PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
146 South Granite Street
Prescott, Arizona 86303
August 11, 2000
Minutes
of the Planning Session of the Governing Board Retreat on Friday, August
11, 2000, beginning at 8:30 a.m. at the Mountain Club Clubhouse.
Governing Board members present:
President
Vaughn Delp
Dr.
Joan Fleming
Mr.
Dennis Colgan
Mr.
Gordon Maddux
Mrs.
Dana Womack (arrived 9:03 a.m.)
Also Present:
Betty Ann Campbell
Donn Williams
Tara Sholle
Frank Lawhead
Worth Mallory
Renee Raskin
Kevin Kapp
Theresa Montoya-Parrish
Roger Short
Kathy Sischka
Tim Carter
Dee Navarro
Sadie Holmes
Jim Williams
Chris Contos
Julie Huck
Elisabeth Ruffner
Floyd James
Susan Howe
Bill Dickey
Steve Kahne
Andi Mayer
CALL
TO ORDER
President
Vaughn Delp called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m.
NOTE: This was a planning session and no voting occurred at
this meeting.
INSTRUCTIONAL
REORGANIZATION ADVISORY TEAM AND FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Mr. Bill
Dickey of the Financial Oversight Committee reviewed the findings of
that committee regarding the models the Instructional Reorganization
Advisory Team had submitted to them. He noted that two plans were possible for implementation –
Model 7 and Model 3B. The
Financial Oversight Committee felt the best plan overall was Model 3B. The IRAT did not make a recommendation in their report. Mr.
Dickey outlined the pros and cons of the two recommended plans.
Mr. Denny Colgan requested an outline of all the models the IRAT
had developed. Mr. Chris
Contos reviewed each model with the Board.
Mr.
Jim Williams noted that the main difference between Model 3A and 3B was
where to put grades 5-6. Under
Model 3A, Abia Judd could not handle the student capacity, although the
committee felt the concept was viable.
Model 3B would move grades 5-6 to Granite Mountain with an
approximate enrollment of 610 students; there would be three K-4 schools
(Miller Valley, Taylor Hicks, and Abia Judd) with an enrollment average
of 450 students at each school. Grades 7-8 would be housed at Prescott Mile High with an
approximate enrollment of 800 students.
The traditional school would move to Lincoln and Washington
School would be sold. This
plan would use the facilities better by keeping the elementary schools
at level one and allows for growth at the middle school.
Using this plan, the district would not have to look at other
school closures down the road.
Mr.
Williams noted that the average class size would be 28 students per
class under Model 3B. Three
large elementary schools would give more flexibility for controlling
class size by closing or opening sections as needed.
Grades 5-6 would be housed at one site, which the committee felt
was more appropriate. Grades
7-8 would have more flexibility with teacher assignments for team
teaching, grouping, etc.
The
FOC felt that the traditional school was worth keeping based on parent
request and would be housed at Lincoln because that site has the least
commercial value, has the ability to be divided into two schools, and is
located in a neighborhood setting.
The FOC also recommended that if the district office property
were sold, the district office could move to the other building at
Lincoln, with the traditional school using the main building.
The
FOC did not look at art, music, or special education.
Their study was based on class size only.
Mr.
Chris Contos noted that having grades 5-6 and 7-8 at separate sites
would allow for better tracking and accountability.
Mrs.
Kathy Sischka noted that IRAT’s charge was to give the FOC models that
were educationally sound. IRAT
always felt that the traditional school should stay intact.
Mr.
Contos briefly reviewed each model developed by IRAT.
Model
1 (K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8): Allowed
for too many campus changes for small children and made the district a
transient school system.
Model
2 (K-3, 4-5-6, 7-8): Works
well with curriculum, however, small neighborhood schools would not fit.
Model
3A (K-4, 5-6, 7-8): Would
mean closing a large school (PMHMS); would allow for a showcase campus
with Abia Judd, Granite Mountain, and Nature Center, sharing staff and
facilities, but would be over-maximum capacity in a very short time.
Model
3B (K-4, 5-6, 7-8): Not as
flexible as 3A, but focuses needs of 5-6 and
7-8
students.
Model
4 (K-4, 5-8): This model
would have fit into the existing buildings, but would not allow for
future growth and would have no educational benefit.
Model
5 (K-6, 7-8): There was a
problem with fitting students into existing buildings with this model.
Model
6 (K-8): There was a
problem with fitting students into existing buildings with this model.
Mrs.
Julie Huck reviewed Model 7 for the Board.
This plan would provide for two K-5 schools at Miller Valley and
Taylor Hicks, keeping the Washington Traditional School K-6 program, one
6-8 program being housed at Prescott Mile High, and one K-8
non-traditional school being housed at Abia Judd and Granite Mountain,
with the possible closing of Lincoln.
The K-8 school would be based on a successful program that has
been in existence in Scottsdale for ten years and has a waiting list.
She voiced concern about the lack of choices available to parents
with plan 3B, noting that parents are used to having choices.
She also stated that she hoped the Board would survey parents and
give them a couple of options while seeking their input.
Mrs.
Tara Sholle stated that the Board needed to look at what savings and
costs would be involved. She
felt that presenting a reorganization plan to the public and parents
would be a huge job. She
requested that if we’re going to make changes to not just let one
neighborhood be affected as with the closing of Dexter.
She noted that it would be difficult for the district to explain
to people that enrollment is shrinking and class size is growing.
Mr.
Contos noted that the IRAT was concerned with the marketability of all
models developed, along with the ability to sell each plan to the public
(Why are we changing, and how are we making it better?).
Mr.
Colgan asked how this would affect the two Title I schools presently in
existence. Dr. Short
responded that he felt the district could keep that funding through the
application process.
Mr.
Kapp congratulated both committees on the tremendous amount of work that
was done. He stated that
his main concern would be how any plan would impact personnel.
Please
refer to Enclosure #1 for hard copy of information distributed at the
planning session.
ASBA
PRESENTATION
Dr.
Short introduced Mr. Donn Williams from the Arizona School Board
Association, who reviewed newly adopted and proposed policies with the
Board, along with new open meeting laws.
Please
refer to Enclosure #2 for hard copy of information distributed at the
planning session.
COUNTY
AND TRI-CITY ISSUES
Dr.
Short introduced Dr. Paul Street, Yavapai County Superintendent of
Schools who discussed county and tri-city issues with the Board.
Dr.
Street informed the Board that Mayer School District had eight
candidates running for four board seats.
He noted that there were four districts where they could find no
one to run for board positions. In
cases like that, they have to try to find write-ins or he has to make an
appointment. Mingus and
Cottonwood recently became unified, with Clarkdale choosing not to take
part in the unification.
He
stated that he had recently visited with a number of planners and
developers countywide. He
noted that Congress has not had a school in 30 years and that next year
they will be opening a school with 180 students.
A new development with 1,200 homes is planned for development
near the new school. The Congress school board has already started planning for
another school.
Chino
Valley will have a 4,000 home development soon that will increase their
enrollment by 2,000 students and double the size of their district.
Humboldt
School District currently has a 5,000+ student enrollment. It is estimated that by the year 2010 that enrollment will
double.
He
noted that he has heard nothing regarding development within the
Prescott Unified School District.
Dr.
Street discussed consolidation issues.
He noted that this process begins with two or more school
districts requesting consolidation or 10% of the voters who voted in the
last election through a petition process.
Once a consolidation request is received, the county
superintendent puts a report together regarding the impact of
consolidation which impacts taxes, accumulated debt, etc. for the
district involved and drawing up new boundary lines for the proposed
district. Districts that
consolidate assume each other’s debt.
These proposals have to be voted on by each district involved and
passed by each district. He
noted that consolidation has never happened in the state of Arizona.
Dr.
Street noted that there are some financial advantages to consolidation
through revenue increases the first three years.
Most districts have their own pride and identity and do not want
to give these up. The other
advantage of consolidation is the formation of one board and district
administration that saves in administrative costs.
He noted that Prescott has a lower tax rate than Chino Valley or
Humboldt School District. Florida
runs countywide school districts that have 35,000 students per district.
Dr.
Street stated that a law was passed a few years ago that allowed joint
vocational-technological school districts.
He noted that the east valley has taken advantage of this
legislation where each parent district sends their students to the joint
district and provides transportation for their students.
Many of these programs have been very successful.
Several districts in northern Arizona have started to develop
similar districts.
He
raised the question of whether or not Yavapai County, with nine high
schools, should be considering developing such a program or whether it
would be better to develop a partnership with Yavapai College.
He noted that the superintendents from the tri-city area had met
and discussed this topic. Since
it was not put on the ballot for this year, the tri-city area now has to
wait for two more years. The
superintendents of the tri-city area decided there was not enough time
to put together such a program and will watch the Verde Valley and learn
from their program. The
Verde Valley did not build a separate building or site for their program
and chose to run a satellite program.
Mr.
Maddux asked what would prevent our district from starting our own
charter school and then inviting other districts to participate?
Dr. Street responded that it would not be financially
advantageous because a district can generate more money by forming a
joint district where more money is available for a quality program from
several districts. He noted
that no one school could afford to do a quality vocational program.
Several districts have developed magnet programs in order to
avoid duplication of funds for specialized equipment and technology.
Dr.
Street informed the Board of the dramatic change in the charter school
laws. If a district
sponsors a charter school now, 90% of the enrollment must be new
students to the district or they won’t be counted for funding the
first year. If a district
issues a charter to an individual, the district can then count those
students and negotiate to provide services for revenue.
He noted that financial gain would be small for a district to
sponsor their own charter school and that it would be more advantageous
to just open an alternative school without a charter.
The charter school laws are constantly changing to prevent
loopholes that have already been abused by districts.
Dr.
Street talked about the issue of home-schooled students.
He stated that 12 years ago his office was aware of 1,100
home-schooled students countywide.
That number is approximately 1,500+ now.
Since the development of charter schools, most of the
home-schooled students who return to school at the high school level
attend charter schools. Charter
schools have an enrollment of about 2,000 students with more charter
schools planned to open within the next two years.
The county is not at the saturation point yet, but will be soon.
Mrs.
Womack stated that she doubted that any home-schooled students would
want to return to public schools for any reason because of the political
slant and because those parents want no government involvement.
Mr.
Carter asked Mrs. Womack if she could set up a meeting with some of the
parents of home-schooled students regarding taking some classes at the
high school. Mrs. Womack
stated that it would have to be with someone they trusted such as Dr.
Street. Dr. Street noted
that most home-schooled students are elementary students, with very few
at the high school level.
Dr.
Street noted that his office is willing to help with research or other
needs and that he and his staff are there to serve and support public
schools, home-schools, and charter schools.
FISCAL
ISSUES/AUDITING
Ms.
Renee Raskin distributed two handouts.
The first was a letter from Heinfeld & Meech, P.C., the firm
that will be providing auditing services for our district, which
outlines the audit objectives, responsibilities, and procedures.
Please refer to Enclosure #3 for hard copy of information
distributed at the planning session.
The
second handout was a U.S.F.R. Memorandum regarding a new compliance
questionnaire. Ms. Raskin
reviewed the questionnaire with the Board pointing out all revisions.
She noted that the auditors would be using a sample size of ten
items. Please refer to
Enclosure #3 for hard copy of information distributed at the planning
session.
Dr.
Short reviewed a Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum
regarding Analysis of School District Administrative Costs for FY 1999
with the Board. Please
refer to Enclosure #4 for hard copy of information distributed at the
planning session.
PERSONNEL
Mr.
Kapp stated that the district has entered a different phase regarding
personnel with job sharing and faculty being hired back after
retirement. He noted that
in the past the Personnel Office often had over 300 completed
applications on file. Currently,
there are only 75 completed applications on file.
The number of applications on file has dropped by 75%, which is
mainly due to the teacher shortage.
Another problem that is hurting our district, as well as the
other tri-city districts, is the low salaries that are offered.
He noted that he hoped our district would be able to raise
salaries through the reorganization or some other means.
He stated that our district should have the highest salary in the
tri-city area. The district
spends more money than every trying to advertise positions for
classified positions, which usually results in 25-30 applications.
Our district lost four veteran teachers this year to the Humboldt
District.
Mr.
Carter noted that we have lost teachers to local charter schools also.
He stated that it might get to the point where the district must
start attending job fairs for specialized recruitment.
JOB
SHARING
Mr.
Kapp stated that our district changed the policy dealing with the
rehiring of retired employees. When
our district rehires retired employees they begin with a new employee
status and may get up to five years of experience on the pay scale.
Mr. Kapp noted that there are pros and cons regarding this
procedure. Hiring these
teachers costs the district more money, however, the district benefits
from hiring experienced teachers.
Mr.
Kapp asked the Board what they thought about job sharing practices
within the district noting that we currently have two job sharing
positions with the district. Mr.
Maddux noted that he is still philosophically opposed to the practice,
but would do it if the need were great.
Dr. Fleming stated that she felt it was a real plus for our
students. Mr. Colgan stated
that he had a problem with hiring two teachers at
$40,000 vs. one teacher at $23,000 when that money could go for
salary increases. He also
wondered whether this was for the benefit of the kids or the retiring
teachers. He felt that any
job sharing options should come with a very strong recommendation from
the principal. Mrs. Delp
stated that her granddaughter would be attending Miller Valley and was
really looking forward to having two good teachers.
Dr. Short stated that he felt it was important that parents be
informed of any job sharing positions.
He also noted that both principals with job sharing positions
surveyed their parents and the parents involved supported job sharing.
BEST
PRACTICES
Dr.
Short informed the Board that our Prescott High School Nursing Program
is listed on the Internet as a “best practice.”
What best practices do is get like groups together to share what
they do to provide quality educational programs.
He distributed the TIMMS Report, which is an investigation of
U.S. School Mathematics and Science Education.
Please refer to Enclosure #5 for hard copy of information
distributed at the planning session.
He noted that this is similar to what Mr. Colgan had suggested
when he requested a three year comparison study.
Mr.
Colgan suggested a comparison study of similar districts that would
compare total aggregate, bond debt, tax increases, weighted numbers,
teacher experience index, test scores, M & O budget, drop-out rate,
AIMS and Stanford 9 results, total salaries, total of benefits,
transportation costs, etc. He
noted that for every one-tenth of one percent, it’s a saving to the
district of $19,000. Comparison studies would help the Board to focus on the weak
and strong points of the district by comparing strengths and weaknesses
of like-sized districts and learning their strategies.
Dr.
Short stated that he would get together with Mr. Colgan in order to put
a comparison study together for the Board.
BOARD
SELF-EVALUATION
Four
Board members participated in the self-evaluation by filling out a form
and answering questions. Dr.
Short reviewed the results from the Board self-evaluation from last year
and this year with the Board.
The
Board discussed those questions that had changed or dropped
significantly to determine why the change had occurred and how they
could improve those with lower scores.
They also reviewed those questions that had received high marks.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.