By Anne Marie DiCarlo

Written by Anne Marie DiCarlo

On April 13th, the Prescott Courier ran an article written by Superintendent Clark Tenney as a rebuttal to the valid criticisms raised about yet another year of overall poor performance by Arizona’s schools, including the PUSD.

Subsequently, the Superintendent extended an invitation to meet and discuss the results and challenges faced by our schools, and I accepted. The discussion with Superintendent Tenney & Assistant Superintendent of Instruction, Kelsey Secor was informative, transparent and productive. The result was a much clearer picture of the multiple issues and challenges faced by our local schools. In many ways, the administration is genuinely working for the betterment of the students and there are many positives, including a focus on the development of critical thinking skills. However, to address the root causes and formulate an improvement plan, the negatives deserve a close inspection.

In the April 13th article, the superintendent was quick to dismiss the claim that Arizona’s schools are among the worst in the nation, according to the recent results published in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), stating that there is no objective measure to compare each state’s educational system. While that may be true, the NAEP (despite its random sampling selection of student participants) does serve to measure the level and mastery of material at every grade level and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Sound reasoning would dictate that the material tested at each grade level should guide each state in setting standards. Currently, the US has no federally mandated education standards. This is shocking, given that we have had a federal Department of Education for decades. While school control should remain at the local level, a clear set of objectives to be achieved at each grade level would guide individual school districts and empower curriculum development that could bring uniformity across the nation, regardless of demographics.

An attempt to achieve this took place in 2015. At that time, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, required states to set “challenging academic standards” but granted autonomy in design. The ESSA mandates annual assessments in reading and math (grades 3–8, and once in high school). In 2010, the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)  provided voluntary standards known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for math and English language arts (ELA) to ensure college and career readiness. Forty-six states initially adopted these, but as of 2025, only about 20 states entirely use CCSS. Others have modified or replaced them for political reasons.

Arizona is one of the states that has moved away from the CCSS and implemented its own standards.

Superintendent Tenney stated that the PUSD students score “above state averages in every subject level, in every grade level, with the current exception of middle school math”.  While accurate, the state results are very poor; the PUSD scores higher in each category but still fails to produce a majority of students who are proficient in subject material, according to the state benchmarks.  PUSD testing results for the core subjects are detailed here.

The website details student performance on the whole and at each grade level and groups students into four categories: minimally proficient, partially proficient, proficient, and highly proficient. According to the 2024 state’s testing results for the PUSD, the bar chart below illustrates the composite score for students, by grade and subject, who fall below proficiency (minimal or partially proficient):

(note: science represents grade 5 as testing not done in grade 4)

According to school administrators, the complicated system of interpreting state standards of expectations ( for each subject at each grade level) and the development of the metric that defines the category into which each student falls based on the assessment tests does not necessarily mean that the student is not ‘proficient’ in reading, for example, but not proficient in meeting each goal within the state standard, which may include critical comparison in addition to basic comprehension. Currently, according to the school administration, teachers are not given the detailed test results for these assessments, and as a result, have no clear idea why students did not meet the state’s expected results. Without such detailed results, it is nearly impossible for the teachers to adjust the curriculum effectively. This needs to change.

For the parent or citizen, this explanation produces much ambiguity about the goals and the success of the chosen curriculum. This is precisely why clear, measurable objectives are necessary for K-12 students. If the explanation that state standards are set so high such that the majority of students are not able to achieve ‘high expectations’, then why do Arizona students only score an average of 18-19 on the ACT college entrance tests (depending upon the year) and such scores are considered ‘partially’ proficient or at the lowest range of proficiency by the ACT board itself?

These results should lead to a reform of the state standards for education and how such standards are communicated to the schools. In addition, there is a need for a complete re-evaluation of the curriculum and materials used to teach the core subjects at the primary level—an audit that becomes a regular process to identify deficiencies and aim for continuing improvement.

One fantastic example of success by changing course is the state of Mississippi. 

Mississippi went from being ranked second-worst in 2013 for fourth-grade reading to 21st in 2022. The “Mississippi Miracle” began in 2012 when the Republican governor/legislature introduced phonics-based instruction and began to hold back ~10% of 3rd graders per year who failed the reading test. Perhaps Arizona needs to consider a similar tactic or a requirement that minimally proficient students must attend summer school to progress to the next grade level. Currently, state law has no provision for this. Targeted intervention in the early primary grades is critical in changing the downward trajectory.

Looking back to the 1999-2000 school year, PUSD produced far better results than in the most recent school year. According to state data, the PUSD met proficiency standards in math and reading for that school year by a total of 55% and 60% of the student body, respectively.

Mr. Tenney also correctly noted that Arizona is ranked 50th in terms of academic spending per student. While this is true, more money is not always the sole solution. Other states are an excellent illustration of this. According to the most recent data available, Arizona K-12 schools spend $10,315 per pupil for a total of over $11 billion annually. Idaho spends $9,670 per pupil but ranks 21st in the K-12 education component of the ranking in 2024, in comparison to Arizona’s average rank of 40th- 45th. Mississippi and Tennessee K-12 schools spend between $10,000 and $12,000  per pupil and also produce better educational results. Some states, like Washington and Wisconsin, spend somewhat more per student, $14,842 and $15,423, respectively, but ranked 4th and 10th in the nation in education, surpassing states like New Jersey and New York that spend up to $29,000 per student. 

While funding undeniably affects the quality of education, other factors need to be considered, like the cost of living, curriculum, and teacher certification standards.  In addition, standardized academic achievement scores in Arizona significantly influence funding.  Arizona has a Results-Based Funding (RBF) program allocates financial resources to schools based on their performance in statewide assessments. High-performing schools, particularly those serving low-income communities, receive additional funding to support teacher salaries or expand successful programs. Consequently, failing to produce better results affects a school’s funding.

Another financial consideration is how education dollars are spent regarding the ratio between instruction and administration. Currently, the split is about 60% to 40%, of instruction to administration and support.  Perhaps more dollars directed toward instruction would produce better results. In Prescott, the PUSD has eight K-12 schools serving 3,948 students. The organization chart is as follows:

The exact number of support staff employed by the PUSD was not readily available, but LinkedIn profiles suggest between 200 and 500, excluding teachers and aides. It would be interesting to know if there has ever been a reassessment of the necessity for the current size of the administrative support staff at each level and whether those dollars could be better utilized by directing them towards the direct education of students, like tutoring, etc. It may also be beneficial to investigate whether tiny districts, like Skull Valley, Crown King, and Congress, should share administrative support with the larger districts nearby.

The PUSD average class size varies by grade but can be as high as 35. I agree with the Superintendent that reducing class size and hiring additional qualified teachers to improve the student-to-teacher ratio would be money well spent.

Generally speaking, however, the administrative expenditures in public schools across the US have increased dramatically over time. The following graph illustrates the growth in administrative staff versus teachers and students in public schools from 2000 through 2019:

It is time to examine how money is spent, not just how much is spent.

If nothing else, this dismal analysis should lead to a genuine attempt to correct the course rather than dismiss or deny it. The school boards should call for a review of state guidelines, curriculum, the efficacy of SEL (social/emotional learning), adequacy of tutoring, class hours, homework, social promotion, and enforcement to deal with absenteeism. 

Lastly, parents need to be called to become actively involved in their children’s education. According to school administration, up to 30% of parents are not actively involved in monitoring their child’s performance. Far more people show up for social gatherings than do for educational meetings. The first principle of a strong society is an engaged family unit. Parents, it is time to start paying a lot more attention.

In closing, we can continue to create slogans to dismiss the problems with our public school education system, or we can demand accountability and work together for change. Future generations are counting on us.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR