Arizona public school districts' dollars spent in the classroom. In November 2000, voters approved Proposition 301, which increased the State’s sales tax from 5 percent to 5.6 percent to provide additional money for educational programs. The enabling legislation for Proposition 301 requires the Auditor General to “. . . monitor school districts to determine the percentage of every dollar spent in the classroom by a school district.” This report presents our analysis of the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom for the most recently completed school year.

In fiscal year 2011, Chino Valley Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer district and state averages, and its operational efficiencies were mixed with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per-pupil administrative costs were slightly higher than peer districts’ because the District employed more administrative positions per pupil. The District’s plant operations, food service, and transportation programs operated reasonably efficiently, with cost measures such as cost per square foot, cost per meal, and cost per mile that were similar to or lower than peer districts’ averages. However, the District needs to improve controls over access to critical information systems and strengthen controls over its fuel purchase cards.

In fiscal year 2011, Patagonia ESD’s student AIMS scores in math and reading were lower than peer districts’ averages, and its writing scores were higher. Patagonia UHSD’s scores were higher in all three subject areas than peer districts’, on average. Because the two districts operate essentially as one district, auditors considered their operations combined when determining operational efficiency. The districts saved money by operating together but could do more to further reduce costs. The combined District’s cost-efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’, on average. However, the District needs to strengthen controls over multiple operational areas, including payroll and accounts payable processing and computer system access and security. The District also needs to improve bus preventative maintenance, ensure bus driver certification requirements are met, and better control fuel inventory.

In fiscal year 2012, Fowler Elementary School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than the peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently. The District’s administrative cost per pupil was similar to the peer districts’ average, and it employed proper accounting and computer controls. The District’s plant operations costs per pupil and per square foot were lower than the peer districts’ averages primarily because of lower energy costs. Additionally, the District’s food service cost per meal was lower than the peer districts’ average, and the program was self-sufficient, in part, because the District paid the vendor that ran its program lower administrative and management fees than peer districts, on average. Further, the District’s transportation program was efficient, with lower costs per mile and per rider and efficient bus routes. However, the District did not accurately report its number of riders transported, which resulted in substantial overfunding for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

In fiscal year 2012, Duncan Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’, and the District operated efficiently overall. Although the District’s administrative costs per pupil were slightly higher than the peer districts’ average, the District has taken steps to reduce its costs by reducing its number of administrative positions. The District’s plant operations, food service, and transportation programs were efficient with lower costs per square foot, per meal, and per mile, respectively, than peer districts’ averages. However, the District needs to improve its purchasing and computer controls. The District also needs to accurately determine, and report to the Arizona Department of Education, its ridership information to help ensure the District is properly funded and to allow it the ability to calculate and monitor transportation performance measures such as cost per rider and bus capacity utilization. Further, the District should ensure that its inmate worker documentation complies with statute.

In fiscal year 2011, Double Adobe Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores for math and reading were lower than the peer districts’ averages and no writing scores were reported. These scores do not include 5th and 6th grade students’ scores, which were invalidated because a teacher violated test security requirements. The District operated relatively efficiently overall. Double Adobe ESD’s administration, plant operations, and transportation program operated with lower per pupil costs and other costs, such as cost per square foot and cost per mile, than peer district averages. The District did not have any food-service related costs because it has not operated a food service program for at least the past 30 years. Although relatively efficient, the District needs to strengthen its accounting and computer controls as well as controls over its fuel inventory. Further, the District misreported its transportation route mileage and was overfunded by a combined $263,705 for fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

In fiscal year 2011, Pearce Elementary School District’s student AIMS scores were similar to peer districts’ averages. Although per pupil costs were high in some operational areas, the District was reasonably efficient overall. Pearce ESD’s per pupil administration costs were similar to the peer districts’ average, and although its plant operations, food service, and transportation program operated with higher per pupil costs than peer districts, these areas operated in a reasonably efficient manner considering factors such as the age of the District’s buildings, number of meals served, and transportation miles driven. Although relatively efficient, the District should strengthen some of its accounting controls, including ensuring proper separation of duties for its payroll and purchasing processes and ensuring purchases are properly approved before they are made. The District should also strengthen some of its computer controls, such as the requirements for network passwords.

In fiscal year 2012, Wenden ESD's student test scores on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) were mixed compared to peer district averages, with similar scores in reading but lower scores in math, writing, and science. Although the District's costs in noninstructional areas were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts' averages, the District was reasonably efficient overall. However, auditors identified several opportunities for improved procedures and controls.

In fiscal year 2012, Kayenta Unified School District’s student achievement was slightly higher than peer districts’, and the District’s efficiency in noninstructional areas was mixed, with some costs higher and some lower than peer districts’, on average. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were similar to peer districts’, on average, but the District needs to strengthen controls over its computer network and systems. The District’s plant operations costs were much higher partly because it provided employee housing and had some unique facilities that other districts typically do not have. However, the District also had excess space at its schools. To its credit, the District has taken steps to reduce some of this excess space, but more needs to be done. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a much lower cost per meal than peer districts averaged, and although the District’s transportation costs were higher, the long bus route times limit the ability to reduce these costs. Finally, the District did not ensure that bus preventative maintenance was systematically performed.

In fiscal year 2012, Scottsdale Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’, on average, but it compared less favorably in operational efficiencies. The District’s food service program operated efficiently with a cost per meal that was lower than the peer district average. However, the District’s administrative costs were higher than peer districts’, primarily because it employed more administrative staff. In addition, the District inaccurately reported its costs on its Annual Financial Report and it lacked sufficient computer controls. The District’s plant operations cost per pupil was higher than peer districts’, on average, because the District maintained more square footage per student than the peer districts’ and many of its schools operated far below their designed capacities. Further, the District’s transportation cost per mile was much higher than the peer districts’ average, in part, because of inefficient bus routes.