

Mr. Schultz asked Dr. Hahn if that information will be available on the Google Earth program.  Dr. Hahn said the data that will be within the Google Earth program will come from the afore mentioned Excel spreadsheet.

 

Mr. Schoaf stated some of the ADM numbers for the redistricting of high schools in the booklet are not accurate. 

 

In response to Mr. Schoaf’s comment, Mr. Hunter said in the cases where the ADM numbers are not accurate, there are asterisks that mean there is incomplete data because it is not known how many students will be attending each high school.

 

Mr. Shultz stated in this initial look, the Commission is aware that there are some changes that need to be made.

 

Public Testimony

 

Cathy Stafford, Superintendent, Avondale Elementary School District, representing herself, gave her professional opinion regarding the redistricting plan in her District and distributed a letter from herself and Dudley Butts, Superintendent, Agua Fria Union District, regarding their recommendation for restructuring (Attachment C) to the Commission.

 

Ms. Stafford stated she has been in education for 30 years, 20 years with the Avondale Elementary School District and resides in the City of Goodyear.

 

Ms. Stafford said she has been actively involved in her district’s tri-district collaborations which has looked at K-12 curriculum and how redistricting is going to help the children in the classrooms.

 

Ms. Stafford added she supports the unification process and has been up close and personal in the restructuring of her school district.  Last fall, after a two year process, the K-8 schools were opened in the Avondale Elementary School District.  This was a dramatic restructuring for four of the schools in the District and as a result she understands what it means to restructure.  The heart and soul of the restructuring was about building community schools that would fit and serve a neighborhood and be committed to children from K-8 with the vision of where they are headed. 

 

In her professional opinion, Ms. Stafford stated she supports the plan the Commission has offered about unifying Avondale Elementary School District, Litchfield Field Elementary, and Agua Fria.  This opinion is based on her experience with restructuring schools

 

Ms. Stafford added she is not in favor of two districts because it would mean Agua Fria would be divided and join with the elementary districts.  She does not believe it would be in the best interest of the students to divide Agua Fria, which has a successful structure in place for enabling children to graduate from high school.

 

Ms. Stafford asked the Commissioners how they are going to come to a decision on the restructuring plan.

 

Mr. Shultz stated the Commission has not yet determined their approach.

 

Dr. Dowling asked Ms. Stafford to describe, in her professional opinion, what is too big in terms of size for her district.  Ms. Stafford said she does not have a definitive answer but this issue is an ongoing topic for the administrations in her district.

 

Dr. Dowling asked Ms. Stafford if she had a preference on whether or not there should be a cap on numbers before a new district is created.  Ms. Stafford stated she does not have an opinion on that issue at this point.

 

William Allsbrooks, Superintendent, Bullhead City Elementary School District, testified regarding redistricting in his area.

 

Mr. Allsbrooks stated his School Board had already started to discuss creating a Bullhead City Unified School District, and  speaking on behalf of Phil Sauceman, Superintendent, Mohave Valley School District, they are interested in creating a unified school district as well.  Mr. Allsbrooks added there are only two high schools in the union high school district, one in Bullhead City and the other in Mohave Valley, and it would be easy to create two unified school districts.

 

Mr. Allsbrooks said these two districts are asking the Commission to change their plan of one large district to the proposed two districts for many reasons. 

     

Mr. Allsbrooks asked what would happen if the districts were unified before the  Commission’s plan goes in front of the public for a vote.  Mr. Shultz stated if school districts make their own decision to become a unified district, the law does state that the Commission is not empowered to deal with unified districts.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Allsbrooks to submit a summary of his statement and the data to the Commission. 

 

Mr. Hunter stated he believes the district’s action would trump the Commission’s plan and that there needs to be a statement saying if the affected school districts take action of their own before November 8th then the Commission’s plan is null and void.

 

Mr. Shultz stated that question will be expedited and answered to the best of the ability of the legal advisors.

 

Mr. Allsbrooks said he hopes the Commission will adopt the plan of the districts because it will be a powerful statement in the community.

Mr. Hunter asked if the attendance boundaries would make sense if there were two unified districts.  Mr. Allsbrooks stated the students that attend Mohave Valley High School live within the Bullhead City Elementary District boundaries and the students that attend River Valley High School live within the Mohave Valley Elementary District boundaries so boundary lines do not cross.

 

Mr. Schoaf stated Topock Elementary School is included in the Commission’s plan and wanted to know if they would be included if there were two separate districts.  Mr. Allsbrooks stated Topock Elementary is not interested in unification.

 

Representative Gallardo testified regarding redistricting in the Phoenix Union High School District.

 

Representative Gallardo stated he believes that in the Commission’s current plan  for the Phoenix Union High School District the issues of the Voting Rights Act, specifically sections two and five, communities of commonality, voting trends, and electability of minorities need to be addressed.

 

Dr. Dowling asked Representative Gallardo if he would recommend the Commission consider implementing a ward system to assure adequate representation on school boards.  Representative Gallardo stated a ward system is one way to deal with this issue but without talking to attorneys to see how that would work in the Commission’s plans he is not sure.

 

Dr. Dowling stated, as important as it is to have minority representation in the inner cities, she wanted to know how it would impact rural areas.    Representative Gallardo stated the impact would vary depending on the area.

 

Dr. Dowling asked if the ward system would help promote communities of interest.  Representative Gallardo stated communities of interest is what is reviewed in order to draw the actual school district.  Also, a ward system would be beneficial for citizens to select candidates of their choice.

 

Dr. Dowling asked Representative Gallardo if a ward system should be implemented.  Representative Gallardo said it is not that simple and it depends on the area.

 

Dr. Dowling stated the Commission is charged with completing a statewide task and what is done in one area must be done in all areas.

 

Mr. Hunter said he is not sure if the Commission can dictate beyond the current statutory authority and other statutes that exist regarding creating a ward system or not.  A recommendation the Commission could make is to have the new board configure itself into a ward system if that is what is best for that area. 

 

Representative Gallardo said he disagrees with one size fits all in terms of wards because there are currently districts in Arizona with wards and districts at large.

 

Dr. Dowling stated, for clarification, there is currently one district with wards and 226 districts at large.

 

Mr. Martinez stated he appreciates Representative Gallardo bringing up a very important issue that has not been talked about until this point.

 

Betty Garcia-Pendley, representing self, testified regarding redistricting in Tempe. 

 

Ms. Garcia-Pendley stated the superintendents in Tempe were not questioned regarding the needs of the community for redistricting.

 

Ms. Garcia-Pendley said she has been active in Arizona PTA for 20 years, was a crossing guard in the elementary school district, and coordinated programs for   at-risk students both in the Native American and Latino populations in the high school district.  When she went to work for the district 10 students graduated from Guadalupe.  There was a discrepancy within the curriculum, there were many changes the students faced coming into the district, and there was not enough buy-in from the students to belong to the school.  The last year she worked with the students, 56 graduated from the Native American community and the drop out rate for Native American students reduced from 29% to 4% in the Tempe Union High School District. 

 

Ms. Garcia-Pendley added many of the problems in the district had to do with the fact that the students were divided.  Guadalupe is a one mile community and the students go to various schools.  The Commission’s proposed plan is to divide the community again into two different school districts and the community does not want this.  A result of the students being divided has led to the development of rival sub-groups.  The community is working hard to fix this problem and bring the children together.  The community would also like to see the children brought together within the same school system. 

 

Ms. Garcia-Pendley stated she has always advocated for unification and knows what works for children and the current situation is not working for the communities within the school district.

 

Ms. Garcia-Pendley asked how desegregation will effect the unification issue being that Tempe Elementary is the only district in Tempe that receives desegregation money.

 

Denise Finell, Business Manager, Wilson Elementary School District. 

 

Ms. Finell stated she is a Certified Public Accountant and started her career working in the Auditor General’s Office, moved to large industry, then to large unified school districts, and now works for Wilson Elementary School District.  Next, Ms. Finell said she has not been able to see what the real savings would be with the unification of school districts and it would be good if it is placed on the ADE website.  She added changing the makeup of school districts will extensively change overrides and bonds.

Ms. Finell said Representative Gallardo brought up a good point regarding the differences between school districts.  The Commission’s plan will call for approximately $2,800 per student outside of formula for the Wilson Elementary School District.  Madison has almost $900 per student outside of formula.  Madison is the Biltmore area and in the Wilson Elementary School District between 20% and 30% of the students are homeless, students from the shelters for abused women and children, high ELL population, and 25% migrant.  Students in the Wilson District have different needs than students from the Madison District.

 

Ms. Finell asked if the districts are to be unified, what will be done with the disparity in teacher salaries.  She said she is concerned that programs in place in the Wilson Elementary School District be discarded if the new district is created because Madison and Creighton will be the majority.  Ms. Finell added the startup in the change over is going to extremely costly. 

 

Mr. Martinez stated the Commission does not know what the cost savings will be as of yet but there is a provision in the statute that acknowledges funding for transition planning that takes into consideration the specific issues she has raised.

 

Ms. Finell stated commonality needs to be looked at when unifying different districts because large unified districts with different types of students have a hard time serving the very needy students yet appear fair because they want to give an equal amount to each student.

 

Ms. Finell asked how the taxpayers are going to be grouped if unification happens.

 

Mr. Hunter stated Chairman Shultz is working with legal counsel on how unification will work and there may be some ambiguities even after the decision, which may need clarification.

 

Dr. Dowling stated if the current statute is used, 50 plus one, of the two existing districts, or any of the districts that are going to be consolidated, all need to vote ‘Yes’  otherwise they are not included in the process.

 

Dave Perey, Superintendent, Bicentennial Union High School District, testified regarding the effects of redistricting in his district.

 

Mr. Perey said the Commission’s plan would combine the Bicentennial Union High School District with four elementary districts, which is probably a good idea educationally.

 

Mr. Perey stated three of the districts that Bicentennial District would be unifying with are currently using the small school adjustment for 60% of their budget and he would like to know what is going to happen to this adjustment if the districts unify.

 

Mr. Perey added the ward system would make redistricting more powerful in his area because six towns would be represented under the plan. 

 

Finally, Mr. Perey stated there needs to be better utilization of district personnel so employees are doing one thing well instead of 12 things the best they can.

 

Mr. Shultz stated there have been a few ideas presented to the Commission that might require legislation this year and one of those issues might be modification of the small school adjustments.  If modification of the small school adjustments is going to be helpful to some districts in order to get to the goal of unification,  this would be something reasonable to consider as far as a legislative package is concerned. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Perey to report any ideas regarding any modifications to the small school adjustments to the Commission sooner rather than later.  Mr. Perey said he would submit ideas to the Commission as soon as possible.

 

Marilyn Rollins, Governing Board Member, Osborn Elementary School District # 8, testified in opposition to the Commission’s redistricting plan.  Ms. Rollins stated the Commission’s plan would unify the Osborn Elementary School District with the Alhambra Elementary School District and Osborn has a totally different management style than Alhambra.  Ms. Rollins added a Beat the Odds Study shows that schools perform better when there is a collaborative approach to management and there is a very strong emphasis on this in the Osborn District.

 

Ms. Rollins said there are six schools in the district, five are Performing Plus schools and the other is a performing school.  A high number of  refugees attend the performing school and there are 15 different languages from that school base.  Ms. Rollins stated the Osborn District has a strong professional development school contact with Arizona State University West, which the other schools do not have.  This has helped the achievement and teacher retention in the district.

 

In her view, Ms. Rollins believes there will be not only racial but economic and social segregation if the Commission’s plan goes through as presented . 

 

Mr. Shultz stated the Osborn Elementary School District is under 4,000 ADM and this means the fixed costs are spread over a smaller base, which is an economic consequence. 

 

Mr. Shultz said it would be wise for the school board to look at the plans and do an analysis because it would be helpful to the Commission.

 

Ms. Rollins added the Osborn District does not have an attorney on staff and when the district needs an attorney they hire an attorney specific to the issue, which keeps legal costs low.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Ms. Rollins to give her opinion on K-12 combined schools.    Ms. Rollins stated when there is a combination, school boards tend to focus more on the high school issues.

 

Antonio Sanchez, Superintendent, Wilson School District, testified representing the Wilson School District.

 

Mr. Sanchez said he questions if a larger district would sponsor the current one computer per student program in the Wilson District and he believes the Commission redistricting plan will not meet the specific needs of the students.

 

Mr. Sanchez stated he believes in the larger district, the parents in the Wilson District will lose local control because their voice and vote will become diluted and this could become a legal question.  He questioned if a current Wilson board member would get on the new board to represent their District given the small base.

 

Mr. Sanchez said he presented the pros and cons of the redistricting plan at a PTO meeting and the parents were against unification.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Sanchez if he agrees with the Syracuse University study which states that there needs to be a minimum of 6,000 ADM to be cost effective.  Mr. Sanchez stated all the monies in the Wilson School District are directed towards the students and he is not sure what the base ADM should be.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Mr. Sanchez if he has an opinion on the concept of having continuous curriculum in an organization that is K-12.  Mr. Sanchez stated if a seamless curriculum is going to be created, that is where the emphasis needs to be placed and he is not sure if redistricting is the answer. 

 

Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Sanchez if it is more expensive to educate at-risk students.  Mr. Sanchez it is more expensive because the students do not have the same tools that other students have and the school uses programs to get them caught up.

 

Mr. Hunter stated Mr. Sanchez’s testimony is valuable because it shows what the status quo is and whether or not the Commission’s plan would be an improvement on the status quo.

 

Mr. Hunter added Madison Elementary District has a mixed demographic and many of the students are some of the same types of students that attend the Wilson Elementary District and they are performing well.  Mr. Hunter added combining districts may not be a bad thing but the situations need to be looked at and it would be helpful to learn more about the demographics in the Madison Elementary District in order to know what it would be like to combine other schools with Madison.

 

Mr. Shultz asked if it would be a good professional idea if there was an opportunity to equalize the salaries of elementary teachers compared to high school  teachers and asked why this has not been advocated from elementary districts.  Mr. Sanchez said it would be a good professional idea.

 

Mr. Scribner stated Mr. Shultz’s question relates to spreading out fixed costs over a larger base because elementary school districts tend to spend more on the special instructional services that tend to be concentrated for younger students.

 

Kim Owens, Tolleson Union High School District # 24, testified representing self.

 

Ms. Owens said combining one district that is doing well with a district that has specific challenges and believing the students will succeed is not always the case.  In the district she serves in, there are five feeder districts and in one high school 60% of the incoming freshman read below grade level.  There is a large turnover in that elementary district due to migration and the district may not have had time to remediate the past practice of other students.

 

Ms. Owens added there are fixed costs in high schools that make it a different animal than elementary schools.  Programs for special education students can be more costly because it is a different format that have other types of designs and setups.  Ms. Owens added high school sports are very costly as well.

 

Ms. Owens stated the Commission’s West Valley Plan 1 does not enhance the educational opportunities for the students in elementary or high schools.  There will be some schools with excess capacity and others with over crowding with no bonding capacity to meet the needs to bring those schools up to a standard of what other high schools in Arizona have.

 

Ms. Owens added the Commission’s West Valley Plan 2 is the most fair and equitable and does provide for the opportunity for a seamless transition. 

 

Dr. Dowling asked Ms. Owens if she is in favor of a ward system.  Ms. Owens stated she would be in favor of a ward system for the Commission’s West Valley Plan 2.  Ms. Owens added local control is important and with a ward system there is the possibility of retention of local control.

 

Dr. Dowling asked what Ms. Owens believed would be the most fair and equitable way of establishing representation.  Ms. Owens said when the lines are drawn for a ward system they should not resemble the old district lines but are more representative of a balance of voters.  Ms. Owens added anytime there is a ward system there needs to be some at large districts to balance it out.

 

Rae Waters, Kyrene School Board, testified representing self.

 

Ms. Waters stated the Kyrene School Board has been holding community forums regarding redistricting plans and the Board will provide the Commission feedback once they receive it.

 

Mr. Shultz asked Ms. Waters if she is familiar with the letter from the Mayor of Tempe that was presented at the last Commission meeting and the testimony from that meeting for support of the plan that would unify all three districts, including Kyrene, into one K-12 district.  Ms. Waters said she is familiar with that information and is hearing concern from the community regarding the size of the district and what will happen to programs specific to the Kyrene District if the districts are unified. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked Ms. Waters if she supports the Tempe City Council’s support for unifying the districts instead of cutting off parts of Kyrene in Chandler and Phoenix.  Ms. Waters stated she has a concern with cutting the district off at Guadalupe because it cuts a high school in half. 

 

Mr. Shultz asked Ms. Waters to comment on the issue of elementary salary schedules being lower than high school salary schedules.  Ms. Waters said high school districts receive higher per pupil funding than elementary school districts so it stands to reason that they have more money to spend on teacher salaries.  Ms. Waters added somehow the salary schedule needs to be equalized by either freezing the top and bringing the bottom up or redoing the salary schedule and placing everybody in the appropriate category.

 

Mr. Shultz stated teachers are valued too low and elementary teachers are valued lower than high school teachers and this is wrong. 

 

Discussion

 

Mr. Shultz stated the Commission is committed to adding to the Frequently Asked Questions sheet, receiving an update to all the answers with legal back up, scheduling a meeting with the School Facilities Board, and determining a couple of working session dates to work towards the best unification plans.

 

Mr. Shultz added he will ask Legislative Counsel to take the statue and write up the transmittal so there is a proper legal transmittal to the districts and hopefully there will be a draft of the transmittal to look at and work through. 

 

Mr. Shultz recommended scheduling three meetings for the purpose of working  towards the target date of April 30, 2007.

 

Mr. Schoaf said the Commission should decide if they are going to seek changes in the legislation because that needs be submitted early. 

 

Mr. Shultz stated that should be on the agenda for the next meeting in December.

 

Mr. Schoaf asked if the Commission will receive a legal opinion on how the vote will be structured because if every individual district has the right to veto the entire plan as opposed to only vetoing it as it applies to their district, then essentially, the very small districts will be able to veto everything for the larger district and the work the Commission is doing is for nothing.

Mr. Shultz stated the Commission will receive a clarification on the statute of the voting procedure from Legislative Counsel as soon as possible in advance of their next meeting.

 

Mr. Thomas stated the question of elementary salaries compared to high school salaries should be part of the Frequently Asked Questions sheet as well.          Mr. Schultz agreed.

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Bill Ritz

Committee Secretary

 

 

(Audio recordings and attachments on file in the Secretary of Senate’s Office/Resource Center, Room 115).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

School District Redistricting Commission

November 15, 2006

Page 12

 

 

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