Paradise Valley Unified School District |
---|
Phoenix, Arizona |
District details |
Superintendent: James P. Lee |
# of school board members: 5 |
Website: Link |
Paradise Valley Unified School District is a school district in Arizona.
Click on the links below to learn more about the school district’s…
This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates. |
Troy Bales is the superintendent of the Paradise Valley Unified School District. Bales was appointed superintendent on July 1, 2021. His previous career experiences include working as an administrator and principal in Paradise Valley Schools. [1]
The Paradise Valley Unified School District Governing Board consists of five members elected to four-year terms. Board members are elected at large.[4]
This officeholder information was last updated on July 12, 2021. Please contact us with any updates. |
Board members are elected on a staggered basis in November of even-numbered years.
A general election was scheduled for November 3, 2020.
The Paradise Valley Unified School District Governing Board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:[5]
“ |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT BOARD MEETINGS The Governing Board invites and encourages employees, students, parents, patrons and other interested parties to responsibly present information and viewpoints that have as their purpose the improvement of education and betterment of the District. Members of the Governing Board believe in freedom of expression and mandate that individuals be permitted to disclose information of public concern and express opinions without fear of retribution or intimidation. The Board also recognizes its responsibility for the proper governance of the schools and the need to conduct its business in an orderly and efficient manner. The Board therefore establishes the following procedures to receive input from individuals at regular and special meetings: A. Any individual desiring to address the Board shall complete a form (Request to Address Board) and give this form to the Board Secretary prior to the start of the Board meeting. Individuals desiring to speak about a specific agenda item will be recognized to speak at the appropriate time during the meeting. Otherwise, individuals will be recognized to speak during the Call to the Public portion of the meeting. B. The Board President shall be responsible for recognizing speakers, maintaining proper order and adhering to any time limit set. Questions requiring further investigation shall be referred to the Superintendent for later report to the Board. Neither the President on behalf of the Governing Board or the Superintendent will be able to respond to questions or comments on matters that are currently under legal review. C. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes when a presenter is speaking as an individual, and five (5) minutes when speaking as an authorized representative of an organization. Although it is the goal of the Governing Board to hear from all individuals desiring to address the Board, time restraints may limit the number of individuals invited to comment on a specific item. The Governing Board appreciates employee input and expects employees to adhere to high standards of professionalism when presenting information or opinions during a Governing Board meeting. Employees or former employees who believe that an adverse personnel action has been taken against him or her as a result of a disclosure made under Arizona Revised Statutes §38-532 shall be entitled to make a complaint per Policy AC. Personal attacks upon Board members, staff personnel or other persons in attendance or absent by individuals who address the Board are discouraged. Upon conclusion of the open Call to the Public, individual members of the Board may respond to any criticism made by an individual who has addressed the Board. While it is the hope of the Governing Board that individuals addressing the Board will maintain proper decorum and respect during their remarks, the Board retains the discretion of pursuing other actions should individuals present statements or representations concerning others that convey an unjustly unfavorable impression. Policies KE, KEB, and KEC are provided by the Board for disposition of legitimate complaints, including those involving individuals.[6] |
” |
From 1993 to 2013, the Paradise Valley Unified School District had an average of $238,995,810 in revenue and $244,946,238 in expenditures, according to the United States Census Bureau's survey of school system finances. The district had a yearly average of $298,702,810 in outstanding debt. The district retired $19,314,714 of its debt and issued $26,079,095 in new debt each year on average.[7]
The table below separates the district's revenue into the three sources identified by the agency: local, state, and federal.
Revenue by Source | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Local | State | Federal | Revenue Total | |||||||
Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue | Total | % of Revenue |
Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $77,530,000 | 56.36% | $56,471,000 | 41.05% | $3,566,000 | 2.59% | $137,567,000 | ||||
1994 | $76,339,000 | 54.14% | $60,236,000 | 42.72% | $4,432,000 | 3.14% | $141,007,000 | ||||
1995 | $77,680,000 | 51.47% | $68,103,000 | 45.13% | $5,131,000 | 3.40% | $150,914,000 | ||||
1996 | $87,663,000 | 53.35% | $71,377,000 | 43.44% | $5,262,000 | 3.20% | $164,302,000 | ||||
1997 | $93,907,000 | 53.54% | $76,165,000 | 43.42% | $5,327,000 | 3.04% | $175,399,000 | ||||
1998 | $105,740,000 | 54.58% | $80,624,000 | 41.61% | $7,386,000 | 3.81% | $193,750,000 | ||||
1999 | $108,455,000 | 54.13% | $85,060,000 | 42.45% | $6,850,000 | 3.42% | $200,365,000 | ||||
2000 | $115,813,000 | 55.19% | $86,118,000 | 41.04% | $7,931,000 | 3.78% | $209,862,000 | ||||
2001 | $131,475,000 | 57.79% | $88,293,000 | 38.81% | $7,736,000 | 3.40% | $227,504,000 | ||||
2002 | $142,368,000 | 59.07% | $87,694,000 | 36.38% | $10,960,000 | 4.55% | $241,022,000 | ||||
2003 | $143,721,000 | 59.41% | $83,211,000 | 34.40% | $14,995,000 | 6.20% | $241,927,000 | ||||
2004 | $162,452,000 | 59.70% | $92,428,000 | 33.97% | $17,238,000 | 6.33% | $272,118,000 | ||||
2005 | $169,390,000 | 62.14% | $86,421,000 | 31.70% | $16,782,000 | 6.16% | $272,593,000 | ||||
2006 | $171,471,000 | 61.86% | $91,159,000 | 32.89% | $14,547,000 | 5.25% | $277,177,000 | ||||
2007 | $185,853,000 | 60.41% | $102,425,000 | 33.29% | $19,368,000 | 6.30% | $307,646,000 | ||||
2008 | $191,545,000 | 60.72% | $106,293,000 | 33.69% | $17,639,000 | 5.59% | $315,477,000 | ||||
2009 | $191,478,000 | 63.95% | $88,276,000 | 29.48% | $19,661,000 | 6.57% | $299,415,000 |
2010 | $202,009,000 | 64.23% | $78,199,000 | 24.86% | $34,307,000 | 10.91% | $314,515,000 |
2011 | $198,535,000 | 66.35% | $65,166,000 | 21.78% | $35,519,000 | 11.87% | $299,220,000 |
2012 | $190,806,000 | 67.13% | $66,603,000 | 23.43% | $26,813,000 | 9.43% | $284,222,000 |
2013 | $195,556,000 | 66.76% | $69,622,000 | 23.77% | $27,732,000 | 9.47% | $292,910,000 |
Avg. | $143,799,333 | 59.16% | $80,473,524 | 35.21% | $14,722,952 | 5.64% | $238,995,810 |
The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:
Expenditures by Category | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Instruction | Support Services | Capital Spending | Debt & Gov. Payments | Other | Budget Total | |||||
Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget | Total | % of Budget |
Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | $69,192,000 | 43.46% | $38,849,000 | 24.40% | $37,457,000 | 23.53% | $11,062,000 | 6.95% | $2,653,000 | 1.67% | $159,213,000 |
1994 | $72,609,000 | 46.88% | $41,633,000 | 26.88% | $25,307,000 | 16.34% | $12,213,000 | 7.89% | $3,122,000 | 2.02% | $154,884,000 |
1995 | $78,843,000 | 46.91% | $44,385,000 | 26.41% | $28,430,000 | 16.92% | $11,993,000 | 7.14% | $4,413,000 | 2.63% | $168,064,000 |
1996 | $81,827,000 | 45.38% | $46,530,000 | 25.80% | $36,317,000 | 20.14% | $11,546,000 | 6.40% | $4,109,000 | 2.28% | $180,329,000 |
1997 | $88,195,000 | 46.63% | $48,989,000 | 25.90% | $30,996,000 | 16.39% | $15,024,000 | 7.94% | $5,930,000 | 3.14% | $189,134,000 |
1998 | $94,829,000 | 47.80% | $52,994,000 | 26.71% | $27,431,000 | 13.83% | $16,068,000 | 8.10% | $7,080,000 | 3.57% | $198,402,000 |
1999 | $101,989,000 | 45.49% | $59,269,000 | 26.44% | $40,735,000 | 18.17% | $16,999,000 | 7.58% | $5,210,000 | 2.32% | $224,202,000 |
2000 | $108,313,000 | 47.98% | $58,482,000 | 25.91% | $25,361,000 | 11.24% | $27,593,000 | 12.22% | $5,981,000 | 2.65% | $225,730,000 |
2001 | $104,562,000 | 44.24% | $60,329,000 | 25.53% | $31,010,000 | 13.12% | $32,323,000 | 13.68% | $8,104,000 | 3.43% | $236,328,000 |
2002 | $110,539,000 | 46.72% | $72,017,000 | 30.44% | $42,147,000 | 17.81% | $9,231,000 | 3.90% | $2,672,000 | 1.13% | $236,606,000 |
2003 | $110,013,000 | 43.92% | $75,121,000 | 29.99% | $30,095,000 | 12.02% | $26,058,000 | 10.40% | $9,173,000 | 3.66% | $250,460,000 |
2004 | $121,903,000 | 48.54% | $77,542,000 | 30.87% | $19,539,000 | 7.78% | $22,525,000 | 8.97% | $9,643,000 | 3.84% | $251,152,000 |
2005 | $128,420,000 | 51.68% | $80,448,000 | 32.37% | $12,949,000 | 5.21% | $17,833,000 | 7.18% | $8,841,000 | 3.56% | $248,491,000 |
2006 | $134,671,000 | 50.00% | $86,228,000 | 32.01% | $23,605,000 | 8.76% | $15,326,000 | 5.69% | $9,509,000 | 3.53% | $269,339,000 |
2007 | $140,991,000 | 46.36% | $92,793,000 | 30.51% | $44,292,000 | 14.57% | $15,689,000 | 5.16% | $10,333,000 | 3.40% | $304,098,000 |
2008 | $145,512,000 | 44.60% | $99,658,000 | 30.55% | $46,700,000 | 14.32% | $21,995,000 | 6.74% | $12,362,000 | 3.79% | $326,227,000 |
2009 | $145,093,000 | 44.32% | $105,252,000 | 32.15% | $29,605,000 | 9.04% | $36,345,000 | 11.10% | $11,115,000 | 3.39% | $327,410,000 |
2010 | $146,068,000 | 46.83% | $97,823,000 | 31.36% | $20,455,000 | 6.56% | $43,976,000 | 14.10% | $3,609,000 | 1.16% | $311,931,000 |
2011 | $139,312,000 | 46.77% | $104,126,000 | 34.96% | $13,353,000 | 4.48% | $40,690,000 | 13.66% | $365,000 | 0.12% | $297,846,000 |
2012 | $136,006,000 | 47.39% | $109,616,000 | 38.19% | $28,165,000 | 9.81% | $12,815,000 | 4.47% | $392,000 | 0.14% | $286,994,000 |
2013 | $130,905,000 | 44.07% | $94,282,000 | 31.74% | $58,661,000 | 19.75% | $12,716,000 | 4.28% | $467,000 | 0.16% | $297,031,000 |
Avg. | $113,799,619 | 46.48% | $73,636,476 | 29.48% | $31,076,667 | 13.32% | $20,477,143 | 8.26% | $5,956,333 | 2.46% | $244,946,238 |
The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.
Debt | |||
---|---|---|---|
Fiscal Year |
Retired | Issued | Outstanding |
Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years. | |||
---|---|---|---|
1993 | $10,202,000 | $19,075,000 | $200,705,000 |
1994 | $7,605,000 | $19,700,000 | $212,800,000 |
1995 | $7,520,000 | $21,200,000 | $226,480,000 |
1996 | $6,954,000 | $34,905,000 | $255,115,000 |
1997 | $8,375,000 | $38,390,000 | $287,076,000 |
1998 | $9,400,000 | $0 | $277,676,000 |
1999 | $44,728,000 | $39,275,000 | $308,180,000 |
2000 | $21,592,000 | $24,763,000 | $321,975,000 |
2001 | $18,640,000 | $16,800,000 | $320,800,000 |
2002 | $7,520,000 | $18,800,000 | $330,684,000 |
2003 | $12,388,000 | $19,800,000 | $355,222,000 |
2004 | $16,527,000 | $71,000 | $334,110,000 |
2005 | $23,284,000 | $17,743,000 | $328,290,000 |
2006 | $30,972,000 | $42,402,000 | $343,980,000 |
2007 | $30,683,000 | $1,155,000 | $313,480,000 |
2008 | $27,832,000 | $82,866,000 | $365,660,000 |
2009 | $15,278,000 | $16,379,000 | $366,671,000 |
2010 | $13,961,000 | $320,000 | $261,120,000 |
2011 | $11,517,000 | $25,889,000 | $286,745,000 |
2012 | $39,063,000 | $56,425,000 | $302,465,000 |
2013 | $41,568,000 | $51,703,000 | $273,525,000 |
Avg. | $19,314,714 | $26,079,095 | $298,702,810 |
The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.
Year | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|
2021-2022[8] | $43,781 | $60,173 |
Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.[9]
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[10]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 50 | 72 | 29 | 33 | 30-34 | 55 | 60 |
2017-2018 | 52 | 72 | 28 | 33 | 30-34 | 56 | 62 |
2016-2017 | 50 | 69 | 28 | 32 | 20-24 | N/A | 59 |
2015-2016 | 46 | 68 | 22 | 29 | 20-24 | N/A | 55 |
2014-2015 | 42 | 63 | 22 | 25 | 20-24 | N/A | 51 |
2013-2014 | 70 | 82 | 50 | 54 | 45-49 | N/A | 77 |
2012-2013 | 71 | 84 | 54 | 54 | 50-54 | N/A | 79 |
2011-2012 | 71 | 86 | 54 | 54 | 55-59 | N/A | 78 |
2010-2011 | 70 | 87 | 56 | 51 | 55-59 | N/A | 77 |
The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:[10]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 53 | 71 | 35 | 35 | 25-29 | 59 | 64 |
2017-2018 | 53 | 66 | 31 | 32 | 30-34 | 61 | 64 |
2016-2017 | 51 | 70 | 32 | 31 | 30-34 | N/A | 62 |
2015-2016 | 49 | 65 | 28 | 31 | 25-29 | N/A | 59 |
2014-2015 | 45 | 57 | 25 | 27 | 25-29 | N/A | 55 |
2013-2014 | 85 | 89 | 75 | 73 | 70-74 | N/A | 91 |
2012-2013 | 85 | 91 | 75 | 73 | 75-79 | N/A | 91 |
2011-2012 | 84 | 91 | 74 | 70 | 70-74 | N/A | 90 |
2010-2011 | 84 | 94 | 76 | 69 | 75-79 | N/A | 90 |
The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:[10][11]
School year | All (%) | Asian/Pacific Islander (%) |
Black (%) | Hispanic (%) | Native American (%) |
Two or More Races (%) |
White (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-2018 | 88 | 90-94 | 80-84 | 81 | 60-79 | 90-94 | 91 |
2016-2017 | 88 | 90-94 | 85-89 | 82 | 60-79 | N/A | 92 |
2015-2016 | 88 | 85-89 | 85-89 | 85 | 60-79 | N/A | 90 |
2014-2015 | 89 | 85-89 | 85-89 | 81 | 40-59 | N/A | 92 |
2013-2014 | 88 | ≥95 | 80-84 | 79 | 60-79 | N/A | 91 |
2012-2013 | 85 | 85-89 | 75-79 | 73 | 60-79 | N/A | 90 |
2011-2012 | 88 | 90-94 | 80-84 | 76 | ≥50 | N/A | 92 |
2010-2011 | 88 | ≥95 | 75-79 | 75 | 60-79 | N/A | 92 |
Year[12] | Enrollment | Year-to-year change (%) |
---|---|---|
2018-2019 | 31,020 | -0.7 |
2017-2018 | 31,245 | -1.8 |
2016-2017 | 31,829 | -1.3 |
2015-2016 | 32,241 | -0.6 |
2014-2015 | 32,426 | 0.1 |
2013-2014 | 32,405 | -1.4 |
2012-2013 | 32,862 | -0.3 |
2011-2012 | 32,958 | 0.1 |
2010-2011 | 32,933 | -0.4 |
2009-2010 | 33,058 | -2.3 |
2008-2009 | 33,848 | -0.8 |
2007-2008 | 34,114 | -1.5 |
2006-2007 | 34,648 | -0.3 |
2005-2006 | 34,763 | -1.2 |
2004-2005 | 35,202 | 0.9 |
2003-2004 | 34,884 | -0.5 |
2002-2003 | 35,073 | -1.1 |
2001-2002 | 35,451 | 1.6 |
2000-2001 | 34,882 | 0.7 |
1999-2000 | 34,625 | -0.9 |
1998-1999 | 34,956 | 2.9 |
1997-1998 | 33,979 | 6.3 |
1996-1997 | 31,974 | 4.5 |
1995-1996 | 30,599 | -0.1 |
1994-1995 | 30,626 | 1.9 |
1993-1994 | 30,042 | 3.6 |
1992-1993 | 28,986 | 4.6 |
1991-1992 | 27,715 | 3.8 |
1990-1991 | 26,698 | 2.8 |
1989-1990 | 25,964 | 1.8 |
1988-1989 | 25,502 | 2.7 |
1987-1988 | 24,835 | 4.3 |
1986-1987 | 23,804 | - |
During the 2018-2019 school year, 33.0% of the district's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 6.1% were English language learners, and 14.8% of students had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) .[14]
Racial Demographics, 2018-2019 | ||
---|---|---|
Race | Paradise Valley Unified School District (%) | Arizona K-12 students (%) |
American Indian/Alaska Native | 1.1 | 4.5 |
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander | 3.2 | 2.9 |
Black | 3.4 | 5.5 |
Hispanic | 31.6 | 45.6 |
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0.3 | 0.4 |
Two or More Races | 4.3 | 3.3 |
White | 56.1 | 37.8 |
Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.
An effort to recall three of the five members of the Paradise Valley Unified School District Governing Board failed to qualify for the ballot in 2021. Julie Bacon, Anne Greenberg, and Susan Matura were named in the recall petitions. To get the recall on the ballot, recall supporters would have had to collect 17,145 signatures per board member by March 18, 2021.[15]
Recall supporters listed the board's decision to close schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for the recall effort.[15]
Paradise Valley Unified School District
15002 N. 32nd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85032
Phone: 602-449-2000
Arizona | School Board Elections | News and Analysis |
---|---|---|
|
|