az k-12 education needs in rural and remote arizona: analysis of responses reviewed by board of...

AZ K-12 Education Needs in Rural and Remote Arizona: Analysis of ResponsesReviewed by Board of Directors, May 31, 2013

©2013 Science Foundation Arizona. All Rights Reserved. 1

Context

• Needs Analysis of K-12 Education in Arizona’s rural and remote counties• Focus on: what is needed to implement Common Core• Focal Content Areas: Science and Math

Goal

• Online Survey. Special thanks to the AZ Department of Education for launching the survey.

Methods

• Teachers, Principals, Superintendents in Arizona’s 13 rural and remote counties• 10,613 Teachers• 503 Principals• 208 Superintendents• 11,314 invitations to survey sent: of these 1,436 were bounced back• 9,878 email invitations received

Participants

• Survey open April 18• Reminder #1: April 24• Final Reminder: May 2

Timeline


3.

For those not familiar with rural Arizona,this map will provide basic informationon those counties. For comparison, below are the same data for Maricopaand Pima Counties:

Maricopa:area:9,226 sq. mi.pop: 3.8 million# schools: 947# teachers: 29,711median income: $51k

Pima: area: 9,240 sq. mi.

pop: 980,263# schools: 287# teachers: 7,065median income: $44k

Special thanks to the Arizona Association of Countiesfor their assistance with this information

TEACHER RESPONSE

Navajo Apache Greenlee Graham Yavapai La Paz Yuma Pinal Mohave Gila Cochise Santa Cruz Coconino0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

38%36%

30%28%

27% 26% 26% 26% 25% 25%23%

19% 19%

TEACHER RESPONSE RATE BY COUNTY(IN DESCENDING ORDER)

320 226 28 90 321 38 404 532 275 103 218 86 172

Completed Surveys: 3032Overall Response Rate: 31%

N=

Highest Response Rates:Navajo and Apache Counties

Lowest Response Rates:Santa Cruz and Coconino


ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSE

Apache Coconino Cochise Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Mohave Navajo Santa Cruz

Pinal Yavapai Yuma0

5

10

15

20

25

30

11

15

9

11

4

2 2

11

16

11

21

25

11

2

54

2 2 23 3

6

4 4

10

3

PRINCIPAL AND SUPERINTENDENT COUNTS BY COUNTY(IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Principal

Superintendent

PRINCIPAL: 149 replies from 503 invitations, 30% response rateSUPERINTENDENT: 50 replies from 208 invitations, 24% response rate


SPED Breakout:


We saw no notable differences for SPED teachers when compared to all teachers on the majorcomponents of the survey including: teacher background, professional development hours in thelast three years, or indication of needs to teach math and science.

444 (16%) of teachers reported teaching SPED. 336/444 (76%) teach elementary school 114/444 (26%) teach high school (several teach both HS and elementary) 380/444 (86%) are female The distribution of age mirrors that of the entire sample # years taught also mirrors that of the entire sample 259/444 (58%) report teaching math or science PD in last 3 years mirrors that of entire sample Priorities for SPED teachers look similar to priorities of elementary teacher sample

SCHOOL REPRESENTATIONRESPONSES REPRESENTED 475 (84%) OF THE 565 SCHOOLS INVITED.

APACHE COCONINO COCHISE GILA GRAHAM GREENLEE LA PAZ MOHAVE NAVAJO SANTA CRUZ

PINAL YAVAPAI YUMA0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

4238

47

23

16

610

49

39

21

77

60

47

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS REPRESENTED IN RESPONSES


RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

FEMALE MALE NO REPLY0%

30%

60%

90%80%

18%

2%

RESPONSES BY GENDER

NO REPLY

UNDER 20

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+0%

10%

20%

30%

2% 1%

14%

24%26% 26%

7%

DISTRIBUTION OF AGE

NO REPLY

NEVER TAUGHT

1-3 YEARS

4-6 YEARS

7-9 YEARS

10-19 YEARS

20+ YEARS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2% 1%

16%13% 14%

32%

23%

DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Respondents were 80% female

The distribution of age was approximately normal

More than ½ of teachers and ¾ ofadministrators have taught for 10+ years


STUDENT FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS

We asked educators to tell us about student family income and community income in their area.

Nearly ½ of educators reported student family income of less than $30k per year (23% + 25%)

One quarter (7% + 18%) of educators reported their community income of less than $30k.

UNDER $20K $20K - $29K $30K - $39K $40K - $49K $50K + UNKNOWN0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

23%25%

13%

3%1%

35%

7%

18% 17%

8%

3%

47%

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOMESTUDENT FAMILY INCOME

COMMUNITY INCOME

County % Educators Reporting Student family income less than $30k

Apache 62%

Coconino 38%

Cochise 54%

Gila 54%

Graham 34%

Greenlee 40%

La Paz 76%

Mohave 49%

Navajo 58%

Santa Cruz

60%

Pinal 42%

Yavapai 40%

Yuma 47%©2013 Science Foundation Arizona. All Rights Reserved. 9

STATE SCHOOL GRADE

Apache

Coconino

Cochise Gila

Graham

Greenlee

La Paz

Mohav

e

Navajo

Santa

Cruz

Pinal

Yavap

aiYuma

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MISS-ING

A

B

C

D

F

APACHE

COCONINO

COCHISE

GILA GRAHAM

GREENLEE

LA PAZ

MOHAVE

NAVAJO

SANTA CRUZ

PINAL

YAVAPAI

YUMA

PERCENT OF GRADED AND F SCHOOLS (N)

50%(121)

14%(28)

18%(41)

40%(46)

13%(12)

80%(24)

7%(3)

12%(36)

23%(79)

3%(3)

10%(55)

4%(14)

9%(36)


80% of schools in Greenlee and 50%in Apache were gradedas D or F schools in2012.

AVAILABILITY OF INTERNET

UNDER 10% 10% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% - 74% 75% + DON'T KNOW0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

10%

19% 21%

13%

6%

30%

EDUCATOR REPORTS OF STUDENT HOME INTERNET

We asked educators to tell us about the availability of internet in their school and in theirstudent’s homes:

99% have internet accessat their school

96% have internet intheir classroom

56% reported their students have access to wireless internetat their school

50% reported that less than ½ of their students have the internet at home (10% +19% +21%)

©2013 Science Foundation Arizona. All Rights Reserved.

11

AT SCHOOL IN CLASSROOMS STUDENT WIFI0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%99% 96%

56%

0% 4%

37%

0% 0%6%

PERCENT OF EDUCATORS REPORTING INTERNET ACCESS AT THEIR SCHOOL

YESNODON'T KNOW

STUDENT CHALLENGES

We asked educators to tell us about some of the daily challenges of their students:

DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH AT HOME BUS RIDE 40 MIN+ FREE/REDUCED LUNCH0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

31%

37%

1%

21%

17%

4%

12% 13%

10%9%

7%

21%

15%

6%

48%

12%

20%

15%

UNDER 10%10% - 24%25% - 49%50% - 74%75% +DON'T KNOW

24% reported that½ of their students do notSpeak English as a firstLanguage (15% + 9%)

13% reported that over ½ of their students ride the bus 40+ minutes toschool

Nearly ½ of educatorsreported that 75% oftheir students qualify forfree breakfast and/or lunch

©2013 Science Foundation Arizona.All Rights Reserved. 12

Apache

Coconino

Cochise Gila

Graham

Greenlee

La Paz

Mohave

Navajo

Santa Cru

zPinal

YavapaiYuma

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

43%

23% 25%

41%

27%35%

56%

38% 36% 32% 36% 36% 36%

Percentage of Educators Reporting Less than 10% of Student Families Have a Parent Involved at School

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT WITHSCHOOL ACTIVITIESWe asked educators to tell us how many students had a parent involved withschool activities:

More than 1/3 ofeducators reported that less than 10% oftheir students had aninvolved parent

Highest ratesof lack of parentalinvolvement are in La Paz, Apache,and Gila counties with 40%+ of educators reportingless than 10% ofstudents have an involved parent

©2013 Science Foundation Arizona.All Rights Reserved. 13

DON'T KNOW UNDER 10% 10% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% - 74% 75% +0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

15%

35% 31%

12%4% 2%

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

TEACHER EDUCATION

Bachelor's degree (ed

focus)

Bachelor's degree (non-ed focus)

M.Ed. M.A. M.S. E.Ed. Ph.D. Missing0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

35%

9%

30%

14%

6%

1% 1%3%

Education Level for Arizona Rural Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents

52% report tohold a graduate level degree (30% + 14% + 6% + 1% + 1%)

66% report tohold a degree ineducation(35% + 30% +1%)


We asked AZ educators about their personal education.

TEACHING MATH AND SCIENCE

Apache Coconino Cochise Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Mohave Navajo Santa Cruz Pinal Yavapai Yuma0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

52%47%

53% 51%44%

60% 57% 56% 55%47%

53% 56% 57%

Percent of Respondents who Report Teaching Math or Science



Pinal Yavapai Yuma0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

28%

17%

30%

22% 20%23%

55%

23%

36%

15%

26%31% 31%

Percent of Respondents Teaching Science or Math who Reported They are not Highly Qualified, per State Standards

44% - 60% of our survey respondents teachMath or Science.

There is a large discrepancy by countyin % of teachersreporting they do notmeet state standards tobe a Highly Qualified Science or Math teacher,ranging from 15% inSanta Cruz to 55% inLa Paz. We drill downinto this on the next slide.

SCIENCE AND MATH TEACHERSELF-REPORTED QUALIFICATIONS



Pinal Yavapai Yuma

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Unqualified MathUnqualified Elementary ScienceUnqualified Natural ScienceUnqualified Physical Science

We asked if teachers were Highly Qualified (per state standards) to teach their subjects Across the 13 rural and remote counties Unqualified science and math teachers were self identified. We had no survey respondents teaching Natural or Physical Science in Gila, Graham, or Greenlee Over 60% of responding Physical Science teachers were Unqualified in 3 counties: La Paz, Mohave, Yuma

MATH AND SCIENCE PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT (PD) HOURS 388 science teachers report no science PD in last 3 years (33%).

Highest concentration proportionatelyin Navajo and Apache Counties

136 math teachers report no math PDin last 3 years (11%).

Highest concentration proportionatelyIn Pinal and Yavapai Counties


Pinal Yavapai Yuma0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

14%

4%

13%

4%

2% 2%1%

10%

19%

2%

12%

10%

7%8%

5%5%

2% 3%

1% 1%

9%

14%

4%

19%

16%

14%

Location of Teachers with No Science orMath PD in Last 3 Years

MathScience

none 1-4 hours 5-8 hours 9-12 hours 13-16 hours more than 16 hours

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

33%

22%

12%

7%4%

22%

11%15% 16%

12%

7%

39%

Self Reported Professional Development for Science and Math Teachers

Science Math

Drill Down


Funds f

or Supplie

s

Purchase

Equipmen

t

PD: Yea

r

Common Planning T

ime

After Sch

ool Pro

grams

Field Tr

ips

Grants:

Grad Ed

ucation

SFAz P

D

SFAz C

urricu

lum Dev

Computer la

bs

PD: Summer

SFAz M

entorin

g

Visitors

Scien

ce/Math

Paid In

ternsh

ips0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%60%

49% 48%

39% 38%

31%

28% 27%25%

21% 21% 22% 22%20%

47%

51%

42%

38%

31%29%

32%

22%25% 24% 24%

18%21%

25%

ELEMENTARY Science and Math Teachers (n=1277)

HS Science and Math Teachers (n=355)

PRIORITY SELECTIONS FOR SCIENCE AND MATH TEACHERS


We asked which 3 of the following would be most helpful in implementing Common Core. 1) funds for supplies, 2) purchase of equipment, and 3) professional development were the

top priorities for 40%+ of science and math teachers in elementary and high schools.

OPEN QUESTION: LEARNING IN SCIENCE AND MATH


Comment Count %

Equipment & supplies 1334 56%

Professional development (on site preferred) 370 16%

Help with understanding and implementing common core 315 13%

Curriculum guide, access to programs, educational memberships 293 12%

Planning time-common planning time, help with integration of subject; Collaboration among educators-rearranging day to allow for time to teach STEM 147 6%

Money for teacher education 61 3%

More teachers, aides, smaller class size 57 2%

Culture where education is important to students and parents 45 2%

Mentors, guest speakers 41 2%

After school programs and field trips 23 1%

Coordination with special groups: SPED GIFTED Poverty 16 1%

Teacher pay 8 0%

We asked what 1 item would help provide greater student learning in science and math 78% of our survey respondents wrote replies to this question. This is a very highresponse rate for a non-required question. This was the 20th question on the survey.

FINAL QUESTION: Is there anything else we Should know before we begin this initiative?


27% (827) of our survey respondents wrote replies to this question A sampling of these responses are available on our website www.SFAz.org

NEXT STEPS

SFAz will commit $15M to a 3-year Rural and Remote Initiative to provide teachers thetools they need to improve academic achievement and develop the skills to implementArizona’s Common Core Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. We will beginwith a focus on Navajo and Apache Counties as areas of greatest need, but will include programs available to all 13 counties.

http://www.SFAz.org/

SFAZ SHORT TERM STOPGAP ACTIONS


1. Hire a full-time field staff person to assist teachers in teaching science and math in Apache and Navajo counties. (SFAz already has STEM field staff working in other areas.)

2. Give every full-time K-12 teacher in Navajo and Apache counties a gift card for supplies for 2013-2014 PROVIDED the school superintendent and principal agree to set aside weekly common planning time to focus on science and math and the implementation of Arizona’s Common Core Standards.

3. Issue a very simple Request for Proposal (RFP) to schools in the 13 counties for up to $10K each for equipment that would improve academic achievement in science and math. While Navajo and Apache Counties will be given priority, all responses will be considered with the requirement noted above for common planning time.

4. Issue RFP’s to fund both teacher professional development and create after-school science, math and robotics clubs. Funding will be available to all counties. Staff development and planning sessions will be recorded and evaluated.

PLEASE NOTE


Please join us by selecting one of the above-noted areas to support, allowing us to address educator needs more quickly. This report is a summary of the data collected. We can run cross-tabulated data any way that would be helpful to a potential donor or advisor.

Resources need to be dedicated to these 13 counties quickly, in addition to continuing support for the urban counties. We are asking individual philanthropists, trusts, foundations, and corporations to join us in investing to ensure an educated workforce that maintains America’s competitiveness.

It is important to note that SFAz is not making a statement on the funding needed per student. We are simply taking short-term stopgap measures to address today’s needs as identified by the teachers responding to our survey. We hope the appropriate bodies review the distribution of education funding that goes to administration, versus the amount that gets to the classroom, and recommends any necessary adjustments to ensure teachers have the tools necessary to educate Arizona’s Children.

THE CALL TO ACTION

az k-12 education needs in rural and remote arizona: analysis of responses reviewed by board of...

Documents

science foundation arizona

rural arizona

remote arizona

sped teachers

science pd

information slide

teacher response

methods teachers