ASBA Journal Summer 2011

Summer 2011Vol. 41, No. 3

AGAINE D U C A T I O N R E F O R M

New A-F Letter Grade Measurement Begins

Teacher-Principal Evaluation and Student Progress

Reform Must Start When Learning Begins – At Birth

To Learn and Earn: Arizonans’Experiences Competing in the Race for Good Jobs

INSURANCE TRUST

To find out how your school can join over 176 others currently in ASBAIT

Call (602) 789-1170 or (800) 762-2234.www.asbait.org

Excess Contribution Refund of $2 Million to 2010-2011 Members!

Over 90% of every dollaris available to pay claims

Over $156 million of annual contributions

BlueCross/BlueShield of Arizona provider Network incorporated

as part of the plan design

Over 36,000 Covered Plan Members

Average renewal rate was 0% for 3 of the last 5 years

97-100% retention of Districtsfor several years in a row

Excellent Benefits - 9 Flexible Benefit Plans to choose from

Medical

Dental

Prescription Drug

Life and AD&D

Wellness Program

Flu Shots

Employee Assistance Program

24 Hour Nurse Line

Mobile On-Site Mammography

Retiree Program

“Delivering a quality, financially stable employee benefit program designed to meet the needs of Arizona School Districts.”

Summer 2011 I ASBAJournal 1

SUMMER 2011VOL. 41, NO. 3

DEPARTMENTS5 President’s Message

Striving for Amazing Possibilities at ASBABy Dee Navarro, ASBA President

10 ASBA NewsBy Juliet Martin

16 Leadership MattersEducation Reform LessonsBy Karen Beckvar, ASBA Director of Leadership Development

18 Capitol ViewAn Update on the Common Core Standards and AssessmentsBy Janice Palmer, ASBA Director of Governmental Relations

36 Points on PolicyOfficially Articulate Reform Through PolicyBy Jim Deaton, ASBA Director of Policy Services

38 Education and the LawFrom the MailbagBy Chris Thomas, ASBA Director of Legal Services

40 Lessons from ResearchEducation Reform: What Top Systems Tell UsBy Michael T. Martin, ASBA Research Analyst

FEATURES6 Profile in Leadership

Steve Campbell, Prescott Unified School District

7 Prescott’s Music Memory ProgramBy Juliet Martin

8 Profile in LeadershipLuis Marquez, Gadsden Elementary School District

9 Gadsden: Making it Cool to Be SmartBy Juliet Martin

15 Helping Kids Succeed – Arizona StyleBy Derek Peterson

20 Reform Must Start When Learning Begins – At BirthBy Karen Woodhouse and Amy Corriveau

24 Arizona’s Public K-12 Education Accountability SystemTransition to New A-F Letter Grade Measurement BeginsBy Rebecca Stenholm

29 Linking Teacher-Principal Evaluation with Student ProgressBy Alison Stanton

34 To Learn and Earn: Arizonans’ Experiences Competing in the Race for Good JobsBy Panfilo H. Contreras

Dr. Frank Davidson, superintendent of Casa Grande ESD, spoke about “Keeping the Leadership Focus on Student Achievement” at the Summer Leadership Institute.

Delegates at ASBA’s Delegate Assembly in June debated and approved recommendations for the association’s 2012 Political Agenda.

The Key to What You NeedTCPN helps you get the exact products and services you need from the vendors you want, all while meeting state procurement laws. Along with our contracts for office supplies and facilities TCPN hasawarded vendors that offer solutions for energy, technology, and transportation.

So when you need something fast or want to choose your vendor,take a look at our list of TCPN Official Contract Holders...they’re allcompetitively bid and bid law compliant. See what the purchasingpower of governmental entities working together nationwide can dofor you and your budget!

Key in www.TCPN.org today!

he Official Seal of C

®

www.TCPN.org


AS BAAS BAAS BA

COUNTYCOUNTYCOUNTYWORKSHOPSWORKSHOPSWORKSHOPS

ASBA Comes to YOU! Join ASBA staff at work-shops in each of Arizona's 15 counties. County Workshops are an excellent opportunity for school board members and administrators to hear from other school board members in your county, get updates from ASBA staff and members of the board of directors and exchange ideas.

Apache County September 27Navajo County September 28Coconino County September 29Mohave County October 4La Paz County October 5Yuma County October 6Maricopa County October 11Yavapai County October 12Pinal County October 13Cochise County October 18Santa Cruz County October 19Pima County October 20Greenlee County October 25Graham County October 26Gila County October 27

Sept. 27-Oct. 27, 2011

Visit www.AZSBA.org formore information and to register.

ARIZONA SCHOOLBOARDS ASSOCIATION

OfficersPresident Dee NavarroPresident Elect Michael HughesTreasurer Mark WarrenSecretary Randy SchillerImmediate Past President Debbie King

County Directors, Caucus PresidentsApache Rose Martinez Cochise Carolyn CalderonCoconino Sandra KidmanGila Frankie DalmolinGraham Roberta LopezGreenlee Kimberly LuntLa Paz Rudy ParkerMaricopa Jesus Rubalcava Maricopa Scott HolcombMohave William GoodaleNavajo Raymond LaughterPima Jim CoulterPima Elaine HallPinal Irene PatinoSanta Cruz Harry ClapeckYavapai Karen McClellandYuma Maureen IrrHispanic/Native American Indian Caucus Katrina TalkalaiBlack Caucus David Evans

StaffInterim Executive Director Dr. Chuck EssigsDirector of Administrative Services Ellen WhiteDirector of Policy Services Jim DeatonDirector of Legal Services Chris ThomasDirector of Governmental Relations Janice PalmerDirector of Leadership Development Karen BeckvarCommunications/Journal Editor Juliet MartinEducation Policy Analyst Dr. Terry RowlesEducation Policy Analyst Steve HighlenResearch Analyst Michael T. MartinLeadership Development Specialist Dr. Sharon HillPolicy Technician Renae WatsonAdministrative Secretary Jolene HaleExecutive Assistant to the Executive Director and Liaison to the Board of Directors Shirley SimpsonAdministrative Secretary Sara NilssonAdministrative Secretary Elizabeth SanchezReceptionist Kristi Johnson

Publication Policy: Articles printed herein may be divergent in point of view and controversial in nature. The materials published in each issue represent the ideas or beliefs of those who write them, and not necessarily the views or policies of the Arizona School Boards Association.© 2011 by the Arizona School Boards Association.

Address all correspondence to:ASBA Journal Editor2100 N. Central Ave., Suite 200Phoenix, AZ 85004Phone: 602-254-1100; [email protected]; Website: www.azsba.orgAnnual subscription rate $24Production and Design by S&L Printing & Mailing

Funding Available!

Enhance Your Fitness and Nutrition Programs!

Fuel Up to Play 60 is a school wellness program launched by the

National Dairy Council and NFL in partnership with the Dairy Council of

Arizona that empowers students to eat healthy and be active. The program

has earned recognition across the private and public sectors. United States

Department of Agriculture has joined the effort, and additional support has

been achieved from multiple health organizations and several major corpo-

rations. Research shows that kids who are well-nourished and more

physically active tend to have improved cognitive function,

stronger academic achievement, increased concentration and

better test scores.1,2 The bottom line is that Fuel Up to Play 60

can help improve the health, achievement and long-term

well-being for students in your schools.

Funding opportunities are available on a competi-

tive basis to K-12 schools enrolled in Fuel Up to Play 60.

Funds may be used to support a range of different

program-related activities, such as kickoff and launch

events, in-school promotions, student engagement and

motivation, program implementation, family engagement

and tracking and measurement.

For more information on how to get your district

involved with Fuel Up to Play 60, go to:

www.FuelUpToPlay60.com

Dairy CouncilDairyOF ARIZONACouncil

© 2011 National Dairy Council. Fuel Up is a service mark of the National Dairy Council. © 2011 NFL Properties LLC. All NFL-related trademarks are trademarks of the National Football League1-Action for Healthy Kids (2008). Progress or Promises? What’s Working for and Against Healthy Schools. http://www.actionforhealthykids.org/resources/research-and-reports/progress-or-promises-what-s-working-for-and-against-healthy-schools.html. 2-Action for Healthy Kids (October 2004).The Learning Connection: The Value of Improving Nutrition and Physical Activity in Our Schools. http://www.actionforhealthykids.org/resources/files/learning-connection.pdf.


By Dee Navarro, ASBA President

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Striving for Amazing Possibilities at ASBA“By law, every non-profit must have a governing board. As the name indicates, the role of the board is to govern the organization and serve as its accountable body. The board helps create the vision, mission, values and policies for the organization and makes sure that they are properly respected. Also, financial oversight is one of the key responsibilities of a nonprofit board.” —BoardSource

Our roles as school board members are steeped in governance. ASBA offers a variety of trainings through workshops and conferences as well as individual board trainings that help governing boards better understand and implement governance standards and best practices. We’re very fortunate to have knowledgeable staff who continuously provide information and guidelines to help us govern more effectively so that we can focus on serving our students.

As a non-profit board, the ASBA board of directors has been seeking expertise to help us implement best practices in non-profit board governance to operate more effectively and better serve our members. In January 2011, the ASBA Board of Directors and staff held a retreat where a trainer from the national non-profit board development leader BoardSource shared leading-edge practices and ideas for enhancing board service. On their recommendation, and after attendance at NSBA’s Presidents Retreat, the ASBA board of directors instituted four new committees that can enhance the work of the board.

Audit & Finance Committee – Headed by ASBA Treasurer Mark Warren and made up of directors and at-large members, this committee oversees the finances of the organization, reviews and provides input to the draft budget, reviews the annual IRS 990 report, oversees RFPs for services, audits invoices and conducts a salary survey.

Trust Lands Committee – Some of Arizona’s most precious financial resources for public education are trust lands, with almost 90 percent of the value and corpus established by this trust serving K-12 education through Proposition 301 requirements. This advocacy committee headed by ASBA Secretary Randy Schiller is working statewide and regionally to ensure that the best interests of our students are considered. The committee will assist ASBA staff in monitoring and advocacy issues related to trust lands.

Governance Committee – This committee headed by Bob Rice, a past president of ASBA, was created at the recommendation of Susan Meier from BoardSource, who cited that governance committees have been strongly endorsed by the IRS as a tool to oversee Board functions and compliance and are used with great success by non-profits. The committee’s function is to identify and recruit new board members for ASBA as well as to ensure that board members have the tools they need to complete their duties. The committee also is overseeing the process for establishing a 501c4.

Strategic Planning Committee – This committee’s charge is to review and work with staff in making recommendations to the board on a strategic plan. The committee is made up of board members and staff and chaired by Michael Hughes, ASBA president-elect, and Debbie King, ASBA past president. The committee will be meeting in the coming months to create a strategic plan and then will work with staff to monitor its progress.

These new committees, as well as other standing committees of the Board, involve more board members in the governance of ASBA, an association that is designed to serve the needs of school board members across the state.

Whether serving on the board of directors or on a committee, service to ASBA is a voluntary job that goes above and beyond the volunteer role we all have in our communities as governing board members. I applaud ASBA members who choose to extend their talents, time and passion to benefit not only the children in their communities but also more than 1 million students in public schools. I especially want to thank the board of directors for becoming more involved in enhancing the governance of ASBA. Their hard work is greatly appreciated.

There are many opportunities for our members’ voices to be heard, and we appreciate your input as we work to realize the Amazing Possibilities ahead for our association.

6 ASBAJournal I Summer 2011

PROFILE IN LEADERSHIP

Governing BoardPrescott Unified School District

HometownI was born and raised in Prescott, so this has always been home. I graduated from Prescott High School.

A Board Member For10 ½ years

Books at My BedsideTo the Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson by Heidi S. Swinton, The Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer, Scriptures

InspirationI am inspired by those who can see clearly the moral imperatives of life and are willing to stand by them.

Motto as a Board MemberDo what is best for children and what will build and strengthen staff.

Pie-in-the-Sky Vision for Education A system that is able to meet every child’s learning style and is funded so that excellent teachers can have excellent pay.

Advice to New Board MembersListen, listen, listen, and look to those wonderful professionals who can train and build your skills.

Greatest Accomplishment as a Board MemberHelping to bring order to a dysfunctional board so that meetings are respectful and productive.

Pet Peeve as a Board MemberThe fact that every group has their sacred cow and they are not willing to look at the entire picture.

Reason I Like Being an ASBA MemberFor the educational opportunities it provides.

My EpitaphA good man with wisdom and a kind heart.

ASBA is pleased to feature the 2010 All-Arizona School Board Award recipients in the Profiles in Leadership column in each issue of the Journal.

Steve Campbell


Prescott's MusicMemory Program

Who better to learn about classical music from than symphony musicians? A unique community partnership developed in the

1970s and still going strong in the Prescott Unified School District partners musicians from the Yavapai Symphony Association Guild with 3rd, 4th and 5th grade classrooms to teach students about classical compositions in lessons that combine history, geography and music.

The Music Memory Program brings mentors from the symphony association into Prescott schools throughout the school year, where they delve into five or six classical pieces and focus on the composers, their lives and the times in which they lived. Students learn the intricacies of the pieces, including the various instruments and musical terms that are specific to the particular pieces. Ultimately, students are able to identify the instruments and recognize how the music is constructed.

Prescott Unified School District Board Member Steve Campbell served as a mentor in the program for several years when the program first began. A musician himself, Campbell enjoyed working with the students and ultimately ran for the school board more than 10 years ago. He notes that the program is “near and dear to his heart.”

Paul Menz, a music teacher at Granite Mountain Middle School and conductor of the Prescott Pops Symphony, says that the partnership the symphony and school district has is a very special one, with the ultimate goal to increase students’ understanding and appreciation of classical music.

Today, the program has expanded to other school districts and charter and private schools in the area, including Chino Valley, Prescott Valley, Humboldt and Mayer, to name a few. At the end-of-year Memory Concert, more than 5,000 students pack Tim’s Toyota Center, a hockey arena in Prescott Valley, to hear the Prescott Pops Symphony play the pieces they’ve studied.

“One of the things we do is make sure the concerts are fun for the kids,” Menz says, noting that music from films like “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Star Wars” is played alongside Bach and Brahms. “We want the kids to say, ‘Wow! The orchestra concert was fun!’ We want to encourage the kids to enjoy the music.”

The results of the Music Memory Program? After years of listening to and studying music in the early grades, many of the students are eager to translate their learning into practice as instrumentalists. Menz notes that there are about 70 students in his beginning band this year, a strong measure of the program’s success.


PROFILE IN LEADERSHIP

Governing BoardGadsden Elementary School District #32

HometownSan Luis, Arizona

A Board Member For22 years

Books at My BedsideCurrently the Arizona Republic and the Yuma Daily Sun – I like to keep up-to-date on local, state and national news.

InspirationCesar Chavez. When I was a farm worker, I remember Chavez fighting for the rights of all farm workers during the strikes. I admired his motto, “Si Se Puede,” which means “Yes We Can!” He really made a difference for the farm worker, and I try to follow in his footsteps by making a difference in the lives of our students.

Motto as a Board MemberAll children are intelligent and can learn when we provide them with educational opportunities.

Pie-in-the-Sky Vision for Education Reducing the dropout rate is instrumental for our children. I would like to see every student receive a high school diploma.

Advice to New Board MembersListen to the community and be cognizant of the educational needs of the students. Also, I would encourage the board members to get involved in community projects that benefit our schools and the local community.

Greatest Accomplishment as a Board MemberThe academic achievement of our students that has been recognized on local, state and national levels. I have watched our district grow from three schools and 1,000 students to nine schools and more than 5,000 students. When I started as a board member, 90 percent of our students were ELL, and now that number has been reduced to 36 percent.

Pet Peeve as a Board MemberWhen I hear people speaking negatively about our district without having the proper information or knowledge to support their opinions.

Reason I Like Being an ASBA MemberThe networking and learning opportunities that are made available to all of its members.

My Epitaph“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life; define yourself.” —Harvey Fierstein

ASBA is pleased to feature the 2010 All-Arizona School Board Award recipients in the Profiles in Leadership column in each issue of the Journal.

Luis Marquez


Gadsden: Making it

Cool to Be Smart

Referred to by Johns Hopkins University as “a hub of academic talent,” the Gadsden Elementary School District in San Luis, Arizona, has achieved

national attention for student achievement. Through the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, one of the most selective national gifted programs, schools in the Gadsden district have turned in impressive numbers – both in test scores and in the large percentage of students who qualified for the prestigious program.

As part of CTY’s Talent Search for gifted students, and with the help and encouragement from district educators and parents, 286 7th and 8th graders signed up for the process of taking the ACT. The well-known college admissions test is pitched well above grade level for students their age and provides information about a gifted students’ math and reading abilities.

When CTY staff held a meeting about the program, it wasn’t just the parents who showed up – teachers and local administrators also attended the bilingual presentation. When it became clear what the academic challenge would be, teachers volunteered their afternoons for four months to focus students on math and reading achievement, and to model what school teamwork could accomplish.

On test day, the middle school students taking the test geared toward 11th and 12th graders were met first with an

honor guard of cheerleaders outside cheering them forward, and then a spirit rally inside the school to psyche them up.

The results were impressive. Of the 286 students, 146 qualified for CTY’s summer and online courses for academically talented students. Additionally, out of 40 6th grade Talent Search recruits, 20 qualified on a similar test for CTY programs.

The numbers for Gadsden were unusual compared to other schools in the program, according to Dr. Lea Ybarra, the Center’s executive director. She noted that schools usually encourage just a small fraction of their student population to test. “Also striking is that so many students qualified. We often encounter qualifying rates of 10 percent or less, so to see a qualifying rate of about 50 percent is remarkable,” she said.

The Johns Hopkins Center put up scholarships and aid for 150 of the district’s qualifiers to attend a three-week CTY residential summer academic program. There, the San Luis students took an intensive academic course while they lived and learned with other academically talented young people in CTY’s summer melting pot experience. Combined, the district’s students are receiving scholarships and aid exceeding $540,000.

“I’m very proud of what our district has accomplished,” said Luis Marquez, a school board member who recently received the All-Arizona School Board award. “Our students are seeing that they can accomplish anything they want to.”


At this year’s Summer Leadership Institute, 18 school board members from across Arizona received Cactus Pin Awards for their service to ASBA, to the National School Boards Association and for participating in community service activities on behalf of their local school boards.

Gold Cactus Pin AwardsRecipients of Gold Cactus Pin Awards (150 or more service points) were: Carolyn A. Calderon, Palominas Elementary School District (Cochise County); Harry Clapeck, Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District (Santa Cruz County); Cynthia Matus-Morriss, Patagonia Elementary School District (Santa Cruz County); Jim Coulter, Vail Unified School District (Pima County); Patricia M. Foy, Seligman Unified School District (Yavapai County); Dee Navarro, Prescott Unified School District (Yavapai County); Rudy Parker, Parker Unified School District (La Paz County); Jesus Rubalcava, Gila Bend Unified School District (Maricopa County); Evelyn Shapiro, Isaac Elementary School District (Maricopa County); Denise Standage, Higley Unified School District (Maricopa County); Mark Warren, Cave Creek Unified School District (Maricopa County); and Katrina Talkalai, San Carlos Unified School District (Gila County).

Silver Cactus Pin AwardsRecipients of Silver Cactus Pin Awards (75-149 service points) were: Margaret Burkholder, Vail Unified School District (Pima County); Anne Greenberg, Paradise Valley Unified School District (Maricopa County); Richard Hopkins, Buckeye Elementary School District (Maricopa County); and Kimberly Lunt, Duncan Unified School District (Greenlee County).

Cactus Pin CertificateRecipients of the Cactus Pin Certificate (60-74 service points) were: Jeffery Crandall, Tombstone Unified School District (Cochise County); and Maxine T. Hill, Agua Fria Union High School District (Maricopa County).

ASBANEWS18 ReceiveCactus Pin Awards

Receiving Cactus Pins or Certificates at the Summer Leadership Institute were Harry Clapeck, Patricia Foy, Evelyn Shapiro, Jeffery Crandall, Margaret Burkholder, Maxine T. Hill, Dee Navarro and Carolyn Calderon.

ASBA President Dee Navarro (right) presents a Gold Cactus Pin to Evelyn Shapiro, Isaac ESD.


Panfilo Contreras Retires as Executive Director of ASBAIn early July, Executive Director Panfilo Contreras retired after 13 years with ASBA. Prior to heading the association, Panfilo was on the school board of the Flowing Wells Unified School District for nearly 12 years. He served on the ASBA board of directors in various leadership positions for four years, including as president of ASBA in 1995.

Prior to joining ASBA, Contreras was Program Manager for the Family Assistance Administration of the Department of Economic Security in Tucson for 18 years.

A native Arizonan, Contreras has been active in many community organizations. He was a member of the Tucson-Pima Metropolitan Education Commission and

served on the Tucson Mayor’s Education Task Force. He is past president of the Tucson Chapter of the Arizona Hispanic Community Forum. Other affiliations include president on the board of directors of the Hands Across the Border Foundation; executive committee and board of directors of the Arizona Business and Education Coalition; the oversight board of Expect More Arizona; and the board of directors of the American School Foundations Alliance.

“On behalf of the ASBA Board, I want to thank Panfilo for his 13 years of service and for the many positive things he has done for ASBA,” said the association’s President Dee Navarro. “We wish Panfilo the very best in his future endeavors and well-deserved retirement.”

ASBAIT Has SuccessfulMarketing, Financial YearASBAIT’s Trustees heard good news about the insurance trust’s marketing success for the 2011-2012 Fund Year and the financial success achieved for the 2010-2011 Fund Year at a meeting in June. ASBAIT will have 100 percent of its current members renewing for 2011-2012. They will add an additional 10 percent more employees to the 26,000 currently enrolled. The new employees and dependents come from four new schools – Higley USD, Marana USD, Eastern Arizona College and Littlefield USD.

ASBAIT Trustees also approved an Excess Contribution Refund totaling more than $2 million to members who have participated for more than 12 months through May 31, 2011. Eligible schools are receiving a minimum of 10 percent and up to 50 percent of the May 2011 contribution depending on their loss ratio. The ECR was made possible by the low fixed cost (less than 9 percent) and lower than expected claims cost (negative trend) for the 2010-2011 Fund Year.


September 20115 ASBA Office Closed – Labor Day7&8 Pre-conference Workshop: Law School for

School Leaders8 Pre-conference Workshop: Confronting Bullying8-10 ASBA Law Conference24 ASBA Board of Directors Meeting – ASBA Offices27-29 ASBA County Meetings – Apache, Navajo,

Coconino

October 20114-6 ASBA County Meetings – Mohave, La Paz, Yuma11-13 ASBA County Meetings – Maricopa, Yavapai, Pinal18-20 ASBA County Meetings – Cochise, Santa Cruz,

Pima25-27 ASBA County Meetings – Greenlee, Graham, Gila

November 201111 ASBA Office Closed – Veterans’ Day24-25 ASBA Office Closed – Thanksgiving

ASBACalendarofEvents

Arizona Well-represented atCelebrating Opportunities ConferenceSchool board members and administrators from Arizona joined their counterparts from California, New Mexico and Texas in late April for the Celebrating Opportunities for All Students Conference in Santa Fe, N.M. Attendees shared ideas and explored new approaches in successfully educating their diverse student populations.

Pictured are Arizona participants at the 2011 Celebrating Opportunities for All Students Conference in Santa Fe, N.M.

Arnold Goodluck and Jackie Yazzie, Jr. (Sanders USD) Alhambra ESD Governing Board Member Billie Foltz and Dr. Karen Williams, Superintendent

ASBA Board President Dee Navarro (Prescott USD) and Maricopa County Co-Director Jesus Rubalcava (Gila Bend USD)


Sara Nilsson Dr. Sharon Hill

Staff Changes at ASBADr. Sharon Hill recently joined Karen Beckvar in ASBA’s Leadership Development Department. As Leadership Development Specialist, Sharon brings great perspective to school district consultations and training, having worked for more than 35 years as a superintendent, principal, director of special education and bilingual programs, and teacher. Anative Arizonan, Sharon has worked in public and private schools/districts, for non-profit organizations and as a university administrator and faculty member.

ASBA recently said goodbye to two staff members, Beth Sauer and Colleen Mee. Beth joined ASBA four-and-a-half years ago as Governmental Relations Analyst and has been a strong advocate for public school children and education issues important to ASBA’s members. Beth’s new position is Director of State Relations for the University of Arizona.

Colleen Mee has worked as Administrative Secretary/Account Clerk at ASBA for six years. She is leaving to spend more time with her grandchildren and travel with her husband Brian, who is the soon-to-be president of the American Association of School Business Officials International.

Sara Nilsson, who worked for ASBA for more than 20 years before leaving about six years ago, has returned as Administrative Secretary/Account Clerk. Sara spent the last six years at the Foundation for Blind Children.

Additionally, Chuck Essigs, the Arizona Association of School Business Officials’ Director of Governmental Relations, has agreed to fill the position of Interim Executive Director for ASBA. Chuck has been an integral part of both AASBO and ASBA and has frequently presented at conferences and workshops for both organizations. He is well-known by ASBA staff and a majority of board members and has an impeccable reputation in the education community.

Civics Education Key for Sandra Day O’ConnorData show that fewer than half of Americans can even list all three branches of government, not to mention understand the role of the judicial branch of government. For Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, concern that students are not getting the information and tools they need for civic participation prompted the launch of iCivics, a web-based education project designed to teach students civics and inspire them to be active participants in our democracy.

First known as Our Courts, iCivics is the vision of Justice O’Connor, who serves as the non-profit organization’s chair. The website iCivics.org is an engaging mix of videogames and interactive activities for middle and high school students and educators. It provides teachers with free lesson plans and resources to better teach civics and make it relevant to their students. To date, students in more than 12,000 classrooms across the United States have played the civics-themed games, and the site has been named one of “19 notable sites” by the American Library Association.

Justice O’Connor will speak about her passion for civics education in schools as well as her time on the Supreme Court and her life growing up in Arizona at the 35th Annual ASBA Law Conference on September 8. Register today for this conference, which brings together Arizona’s top school law minds for three power-packed days of learning. Visit www.azsba.org for more information.


Summer Leadership Institute Draws More Than 200This year’s Summer Leadership Institute in Flagstaff drew more than 200 participants, who refined and refreshed their leadership skills. The conference on July 28-30 featured keynote speaker Jim Beardon, whose presentation “Leadership in Troubling Times: Achieving District Success Regardless of the Hands You’re Dealt” provided inspiring lessons about how our attitudes and the outlooks we choose

color how we deal with things. Another keynote speaker, Ron Barnes, shared insights for leaders, especially those who are devoted to serving others. General and breakout sessions focused on Amazing Possibilities for Student Achievement, highlighting best practices and model programs from around the state.

Keynote Speaker Ron Barnes talks with Dee Navarro, ASBA President. Billie Foltz (Alhambra ESD) and Joan Fleming (Prescott USD)

Bessie Allen (Pinon USD) talks with Keynote Speaker Jim Beardon. Keynote Speaker Jim Beardon’s dynamic presentation inspired school board members and leaders to stop making excuses and make the best of the hand public education is being dealt.

Phoenix UHSD Superintendent Dr. Kent Scribner and Dr. Althe Allen joined Matt Winebright from D2SC to present “Data Dashboards: Real-time Data Leading to Systemic District-wide Improvement.”

Officers of the newly formed Black Caucus: Secretary Traci Sawyer Sinkbiel (Dysart USD), Treasurer Margaret Burkholder (Vail USD), Vice President Maxine T. Hill (Agua Fria UHSD) and President David Evans (Chandler USD)


Find more ways to save energy at aps.com/businessrebates or call 866 277 5605

The Solutions for Business program is funded by APS customers and approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

How much could your school save by:

upgrading to premium T8 lights

installing occupancy sensors adding programmable thermostats

A typical K-12 school spends an average of 37% of its electricity costs on cooling and heating, and as much as 33% on interior lighting.

Lower your energy use and start saving today with an energy efficiency rebate from the APS Solutions for Business program.

Q.

A.

HelpingKidsSucceedBy Derek Peterson

The momentum around HelpingKids Succeed is accelerating as we head into the fall!

Approximately 600 Arizonans made more than 1,000 promises to enhance the developmental ecologies of kids, and the numbers are growing as we continue to meet with community members throughout the state.

Development of the book Helping Kids Succeed – Arizona Style is well underway, with distribution set for Feb. 14, 2012, the 100th Anniversary of Arizona statehood. The book will include images of youth and adults working together, supporting each other and/or playing together. Several of the images will be turned into pen and ink drawings for the book and other promotional products. If you’d like to share some powerful images that support the story of building supports in kids, email them to [email protected].

If there are groups in your schools or communities that would like to have a workshop, presentation and/or seminar about building webs of support for youth between now and March 2012, you can check availability on the website at www.helpingkidssucceed.org or email me. We’ll continue to provide updates about the project in ASBA’s “Report Card,” or you can LIKE us on Facebook; just search for Helping Kids Succeed – Arizona Style.

Today, more so than ever before, kids need us. Thank you for being a catcher of dreams. It is THE way to essentially ensure success and prepare our kids to be resilient in an ever- changing economy, and world.


Education Reform Lessons

In the 1940s, George Reavis, an assistant superintendent in the Cincinnati Public Schools, wrote a fable about “The Animal School.” In this fable, the parents of the

animals decided to start a school for their children with a standardized curriculum that included swimming, running, f lying and climbing. All the animals took all the subjects – because it was important that no child be left behind. To make sure that all students were improving, standardized tests were given to all students.

The ducks were excellent in swimming and made passing grades in f lying. They weren’t good runners so they had to drop swimming to have more time to practice running. Naturally, the ducks’ webbed feet got very sore and their performance in swimming dropped to average – but they still met the standard.

The rabbits were at the top of the class in running but did poorly in swimming. All of their hopping around was considered hyperactivity and the rabbits were only allowed to walk – not run or hop. The extra time spent swimming ruined their fur.

The squirrels were excellent in climbing and running, but they wanted to f ly by first climbing the tree and then gliding to the ground. This was not the method in the curriculum; they needed to learn to f ly starting from the ground. The exercises they were required to do to build their f lying muscles made it so that their climbing skills really deteriorated.

The eagles were the problem children – they wanted to climb the tree by f lying to the top (isn’t it the goal that matters?). The school psychologist diagnosed them as having oppositional-defiant disorder, and a strict behavior modification plan was developed for the eagles.

The prairie dogs stayed out of school and fought the tax levy because the administration would not add digging and burrowing to the curriculum. They apprenticed their children to a badger, and later joined the groundhogs and gophers to start a successful private school.

So, how does this apply to school reform?How do we find the balance between providing every opportunity for students to be able to attend college and punishing students, teachers and administrators when one of their “eagles” won’t climb the tree but f lies to the top instead? What are the 21st century skills that we want every child to have? Are we squashing the creativity of our eagles (which is a 21st century skill that we want) because the test that we are required to give doesn’t match the skill?

As school reform is addressed, one question must be asked: Does every child need to be proficient in every area,

or are we willing to help the ducks to be better swimmers, the squirrels to be better runners and climbers, and allow the eagles to find a different route to the top of the tree?

A System of SortingOur education system over the last hundred years is not one that was designed for each child to succeed – it was designed to sort the children into the laborers and management. A child who didn’t fit the mold either didn’t show up to begin with or left at some point in the process. The agrarian and industrial economies that existed over

the last few centuries had plenty of opportunities to support an individual and a family on farms and in factories without an extensive formal education.

Consider this:A century ago, 50 percent of the student population did not achieve even an 8th grade education.Only 8 percent of enrolled children graduated from “high school,” most of which were not comprehensive, nor planned for all students.By 1940, 30 percent of city dwellers and 12 percent in rural areas graduated high school.In 1960, 70 percent of 17 year olds were in high school.By 1990, 90 percent of 5 to 19 year olds were in school.

Reform is not a bigger and better stick. If we want a

quality education for each child, it will have to look

different from the system that was designed to sort and

separate students. It will not look like the schools that

most adults attended.

Karen Beckvar, Director of Leadership Development

LEADERSHIP MATTERS


Free Training Extended to All ASBA Member School BoardsAt ASBA we recognize that school districts are financially challenged, but we don’t want professional training to be one of the things that your board foregoes during these difficult times. For the second year in a row, ASBA is waiving the fee for up to one day of free training per school district. Options include sessions about board operations, strategic planning and goal development, the board’s role in curriculum and instruction, board and superintendent relations, board policy, school law and ethics, and more. Contact Karen Beckvar or Sharon Hill at 602.254.1100 or via email at [email protected] or [email protected] for more information. For legal training, contact Chris Thomas at [email protected].

We can’t solve problems by using the

same kind of thinking we used when

we created them. —Albert Einstein

Don’t miss the ASBA ASA Annual Conference in December, where public school advocate Jamie Vollmer will offer some realistic and useful approaches to building community support for schools and reform in local communities. Vollmer’s primary goal is to help educators and their allies remove the obstacles to progress and create schools that unfold the full potential of every child.

Shifting to Success for AllToday, we expect every child to graduate from high school, and for most to continue their education in college or in a training program (civilian or military), even though public schools are now mandated to serve all students, regardless of ability or disability. Our schools are asked to do more and more each year, with less and less funding and support.

Our economy has changed again. Even the farm and factory jobs of the past require more technical knowledge. These knowledge-based versions require more education and, most importantly, the ability to keep on learning and preparing for changes and new careers. Arizona schools are also inundated with legislative changes that impact local schools annually.

As Jamie Vollmer says in his book Schools Cannot Do It Alone, “No generation of educators in history has been asked to do what Americans now demand of their public schools.” Vollmer has created a list of what has been added to school responsibilities since 1900 in his work product “Increasing Burden on America’s Schools” (Vollmer’s List).

So, what are we looking for in school reform this time? If we really want 100 percent of our students to be college and career ready when they graduate from high school, how must we change our schools? Reform is not a bigger and better stick. If we want a quality education for each child, it will have to look different from the system that was designed to sort and separate students. It will not look like the schools that most adults attended. Major, systemic

reform of local schools needs support from the community for that change. Board members and superintendents who try reform find themselves battling the 6 Ts (Time, Timing, Turf, Tradition, Trust and Taxes). Without building the collective will for the change, they may also find themselves out of a job before long.


CAPITOL VIEWBy Janice Palmer, Director of Governmental Relations

An Update on the CommonCore Standards and Assessments

It’s been more than a year since we’ve discussed the Common Core Standards and what they mean to Arizona, and the nation as a whole, in any detail. While there was

a great rush to adopt the standards, all agreed the assessment of the Common Core Standards would be when these standards would become more relevant. The timeline for the assessments to be implemented is school year 2014-2015 – a long way off just a few years back, only a few years away now.

At the same time, significant legislation has been enacted in the Arizona Legislature, some of which is outlined in greater detail in this Journal issue. However, it should be noted that the Common Core Assessments will have a significant impact on teacher and principal evaluations, the new school accountability/labeling system, and Move on When Reading and Move on When Ready legislation.

Common Core HistoryThe Common Core Initiative came about as educators and policymakers were alarmed at the high remediation rates at community colleges and universities. In response, states began working with K-12, higher education and business interests to ensure that high school standards were college- and career-ready standards. The result was that many states’ math and language arts curricula began to be similar; the independent non-profit education reform organization Achieve noted this trend in July 2008 in the report “Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up.” From there, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was coordinated through the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards were developed with teachers, school administrators and experts, as well as a number of rounds of feedback from states, teachers, researchers, higher education and the general public. The Final Common Core Standards were adopted as of June 2, 2010.

In addition, in this increasingly global marketplace, the nation’s economy is intimately tied to our nation’s educa-tional attainment. For our students to compete, all students must be prepared to not only compete nationally, but with

students from around the world. ACT produced a publi-cation called “Affirming the Goal: Is College and Career Readiness an Internationally Competitive Standard?,” which concluded, “This study empirically affirms that the heart of current education reform in the U.S. – the goal of college and career readiness for all students – is the right goal for these efforts … [and] will effectively put U.S. students on the path toward being internationally competitive with students from the world’s highest-performing countries.”

Marc Tucker from the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) is more cautious about the current state of the Common Core Standards enabling U.S. students to internationally compete. In “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants,” the last two chapters of a book to be released in September 2011, he finds that in the world’s best performing countries, as it relates to instructional systems and gateways, “implementation of the Common Core State Standards will still leave the United States far behind in what is undoubtedly one of the most important arenas of education reform. It will be essential to continue, to expand and to expedite that work.”

The Common Core Standards are just that – standards. It is acknowledged that to be effective in improving edu-cation and getting all students ready for college, workforce training and life, the standards must be partnered with a content-rich curriculum and robust assessments that are aligned to the standards. This has been left to the states to do.

The Role of Race to the Top, Common Core StandardsIn early 2010, when President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan first announced Race to the Top, the opportunity for states to compete for grant monies to implement education reforms (many of which were outlined in the grant application) to increase student achievement, there was a clamor by states to position themselves as a top competitor. The result was the adoption of legislation, as well as the adoption of the Common Core Standards. The Race to the Top application also allowed for states to augment the common core math and English standards up to 15 percent of the state’s total standards for that content area.


Arizona is one of 45 states that have adopted the Common Core Standards. Minimally augmented, the Arizona State Board of Education adopted the standards on June 28, 2010.

Since the initial Race to the Top grant competition, there have been two subsequent Race to the Top com-petitive grant opportunities. Arizona was unsuccessful in the first round, missed the second round by only a few points and submitted an application for Round 3.

Common Core AssessmentsBesides state competitive grants, another component of the Race to the Top legislation was monies for state testing consortiums that would band together to develop assessments based on the Common Core Standards. Two consortia emerged – Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) – and both were awarded federal monies.

Arizona is part of the PARCC consortium, comprised of 24 states, and is the only western governing state of either consortium; Florida is the Fiscal Agent. Armed with $186 million, the PARCC consortium has outlined the following timeline:

2010-11 School Year: Launch and design phase2011-12 School Year: Development begins2012-13 School Year: First year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection2013-14 School Year: Second year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection2014-15 School Year: Full operational administration of PARCC assessmentsSummer 2015: Set achievement levels, including college-ready performance levels

The PARCC Model Content Frameworks in English Language Arts and Literacy and Mathematics was recently released; the result of a collaborative state-led team of experts and Common Core State Standards writing team members. There was a public review period from August 3-17 for input. The model content frameworks help identify the big ideas in the Common Core State Standards for each grade level; help determine the focus for the various PARCC assessment components; and will support the development of the PARCC assessment blueprints.

It is interesting to note that most states will see a reduc-tion in their assessment costs due to the consortium and economies of scale. Arizona, on the other hand, will actually see an increase due to our current low assessment spending.

A Common Core Backlash?A small, but vocal, minority has signed on to oppose a “nationalized curriculum and national assessments,” as

they do not believe “a one-size-fits-all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject” is good for the United States or any other large country. They contend that there is not constitutional or statutory basis for national standards; no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement or best curriculum design; and inadequate planning on the standards.

What’s Next?While efforts continue to move forward, there is much up in the air. Federally, the 2012 General Election could have a significant impact on whether we stay the course or if another direction is provided. In Arizona, we have already adopted the standards; however, it remains to be seen if Arizona will adopt the assessments from the PARCC consortium and appropriations provided. If adopted, these new assessments will be used instead of the current AIMS test for teacher and principal evaluations, school account-ability/labels, receivership and third grade retention, along with others.

ACT recently published a research report entitled “A First Look at the Common Core and College and Career Readiness” that provides an estimate of current student performance on the Common Core State Standards, using ACT college- and career-readiness data. Overall, the study found that “far too many of today’s students will likely graduate from high school not ready for college-level work or career training programs without needing some type of remediation in English language arts and mathematics.”

Specifically, in English language arts and literacy, the following was found: 1) Too few students are able to understand complex text; 2) Increased focus is needed on key aspects of language, including knowledge of language varieties, the use of language skillfully and the ability to acquire and use rich vocabulary; and 3) Content-area reading needs strengthening, especially in science.

In math, the following need for improvement was shown: 1) Increased focus is needed on the foundations of mathematics; 2) Math interventions are needed for students who are falling behind at the earliest grades; and 3) Greater understanding of math processes and practices is needed.

While numerous recommendations are provided for instructional strategies and interventions, as well as for policymakers, the biggest challenge facing governing boards and administrators is ensuring that the public understands that there is not necessarily a drop in achievement with initial lower scores on the new common core assessments, but a change in expectations to college and career readiness. This is a challenging, yet achievable, goal. Thus, regardless of the federal and state unknowns, what we do know is that we must provide each and every student who comes through our public schools’ doors with an education that provides the foundation for success.


Two years ago, the debate over education reform led the state Legislature to raise the stakes for every young child in Arizona: if they are not reading well enough by the end of third grade, they will be mandatorily retained. Since then, schools statewide have been working to identify ways to better support children in kindergarten through third grade so that they can meet this important benchmark. While that support is important for today’s students, we can serve future students best by ensuring that a foundation in literacy is being wired into their brains as they develop.

Neuroscience tells us that more than 85 percent of human brain development occurs between birth and 5 years old.Developmentally, these early years put children at a cross-roads: we can set them on a path to success with strong foundational skills; or, we can leave them on the far side of the achievement gap, forcing a costly and difficult game of catch-up that leaves many children behind.

All Arizonans have a shared responsibility for ensuring that all children arrive at school healthy and ready to succeed. Promoting school readiness involves a continuum of efforts that include:

By Karen Woodhouse and Amy Corriveau

Reform When

Must

Start

Learning Begins – At Birth


Supporting parents in their role as a child’s first teachers;

Building awareness in communities of ways to encourage young learners;

Expanding families’ access to early learning opportunities for kids 5 and younger;

Ensuring that teachers are trained to effectively engage the youngest minds; and,

Ensuring that early education settings – whether home, center or community based – are prepared and supported in their efforts to get kids ready for kindergarten.

Early Learning StandardsAlignment between the birth to 5 years and kindergarten through grade 3 is critical. There are some essential pieces of that bridge that Arizona has adopted or is developing. Arizona already has a set of internationally recognized Early Learning Standards for children 3 to 5 years old that are aligned with the Arizona Academic Standards for Kindergarten. These standards address a child’s physical and language development, as well as the cognitive areas of science, mathematics, social studies and fine arts.

As with all educational learning standards, the Early Learning Standards are not intended to be used as a perfor-mance checklist; rather, they are designed to inform families and early childhood professionals how to best ensure early ex periences are plentiful and designed to provide the most op-portunities for a child’s growth and development in all areas.

Quality Guidelines for Programs Birth through KindergartenRecently, the Arizona Department of Education and

First Things First completed the Quality Guidelines for Programs

Birth through Kindergarten to establish the core tenants for how a classroom-

based program should look and feel. While the early learning standards outline what children should know or be able to do in order to be prepared for kindergarten, the program guidelines outline how a teacher and/or an early education program can support a young student in meeting those guidelines. First Things First applied for and received federal stimulus funding to provide training statewide on the early learning standards and program guidelines and how to incorporate them into various settings. The Arizona Department of Education conducts the trainings. Funding also was provided to develop infant-toddler guidelines and training discussed later in this article.

The Early Learning Program Guidelines are also incorporated into the Quality First Point Scale, which is used in conjunction with other assessments to gauge the quality of early learning programs statewide. The Quality First Rating Scale, which measures quality on a 5-star continuum, incorporates evidence-based predictors that lead to positive child outcomes, particularly those focused on teacher-child interactions. Those predictors include:

By focusing our reform efforts at the beginning of the education

continuum – the years before a child enters kindergarten – we are ensuring that our

children have the tools they need to succeed in school and beyond.

Heather Padberg encourages early literacy by sharing the book The Little Mouse, the Red Ripe Strawberry and the Big Hungry Bear with her class of 4-year-olds at Childtime Learning Center in north Phoenix. Children who have access to quality early learning environments that give them strong foundational skills are more likely to be successful in elementary school and beyond.


Ready for School.

Set for Life.

Creating the

Model Early

Childhood

System

1. Social and emotional functioning in the classroom, including dimensions of positive climate, negative climate, teacher sensitivity and regard for student perspectives.

2. Student behavior, activity and engagement, in-cluding classroom behavior management, student productivity and instructional learning formats.

3. Effective support for cognitive and language development through the curriculum, focusing on the roles of concept development, quality of feedback and language modeling.

Currently, there are more than 700 home- and center-based child care providers engaged in Quality First, with plans to increase to more than 900 by the end of the fiscal year. Through Quality First, early education providers are not only trained in early learning standards and guidelines, but can also be assessed in terms of how well their setting is using that information to prepare kids to enter school. Once programs are rated, they will become part of a public system expected to launch next summer and intended to give parents information they need to select early education programs for their children.

Arizona Infant-Toddler Developmental GuidelinesFirst Things First and the Arizona Department of Education also are working to develop the Arizona Infant-Toddler Developmental Guidelines, which will be completed in January

2012. These guidelines will focus on children from birth to 3 years old. They will differ from general developmental milestones in that they are intended to be used by early childhood professionals working with infants and toddlers, much like the Arizona Early Learning Standards are used by professionals working with children ages 3 to 5. Those who care for infants and toddlers will use these guidelines as part of a curricular framework. The guidelines will help them design environments and plan activities that best support children’s learning. The infant-toddler guidelines also are incorporated into the Quality First Rating Scale.Through the creation of learning standards for children birth to 5 years old, the development of program guidelines that help teachers and caregivers of our youngest kids put those standards into practice, and the creation of a quality rating system that measures how well those standards and practices are being put in to effect, Arizona has a birth to 5 continuum of learning that supports children in their critical early years and ensures that they arrive at kindergarten prepared for the rigor and high expectations they will face.

By focusing our reform efforts at the beginning of the education continuum – the years before a child enters kindergarten – we are ensuring that our children have the tools they need to succeed in school and beyond.

About the Authors: Karen Woodhouse is Chief Program Officer for First Things First, and Amy Corriveau is Deputy Associate Superintendent for Early Childhood Education, Arizona Depart-ment of Education.

About First Things FirstA child’s most important developmental years are those leading up to kindergarten. First Things First is committed to helping Arizona kids 5 and younger receive the quality education, healthcare and family support they need to arrive at school healthy and ready to succeed.

First Things First was established to help provide greater opportunities for all children 5 and under in Arizona to grow up ready to succeed. Through the passionate, dedicated work of the Board, staff, volunteer Regional Partnership Council members, our state agency partners, involved community pro-viders and early childhood champions, more and greater opportunities to achieve success will be made available for each Arizona child in the coming years.

The First Things First website www.azftf.gov includes a variety of studies about early childhood.



Arizona’s Public K-12 Education Accountability SystemTransition To New A-F Letter Grade Measurement Begins

By Rebecca Stenholm

As Arizona children head back to the classroom, a new

yardstick for measuring the performance of schools is being

implemented that will change the way schools are labeled.

Dubbed Arizona Learns A-F by the Arizona Department of

Education, the new process will eventually retire the existing

system that labels schools by performance (referred to as the

AZ Learns Legacy system) to a new A-F letter grade model

that proponents maintain will provide better transparency

for educators and parents about the quality of education

Arizona’s children are receiving.

While education policy leaders are optimistic about

the potential this and other reform policies can have on

the state’s public school system, there is a great deal of

concern among school boards, administrators and leaders

about funding, about communicating significant changes

to a public weary of Arizona’s battle to raise the quality

of education, and about whether the new system will

inadvertently harm the very schools it is hoping to establish

as models of success.

Beyond Test Scores – Measuring How Far the Needle MovesThe path to the new letter grade accountability model started with Education 2000 and Prop 301 more than a decade ago, leading to the establishment of Arizona Learns, which critics now say relies on labels that conceal actual performance.

Janice Palmer, ASBA’s director of governmental relations, explained that SB 1286 is 2010 legislation inf luenced by Jeb Bush’s work in Florida, which contends that A-F letter grades are more transparent, as well as emphasizing the bottom quartile of students.

“The new SB 1286 formula takes into account student progress. It also puts an extra emphasis on the bottom quartile of students not only to focus on the lowest achieving students, but to also minimize the achievement gap,” Palmer said.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal authored SB 1286 and said it is precisely because of the lack of transparency that a new measurement of Arizona’s education system – one that elevates accountability – is needed.

“My concern was that there were schools and school districts with very low growth, but that had performing labels,” Huppenthal said. “It was concerning to me because

AB

C

DF


we were guiding parents in making decisions about their children’s education based on imprecise and inaccurate labels.”

Superintendent Huppenthal began reviewing research about student growth models in the 1990s, notably the systems in Tennessee and Florida. What he saw was telling. Tennessee did not show growth whereas Florida, which pursued a distinctly different model that emphasized academic growth, did. Florida achieved the greatest gains – reducing the number of students lacking basic reading skills by 50 percent – in the 40-year history of the National Assessment of Education (NAEP) examination. Huppenthal attributes this to Florida’s emphasis on balanced accountability.

“Florida’s proficiency scores ref lect student growth from kindergarten through third grade. This is critical because a significant amount of learning occurs at these grade levels,” Huppenthal explained. “Unlike Tennessee, which did not measure K-3, Florida achieved results that could be traced back to the logic of the Florida accountability model.”

In the new A-F accountability formula, there are two equal components to the equation: proficiency and growth. Student proficiency will continue to be primarily determined by AIMs results. Student growth is measured by the trajectory of actual student academic growth over the year – 50 percent of the grade that, in turn, gives equal weight to overall student growth and bottom quartile student growth. To arrive at the growth score, an average is taken by adding the median growth percentile of all

students added to the median growth percentile of students in the bottom quartile.

“The new model places a greater importance on measuring student growth – it is now 50 percent of the equation where it was only 30 percent before.” Superintendent Huppenthal stresses the significance of this change, noting that the new formula is a statistically valid measurement that gives equal weigh to achievement and growth.

Vince Yanez is Executive Director of the Arizona State Board of Education, which is responsible for working out the details and enforcing the new model adopted by the Legislature in 2010. He believes that the new methodology is much better and much easier to understand, and agrees with Superintendent Huppenthal that the new letter grade system represents an important step toward elevating the quality of public education.

“This was a bill that did two things – it changed the labels of the system and it changes the formula as to how we actually calculate those labels,” Yanez said. “We’re taking the necessary steps to increase the rigor. But to do that, we need to be honest about school performance. The new system is not as complex and it is much more transparent.”

The Arizona Department of Education will continue to enforce Arizona Learns’ system of word labels until transi-tioning entirely to the letter grade system in fall 2013. Because the A-F model is distinctly different from the one in place today, schools will continue to receive official word grades as well as unofficial letter grades during the transition period.

Yanez notes that the two-year transition gives schools an opportunity to prepare for any changes in a school’s labeling before letter grades become the official standard in fall 2013.“A hard shift wouldn’t be fair to schools, so a two-year window offers a chance for schools to prepare.”

Both Yanez and Huppenthal stress the strength of the A-F model, which Huppenthal sees as a foundational piece in reforming Arizona education.

“The letter grade system represents the best science to accurately gauge and understand academic growth, but it is important to remember that this is only one piece of the puzzle. There is no question that we need more accountability for our school system. But, test scores alone are not enough – it dehumanizes the system.”

Superintendent Huppenthal’s office is now looking ahead to measurements of parental, student and teacher engagement. He says the objective is to establish a four-pronged accountability measurement in which each indicator stands alone but represents a significant element in an education platform that is both nationally and internationally competitive. Based on analysis of test samples from each district, he expects to roll out the remaining prongs in summer 2013/2014.

GrowthAll Students

GrowthLowest Performing

Students

MeasuresAcademic Process

Growth Score 50%Composite Proficiency

Score 50%


A Question of Funding, or Fundamentals?SB 1286 isn’t the only change in store for Arizona education. The 2010 session also saw Move on When Reading adopted, legislation aimed at having every child reading at a third grade level by Grade 3. Other changes with the potential to move Arizona’s education system forward are on the horizon, including the Common Core State Standards and New Assessments.

Nicole Magnuson, Executive Director of the policy organization Expect More Arizona, applauds the efforts being made but points out that Arizona needs to do more than adopt reform policies.

“Arizona is looking to Florida’s model, but what is critically important to the success of the Florida model is that the state infused financial resources around the legislation to help at-risk students,” Magnuson pointed out. “Arizona didn’t do that – it passed the legislation without surrounding it with financial support. Arizona is adopting concepts but not necessarily the full model.”

Magnuson acknowledges the critical importance of education in advancing Arizona’s overall growth, but points out that true progress is not possible without a fully vested commitment.

“If we truly want our students to be nationally and internationally competitive, we need to be willing to accept where we are and the high bar that needs to be set and met.” Magnuson goes on to note that “where we fail is in the lack of investment and sustained commitment to enact change. The real question now is, are we going to strategically invest in the system so that our schools are successful in implementing the new changes?”

There are concerns within the education community and among parents knowledgeable about the changes as to how school performance will be graded, including whether the new model will further tax teachers and schools already working within finite budgets and resources. Not so, says Huppenthal.

While an analysis of whether it will positively or negatively impact resources (financial or otherwise) has not been completed, he expects there will be no overall impact. Instead, he points out that school districts are “doing more with what we already have.”

“Our new A-F accountability system now puts an equal focus on districts. Not only are we shifting, in Arizona, more focus at the district level, we are giving ‘A’ districts full acknowledgement of the work they have done. We anticipate that ‘A’ districts should be able to find it easier to get support.”

But ASBA’s Palmer suggests the opposite may be true, pointing to concerns among educators and parents that the new model has the potential to adversely impact the system, especially at the local level. Among them is the concern that the distinct departure from the system that has been in place for the past decade to not only a new letter label, but a new formula to determine the label, will lead to confusion, particularly given the two-year overlap where schools will receive both word and letter grades, which cannot be compared at an apple to apple level. This confusion could hamper community and parent support of the school and district through overrides and bonds.

“What are the county school superintendents thinking about as the new system gets put in place? Under the new law, county school superintendents are now required to help struggling schools, whereas before they were not legally obligated to do so,” Palmer noted. “What is the budget implication for county school superintendents? The law is in place, but no one has looked at the financial equation. It

The real question now is, are we going to strategically invest in the system so that our schools

are successful in implementing the new changes?—Nicole Magnuson


would be unfair to promise schools and districts assistance and not have the resources to fulfill that promise. Schools are already doing more with less, and community support could be hindered at a time when support is needed more than ever.”

While Superintendent Huppenthal does not anticipate the new letter grade system will impact district and school budgets, he does anticipate that the next analysis of Arizona’s schools will reveal a great deal about ‘A’ schools, from dollars spent to professional development for teachers to how involved parents are.

“The new A-F accountability model gives positive acknowledgement of schools with an ‘A’ grade. We will be able to look at what those schools do to achieve that success, and what the districts and superintendents do. We will be able to analyze every aspect of what those ‘A’ districts do to achieve success.”

Palmer cautions that while the calculation could provide a true assessment of Arizona’s schools and benefit those schools in the bottom tiers, it also has the potential to adversely impact the very schools that Superintendent Huppenthal hopes to learn from. Because schools’ grades will place less emphasis on standardized test scores and more on how far the dial was moved for student academic growth during the year, schools currently receiving lower performing labels could benefit, while schools where student proficiency is already high have little room to move the dial further.

Responding to concerns that there may be significant ranking changes for schools previously labeled performing or better, Superintendent Huppenthal is candid that schools may see changes but is quick to note that the new letter grade system is a clearer and more accurate assessment,something everyone agrees is key. He explains that schools that see a change in ranking in the transition from word to letter grade can most likely attribute that to below or above average student academic growth.

“If you were excelling before and now you are a ‘B’ or ‘C’, your growth was not that high. There’s a growth factor in the equation now.”

Yanez also points out that the new system does not mean teachers should expect significant changes in their classrooms.

“Teachers need to do what they have always been doing – the new letter grade system doesn’t mean that they modify their programs. If they have been teaching the state standards effectively their student growth, as well as student proficiency, will ref lect that,” Yanez explained. “There are some areas we need to improve on, there’s no question about that. But to do that, we need to start by being honest with ourselves about where our education system is today.”

Magnuson agrees that the letter grade system could have a profound impact on the quality of education in Arizona

and how that translates over to the state’s quality of life and economic growth. But, she cautions that can only happen if Arizonans are willing to take a hard look at the true quality of the state’s schools and make a long-term commitment to moving them forward.

“Anything that helps our parents and students understand where our schools are at is a good thing,” Magnuson said. “What will be a surprise is the parents that think their schools are doing better than they actually are. That means we really need to educate them about why the changes are happening and how we can work together to make our schools better.”

Education, the Economy & Parent InvolvementFrom Magnuson’s perspective, it comes down to a simple challenge. “With all of these changes, we need to continually ask ourselves: ‘Are we supporting this in a way that it can truly be successful?’ If it means turning our backs on schools doing badly, that is a bad thing. It should be used to make our schools better and address the needs of those that aren’t performing well.”

It is the bottom quartile of students where Huppenthal sees both opportunity and need. In giving greater emphasize to this at-risk quartile, he sees the potential to positively impact individual students, the system and Arizona overall.

“If you look at Arizona’s prisons, on which we spend millions of dollars each year, they are full of students who used to be in the bottom quartile,” Huppenthal pointed out. “It is critically important that we focus on that quartile of students. These are individuals who have no basic skills in reading and math, and their writing skills are generally very poor.” In many cases, Huppenthal said, these former students have parents who aren’t as informed about their child’s education, or as skilled at getting their children into stronger programs.

Regardless of where one stands on the new letter grade system, there is consensus on the foundational importance of parental involvement in academic success. Expect More Arizona sees this as a critical call to action that will be pivotal in whether or not the new tools realize success. She notes that informing and educating parents about the changes is critical because the decade-old system of word labels is unclear and has caused a lot of confusion.

“A lot of families don’t even know what ‘excellence’ is,” she stated. “The letter system is a step in the right direction,

ASBA is creating a toolbox of resources to help school boards and administrators better understand the A-F Labels and communicate the changes to their communities. Watch ASBA’s “Report Card” and e-mail blasts for more information about these online resources.


but we need to educate parents about what they should be looking for in a school that’s truly preparing their children to succeed.”

Palmer also emphasizes this point, noting that community and parent support is not only paramount for top schools – it is critical for successful turnaround models, a point that Yanez and Huppenthal agree with.

“Parental involvement at the key battleground – reading – is essential.” Huppenthal cites research that showed 5th grade students in the 10th percentile read only 1 minute per day, the 50th percentile read only 5 minutes per day and the 90th percentile read 20 minutes per day. “Reading is one of the key drivers for academic achievement.”

Raising the Stakes to Raise the BarFunding, educating parents and the community, and the logistics of the new letter system aside, Magnuson points out that Arizona has tried to implement rigorous standards before.

“What is important is that we don’t allow it to get

watered down, like what happened with the implementation of AIMs. Originally, AIMs was a much more rigorous assessment of proficiency, but there was such an outcry at the onset that the test has been watered down. The rigorous changes in letter grades, standards and assessments need to stay high bar.”

For Magnuson, it all comes full circle. “Ultimately, as a parent, you need to know where your children’s education stands. But the devil’s in the details – how it is rolled out, how it is communicated, and how it effects change.

“As a parent, we don’t have time to wait. We have to make the best decision for our children, our families, at that moment. But we still have to care about the rest of the system as we seek out the best options for our own families. We all have a vested interest in a high-quality education system because it impacts the state as a whole.”

Rebecca Stenholm is an Anthem-based freelance writer with two children in the Deer Valley USD.

EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT SB 1286

Communication is KeyEveryone agrees that how the new A-F letter grade system is communicated, particularly to parents and the community at large, will be criti-cal in maintaining the system’s rigorous standards and objectives. We asked Nicole Magnuson of Expect More Arizona what avenues should be taken to educate parents about the new letter grade system and Common Core Standards. Based on the policy organization’s mission of educating and informing the general public about issues and policies related to Arizona’s education system, she recommends maximizing every opportunity:

from letters/emails from the Department of Education and school districts, and including SB 1286 in Back-to-School presentations by school principals

effectively communicate directly with parents, such as classroom flyers and parent-teacher conference discussions

with accurate information

beinfluential in educating parents about the changes in schools and towhom journalists now look to as voices of expertise

have powerful and influential voices in education and that can play an important role in engaging the greater community


By Alison StantonLinking Teacher-Principal Evaluation with Student Progress It is no secret that throughout Arizona, great

teachers and principals make a huge difference

in the lives of their students. Every day during

the school year, the way teachers conduct their

lessons in the classroom and the manner in which

the principals display the numerous qualities that

help them direct and lead their schools results

in thousands of students learning and achieving.

With these facts in mind, in 2010 Arizona

legislators passed a law that is meant to change

the way many local education agencies, or LEAs,

evaluate the work of teachers and principals.

Rather than rely primarily on the vast, varied

and sometimes less tangible list of things that

educators do every day in order to keep their

classrooms and schools running efficiently,

the new law requires that the State Board of

Education (SBE) develop a framework for teacher

and principal evaluations that includes concrete

data on student academic progress.

While school administrators will be responsible

for adapting the framework and implementing it in

their districts, it is important for governing board

members to understand how the legislation will

impact districts. Before diving in and taking a

closer look at the Teacher-Principal Evaluation

Framework and how exactly it will work, as well

as how and why it is still a work in progress in

some ways, it is important to understand the

history of the framework and how it came to be.

In the Beginning: How the Teacher-Principal

Evaluation Framework Got Its Start

According to a fact sheet released by the Arizona Department of Education’s office of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, Senate Bill 1040 (SB 1040) was passed in 2010 and signed by Governor Jan Brewer last May. The main point of the bill was to try to bring Arizona up to speed with the requirements needed to try for a “Race to the Top” federal grant.

As the fact sheet noted, “SB 1040 mandated that the ‘State Board of Education adopt and maintain a model/framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data of student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three and fifty percent of the evaluation outcomes. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012-2013.’”

Based on these requirements, the SBE put together the Task Force on Teacher and Principal Evaluation Framework to help develop the guidelines and parameters that Local Education Agencies will then use to utilize the new eval-uation system.

The Task Force was made up of 18 people, said Dr. Debra Duvall, executive director at Arizona School Administrators.

“Five represented practitioners – teachers and principals – two, a teacher and a superintendent, were SBE members, three represented each of the Universities, four were from statewide associations – the AEA, ASBA, ASA and Charter


Five-state Collaboration Shares StrategiesArizona is not the only state that is currently working on implementing a new Teacher-Principal Evaluation framework. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are also working on the same type of policy change.

Paul Koehler is the Director of the Policy Center at WestEd, which provides analyses, research and assistance to policymakers, policy-focused orga-nizations and the media about current education issues. Koehler also serves as Director of the South-west Comprehensive Center, a technical assistance center funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The Center provides assistance to chief state school officers and their staffs in the five states as they im-plement provisions of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act in their states.

“All five states are doing something similar, and so all five states needed to pull together and work to change their evaluation of principals and teachers,” Koehler explained, adding that the states all applied for Race to the Top funding, which required evalua-tions based on academic achievement.

“We were looking for a regional collaborative, which really makes perfect sense,” he said. “We all began convening task forces, and Arizona had the perfect one, since our legislation requires that we have one appointed by the Arizona State Board of Education to work on it.”

Koehler said that originally, the five states figured they would meet maybe once or twice to compare notes, but the meetings went so well and were so productive the task forces didn’t want to stop.

“We will say what each is working on and then our job is to pick out two to three focus areas, and then find experts in the country to work with us. This is spe-cific help that experts can bring to the task forces,” he said, adding that in a recent meeting, an expert on employee compensation offered invaluable guidance on how teachers and principals might be re-warded as part of the framework.

Koehler said state leaders have start-ed to take notice of the five-state collabo-ration; here in Arizona, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal has attended some meetings as has Senator Rich Crandall.

“It’s really creating a collabora-tive spirit, and I think it’s working pretty well, with all states ben-efiting from it,” he said.

School Association – and the Governor’s Office, County Superintendents and the Department of Education was also represented,” she said, adding that the group met about half-a-dozen times.

“The Task Force attended several multi-state meetings on the topic of performance evaluation,” Duvall explained. “They heard presentations from various persons, including the ASA/ASBA committee. From the collective knowledge of the committee, their individual research and the information provided by the various presentations, a draft framework was developed. This framework was approved by the SBE in late April.”

ASBA’s Director of Governmental Relations Janice Palmer was part of the committee with Duvall. “We spent a lot of time expediting the process to get it in front of the State Board of Education by April of this year,” Palmer said. She stressed that the group worked extra hard to finish the framework because they knew the issue was extremely topical.

“It was kind of a convergence of things happening with the Legislature, the governor and the Department of Education working on Race to the Top.”

How the New Evaluation Will Work

Dr. Vicki Balentine, Superintendent of the Amphitheater Unified School District, was a member of the Task Force as well. She stressed that the Teacher-Principal Evaluation Framework can be used by principals and districts to develop their own instruments to do the evaluations, as long as academic data falls into the 33 to 50 percent range.

“It must include school-level data, but we are leaving f lexibility so that the districts and schools can develop their instruments for teachers and principals,” she said.

For example, she said, a district might decide that 33 percent of a principal’s evaluation be based on academic performance of the school, and 67 percent on instructional leadership.

Or in another case, Balentine said, a district might determine that 33 percent of the evaluation for a principal will be made up from his or her school’s data, and 17 percent

will be from the data from other schools in the district, and 50 percent from instructional leadership.

Palmer explained further: “We were looking for more accountability for teachers to align the academic progress of students in the evaluation process, and not just include the qualitative aspect of teaching.

“At first, the academic progress was going to be at least 50 percent of the teacher or principal evaluation, but as we worked on it it changed, and it’s now 33


GROUP A

If valid, reliable and aligned classroom data is available, it must account for at least 33% of the evaluation outcome of the individual teacher. (AIMS, Stanford 10, AP, IB, ACT, District Bench-marks, CRTs, etc.)

33%Classroomdata

33%School/department/district data

GROUP B

If classroom data is not available, school, department or district academic progress data must account for 33% of the evaluation out-come of the teacher. (School-level, district-level, team/department, subject area/grade-level, Az Learns, profile data, survey data)

percent with a hard cap of 50 percent. The 17 percent allows for f lexibility,” she noted.

Duvall said the portion that is based on teaching and leadership skills and standards is based on the InTASC standards for teachers or the ISLCC standards for principals.

“Districts and charter schools will have to review their current instruments and ensure that half of the total outcome is related to the respective standards,” Duvall said. “If they are not ref lected in the instrument, then they will need to revise their instrument so a judgment can be made by the evaluator as to the evaluatee’s degree of implementation or attainment of the particular standard. This step will apply to all, regardless as to the availability of student quantitative data.”

In regards to these figures, Balentine said the task force recognized that the amount and type of academic statistics that are available varies greatly from teacher to teacher. As a result, the teachers are being divided into two sections: Group A and Group B.

“Group A will be made up of teachers who have test scores that really do connect to what the teacher is doing. This would be a teacher with a lot of math AIMS data or language arts AIMS data, or maybe a math teacher at the high school level,” she said.

Making up Group B, Balentine said, will be teachers who by definition have limited or no valid data by which to evaluate them.

She sites as an example the second grade teacher who has been there for a year, adding that currently, there will be more teachers in Group B than Group A. Over time, as the state of Arizona becomes more sophisticated and able to identify valid and reliable measures, those things will help more teachers move from Group B over into Group A and make that group bigger.

“There is an urban myth that there are test scores for everything,” Balentine said. “This is true right now for some teachers, but it is not the case for everybody.”

Duvall said in order to figure out which group teachers fall into, districts and charter schools will have to review what student data they currently have or accumulate in the course of the school year for each teacher.

“The goal is to move as many teachers from Group B to A. As the state implements student assessments across grades or in particular content areas, that will occur.” She notes that there will be teachers in some areas like P.E., music or many academic courses for which specific assessments do not apply. Evaluation for these teachers “will be based on general achievement or progress data for the school as a whole or the grade level,” Duvall added.

Palmer said that right now, the plan is to do the evaluations once a year, using data from year to year as a comparison. She estimated that currently, about 70 percent of teachers don’t have enough test data to use.

“For things like reading, math and writing, they would be required to have baseline data, and then it would be looked at from year to year,” she explained, adding that over time, the district could look at the teacher data more frequently, like perhaps comparing beginning-of-the-year figures to those at the end of the school year.

Duvall stressed that the evaluation is emphasizing student growth, “not a specific score or grade level

“It must include school-level

data, but we are leaving flexibility

so that the districts and schools

can develop their instruments for

teachers and principals.”

—DR. VICKI BALETINE


attainment,” she said. “The expectation is that multiple data sources will be used. This is not a ‘gotcha’—the task force encouraged collaboration and communication among and between evaluators and evaluatees.”

Challenges May Lead to Changes

Duvall, Balentine and Palmer all recognized that the Teacher-Principal Evaluation Framework is in many ways a work in progress – one that will certainly need to be revised and tweaked over time.

In the document “Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness,” which was submitted by the Task Force to the Arizona SBE in April, it addressed this issue near the top, in the “Background” section.

“For many LEAs, implementing a new or revised teacher and principal evaluation instrument/system that incorporates the Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness by the 2012-2013 school year will present significant challenges,” it said.

“The SBE understands these challenges and acknow-ledges that it may take time for LEAs to develop and implement truly robust systems. To assist schools during this transition the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) will provide a repository of evaluation instruments that comply with the Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness. The intent of this repository is not to require the use of any specific evaluation instrument or system, but rather to provide LEAs with additional guidance on how they might develop their own.”

“On the surface, this all sounds intuitive, that teachers and principals would be evaluated in part by the students’ academic performance,” Palmer said, adding that in reality, there are many variables which must be addressed along the way.

“We are on a steep, steep learning curve to get up to speed,” she said. “One thing I realized being part of the task force is the great capacity for differences between districts. For example, Mesa is already integrating data into its evaluations, and for them and others it will be less of a culture change to implement. But some are completely new to this idea, and have had no training on it. But for folks who are ahead of the curve, we don’t want to get in the way of them.”

Overall, Palmer said there is a “positive side” to the new evaluation framework.

“Teachers and principals will receive validation and incentive for doing a good job, and we can help provide professional support and development to those who are struggling.”

Alison Stanton is a Phoenix-based freelance writer.

“Teachers and principals will

receive validation and incentive

for doing a good job, and we can

help provide professional support

and development to those who

are struggling.”

—JANICE PALMER

Teacher-Principal Evaluation ResourcesTo learn more about the Teacher-Principal

Evaluation framework, visit the Arizona

Department of Education website at

www.ade.gov and click on “Learn About

the New Teacher/Principal Evaluation”

on the home page. You can also view a

webinar conducted by Dr. Debra Duvall

from the Association of School Administrations,

Janice Palmer from ASBA and Andrew Morril l

from the Arizona Education Association on

ASBA’s website, www.azsba.org. Just click

on “Webinar: Teacher and Principal Evaluation

Framework” in the What’s New section.


Pueblo

Mechanical &

Controls, Inc.

Pueblo Mechanical and Controls, Inc. specializes in service, design and automation

optimum indoor environments and HVAC total solutions.

6771 E. Outlook Drive Tucson, Arizona 85756

UNDER CONTRACT WITHMOHAVE CONTRACT NUMBER09D-PMAC2-0902

STATE CONTRACT NUMBEREPS060026-16

TCPN CONTRACT NUMBER R5044

MOHAVE CONTRACT NUMBER09D-PMAC2-0902

STATE CONTRACT NUMBEREPS060026-16

TCPN CONTRACT NUMBER R5044


To Learn and EarnArizonans’ Experiences Competing in the Race for Good Jobs

By Panfilo H. Contreras, Immediate Past Chair, Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center

TO LEARN AND EARN: ARIZONANS’ EXPERIENCES COMPETING IN THE RACE FOR GOOD JOBS 1

A R I Z O N A N S ’ E X P E R I E N C E S C O M P E T I N G

I N T H E R AC E F O R G O O D J O B S

TO LEARN

AND EARN F I N A LR E P O R T

2011

Research is an important tool as school boards and administrative teams prepare to meet the dual demands of accountability for student achievement

and workforce readiness. One significant step in the direction of understanding the issue is the unmistakable tie between the economy and education at every level. The Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC) nearly two years ago undertook a two-phase research project to bring the connections together.

The first phase was to review prior research to identify what information was missing, which resulted in the publication of To Learn and Earn: Arizona’s Unfinished Business in Human Capitol in March of 2009. That report noted that there is “ample evidence that economic growth is now based on ideas and innovation, that science and technology are driving global economic changes and that the national

and international competition is fierce.” The implications are profound for K12 and beyond. But this report was at the 30,000-foot level. What is actually happening on the ground was the driving question for phase two of this research.

To Learn and Earn: Arizonans’ Experiences Competing in the Race for Good Jobs was completed and published this July by the ASU Morrison Institute for Public Policy. It brought into study what employers, students, parents, counselors and workers have to say about the connection. The report concludes with 14 important recommendations under three goals, which are listed at the end of this article. What follows are general comments about each area of the report to give you the f lavor or what information might be helpful as you strive to improve student outcomes in today’s difficult environment.

Employers – Employers understand the value of the diverse populations that Arizona provides, but they express concern about the dwindling diversity in the professional ranks of their employees, diminishing a well-rounded view of the community where they live and work. They expressed concern about the apparent lack of direction of many students and employees they see. They also lament the lack of preparedness of job applicants in the basics such as attitude and appearance.

Students – For students, the State Board rule requiring an Education and Career Action Plan (ECAP) for all high school students will hopefully help prepare graduates for these employer concerns. Two important conclusions were reached and will assist as we prepare students for the world of future studies and work. The first is that the K12 system “forms a crucial foundation” for the future opportunities of students. Secondly, “career-oriented activities must begin earlier, preferably in middle school.” This obviously changes how many school academic systems are structured today.

Parents – Parents are considered a “large untapped resource.” Their responses indicate a desire to “partner with educators and employers in getting young people on the desired track.” Their input also indicates that they “place high importance on science and technology,” “disagreed that a good general


In Support ofTo Learn and Earn

“Aggressive action must be taken now to fuel the growth of our

economy with a properly educated workforce that will improve our standard of living. Changing our

culture to celebrate innovation requires a comprehensive plan and

collaboration between business, academia and our government. We

have an obligation to our children and our country to support this initiative

with our time, funds and energy.”

– Steve SanghiPRESIDENT AND CEO, MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC.

This study “is the most compelling evidence that has been presented in recent years as to the absolute imperative for our state to invest in education and improve how we link classroom knowledge and experiences to the jobs of today and tomorrow.”

– Dr. Ioanna MorfessisPRESIDENT, IO.INC, FOUNDING PRESIDENT AND CEO, GREATER PHOENIX ECONOMIC COUNCIL

“Education is the key that opens the door for a brighter future, not only for individual Arizona citizens, but

for the state as a whole. If we want our per capita income to improve and our state’s economy to grow,

then we need to do a much better job educating our youth. Other states

have made significant progress in this direction, and Arizona needs to stop talking about this problem and start

implementing some of the knownrecommendations listed in this report.”

– Craig BarrettFORMER CEO AND CHAIRMAN, INTEL CORP.

education is sufficient,” “thought career education should start in middle school” and “did not think that Arizona’s schools are doing a good job preparing students for quality jobs.” Now there is the challenge to you!

While many workers struggle “through information about quality job opportunities while juggling work, family and education,” there is some good news in this document. Workers’ input indicated that “two thirds of respondents to an Arizona Indicators Panel survey said they had a ‘good job.’”

The To Learn and Earn: Arizonans’ Experiences Competing in the Race for Good Jobs paper also outlines some of the activity by leaders in Arizona towards improving the education system. To add to this work, three general recommendations are suggested.

Goal One: Promote a thriving Arizona “educonomy” through strategies directed by integrated and aligned workforce and education pipeline data.Goal Two: Create and promote a new culture of achievement for all Arizonans by redefining the state’s college-ready and career-ready achievement standards across all age groups to include a strong foundation in academic, workplace and applied skills.Goal Three: Engage all Arizonans in the culture of achievement through expansion of programs to enhance in-school and on-the-job success.

There are huge implications and further information in the research that you should review. The full report may be viewed on either AMEPAC’s or the Morrison Institute’s websites.

I conclude this article by quoting one of the last para-graphs in the executive summary: “Arizona cannot afford to be a spectator in the race to good jobs. How well our students transition to the workforce, compete for career pay/career path jobs and stay on track through economic swings hinges on the states’ success in providing quality education, career guidance, job training and a 21st century workforce safety net. The goals and policy recommendations set forth in this report constitute a powerful call to action. Will Arizona respond?”

AMEPAC is a subcommittee of the Arizona Commission for Postsecondary Education, and its mission is to stimulate through studies, statewide discussion and debate, constructive improvement of Arizona minority student’s early awareness, access and achievement throughout all sectors of the education pipeline. AMEPAC has commissioned other work such as a biennial minority student success reports closing the gap to higher ed and dropout studies. For more information and to download the full report, visit www.amepac.org.


POINTS ON POLICYBy Jim Deaton, ASBA Director of Policy Services

Nearly 40 years ago, I accepted a school district request to come to Arizona to oversee and direct one of the 10 federally funded multi-million-

dollar national experimental rural school projects awarded to the district by the National Institute of Education (NIE). The mission of the experimental projects was to design and develop strategies that could be replicated for accomplishing positive educational reforms.

Included in the Arizona project were components such as early childhood intervention, enhanced integration and involvement of minority parents in their child-ren’s educations, expansion of academic success and the grad-uation rates of minority students, creation of a fully equipped television studio and a curric-ulum for training students in the skills for producing and broadcasting school-based local programming, and a half dozen additional components. The

Arizona project conducted personnel searches and secured a cadre of highly qualified and recognized professional specialists to implement the respective project components. An external researcher was located in the community to evaluate and chronicle the project as its experimental programs moved forward.

In this role, I made frequent trips to NIE meetings in Washington, D.C., and other locations as well as visitations to companion NIE-funded experimental school projects throughout the nation. Discussions and dialogues most often consisted of retrospective and prospective assessments of chosen paths; initial and intervening resistance and support; expected and unexpected events; evidences of successes, failures and suspended activities; restructuring of some projects; and ongoing analysis of the financial costs. The remainder of this article shares some of the observations gleaned from those experiences.

. The desire to seek “the new and the better” is natural and energizes exploration and development, although the reasons for seeking alternatives and the underlying purposes behind sought-after reforms must be investigated and evaluated most closely to determine the probable effects and future worth.

A real or imagined inadequacy of existing circumstances, approaches, programs, products or institutions must be perceived and promoted to generate enthusiasm for pursuing an alternative course.

The zeal to create a superior outcome is an essential ingredient for inspiring and driving the pursuit of reforms, but utopian dreams and expectations may also lead to the demise of what could otherwise produce promising outcomes.

Initial reform ideas and concepts can be planted by individuals or small groups, but they frequently wither and die unless they are embraced and gain broad-based support across the spectrum of affected parties.

Even a small but powerful nucleus of vested interests can sway others to accept certain ideas and plans, and private, corporate or governmental factions may apply forces to impose ideological and self-serving ideas and concepts.

External forces may provide the engine for seeking reforms, however, that vigor will be short-lived unless the reform demonstrates value and is internalized by the person, group or institution for which the reform is sought. Usually, a true cultural shift is required to sustain most reform efforts.

Proposed reforms can be portrayed so skillfully that others who do not comprehend nor understand the proposals are drawn into supporting them.

Money talks, and when placed on the table, especially in large amounts, it can generate inordinate interest in capturing a portion of the funds, but the quest to garner some of the resources may cloud judgment and wisdom for discerning reasonable and realistic expectations. The need for, the supposed value of and the perceived purposes of proposed reforms must be presented with sufficient clarity to capture the interest and maintain continued excitement among the participants, stake-holders and providers.

The critical point to be

made is that instigating a reform is not an automatic

avenue for creating a

better situation.

Officially Articulate Reform Through Policy


SPORTS FACILITY CONSTRUCTIONRunning Tracks | Tennis & Basketball Courts |

Synthetic Turf Fields

NEW CONSTRUCTIONGrading | Paving | Concrete

MAINTENANCEResurfacing | Crackfi lling

RECONSTRUCTIONPulverize & Repave

“We do what we say we’ll do, when we say we’ll do it.”

Southwest | 800.540.4413

Serving the Southwest for over 30 years

YOU BRING THE

WE’LL BRING THE SURFACE

SPORTwww.SunlandAsphalt.com

Reforms essentially driven and created by or dependent on the energy and skills of an individual or a small cluster of persons are much less likely to survive whenever one or more key players depart from the reform effort.

Clear goals and objectives, thoroughly detailed plans and a concerted commitment to accomplishing the targeted destiny are absolute essentials for bringing a sustainable reform to fruition.

Trying to eat an elephant in one bite is almost sure to result in an unfortunate experience. Good research meth-odology requires limiting the variables in order to identify which factors produced certain results. Too many simul-taneous reform efforts can jeopardize even great ideas.

The list could continue almost without limit. The critical point to be made is that instigating a reform is not an automatic avenue for creating a better situation. A governing board cannot just adopt a policy, the superintendent just issue an edict, an interest group just demand an overhaul or the government just issue threats or dangle currency to create a legitimate need, reason or justification for reform. Wise persons don’t dive into shallow water no matter how

many others are, and conversely, they don’t reject climbing onboard a boat when rising water indicates that continued wading will not result in a positive outcome.

When a school system is considering education reforms, the motives, reasons, purposes, methods, goals and objectives must be fully questioned and investigated. Take time to carefully assess the probability any reform will lead to a situation superior to whatever it replaced.

Considering education reforms? Get real!

The zeal to create a superior outcome is an essential ingredient for inspiring and driving the pursuit of reforms, but utopian dreams and expectations may also lead to the demise of what could otherwise produce promising outcomes.


EDUCATION AND THE LAWBy Chris Thomas, ASBA Director of Legal Services

From the MailbagOK, I realize that very few communications these days actually come from the mail. The Post Office is even considering going to three-day delivery in the near future – something I lament, since working for the post office is something of a family vocation. Still, use of the concept of the “mailbag” is a good one for a Journal article, since it allows for timely topics, quick, easy-to-use responses and, yes, works in a pinch when I don’t have another idea to use. With that, let’s get to the correspondence, in all its forms …

I drive my own car to attend board meetings and go to ASBA trainings. What mileage reimbursement am I entitled to?A. If your district has created such a policy – and most

have one for off-district trainings at a minimum – you may be reimbursed for approved travel at the state-set mileage reimbursement rate. Many districts also reimburse for travel to and from board meetings. Since school districts are political subdivisions of the state, mileage reimbursement rates set by the state must be used by school district employees and board members. The current rate set by the state is 44.5 cents per mile. However, the IRS sets reimbursable rates as well – determining the amount in which the individual has been made whole, neither making or losing money. Their current rate is 55.5 cents. I tell you this not to note how much money you are losing but 1) to let you know how far behind the state is in keeping up to the standard and 2) to let you know that you may be able to claim a tax deduction for any non-reimbursed travel expenses on your tax return. In other words, you may be entitled to a deduction of 11 cents per mile for travel undertaken for board service. Keep those records and consult your own tax resources.

My board would like to include a “Future Agenda Items” call on our agenda. However, we would like to take the additional step of voting as a group on whether the items get on a future agenda. Does the Open Meeting Law allow us to do this?A. ASBA recommends against voting on future agenda

items at a board meeting – unless those items are specifically listed on the agenda. (It should be noted that ASBA takes a very conservative approach on the Open Meeting Law.) The Open Meeting Law mandates that a public body “may discuss, consider or make decisions only on matters listed on the agenda and other matters

related thereto.” A.R.S. §38-431.02 (H). I know some attorneys have provided the opinion that voting on suggested agenda items – even if those items are not listed on the agenda – is OK as long as the merits of the issue are not discussed. I believe that is accurate. However, it would seem to be too much of an easy temptation to discuss the merits for me to recommend it. Thus, if a board wants to vote on agenda items to get on the agenda, I would suggest that board members submit those items to be included as bulleted items under the Future Agenda Items call. The board should still be admonished not to discuss the item; but if there was an inadvertent comment on the merits, I do not think there would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law so long as the agenda item was sufficiently noticed on the agenda.

I inadvertently voted the wrong way on an issue at a recent board meeting. The motion passed unanimously but I am opposed to the issue. I would like to bring the issue back for a re-vote so that I can express my objections to this item. How do I do that?A. First, I would question the need for the re-vote. But

setting that aside for now, if you did want to proceed with a re-vote, you would need three things: first, to get the item on the agenda in the manner described in your policies; second, to post the agenda item in the manner required under the Open Meeting Law (at least 24 hour notice required) and third, you would need to make the motion for reconsideration, being that you are on the prevailing side – this would then allow you to cast a no vote.

Outside of the above course of action, if you feel you still need to make a point, you might request an attachment to the minutes – and the board would have to approve – or you might use your time for board reports to state that you made a mistake and you do not support


Mohave and SAVE cooperative contracts

the measure (but there can be no board discussion or action on your comments). Again, though, I think this is not the wisest course of action. Best is to let it go and support the decision of the board, which is your ethical duty as a member of the board.

My board had a special meeting in which they sent out notice via e-mail (they usually send the notice and my board packet to my house). I never check my e-mail so I didn’t get notice. Did the district violate the Open Meeting Law in having their meeting?A. Quite possibly. The Open Meeting Law provides that

“meetings shall not be held without at least twenty-four hours’ notice to the members of the public body and to the general public.” A.R.S. §38-431.02 (C). If you have a custom, either by practice or in policy, that board members will receive that notice through a courier or the U.S. Mail, a deviation from that delivery method should be treated carefully. In this case, the district should have followed up with a phone call to ensure you had received the e-mail or asked for a reply or return receipt e-mail in order to “check off” that proper notice was received. I believe that, coupled with some evidence that the board member in question was in a minority position, would result in a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

I’ve heard of the Reeves case, which stipulates that school districts can only give Prop. 301/Classroom Site Funds to certified teachers. Several questions about who is now eligible under this opinion: what about teachers under emergency or substitute certificates? What about individuals who are not teaching in the classroom but hold a teaching certificate – are they now eligible? A. We are telling people that Reeves essentially “overruled”

the part of Attorney General Opinion I01-014 about individuals being eligible to receive Classroom Site Funds but not having to have certification as a teacher.1

Under the Reeves opinion, individuals must possess a teaching certificate in order to be eligible. (This would also allow emergency and substitute certification.) However, the analysis of eligibility does not end there. The part of the Attorney General opinion that requires employees to teach 50 percent or more is not dealt with in the Reeves decision, so I think it still stands. Individuals must teach in the classroom at least 50 percent of the time to be eligible for CSF funds. I should note that the eligibility under this analysis does not mean entitlement: from the class of eligible persons, the district can still choose who actually gets money under their plan and in what amounts.

I am a substitute teacher in another school district. Mydistrict has required me to get 12 hours of professional development, which they are not paying for. Can they do that?A. Yes. The district can set the qualification for pro-

fessionals and is not obligated to cover the expenses associated with meeting those qualifications.

1This stipulation is for base and performance pay only. The so-called “third bucket” or “menu monies” could be used for individuals who do not pos-sess a teaching certificate so long as one of the menu objectives is the basis, such as giving classroom aides CSF funds as a class size reduction measure or part of an AIMS intervention program.

Individuals must teach in the classroom at least 50 percent of the time to be eligible for CSF funds ... eligibility under this analysis does not mean entitlement: from the class of eligible persons, the district can still choose who actually gets money under their plan and in what amounts.


LESSONS FROM RESEARCHBy Michael T. Martin, ASBA Research Analyst

Education Reform: What Top Systems Tell UsThere is an emerging consensus from research on effective schools that elected governing boards must reconstruct the way schools operate day to day, eliminating the isolated teacher and mandating the collaborative management of schools to make professional development a normal process of school functioning. It requires an entirely new paradigm of how schools should function.

As Harvard professor of educational leadership Richard Elmore wrote in a 2002 paper titled “Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement”:

“The work day of teachers is still designed around the expectation that teachers’ work is composed exclusively of delivering content to students, not, among other things, to cultivating knowledge and skill about how to improve their work. The problem with this design is that it provides almost no opportunity for teachers to engage in continuous and sustained learning about their practice in the setting in which they actually work, observing and being observed by their colleagues in their own classrooms and in the classrooms of other teachers in other schools confronting similar problems of practice.”

As far back as 1984, Susan Rosenholtz of Vanderbilt University, in “Myths: Political Myths About Reforming Teaching,” wrote, “The assumption that, given proper motivation, teachers can improve individually is refuted emphatically by research showing how organizational conditions in schools can hinder individual improvement.”

It is the “organizational conditions,” the traditional structure of how schools operate, that research says must be the focus of education reform. In a May 2011 report titled “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants” for the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), Marc S. Tucker, president and chief executive officer, summarized his “22 years of research on the factors that account for the success of the countries with the best education record” and noted, “When compared with other countries, the United States appears to see education reform as a process of adding programs to the corpus of programs already in place.”

Lamenting the ineffectiveness of past piecemeal reforms advocated by various interest groups, Tucker states, “Then we wonder why the effects of even the most powerful interventions are almost always trivial.” Tucker comments further on the futility of piecemeal reforms and then states, “The one thing that could have a very large effect – the design of the system itself – is no one’s responsibility.”

From Isolation to Collaborative ManagementAfter studying 20 improving school systems worldwide,

the McKinsey & Company’s 2010 report “How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better” noted, “It is clear from talking to the leaders of the 20 systems studied here, and more widely, that sustaining change requires altering the very fabric of the system – changing not just the way teachers teach and the content of what they teach but how they think about teaching. Sustaining improvements focus on producing a new professional pedagogy.”

That new “professional pedagogy” involves transforming the traditional education structure of isolated teachers into a structure focused on collaborative management, where teachers work in concert with their principals to develop their professional expertise as part of the day-to-day functioning of the school.

A 2010 report titled “Education Leadership” about the Wallace Foundation’s National Conference (October 14-16, 2009) concluded, “In schools that he studied, the most successful principals developed team-oriented cultures ‘where everyone was expected to do their part as members of one or more teams working together toward the same goals,’ said University of Washington professor Bradley Portin, who helped lead a study on effective leadership.”

The McKinsey report on the world’s most improved school systems cited extensive research on the significance of collaborative management:

“In his synthesis of over 50,000 studies and 800 meta-analyses of student achievement, John Hattie drew one major conclusion: ‘The remarkable feature of the evidence is that the biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching.’ This is the essence of collaborative practice: teachers jointly engaged in an empirical, routine and applied study of their own profession.”

Collaboration and ResearchIn Tucker’s report “Standing on the Shoulders of

Giants,” he notes: “In Japanese schools, the faculty work


together to develop new courses or redesign existing courses to make them more engaging. Once developed, that course is demonstrated by one of the teachers and critiqued by the others and revised until the faculty is happy with it. Then a particularly capable teacher will demonstrate it for others and critique their practice when they in turn teach it.”

He notes that teachers draw on the latest research during the development process, and those who prove to be good leaders often demonstrate their lessons to teachers in their schools as well as in other districts and provinces.

“In this way, instructional development and professional development are merged and professional development becomes an integral part of the process of improving instruction in the school, informed by the latest and best research,” the report accounts. “… Japanese teachers are provided with research skills in their pre-service training, so that this local, teacher-led development process is supported by the kind of research skills needed by teachers to make sophisticated judgments about the effectiveness of their local development work.”

In contrast, Tucker points out that teachers in the United States “are generally the objects of research rather than participants in the research process itself.” Professional development topics often are chosen by district administrators rather than by the teachers. Frequently, the topics chosen are not those that the teachers would have picked, causing teachers to perceive professional development as “not particularly helpful.”

Thus, one importance of collaborative management is that teachers are actively involved in choosing and administering their professional development activities. Indeed, the McKinsey report stated that collaborative practices, “supported by a system of professional development, can unleash sustained improvement; over time shifting the source of a system’s improvement away from central leadership to the educators themselves. Teachers are in a position to sustain improvement because they draw motivation from seeing the impact on their own work, as well as from their ownership in shaping educational practice.”

Is Data the Answer? In a June 20, 2011, blog post, Joe Siedlecki, the Michael

and Susan Dell Foundation U.S. Education Program and Policy Officer, detailed the reality behind the use of data in education: “Today the Council of Chief State School Officers released their roadmap for ‘Next Generation Accountability Systems.’ The roadmap is a step in the right direction, but unless accountability is coupled with a significant investment in providing educators with formative student performance data, training in how to interpret and use the data and dedicated time to analyze and act upon the information, it will not result in much real change in student performance.”

In a 2010 National School Boards Association (NSBA) report titled “Data Conversations” produced in conjunction with the SIF Association, an international collaborative to assure interoperability among education data systems, the report was very adamant in a specific section headed “Organizational Change In Closing The Achievement Gap.” It states, “Organizational structure is one of the most important components. Change management without structure to sustain that change will cause failure and unnecessary stresses to the organizational structure. Without the underlying foundation in place, the support and follow-through will not occur.”

In other words, even if school districts become awash in objective accountability data, it will be counter-productive and “cause failure” because without the underlying foundation of a paradigmatic structural change in education, little use will be made of data.

The New Paradigm for Education ReformThe “Organizational Change In Closing The Achieve-

ment Gap” report goes on to provide a bullet point list of 10 practices that “must be adhered to.” In that list were:

decision-making

for professional development

These three bullet points represent the new paradigm of education reform.

Near the end of his report “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants,” Tucker proclaims, “It turns out that neither the researchers whose work is reported on in this paper nor the analysts of the OECD PISA data have found any evidence that any country that leads the world’s education performance league tables has gotten there by implementing any of the major agenda items that dominate the education reform agenda in the United States. We include in this list the use of market mechanisms such as charter schools and vouchers, the identification and support of education entrepreneurs to disrupt the system, and the use of student performance data on standardized tests to identify teachers and principals who are then rewarded on that basis for the value they add to a student’s education or who are punished because they fail to do so.”

Research shows that highly successful schools employ a different paradigm from traditional education, one that involves collaborative management in an environment where teachers and principals work continuously together on improving their professional practices with staff development embedded in the daily functioning of schools.


December 14 -16, 2011Biltmore Conference Center2400 E. Missouri Avenue, Phoenix

Where Arizona’s Public School Leaders Gather

Mark Your Calendar!

Amazing Possibilities


ASBA Affiliate MembersArizona School Boards Association

appreciates the support for public education shown by its organizational affiliate members.

APS Energy ServicesEnergy conservation, renewable solutionsLindsey Matthews60 E. Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 1001Tempe, AZ 85281602-744-5000www.apses.com

APS Solutions for BusinessEnergy efficiency project rebatesJennifer Rivera2001 N. Third St., Ste. 106Phoenix, AZ 85004602-385-0900www.aps.com/businessrebates

Accelerated Construction TechnologiesCatherine Walley22425 N. 16th St.Phoenix, AZ 85024602-272-2000www.act-az.com

AdministrativeEnterprises Inc.Leanne Appledorn5810 W. Beverly LaneGlendale, AZ 85306602-789-1170

Adolfson & Peterson ConstructionGeneral construction; #1 green builderTamara Caraway5002 S. Ash Ave.Tempe, AZ 85282480-345-8700www.a-p.com

American Building Maintenance Co.Wade Moffet2632 W. Medtronic WayTempe, AZ 85281480-968-8300

American Fidelity AssuranceSection 125 & voluntarysupplemental insuranceDonna Sciulara3505 E. Flamingo Rd., #6Las Vegas, NV 89121800-616-3576

ArcadisInfrastructre, environment, buildingsEd Boot950 W. Elliot Rd., #220Tempe, AZ 85284480-394-0335www.arcadis-us.com

Arizona Correctional IndustriesOffice & school furniture,printing servicesBill Branson3701 W. Cambridge Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85009602-272-7600www.azcorrections.gov

ASBAIT(Arizona School Boards Association Insurance Trust)Wayne Carpenter5810 W. Beverly LaneGlendale, AZ 85306602-789-1170www.asbait.org

Auto Safety HouseSchool bus sales and serviceRudy Garcia2630 W. Buckeye Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85009602-269-9721www.autosafetyhouse.com

The MW Bagnall CompanyEmployee benefits, wellness &HR consultingMark W. Bagnall1345 E. Chandler Blvd., Bldg. 1, Ste. 103Phoenix, AZ 85048480-893-6510www.thebagnallcompany.com

BoardBookScott BallewP.O. Box 400Austin, TX 78767888-587-2665www.boardbook.org

Burt Hill Architects & EngineersBurt Hill2575 E. Camelback Rd., #450Phoenix, AZ 85016602-343-7456www.burthill.com

Calderon Law OfficesLegal servicesErnest Calderon2020 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1110Phoenix, AZ 85004602-265-0004

CCS Presentation SystemsJulia Solomon17350 N. Hartford Dr.Scottsdale, AZ 85255480-348-0100www.ccsprojects.com

Centennial Contractors EnterprisesLisa Cooley4113 Eubank NE, Ste. 300Albuquerque, NM 87111505-239-3446www.cce-inc.com

Chartwells School DiningSchool lunch managementJoel Mee11634 W. Monroe St.Avondale, AZ 85323602-350-4876www.eatlearnlive.com

Core ConstructionJessica Steadman3036 E. Greenway Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85032602-494-0800www.coreconstruct.com

D2 Data Driven SoftwareEducation softwareMatt Winebright900 Jackson St., Ste. 380Dallas, TX 75202972-490-4044www.d2sc.com

D.L.Withers ConstructionDan Withers3220 E. Harbour Dr.Phoenix, AZ 85034602-438-9500www.dlwithers.com

DLR GroupKaren Heck6225 N. 24th St., Ste. 250Phoenix, AZ 85016602-381-8580www.dlrgroup.com

Dairy Council of ArizonaPatricia Johnson2008 S. Hardy Dr.Tempe, AZ 85282480-966-8074www.dcaz.org

DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & LacyJohn C. Richardson2525 E. Broadway, Ste. 200Tucson, AZ 85716520-322-5000www.deconcinimcdonald.com

Diversified Human ResourcesAnita Grantham3020 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 213Phoenix, AZ 85016480-941-5588

eBOARDsolutionsWeb-based board governance softwareMark Willis, Diane Sandifer5120 Sugarloaf Pkwy.Lawrenceville, GA 30043800-226-1856www.eboardsolutions.com

Edupoint Educational SystemsStudent information systems,special ed softwareJoseph Kirkman1955 S. Val Vista Dr., #210Mesa, AZ 85204480-833-2900www.edupoint.com

EMC2 Group ArchitectsArchitects, plannersRon Essley1635 N. Greenfield Rd., Ste. 144Mesa, AZ 85205480-830-3838www.emc2architects.com

Fennemore Craig, P.C.Deanna Rader3003 N. Central Ave., # 2600Phoenix, AZ 85012602-916-5000www.fclaw.com

First Financial Group of AmericaBenefit plan administration, independent insurance and investment servicesMat Lewis2201 San Pedro Dr. NE, Bldg. 1, Ste. 2101Albuquerque, NM 87110 800-365-3860www.ffga.com

GHD Inc.Architecture, civil engineeringTerry Worcester1501 S. Yale St., Ste. 101Flagstaff, AZ 86001928-774-7179www.ghd.com

G.V. EnterprisesProject managers, procurement consultingGordon Vasfaret9102 W. Marshall Ave.Glendale, AZ 85305623-872-1852www.gventerprises.com

Gust RosenfeldRobert HawsOne E.Washington, Ste. 1600Phoenix, AZ 85004602-257-7422www.gustlaw.com

HACI Service, LLCScott Wright2108 W. Shangri-La Road Phoenix, AZ 85029602-944-1555

Hardison/DowneyConstructionKevin Vandermolen6150 N. 16th St., Suite APhoenix, AZ 85016602-722-8857www.hardisondowney.com

HDA Architects LLCArchitectural engineeringPete Barker459 N. Gilbert Rd., Ste. C-200Gilbert, AZ 85234480-539-8800

Heinfeld, Meech & Co.Certified Public AccountantsScott Kies10120 N. Oracle Rd., #100Tucson, AZ 85704520-742-2611

Hufford, Horstman, Mongini, Parnell & TuckerC. Benson Hufford120 N. Beaver St.Flagstaff, AZ 86001928-226-0000www.h2m2law.com

Hughes-Calihan Konica Minolta, Inc.Dan Schmidt4730 N. 16th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85016602-244-9944www.hc-km.com

Kennedy Partners LLCAllison Suriano2222 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd., Ste. 330Phoenix, AZ 85027623-374-2478www.kennedyprtnrs.com

LaSota & PetersJack LaSota722 E. Osborn Rd., #100Phoenix, AZ 85014602-248-2900

Lewis & Roca LLPLegal servicesMary Ellen Simonson40 N. Central Ave.Phoenix, AZ 85004602-262-5317www.lrlaw.com

M.L. Riddle Painting Inc.Mike Riddle5922 N. Black Canyon Hwy.Phoenix, AZ 85017602-277-3461

Mangum Wall Stoops & WardenFranklin HooverP.O. Box 10Flagstaff, AZ 86002928-779-6951www.flagstaffattorneys.com

Maricopa Community CollegeDr. Rufus Glasper, Chancellor2411 W. 14th StreetTempe, AZ 85281www.maricopa.edu

Mohave Educational Services Co-opTom Peeler625 E. Beale St.Kingman, AZ 86401928-753-6945www.mesc.org

NTD ArchitectureScott Beck2800 N. 44th St., Ste. 500Phoenix, AZ 85008602-956-8844www.ntd.com

The O’Malley GroupProject construction managementTim O’Malley, Sharon O’Malley80 W. State Ave., Ste. 300Phoenix, AZ 85021602-906-1905www.omalleyafl.com

The Orcutt/Winslow PartnershipPaul Winslow3003 N. Central Ave., 16th Fl.Phoenix, AZ 85012602-257-1764www.owp.com

Piper Jaffray & Co.William C. Davis2525 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 925Phoenix, AZ 85016602-808-5428www.piperjaffray.com

Practice Max, Inc.Chuck Engelmann9382 E. Bahia Drive, #B202Scottsdale, AZ 85260480-421-9700

Professional Group Public Consulting, Inc.Business management & related servicesCaroline BrackleyP.O. Box 30850Mesa, AZ 85275480-699-4458www.pgpc.org

Pueblo Mechanical & ControlsDesign, build HVAC specialistSteve Barry6771 E. Outlook Dr.Tucson, AZ 85756520-545-1044www.pueblo-mechanical.com

RBC Capital MarketsJohn Snider2398 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 700Phoenix, AZ 85016602-381-5361www.rbccm.com

Regional Pavement MaintenanceSlurry, crackfill, sealcoat, striping, paving, gradingSteve LeoneP.O. Box 3778Gilbert, AZ 85299480-963-3416www.regionalaz.com

Rodel Charitable FoundationJackie Norton6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 380Scottsdale, AZ 85253480-367-2920www.rodelfoundationaz.org

SAPA Fabricated ProductsAluminum ramps, stairways, all REDD Team productsJanet Wray1617 N. Washington St.Magnolia, AR 71753800-643-1514www.sapafabricatedproducts.com

SCF ArizonaWorkers’ compensation insuranceTod Dennis3030 N.Third St.Phoenix, AZ 85012602-631-2000www.scfaz.com

SDBLisa Bentley14700 N. Frank Lloyd Wright, #157Scottsdale, AZ 85260480-298-9596

Schaefer-Smith-AnkeneyInsurance(Compass Insurance)Craig Ankeney2002 E. Osborn Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85016602-956-7800

School ReachWil Pearson9735 Landmark Pkwy., #100Saint Louis, MO 63127800-420-1479www.schoolreach.com

Shade ‘N NetSun and UV protection structuresJoe Reda5711 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85043602-484-7911www.shade-n-net.com

Smartschoolsplus, Inc.Phased retirement services Sandra McClellandP.O. Box 11618Tempe, AZ 85284480-839-8747www.smartschoolsplus.com

Snell & Wilmer LLPBarbara McCloud400 E. Van Buren, #1900Phoenix, AZ 85004602-382-6000www.swlaw.com

SodexoKatrina Lewis1842 W. Windermere Dr.Phoenix, AZ 85048480-577-3503www.sodexo.com

SPS + ArchitectsArchitectureHerb Schneider8681 E.Via De NegocioScottsdale, AZ 85258480-991-0800

Stone & YoungbergBond and lease financingBryan Lundberg2555 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 280Phoenix, AZ 85016602-794-4000www.syllc.com

Strategic TechnologyCommunicationsTelecommunications services & products – ERATEDeborah Long13828 N. 41st PlacePhoenix, AZ 85032480-281-6400

Summit Food ServiceManagementContract dining serviceDave Brewer2703 Broadbent Pkwy. NE,Suite FAlbuquerque, NM 87107505-341-0508www.summitfoodservice.com

Sundt ConstructionConstructionEdward Mullins2620 S. 55th St.Tempe, AZ 85282480-309-2347www.sundt.com

Sunland AsphaltAsphalt, concrete, sport courts, tracks, turf and bleachersJohn McCormack3002 S. Priest Dr.Tempe, AZ 85282602-288-5020www.sunlandasphalt.com

TCPN – The Cooperative Purchasing NetworkNational purchasing cooperativeMike Chouteau2100 N. Central Ave. #220Phoenix, AZ 85004602-405-9402www.tcpn.org

Technology CoordinatorsUtility operationsEd Schaffer2116 W. Del Campo Cir.Mesa, AZ 85202888-474-5509www.tc-az.com

Thunderbird MountainLighting installations and retrofitsDavid JohnsonP.O. Box 10130Glendale, AZ 85318623-825-1730www.thunderbirdmountain.com

Traaen & Associates, LLCHuman resources management, training and organizational developmentTeri J. Traaen, Ed.D., DPA4831 E. Calle TuberiaPhoenix, AZ 85018602-510-3989www.traaenandassociates.com

TRANEDave Palty850 W. Southern Ave.Tempe, AZ 85282480-258-9600www.trane.com

Trans-West Network SolutionsDebi Caron5202 S. 39th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85040602-437-3010www.twns.com

Troxell CommunicationsAudio-visual equipmentBob Berry4830 S. 38th St.Phoenix, AZ 85040480-495-4745www.trox.com

The TrustProperty and casualty insuranceJane Schemers333 E. Osborn Rd., #300Phoenix, AZ 85012800.266.4911www.the-trust.org

Udall Shumway & Lyons PLCDenise Lowell-Britt30 W. First St.Mesa, AZ 85201480-461-5300

VALIC Group retirement plans, individual financial servicesSandra Jackson11201 N.Tatum Blvd., Ste.100Phoenix, AZ 85028602-674-2603www.aigvalic.com

Valley Schools Management GroupPatrick DittmanP.O. Box 41760Phoenix AZ 85024623-594-4370www.vsit.org

Wedbush Morgan SecuritiesErika Miller2999 N. 44th Street, #100Phoenix, AZ 85018602-952-6800www.wedbush.com

WorldByMe.comKevin Daily1518 W. Fort Lowell RoadTucson, AZ 85705520-262-1726www.worldbyme.com

Arizona School Boards Association2100 North Central AvenueSuite 200Phoenix, Arizona 85004

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGEPAIDPHOENIX AZPERMIT NO 4605

$6.0023281 © S&L Printing 2011

35th Annual �

School LawConference

Arizona School Boards Association

September 7-10, 2011JW Marriott Camelback Inn

Scottsdale, Arizona

Register online today at www.azsba.org

Q U A L I T Y L E A D E R S H I P A N D A D V O C A C Y F O R C H I L D R E N I N P U B L I C S C H O O L S .

Documents

ASBA Journal Summer 2011