Home

















Costing-Out Home | Overview | A Primer | State Fact Sheets | Policy Brief  

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:
  1. Provide full-day kindergarten for all students
  2. 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
  3. 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”
  4. Class size reductions: 15 students in K-3 and 25 students in 4-12.
  5. 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.