DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 663 AUTHOR Sheane, Kim; Bierlein ...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 359 663 EA 025 113

AUTHOR Sheane, Kim; Bierlein, LouannTITLE Barriers to School Restructuring.INSTITUTION Arizona State Univ., Tempe. Morrison Inst. for Public

Policy.PUB DATE Oct 92NOTE 27p.PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Decentralization; *Educational Change; Educational

Innovation; Educational Policy; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Participative Decision Making; *Resistanceto Change; *School Based Management; *SchoolRestructuring; *State Action

IDENTIFIERS *Arizona

ABSTRACTIn 1990, the Arizona legislature initiated the

Arizona School Restructuring Pilot Project. This report identifieslocal- and state-1,,vel barriers encountered in the first 2 years.Outcomes are presented for the 15 pilot schools--11 elementary and 4high schools--that were selected in a competitive grant process. Datawere collected through school self-evaluation surveys, telephoneinterviews with key participants, and onsite observations. Thefollowing local-level barriers are identified: lack oftraining/inservicing for key stakeholders; lack of knowledgeconcerning state laws, school board rules, and available resources;district actions to maintain uniformity; limited discretionary moniesallocated to the school-level; and the impact of district-negotiatedteacher contracts. State-level barriers included: restrictivecertification requirements; numerous state-mandated instructionaltopics without adequate financing and support; excessive andredundant reporting requirements; an inequitable finance formula andbudgetary restrictions; and restrictive teacher-dismissal laws withprolonged timelines. Given the resistance to state-mandatedrestructuring, it is suggested that state-level policymakers focusinstead on empowering school-based personnel through information,training, and support. Recommendations are made for developing suchan infrastructure of support. Nine figures are included. The appendixcontains a list of participating schools and a funding summary forthe pilot project. (LMI)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***************************k*******************************************

MORRISONESTITUTEFOR PUBLIC POLI.CY

,

BARRIERSTO

SCHOOLRESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL. OF PUBLIC AFFAIRSARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

it S. OfPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONMc at Focamxgo flesearcn and improvement

ED DONAL RE SOURCES INFORMATION:,E NTER fE RIC'

iMe documnt MS teen ,1013,0avc.ed,rcmpa Iron Ine pson Or organatet.cmcAmmeurq rI

r foal°, cnngs no.* Deon miaa to .mcxore,gooucton aulmtv

Pooms of .4 or omAons sma rn IN% am.meat 00 nOt Cfbattly tpmsent of/lc.,soOE At ()avian or ooftc

!EST COPY AVAILABI4

^ tJ

BARRIERSTO

SCHOOLRESTRUCTURING

by

Kim Sheane, Ed.D.Research Specialist, Principal

Louann Bierlein, Ed.DAssistant Director

VIMorrison Institute for Public Policy

School of Public AffairsArizona State University

Tempe, Arizona 85287-4405

October 1992

3

Y.01.911RS.91.ICNSPOTPITCEy

BARRIERS TO SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the national movement to "restructure"rather than simply "reform" our country's K-12educational system, Arizona legislators initiated theArizona School Restructuring Pilot Project in 1990.For 4 high schools and 11 elementary schoolsasselected in a competitive grant processSenate Bill1552 provided them with a unique opportunity topilot their restructuring plans over a four-year periodso that others in the state could benefit from theirpioneering efforts. This report representspreliminary findings and observations of the 15restructuring pilots as they identify both local andstate level barriers encountered in the initial two-year phase of the pilot.

Pilot schools were encouraged from the beginning tobe cognizant of the state and local-level barriersencountered as they chartered new territory throughtheir restructuring efforts. Although many of theseschools are only beginning to challenge the statusquo through the establishment of site based decisionmaking (SBDM) teams, multigraded classrooms,year round schooling, integrated technology, andother restructuring activities, many real andperceived barriers have been identified.

4

The full report identifies numerous issues, includingseveral key barriers under the control of local-levelpolicyrnakers: 1) lack of traininzjmservicing for keystakeholders; 2) lack of knowledge concerning statelaws, school board rules, and available resources;3) district actions to maintain uniformity acrossall schools; 4) limited discretionary monies allocatedto the school-level, thereby limiting decision makingauthority; and 5) the impact of district negotiatedteacher contracts. Key state-level barriers include:1) restrictive certification requirements; 2) numerousstate mandated instructional topics without adequatefinancing and support; 3) excessive and redundantreporting requirements; 4) an inequitable financeformula and budgetary restrictions; and 5) restrictiveteacher dismissal laws with prolonged timelines.

Some schools have successfully negotiated their waythrough a number of potential mine fields, whileothers have been stymied in their attempts. Forexample, one school successfully negotiated yearround education with its district office, therebychanging the role of stakeholders. Yet others havebeen frustrated by their districts' desire to maintainthe uniformity of all its schools, thereby preventingany one school from being too innovative. Indeed,

rr Barriers to School Restructuring

all pilots have identified barriers that they have beenunable to negotiate. To this end, a variety ofactivities that would serve to mitigate such barriershave been proposed for consideration by both stateand local policymakers.

Given the resistance to state "mandated"restructuring and/or decentralization, it is suggestedthat state-level policymakers focus instead onempowering school-based personnel, not necessarilythrough the law, but through information, training,and support. Proposals to create such anInfrastructure of support" for districts and schoolsinclude: 1) development of state and/or regionalrestructuring support centers where school-basedpersonnel could tap into the latest research, currentstate laws and rules, and restructuring efforts ofother schools; 2) creation of a state cadre of trainedfacilitators to assist schools in developingformalized SBDM teams; 3) initiation of a formalstate waiver process whereby districts and individualschools could seek release from state board rules andstate laws; 4) the requirement that a minimumpercentage of discretionary funding be allocatedfrom the district to each school desiring suchauthority; and 5) continued efforts to streamline

certification and teacher dismissal requirements. Atthe local level, a number of suggestions are offeredto school boards that are serious about the initiationof SBDM teams, including the development of alocal waiver process in order to minimize therequirement for all schools to be uniform. Thesetypes of state and local activities need to beconsidered for schools desiring to move forwardtoward true restructuring.

For schools to successfully traverse the path to truerestructuring, an increased measure of autonomymust occurthereby making SBDM one keyvehicle in the process. For this to occur, training andinservicing of school site personnel will remaincritical components for schools engaged in thechange process. As stakeholder support is fosteredfor a common visioncoupled with a properly laidfoundation for SBDM and the maturing of teammembersthe message from restructuring schoolsin the future may very well be: lead, follow, or getout of the way. Until that time, the Arizona SchoolRestructuring Pilot Project is providing valuableinformation to policymakers relative to the unmetneeds of school-level personnel.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

The Goal of Restructuring 1

Components of Restructuring 1

Reform versus Restructuring 2

RESTRUCTURING IN ARIZONA 2

BARRIERS TO RESTRUCTURING: Survey of Restructuring School Pilots 3

Methodology 3

I. BARRIERS TO SITE BASED DECISION MAKING 4

Site Based Management Structure and Activities 4State's Role in Promoting Site Based Decision Making 6Summary of Key Barriers to SBDM 8

II. LOCAL-LEVEL BARRIERS 9Climate Barriers 9District Negotiated Teacher Agreements 10

Other District Policies 10

Summary of Key Local Barriers 11

DI STATE-LEVEL BARRIERS 11

Summary of Key State Barriers 14

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE BARRIERS TO SCHOOLRESTRUCTURING 14

CONCLUDING REMARKS: Underlying Tenets of Restructuring 16

+ APPENDIX A +

Restructuring Pilot Project: List of Schools and Funding Summary 21

6

Morrison Institute for Public Policy I

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, states' influence overschooling has expanded into a number of newterritories that were previously the jurisdiction oflocal governing school boards and educators. Onesuch area sparking a major debate in the 1990sconcerns the role of the state in encouraging and/ormandating school restructuring activities. Mostpeople believe that Arizona's educational systemneeds major restructuring; however, there is a greatdeal of uncertainty as to what restructuring reallyentails, how state and local roles must change, andwhat is preventing schools from moving ahead at afaster pace. This paper focuses on one aspect of therestructuring debatethe identification of both stateand local barriers impacting on 15 schools involvedin the Arizona School Restructuring Pilot Project.Using this information, state and local activitiesdesigned to mitigate such barriers are proposed toadvance discussions on this topic among Arizonapolicymakets.

The first step in this process is to review the ultimategoal of restructuring and its key components. Oncethese have been understood, the barriers tosuccessful school restructuring efforts andappropriate roles for stakeholders can be me-rereadily identified by those involved in therestructuring process.

The Goal of Restructuring

The key goal of restructuring education is toimprove student achievement; yet, educators arecaught between the old and the new ways ofschooling. The old way is guided by decades ofunchallenged practice, limited school-levelauthority, and measures of student performance thatfocus on memorizing facts in isolation of in-depthcontent coverage. The new way strives to develop asystem that can meet the needs of all students, is

7

unshackled by outside influences, and emphasizeshigh academic standards and student outcomes.Caught in the bonds of tradition, many educatorsfind themselves having to maintain "status quo"methods of schooling while attempting to implementinnovative methods conducive to preparing allstudents for a high-technology world dependentupon critical thinking skills, not rote learning.

Components of Restructuring

Components of restructuring focus on changingroles in governance; changing roles of stakeholders(e.g., legislators, school board members, districtoffice, school site petsonnel, parents, students,business partners, community members); andcurriculum, instruction, and assessment.Reorganizing the governance of schools isfrequently referred to as site based decision making(SBDM) which entails an ongoing process ofcollaborative planning and decision making by keyschool-level stakeholders. How this is bestaccomrliebed and to what extent authority from thestate, local school board, and central office isdelegated to the school level are key points ofdebate.

When the governance of education changes, so dothe roles of the stakeholders. In general, statelegislators can promote the process of restructuringby creating the political conditions that supportchange, set challenging standards for studentperformance, provoke district and school siteinnovation, and create new accountability systems.School board members must be responsible forenacting new policies and revising old ones thatimpede restructuring at local school sites. Whenshifting from centralized management to SBDM, therole of district office personnel changes from beingdecision makers to support personnel; these rolesneed to be clearly defined so as to avert conflictswhen personnel at both the district office and localschool attempt to make the final decision. Schoolsite personnel must change the way they organizeand carry out instructional activities; this transitiononly occurs when the school district is willing tocommit its resources to staff development andtraining in such areas as student assessment, multi-

2

age grouping, and site based decision making.Involving parents, students, business partners, and/orcommunity members in the decision making processnot only increases involvement in decision making,but better decisions are made. Of course, each ofthese tasks is much easier said than done, yet mostagree that the success of our current and futurestudents depend on these types of changes.

Reform versus Restructuring

Many practitioners today use the term "reform" as asynonym for "restructuring"; however, this is not thecase. Generally, reform refers to short-term activitiesthat focus on improving the current system, whilerestructuring embodies the notion of long-termsystemic structural change. Although the goal ofboth reform and restructuring focuses on improvedstudent performance, reform efforts have focused onchanging one piece at a time (e.g., curriculum butnot organization) in a system comprised ofnumerous interlocking pieces. Restructuringactivities, on the other hand, are based on thepremise that all students can and must learn at higherlevels, but that the current "assembly-line, piece-meal" system of schooling must be modified inorder to achieve this goal. Restructuring, therefore,embraces an even greater challenge than does merereform because it requires an examination of allpieces as they contribute to the whole.

RESTRUCTURINGIN ARIZONA

State level policy efforts at promotingrestructuring in Arizona's educational system havebeen a priority for the past several years. Animportant policy effort became a reality in 1990when Senate Bill 1552 was passed into law,authorizing a Joint Legislative Committee on SchoolRestructuring Incentives to approve up to 16 grants

Barriers to School Restructuring

for school-based restructuring efforts. During Fall,1990, a request for proposals (RFP) and reviewprocess were undertaken by this committee with15 proposals being approved. These pilot schools,4 high school and 11 elementary, were selectedbased on their proposals to engage in a restructuringprocess focused on six primary goals:

1. Increase parental involvement.

2. Improve academic achievement.

3. Improve the school environment.

4. Meet the unique needs of students.

5. Increase the efficiency and effectiveness ofthe school.

6. Improve the professionalism of, andcooperation between, the school's teachers.

Initial funding for FY 1990/91 was determined bythe enrollment of the school. For FY 1991/92,funding amounts were doubled, with a five percentincrease occurring for each of the remaining twoyears of the project. (Refer to Appendix A for a listof pilot schools and their funding levels.) Becausethis project is to serve as a type of laboratoryfocused on the process of school restructuring, theArizona Department of Education contracted withMorrison Institute for Public Policy (Arizona StateUniversity) and the Institute for EducationalResearch and Evaluation Studies (ASU West) toprovide the Joint Legislative Committee andparticipating school sites with technical assistanceand evaluation respectively. The efforts of theschools as well as the findings from the externalresearchers are being reviewed to determine "whatworks," and what role, if any, the state must play inthese efforts.

It should be noted that in addition to the 15 pilotschool projects, the vast majority of districts andschools in Arizona are attempting to implementsome type of reform and/or restructuring efforts.Part of the uniqueness of the formal Arizona SchoolRestructuring Pilot Project as initiated by thelegislature is that individual schools, not districts,

8

Morrison Institute for Public Policy 3

are the focus of intensive external review. Thisrepresented an early attempt by the legislature toinvestigate the issues associated with a moredecentralized system of schooling.

BARRIERS TORESTRUCTURING

SURVEY OF RESTRUCTURINGSCHOOL PILOTS

Barriers to restructuringwhether real orperceivedimpact on school sites' abilities torestructure. School sites, called upon by their stategovernments to restructure, frequently posture thatthey are handcuffed in their efforts to do so by therestrictions imposed by regulations at the state andlocal levels.

The Morrison Institute for Public Policy has soughtto identify those issues that are viewed as barriers bythe pilot schools. It should be noted that many ofthese schools have just begun the process ofrestructuring, while some could debate that many aremerely reforming their system. Nonetheless, theyhave already encountered a number of issues thatthey believe are preventing them from movingahead. As the process continues, it is believed thatadditional barriers will be identified. The followingmethodology was employed to gather thisinformation.

Methodology

Bathers identified by school sites in their self-evaluation reports submitted June, 1992, were usedto establish baseline data for this study. The

resulting survey instrument consisted of a total of21 questions that addressed issues in the followingcategories: 1) site based decision making (SBDM);2) state issues; 3) teacher training andprofessionalism; 4) district office/school site issues;and 5) information/communication issues.

Surveys were mailed to each school site in earlySeptember, 1992, with a request that schoolpersonnel review the questions and prepare theirresponses. Telephone interviews were conductedone week later, lasting approximately one hour eachand involving principals, faculty, and/or SBDMteam members. These sessions provided anopportunity for dialogue on the issues confrontingeach restructuring site. Responses were analyzed andsummarized within this report.

In addition to the telephone interviews, MorrisonInstitute personnel conducted at least one on-sitevisit per school during FY 1991/92. Five of thesevisits involved members of each school's SBDMteam. Information gathered from two state-levelproject workshops has also been incorporated withthe survey findings.

It should be noted that information presented in thisreport has been derived from the 15 schoolsinvolved in the formal state pilot project andtherefore is not necessarily representative of the1,000-plus schools throughout the state. However,when juxtaposed against other research onrestructuring, this information appears to bereflective of events occurring in other schools anddistricts, both within Arizona and across the nation.

The following sections highlight the results of therestructuring survey as broken down into three keysections: 1) Barriers to Site Based Decision Making;2) Local-Level Barriers; and 3) State-Level Barriers.Summary comments are contained within eachsection, with proposed activities to mitigate state andlocal barriers and concluding remarks offered at theend of this report.

9

4 Barriers to School Restructuring

I.

BARRIERS TO SITE BASEDDECISION MAKING

Given that one of the fundamental components ofrestructuring is the changing role of governance,14 of the 15 pilot schools report they are involved tovarying degrees in site based decision making(SBDM). Twelve schools noted that they are "upand running"; two are in the process ofimplementing SBDM; while faculty members at oneschool indicated they were allowed to provide inputinto the decision making process, but that formalSBDM was not occurring at their school.

Site Based Management Structureand Activities

There is a great deal of interest in the structure ofSBDM since it is something new and unproven on alarge scale within the educational arena. Manyeducators are unsure as to how to implement. the"mechanics" of SBDM and note that Arizona shouldnot require or allow over 1,000 schools to reinventthe wheel. On the other hand, research focused onsimilar activities within the corporate world suggeststhat no one model can be used as a blueprint for allschools. Consequently, each school's effort to workthrough a SBDM process world result in a modelunique to its needs. Therefore, there is debate on

whether one or more models should be mandated bythe state and/or local school boards or if eachindividual school should be allowed to develop itsown plan. Without attempting to solve this debate,this section simply highlights the various ways bywhich 14 of the 15 pilot schools are implementingSBDM.

Length of Time Schools Involved withSBDMSchool personnel noted that theirinvolvement in SBDM ranges from sixmonths to eight years, with the average being2.5 years.

Members o f SBDM TeamsFigure 1illustrates that administrators, faculty,classified, parents, students, communitymembers, business partners, and others (e.g.,consultants) comprise SBDM teams. Ingeneral, the size of the various teams rangefrom 8 to over 40.

Selection Process of SBDM MembersMembers of SBDM teams are selected in avariety of ways. One principal is solelyresponsible for selecting all team members.Three school administrators have 100%participation of both faculty and classifiedmembers; one of these three schools linkedSBDM participation to its career ladderprogram. Of the remaining 11 schools,teachers in seven schools vote for theirrepresentatives, while classified staff vote fortheir representative(s) in five schools. Parents

Figure 1.Members of SBDM Teams

14

--.-V

100% 100% 100%

71%

--I

0 7

6- 36%5

4_.._3

14 14 14 10 5

Pnnctpal Faculty Classified Parents BusinessPartners

29%

1 4

Students

21% 14%

3

Community OtherMembers

Morrison Institute for Public Policy5

are also chosen in a variety of waysparentsvolunteer in six schools; one site has teachersnominate parents, with the parents then votingon their representative(s); one site encouragesparents to vote for parents; and one site'sparent representatives are comprised of itsPTA president and one executive member.Additional positions at all SBDM schools arefilled by volunteers, except for one schoolthat allows its students to vote for theirrepresentatives.

Frequency of SBDM MeetingsOf the14 school sites, five meet regularly once amonth and six meet regularly twice a month.Of the three remaining schools, SBDM teamsmeet once per week, four times a year, andonce every three weeks respectively. Inaddition to regularly scheduled meetings, sixschools also meet on an "as needed" basis.

Formalizing the SBDM ProcessThreeSBDM teams have formal by-laws or writtenprocedures outlining their responsibilities andareas of decision making, while two schoolsare working on establishing them. Threeschools do not intend to formalize SBDM tothat extent, while for six schools it has not yetbecome a priority (see Figure 2).

District Offices' Positions on SBDM for AllSchools in DistrictTen of 14 schools notedthat their district offices were promotingSBDM for all schools in their districts; three

Figure 2.SBDM Teams Having By-Laws

21%(3/14)

21%3/14)

Yes, already established

Waking on it

Not yet priority

I Do not intend to

formakze SBDM

11

Figure 3.Decision Making Authority of SBDM

Teams

13

+ 42%

29% 29%4

3

2

4 7

Advisory Empowered DependsOnly to Make on

and Carry Componentout

Decisions

districts are considering SBDM, and one isnot considering it at this time.

Decision Making Authority of SBDMTeamsFigure 3 illustrates that the decisionmaking authority of SBDM teams falls intothree categories: advisory only (4 schools);empowered to make and carry throughdecisions (4 schools); or a combination of thetwo depending on the task at hand(6 schools). (Note. Although six schoolsindicated that their decision making authority(i.e., advisory versus empowered) depends onthe component of SBDM, only three schoolshave written by-laws or written proceduresdelineating these.)

Areas of Involvement of SBDM TeamsFigure 4 (on page 7) shows that SBDM teamsare involved in a number of areas such asrestructuring grant decisions (14 schools);curriculum (13 schools); funding/budgeting(12 schools); hiring (11 schools); assessment(9 schools); student placement (9 schools);and firing (2 schools). Three schools are eachinvolved in one of the following additionalareas: school programs, planning, and yearround education.

6Barriers to School Restructuring

Budget Responsibilities of SBDM TeamsOther than the grant funds received by eachschool site in the restructuring pilot, nineschools receive additional funds for whichtheir SBDM teams are responsible. Theseamounts range from six schools having noadditional discretionary funds to one schoolwith an amount in excess of $300,000 (seeFigure 5 on opposite page).

State's Role in Promoting SiteBased Decision Making

Although there are many SBDM activities occurringwithin the pilot schools, the vast majority of surveyrespondents believe there is a need for the state tohelp clarify the roles of various stakeholders (e.g.,school boards, central office, loca: schools).Personnel in 11 of 15 pilot schools believe that anoptional SBDM model would be helpful, whilepersonnel in seven of these schools believe such amodellprocess would have to be mandated for realchange to occur. Five schools state that their districtoffices would likely oppose any model, while twoschools believe that there is no need for stateintervention (see Figure 6 on opposite page).

NEED FOR MANDATED MODELPersonnel in 7 of 15 schools believed thatSBDM models should be mandated by thestate for the following reasons:

Supports StabilitySome school personnelbelieve that mandated models would guardagainst a turnover of school board membersand administrators determined to controlschool-level issues, especially since schoolboards have had too much power with little orno expertise in education.

Minimizes Ability of District Office toOverrule ProcessSome have found that ithas been difficult fa: district offices tovoluntarily relinquish their centralizedauthority; having mandated models wouldallow the process of decentralization to occurmore quickly.

Ensure Discretionary Funding forSchoolsSchool personnel note that in orderfor real change to occur, a minimum amountof discretionary funding must be allocateddirectly to the school; without a statemandate, this is less likely to occur.

NEED FOR AN OPTIONAL MODELGenerally, personnel in 11 of 15 schoolsbelieved that a state developed optional modelwould be helpful for these reasons:

No Need to Reinvent the WheelGiven therelative newness of the concept, it would behelpful for the state to help districts andschools clarify roles as part of changing froma centralized system to a decentralizedsystem. Optional models would eliminate theneed for each district and/or school toreinvent the wheel.

Legitimize SBDMSchool personnelbelieved that having the state play a role inactive support of restructuring would helplend credibility to SBDM and otherrestructuring activities.

NO STATE INVOLVEMENT NEEDEDPersonnel in two schools believed there wasno need for the state to clarify roles as part ofpromoting SBDM for reasons as noted:

Good Local Models Already ExistIt wasnoted that many districts already have theirown working models.

Takes Away Local ControlSome schoolpersonnel felt that less, not more, governmentinterference is needed so that school boardscan more effectively run the districts; the statedepartment and legislature should not beinvolved in district policymaking.

Decentralization would Create ChaosItwas noted that the state should do nothing topromote decentralization since the creation ofover 1,000 "mini-school districts" wouldcreate inefficiencies and chaos.

12


Figure 4.Areas of SBDM Teams' Involvement

15

I4

13

11

100%

93%

79%9 64% 64% 64%

13

5

421%

3

2 14%

215 13 10 9 9 9 3Restructuring Curriculum Hiring Assessment Student Other Other Firing

Grant Placement DiscretionaryFunds Funds

Figure 5.SBDM Teams' Funding Responsibilities

t4

13

12

9"a

6

4

3

2

1

f

-40%

(other

7%1-1-1

than

26%

Restructuring

7%FT -1

Grant)

13%7%

6 4 2

None Under$1,000

$2,000- $26,000-$25,000 $99,000

$100,000-$199,000

$200,000-$299,000

$300,000-$399,000

Figure 6.Role of a State Developed SBDM Model

14

13

211

9

8

7

6 _54 -3

2--

73%

47%

33%

13%

11 7 5 51Yes, an Yes, but District There isoptional must be office no needmodel mandated would to clarifywould for change likely roleshelp to occur oppose

any model13


Summary of Key Barriersto SBDM

Although schools have only begun the process ofSBDM as part of their restructuring efforts, thefollowing barriers have been identified by schoolpersonnel as well as by Morrison Institute personnel.It is believed that as SBDM teams attempt to take oneven more decision making responsibility, otherbarriers will be revealed.

Lack of Training/Inservicing of Districtand School StakeholdersMany of theschools acknowledged their failure to obtainproper training and inservicing of school sitestakeholders prior to implementing SBDM.For example, it was noted that training isessential in at least the following areas:1) knowledge of the change process;2) planning the restructuring activities aroundschool goals; 3) promoting stakeholder buy-into the restructuring process; 4) reallocatingfunds as a result of prioritizing goals; and 5)establishing a common vision.

Lack of Time to Develop Formal SBDMFoundationSurvey data revealed that nineof the 14 restructuring pilots involved inSBDM have never formalized their SBDMprocess, and indeed, research on restructuringsuggests the longevity of these teams may beat stake. Without identifying and formalizingthe parameters of the process includingclarification of roles, expectations, anddecision making limitations, a school site maybe effective only because the leadership styleof the principal is conducive to SBDM, or aselect, committed group of faculty membersensure a measure of success. However,administrative and faculty turnover willimpact greatly on the consistency to whichinformal, unwritten procedures are continued.Many school personnel now realize theimportance of laying a proper SBDMfoundation early in the process. Severalschool personnel noted that the failure to doso was due in part to the lack of trainedfacilitators to negotiate roles and areas of

decision making between themselves anddistrict office.

Lack of Knowledge Concerning StateLaws, School Board Rules & AvailableResources A number of building principalsand faculty members noted that they do nothave ready access to the types of informationand resources that would allow them to servein more than an advisory capacity (i.e., theylack knowledge about the legal issuessurrounding many of the decisionshistorically made at the district office).Indeed, a large number noted that they doreceive some information regarding stateactivities either from their district or directlyfrom the Arizona Department of Education(ADE); however, this information frequentlyarrives too late to be acted upon, especially inreference to workshops and grantopportunities.

Inability to Convince District Office ofNew MethodsSchool site personnel arefrustrated in their attempts to be innovativewhile having to comply with district officeexpectations that the old methods remain thesame. School personnel voiced that this wasdue to district offices' distrust of their abilityto engage in effective decision making and totheir lack of access to research and state-levelinformation.

Requirement for All Schools to beUniformThe need for district offices tokeep all schools "equal" hampers a number ofschools involved in the restructuring grant.Indeed, one-third of the pilot schools believedthat their districts channelled extra funds toother schools within the district in an attemptto keep all schools equal. District negotiatedteacher contacts also serve to maintain thenotion of uniformity across the district.

Limited Ability to Make "Real" BudgetDecisionsThe majority of school personnelnoted that the current amount of discretionaryfunding available to SBDM and thestrong control districts maintain over these


funds are barriers to their efforts for severalreasons:

c> District Maintains Control ofBudgetSince restructuring grantfunds are sent from the state to thedistrict for accounting purposes, it isdifficult for some schools to gaininformation on exact expenditures andbudget balances (e.g., in at least onepilot, it was revealed that districtofficials had charged costs against therestructuring grant that were notrequested by the school; schoolpersonnel were not aware of thediscrepancies until the legislativecommittee requested a budgetbreakdown from all pilots).

Lack of Adequate DiscretionaryFundsGiven that most schools havelittle budgetary authority beyond theirrestructuring grant funds, many felt itwas necessary to have control overlarger portions of their budget in orderto really make a difference.

Grant Monies used to Supplant, notSupplement, Existing ResourcesSurvey results illustrate that in at leasttwo of the schools, personnel believethat district funds were withheld fromtheir schools as a result of the additionalfunding received from the restructuringgrant (e.g., disirict funds initiallyallocated to One pilot school fortechnology were given to another schoolwhen the grant was received; teachers inanother pilot school have been denieduse of district funding for some trainingactivities since they have their owngrant).

LOCAL-LEVEL BARRIERS

The previous section focused on SBDM-relatedbarriers which are caused primarily by local-leveldecisions; however, some aspects of the discussioninvolved state-level implications. In this section,other issues strictly under local-level control arehighlightedthe "climate for change," the impact ofdistrict negotiated contracts for teachers, and localschool board policies.

Climate Barriers

Schools were asked to judge the impact of nine"climate" factors that, in their estimation, affectedtheir restructuring efforts. The following scale wasused: 3 - very much a factor; 2 - somewhat of afactor; and 1 - not a factor. All schools' scores wereaveraged in each of the nine factors and arepresented below:

15

Very much afactor (3.0)

Lack of Time 2.5

Lack of Discretionary Funds 2.1

Bonds of Tradition 2.1

Parent Apathy 1.9

Teacher Apathy 1.7

Lack of a Unified Vision 1.7

General Faculty Unwillingnessto be a part of thechange process 1.4

Administrator Apathy 1.1

Not a factor (1.0)

Not surprisingly, the lack of time was the numberone factor impacting on the schoolslack of timefor training, inservicing, planning, innovation,SBDM meetings, and curriculum review were only afew examples. Naturally, the lack of discretionaryfunds at individual school sites greatly reducedmany schools' ability to engage in the change

10Barriers to School Restructuring

process since the approval of district offices wasfrequently a precondition to funding release time andchanges in curriculum, instruction, and assessment.Bonds of tradition refer not only to teachers tied to"business as usual," but also to district offices andcommunities. This was especially a factor for thoseschools engaged in year round education andSBDM. Teacher apathy was revealed more in thelack of buy-in to the restructuring process, whichincludes the perceived "passing fad" of SBDM. Anumber of schoolsin hindsightattributed thelack of a unified vision and unwillingness to engagein the change process to the lack of time committedto these issues during the first year of therestructuring grant. Only one school indicated thatadministrator apathy was "somewhat of a factor."

District Negotiated TeacherAgreements

Most school districts in Arizona and throughout thecountry enter into negotiated agreements with theirteachers on an annual basis. Frequently, thesecontracts not only delineate salary levels, but theterms of employment. For example, hours per dayteachers need to be at school, maximum number ofmeetings per month, specific reimbursement ratesfor committee and other outside work are commonlyfound in these contracts. In addition, these terms ofemployment usually apply uniformly to all schoolsin a given district.

Ten of 15 schools stated that their district teacheragreements made no real impact on their efforts torestructure, or only in a minor way. One otherschool noted initial problems, but these weresuccessfully negotiated with its district office (i.e.,different teachers' schedules for those involved in ayear-round school program). However, four schoolsnoted that they were stymied in their efforts torestructure because of unresolvable problemsstemming from their negotiated agreements. Thefollowing issues serve to illustrate their difficulties:

No Inequities AllowedIn one school,teachers unanimously committed to extendingthe length of the school day withoutadditional pay were denied this option by the

district office, even though transportation wasnot a problem. Conditions within the masteragreement and a general philosophy to keepall schools "equal" was offered as therationale.

Clock Hours OnlyIn several schools,teachers refused to participate in restructuringactivities that extended beyond theircontracted hours as specified in theiragreement.

Other District Policies

The following issues were mentioned by schoolpersonnel as other barriers that impacted on theirability to restructure and areas for which they wouldlike waivers from their local governing boardpolicies:

Inability to Allocate Own Fit PositionsMany school districts have policies on thenumber of teachers per school based onnumbers of students; some schools would likethe ability to make these decisions based upontheir total school budget.

District Mandated TransfersManydistricts require schools to fill vacancies froma list of teachers within the district, or theymandate t'-at a specific teacher be accepted.Two schools noted that their districts do notfire teachers; they merely mandate transfersfor incompetent teachers which the receivingschool has no choice but to accept. Thisprocess is repeated until the teachervoluntarily leaves the district or retires.

Cannot Hire Candidates from OutsideDistrictSimilar to the previous issue, somedistricts have policies that give preference toin-district teachers and administrators for anyvacancies. Some schools noted that theywould like to be able to hire the bestcandidate, whether internal or external to thedistrict.

16


District-Level Curriculum & TextbookSelectionSome districts have policies thatrequire all schools within the district to utilizethe same textbooks for like grades and classesand to follow similar curriculum guidelines.Often this is done to minimize the impact ofstudent mobility; however, schools noted thislimits their ability to restructure.

Too Much District Testing & ReportingSeveral schools reported that they would liketo be able to minimize their district testingrequirements and focus more on outcomesbased education and portfolios.

Too Much District PaperworkIt wasnoted that a great deal of redundantpaperwork is required by the district office,often without any real information as to whyit is needed.

Rigid Transportation StructureTransportation is frequently linked to otherschools in the district, thereby allowing noflexibility in the length of the school day; thisprevented several schools from employingfour long" days and one "short" day forinservicing.

Summary of Key Local Barriers

Schools credit the lack of time, lack of discretionaryfunds, and bonds of tradition as the three mainfactors impacting on their ability to restructure.While parent and teacher apathy, lack of a unifiedvision, and a general faculty unwillingness to be apart of the change process were also identified, itwas virtually unanimous that the impact of theseissues would be greatly reduced if only the mainthree factors were dealt with.

Other barriers identified at the local level involvetwo distinct issues: I) district offices preventing sitelevel change because it supports uniformity; and2) provisions contained within district contracts suchas teachers unwilling to work beyond theirnegotiated clock hours. Additionally, a number ofschool personnel are frustrated in their efforts to

17

move forward in the restructuring process by districtoffice decisions made for them "in the best interestsof the district," but that are not perceived by pilots tobe in their best intr;.iests (e.g., allocating FTEpositions; promotion .4 in-district candidates only;standardized use of textbooks).

STATE-LEVEL BARRIERS

A great deal of discussion has centered on the notionthat many state laws and state board rules may bepreventing schools from restructuring. To this end,pilot school personnel were asked to identify theirrequests for waivers from any state regulations,statutes, or policies, if they had the option to do so.The survey revealed that only four schoolsimmediately knew they would exercise this option,while seven noted they would consider the option.Four schools indicated state-level regulations,statues, and policies had not been a factor to date(see Figure 7).

Of the 11 schools interested in exercisingor whowould consider exercisingtheir option of beinggranted waivers from any state regulations, statues,or policies, 10 noted they would target statelegislatively mandated laws, seven would focus onthe State Board of Education rules, while eightwould desire waivers from their district offices.

Figure 7.Possible Waiver Option Exempting

Schools from State Regulations

IYes, would exercise

option

Consider exercising

opbon

OM, state regulabons are

not a factor

12

Finally, gaining the approval of superintendents and/or governing board members would influence sevenschools' decisions as to which waivers theyrequested. Six schools indicated that they would firstconsider the input of their superintendents and/orgoverning board members, while two schools statedthey would not be influenced when seeking waivers(see Figure 8).

AREAS SCHOOLS WOULD TARGET FORWAIVERSAs shown in Figure 9 (onopposite page) schools noted the need forwaivers in the following areas: 1) curriculum;2) student assessment; 3) personnel/certification; 4) paperwork/reporting;5) fmancing/budgeting; and 6) other(e.g., extend school day; mandates with nofunding). Examples of barriers for whichwaivers were proposed include:

Curriculum and AssessmentSix of15 schools perceived that current state lawsand rules related to curriculum hindered theirefforts to restructure, while eight of15 schools noted the same in reference tostate-level student assessment requirements.Key reasons are noted:

Mandates Without Adequate FundingSeveral schools noted that they would seeka waiver from having to teach certain statemandated topics (e.g., drug prevention,AIDS) unless adequate funding could beprovided.

Figure 8.Local Boards' Impact on Schools'

Decisions to Seek Waivers

IDe lion WO* depends on

.1POrcnIr

0 Docrron Winds on 'mu'

0 Damen nol rimmed

Barriers to School Restructuring

r> Too Much State TestingSeveralschools believed that too much time andfocus was spent on preparing for statemandated testing, especially sinceimplementation support and training fromthe state is lacking. This was especiallytrue for the norm-referenced testingprograms, but also holds true for the newArizona Student Assessment Program(ASAP).

Certification/Teacher DismissalEight of15 schools noted that state certificationrequirements served as a barrier to theirability to hire the best teachers as part of theirrestructuring efforts. In reference to teacherdismissal statutes, 11 of 15 noted these to be adefinite barrier, while four schools noted thatthey were either not a barrier, or it dependedupon the teacher involved in the dismissal.The following issues were described:

Restrictive Certificates &EndorsementsThe rigidity ofcertification requirements for specificsubject specialized areas (i.e., math,science, special education, vocationaleducation) impacts on schools' ability tohire otherwise acceptable candidates.

Difficult to Hire NontraditionalTeaching CandidatesCurrentregulations prevent schools from easilyhiring non-certified individuals withdegrees outside the field of education (e.g.,engineers, scientists, military personnel). Itwas suggested that the current alternativecertification process be streamlined.

Additional Arizona CertificationRequirementsAlthough reciprocityexists for out-of-state candidates, they arestill required by law to earn certainArizona specific requirements (e.g.,Arizona history and constitution) within aspecific time frame.

r> Teacher Dismissal Timelines TooLengthyA vast majority of the schools

18


Figure 9.Focus of Schools' State Waiver Requests

14

13

11

80%

67% 67%

9 -4-53%

40%

5

4 -.- 20%3 -t-2 -I-

12 10 10 8 6 3

Paperwork/Reporting

Personnel/Certification

Financing/Budget

noted the current timelines for teacherdismissal were far too long and the amountof documentation necessary wasexcessiveespecially if incompetency wasnot revealed until later in the school year.Schools also noted that due in part tolonger timelines, fees for legal counsel canbe excessive and are a special hardship onlow wealth districts.

Paperwork and Finance IssuesTwelve of15 schools perceived that state requiredpaperwork and the current finance formulawere impacting on their restructuring effortsfor the following reasons:

t> Too Much Redundant PaperworkSchools noted that they would seekwaivers from many state reportingrequirements, especially on funds tied torestructuring, substance abuse, and ESLprograms (excessive paperwork does notjustify funds received).

i> Need More Padget FlexibilityIt wasexpressed that there was a need to allowmore flexibility for schools/districts tomove funds between various categories(e.g., transfer of funds between capital andmaintenance and operation).

19

Student CurriculumAssessment

Other

Inequitable Funding Formula Based onInputs, not OutcomesMany schoolsvoiced concerns with perceived inequitiesin the current funding formula (e.g., notusing current year count; the impact of lowassessed valuation on overrides and bondelections). Several noted that the formulashould be modified to allow funding to bedriven by student achievement gains inmastering outcomes instead of studentcount and seat time.

Summary of Key State Barriers

Although a number of restructuring efforts aroundthe nation have introduced the practice of grantingwaivers to aid the restructuring process, Arizona isonly in the initial stage of discussing this possibility.At least 11 school sites, however, indicated that theywould more than likely utilize such an option ifmade available.

School personnel noted that the recent series ofyearly budget crisis have strained the ability of manydistricts to maintain programs and servicesletalone restructure. Not surprisingly, then, many of thewaivers schools indicated they would considerpursuing were tied to funding. For example, severalschools would pursue state-level waivers seeking


relief from having to teach mandated subjects (e.g.,drug prevention, AIDS) that they believe were notadequately funded and which distract from academicinstruction. Additionally, a number of schools werefrustrated by the seemingly excessive amount ofstate-level redundant paperwork that cost schools interms of time, money, and energy that can evenexceed the amount of funding received. The issue ofteacher dismissal was also related to financialconcerns. Excessive timelines, documentation, andlegal fees were very much a consideration fordistricts determining to pursue the termination of atenured teacher.

Overall, it should be noted that there is a great dealof misperception among school-level personnel as tothe specifics of state laws and rules. Frequently,barriers such az; "the state requires a minimumnumber of minutes per day per subject" wereoffered, when in actuality this requirement does notexist in either state law or school board rule.Somewhere along the line, this "myth" wasinvented. In addition, many of the "real" barriersthat schools attributed to the state were indeedmandates from the local board. This points to agreater need for information to flow directly fromthe state to the school site if indeed the system is todecentralize.

PROPOSED ACTIVITIESTO MITIGATE BARRIERS

TO SCHOOLRESTRUCTURING

There continues to be great debate as to howrestructuring and decentralization activities inArizona can best be promoted and supported, withSBDM being at the heart of the discussion. Manyargue that the state should play no role given thatmany districts are already moving ahead. On the

other hand, personnel in 14 of 15 pilot schoolsrevealed in this survey that the state should play arole in promoting decentralization to the schoollevel, either through mandated or optional models.Given the complexity of the issue, futurecompromise will probably result in appropriate rolesfor both the state and the district levels. To that end,using suggestions from pilot school personnel andincorporating ideas extracted from other research onrestructuring, the following activities would help toresolve some of the identified barriers. This list is byno means exhaustive, but focuses on the specificissues raised by the pilot schools to date.

1. Local school boards and district offices thatare serious about promoting SBDM shouldinitiate at least the following activities:

a) Support school personnel in finding trainedfacilitators to help them develop formal,written SBDM rules that meet the needs oftheir stakeholders. As part of this process,it is critical for each school site engaged inSBDM to consider answers to a number ofquestions such as the following:

47 What do we mean by SBDM?

4/ What roles need to be redefined, andhow will we provide the necessarytraining and support?

4/ What are the parameters, expectations,or limitations of SBDM?

4/ What do we know about the changeprocess, and how does this apply to oursituation?

4/ To what degree will variations anddifferences among schools within thedistrict be accommodated?

if What underlying conditions must bepresent for SBDM to work? How canwe clarify and communicate them?

if What can we learn from otherorganizations in the public and privatesector about making the transition?

20


b) Dispense and/or increase discretionaryfund allocations to local school sites forincreased autonomy to occur.

c) Establish a process whereby appropriateSBDM team members have access tocurrent knowledge on state level issues,laws, and rules, as well as grantopportunities and workshops.

d) Take steps to encourage and allowdiversity among schools in the district. Onebeginning step would be to create a formallocal level waiver review process wherebythe governing board releases individualschools from specific district policies. TrueSBDM will create a different learningenvironment in each school based uponindividual school-based decisions.

e) As current negotiated teacher agreementsare up for renewal, local boards shouldencourage the inclusion of provisions thatallow for differences among differentschools, if indeed the majority of theteachers at a given school wish to initiatesuch changes.

2. Given that the research on SBDM suggeststhat no one blueprint can be transferred fromone organization to another without majormodifications, the Legislature and/or StateBoard of Education should focus theirenergies on developing an infrastructure ofsupport that individual schools and districtscould call upon. Given that many districts arealready moving toward some aspect ofdecentralization, perhaps the best role of thestate is to help empower school-basedpersonnel, not necessarily through the law,but through information, training, andsupport. The following activities would bevaluable:

a) Develop state and/or regional restructuringsupport centers where school-basedpersonnel could easily tap into the latestresearch, current state laws, and state board

21

rules, and network with other schoolsattempting to restructure.

b) Develop a cadre of trained facilitators thatschools could call upon (perhaps on a costreimbursement basis) to lead them throughthe process of developing a SBDM team.

c) Initiate a state law waiver process,whereby schools and districts couldidentify the specific laws that are indeedpreventing them from moving ahead.Although the list of state laws and rulesidentified as barriers by the pilot schools isnot extensive, there is merit to having thelegislature establish a formal waiverprocess. In other states that haveimplemented such a process, few waivershave been sought, but many changes haveoccurred by virtue of having school anddistrict personnel explore the possibilities.This process could be similar to the onebeing considered for adoption by theArizona State Board of Education duringFall 1992; however, the State Boardcurrently has only the authority to waive itsown rules, not state law.

d) Address the feasibility of requiring at leasta minimum percentage of discretionaryfunding be allocated from the district toindividual school sites. Although manydistricts already do this to some extent,most of the pilot schools suggested thatthis is essential to their restructuringefforts.

e) Continue efforts to streamline the teacherdismissal process with a focus on reducingthe timelines and the amount ofdocumentation.

3. The Joint Legislative Committee on SchoolRestructuring should take actions to preventschool districts from using schoolrestructuring grant monies to supplant districtfunds, rather than to supplement. If a policycannot be legally adopted, perhaps legislationis necessary.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

Underlying Tenets ofRestructuring

There is a need to reiterate that the identifiedbarriers and proposed solutions reflect the input ofonly 15 schools in Arizona formally involved in apilot restructuring project. It is equally important toremember that the pilot schools are in thepreliminary stages of restructuring, having justcompleted the second year of a four-year pilot. Asbarriers are addressed at both the local and statelevels in the upcoming year, the importance ofcontinuing to collect data from those "in the trenchesof restructuring" will add considerable value toArizona's restructuring ephasis.

In closing, the following observations and commentsare provided to emphasize several underlying tenetsof the restructuring process that have seriousrepercussions to schools involved in this effort.

Whoever Controls Information, HasControlSchool sites are affected two ways.First, the majority of school-level personnelrely on their district offices to supply themwith relevant information sent from theDepartment of Education concerning currentand proposed revisions to state laws and stateboard rules, as well as workshops andconferences. In many cases, therefore,information is often not received in a timelyfashion, or misperceptions occur due tomiscommunication. Thus, school personnelare making decisions based on theirmisunderstanding of statutes and regulations(e.g., state mandates the number of minutesper subject per day). Second, schools lackinformation on successful restructuringefforts throughout the nation. Consequently,

school personnel have few stimulants causingthem to "think outside the box." Althoughmany are taking graduate courses andattending numerous workshops, most focuson program reform (i.e., how to improvepieces of the system), not on total systemrestructuring. Therefore, when given a chanceto make changes, reformas opposed torestructuringoccurs based on theinformation to which school site personnelhave access.

Principalships: A Stepping Stone toDistrict Office?As SBDM teams mature,the role of principal evolves to one of ChiefExecutive Officer (CEO); however, thecurrent status and salary associated with aprincipalship do not come close to matchingthe roles and responsibilities of "principal asCEO." Unless this occurs, many principalswill cor.`".ue to see their positions as merestepping stones to the district office instead ofcommitting themselves for the long run toensuring systemic change at the school site.

If Time is Money, Is MoneyEmpowerment?Training and inservicingof SBDM stakeholders in all threecomponents (i.e., budget, curriculum,personnel) are critical for teams to becometruly empowered in the decision makingprocess. However, empowerment only occurswhen teams have the authority to control thefunds to implement their decisions. Only bychanneling additional funds to school siteswill SBDM teams shift from serving asadvisory committees only to ones empoweredto follow through on their decisions. Only afew of the pilot sites have been allocatedsignificant sums of discretionary fundingfrom their local board; in the vast majority,the school has minimal budget authority otherthan their restructuring grant funding and, insome cases, even this is limited. As thelegislators continue to hear fr.An numerousschool districts that they are indeed movingtoward a decentralized system, they shouldquestion how much "real" power has beentransferredpower related to budgetary

22


authority. If this is not occurring, then onemust question how much actualdecentralization is occurring.

IP. Perceptions: State v. Local; Perceived v.RealMuch misinformation andmisperception on restructuring "barriers"exist among local-level personnel. First,numerous "restrictive" state laws and/orregulation believed to be real are in actualitya perception. It was determined that manyschool (and district) personnel are operatingon erroneous assutnptiotts about what thestate will and will not let them do.Somewhere along the line, many myths werecreated and are alive and well at the local-level. Second, when asked to comment on thestate v. local barrier debate, personnel in eightschools believed that the majority of thebarriers encountered were local-level issues;five pilots believed the majority to be state-level barriers; while two stated the barrierswere equally distributed. Indeed, severalschools initially stated that the state was themajor blockage to restructuring, but laterchanged their view after they looked at theissue more closely. Given the national criesagainst excessive state bureaucracy, it is easyto assume that large numbers of Arizona statelaws and state board rules are "strangling"districts and schools in their restructuringefforts. These state-level barriers do indeedexist as noted within this report; however,based upon data gathered from these 15 pilotschools, it appears that a majority of "real"barriers reside at the local level. This is not topoint the finger at local school board policiesor central office mandates as the only causes,for indeed many of the local-level barriersoriginate with school personnel (e.g., teachernegotiated contracts; unwillingness tochange). Instead, the finger is pointed at thedifficulty of retooling an educational systemthat has been carefully designed over thedecades to function as it does; indeed, ahigher percentage of students are graduatingwith higher levels of knowledge than everbefore in our history. Unfortunately, thisperformance level is no longer acceptable and

major restructuring is in order. Consideringthat the amount of misinformation andmisperception is draining energy from theprocess, it would be valuable for state andlocal policymakers to remove the "perceived"as well as "real" barriers. Perhaps a state-wide survey to collect such information fromthe over 1,000 schools within 200-plusdistricts is a place to begin so that state-levelpolicymakers are also dealing with "real"information.

Finally, for schools to successfully traverse the pathto true restructuring, an increased measure ofautonomy must occurwhich translates intoempowerment for school SBDM teams to make andcarry through decisions that are in the best interestsof the very students they serve. For this to occur,training and inservicing of school site personnel willremain critical components for schools engaged inthe change process. As stakeholder support isfostered for a common visioncoupled with aproperly laid foundation for SBDM and the maturingof team membersthe message from restructuringschools in the future may very well be: lead, follow,or get out of the way. Until that time, the ArizonaSchool Restructuring Pilot Project is providingvaluable information to policymakers relative to theunmet needs of school-level personnel as theyembark upon this journey.

23

APPENDIX A

Restructuring Pilot ProjectLists of Schools and Funding Summary

1990-1994

24


ARIZONA SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING PILOT PROJECT

List of Schools and Funding Summary

Initial funding for FY 1990/91 was determined by size of the school. For FY 1991/92, funding amounts weredoubled, with a five percent increase occurring for each of the remaining two years of the project.

School/District 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94*

Carrninati Elementary School $ 7,500 $15,000 $15,750 $16,537Tempe Elementary S.D.

C.J. Jorgensen Elementary 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Roosevelt Elementary S.D.

Del Rio Elementary 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Chino Valley Unified S.D.

Gilbert Elementary 30,000 60,000 63,000 66,150Gilbert Unified S.D.

Glendale High School 40,000 80,000 84,000 88,200Glendale Union High S.D.

Kyrene del Sureno Elementary 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Kyrene Elementary S.D.

Laguna Elementary 20,000 40,000 42,000 44,100Flowing Wells Elementary S.D.

Litchfield Elementary 30,000 60,000 63,000 66,150Litchfield Elementary S.D.

Mountain View High School 40,000 80,000 84,000 88,200Marana Unified S.D.

Palmcroft Elementary 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Yuma Elementary S.D.

Papago Elementary 35,000 70,000 73,500 77,175Creighton Elementary S.D.

Rancho Viejo Elementary 40,000 80,000 84,000 88,200Crane Elementary S.D.

Safford High School 30,000 60,000 63,000 66,150Safford Unified S.D.

University Hie: School 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Tucson Unified S.D.

Westwood Elementary 25,000 50,000 52,500 55,125Alhambra Elementary S.D.

TOTALS $422,500 $845,000 $887,250 $931,612

*pending approval of Joint Legislative Committee on School Restructuring Incentives

25

Morrison Institute for Public Policy

Established in 1981 through a gift from the Morrison family of Gilbert, Arizona, Morrison Institute forPublic Policy is an Arizona State University (ASU) resource for public policy research, expertise, andinsight. The Institute conducts research on public policy matters, informs policy makers and the publicabout issues of importance to Arizona, and advises leaders on choices and actions. A center in the Schoolof Public Affairs (College of Public Programs), Morrison Institute helps make ASU's resourcesaccessible by bridging the gap between the worlds of scholarship and public policy.

The Institute's primary functions are to offer a variety of services to public and private sector clients andto pursue its own research agenda. Morrison Institute's services include policy research and analysis,program evaluation, strategic planning, public policy forums, and support of citizen participation inpublic affairs. The Institute also serves ASU's administration by conducting research pertinent to avariety of university affairs.

Morrison Institute's researchers are some of Arizona's most experienced and well-known policy analysts.Their wide-ranging experiences in the public and private sectors and in policy development at the local,state, and national levels ensure that Morrison Institute's work is balanced and realistic. The Institute'sinterests and expertise span such areas as education, urban growth, the environment, human services, andeconomic development.

The Institute's funding comes from grants and contracts from local, state, and federal agencies andprivate sources. State appropriations to Arizona State University and endowment income enable theInstitute to conduct independent research and to provide some services pro bond.

Morrison Institute for Public PolicySchool of Public AffairsArizona State University

Tempe, Arizona 85287-4405(602) 965-4525

(602) 965-9219 (fax)

in=Iv

26

Morrison Institute for Public PolicySchool of Pub!ic AffairsArizona State University

Tempe, Arizona 85287-4405

(602) 965-4525

27

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 663 AUTHOR Sheane, Kim; Bierlein ...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 359 663 AUTHOR Sheane, Kim; Bierlein ...