In fiscal year 2012, Clifton Unified School District’s student AIMS scores were lower than both its peer districts’ and state averages. The District’s instructional program needs improvement. For example, some students were not provided the statutorily required number of instructional hours, and one of its four teachers did not have a teaching certificate. The District’s operational efficiencies were mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’. However, the District lacked proper oversight and adequate controls over nearly all of its operations. In particular, the District lacked basic administrative processes such as monitoring budgets and maintaining proper controls over expenditures resulting in it overspending its legal budget limits in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The District also failed to meet several transportation safety requirements. For example, its primary driver was not certified to drive a school bus. Lastly, the District lacked proper supervision of inmate workers on its school campus.

In fiscal year 2011, Chinle Unified School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District’s operational efficiency was mixed, with some costs higher and some costs lower than peer districts’ averages. The District’s per pupil administrative costs were much higher than peer districts’, and it lacked adequate controls over its vehicles, accounts payable processing, and computer systems. The District’s plant operations costs were also much higher than peer districts’ because the District maintained more building space per student, which was likely not needed since Chinle USD operated its schools far below their designed capacities. The District’s food service program was reasonably efficient, and its transportation program had similar per mile costs as peer districts’. However, the District did not meet bus driver and bus preventative maintenance requirements.

The Strategic Plan comprises an ambitious set of goals and objectives. It is a “living” document that will guide our focus and activities. As such, some objectives and expected results will be subject to change as information and events unfold. Objectives and measures aligned to drive achievement have also been developed in Units, Sections, and Divisions throughout the Department.

In fiscal year 2012, Laveen Elementary School District’s student achievement was similar to peer districts’ averages, and the District operated efficiently overall with lower costs per pupil than peer districts’, on average, in all operational areas. Despite operating efficiently, Laveen ESD spent 21 percent, or $751, less per pupil in the classroom than peer districts, on average, because it received less funding primarily because it had a lower poverty rate and fewer special needs students. In fact, the District had nearly the lowest overall per pupil spending amount in the State. Although the District operated efficiently overall, it needs to better ensure that its bus drivers meet all certification requirements and it may be able to reduce its plant operations costs by further reducing the amount it pays for custodial services.

Our Plan includes ambitious, innovative goals and objectives focused on developing great schools, excellent teachers, and successful students. We believe that implementing this Plan in partnership with education, business and community stakeholders will help us achieve our mission: To serve Arizona’s education community, ensuring every student has access to an excellent education.

The educational attainment in 2000 of the entire 25-or-older population in Arizona was similar to the national average and ranked in the middle of the states. Arizona compared less favorably to two sets of comparison states: “competitor” states defined by the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and “new economy” states identified by the Milken Institute. In 1990, however, Arizona’s educational attainment had exceeded the national average. Arizona ranked among the bottom 10 states in the 1990 to 2000 gain in educational attainment. Among both the entire population and those active in the labor force in 2000, the
educational attainment of Arizona residents 55 or older exceeded that of their peers nationally.

The Arizona Department of Education is pleased to provide you with this state report card as a part of our compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind law. We are working hard to raise academic standards for Arizona students. We are also holding our schools accountable for how well students perform academically. We are restoring classroom discipline, which is an essential component for achieving academic excellence. We also have an extensive state program to help schools whose test scores show a need for improvement. We are working hard to make sure Arizona students and schools are performing to their absolute potential.

This study was conducted as a progress evaluation of charter schools in Arizona. The study was funded by the Arizona Department of Education and conducted during calendar year 1998 by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

A total of 303 parents of charter school students, 171 students, 123 teachers and 54 directors completed surveys about charter schools. Fourteen focus groups were held around the state with parents, students, teachers and directors. Individual interviews were conducted with 23 persons, most of whom either hold policy-making positions related to charter schools or are employed by professional organizations that interact frequently with the schools.