Dr. Islas told the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board on Sept. 23 that district staff were presenting information on instructional time to clarify what state law requires and what the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) recommends for classroom minutes. "We are here this evening to share some information with you around instructional time," she said.

The presentation laid out the rule framework staff said governs scheduling: (1) state statutes enacted by the Legislature and signed by the governor; (2) administrative rules adopted as Arizona Administrative Code; and (3) ADE guidance and recommendations that districts commonly use to set daily schedules. Staff emphasized the distinction between statutory requirements and ADE recommendations.

Why it matters: ADE recommendations for daily minutes across subjects add up, staff warned, to more instruction than current elementary and secondary school days typically allow. Eric Von Berg, one of the presenters, cautioned that the ADE guidance is largely advisory and that the legal baseline remains state statute and the administrative code. "When we are talking about instructional time here, we've been talking about it from the legal standpoint," Von Berg said, noting that classroom disruptions and behavioral issues affect the quality of minutes but do not change statutory hour calculations.

Key points from the presentation included: state law requires a minimum school year (commonly 180 days) and minimum yearly instructional hours by grade band; kindergarten is calculated at 356 annual hours because it is commonly funded as half-day by the state; ADE defines K–3 reading instruction as 90 minutes per day; English-learner supports are specified (staff said pull-out models commonly provide about 60 minutes a day in K–5, 50 minutes for grades 6–12, while dual-language immersion models have different daily/weekly requirements); Individualized Education Program (IEP) minutes for students with disabilities are legally binding and variable by student; and Arizona statute requires two recess periods in K–5 but does not set recess lengths.

Staff also showed an example calculation: following ADE recommendations for all recommended content areas would require more than the district’s standard elementary instructional day. "We have a 6½-hour day in elementary school, and it would take 7.2 hours each day of instruction" to fit the ADE recommendations, the presentation noted — a figure that excludes lunch and recess and, if combined with those, would push the day beyond eight hours.

Board members asked how that tension would affect specials and high school scheduling. Member Hutchinson asked whether the district’s special-areas committee is preparing for major changes to specials to meet instructional-minute expectations and whether the district might lengthen the school day to provide longer lunches and protect specials time. Superintendent Strom and staff said the district has an active special-areas design team working on staffing models and schedule options; staff said the team will make recommendations to the board and that the district will respect the committee’s advice.

Several board members pressed staff about classroom-level implications and monitoring. Von Berg and Mr. Estrada described a set of administrative checks: master-schedule registration reviews with principals, counselor coordination for scheduling English-learners and students with IEPs, AP of registration meetings, and a synergy/technology review that supports reporting to ADE. Staff said ADE sometimes audits districts after schedules are set and that districts may be required to repay funds if required minutes are not met.

The presentation and Q&A did not include any formal resolutions or motions. Staff said the briefing was intended to clarify statutory requirements versus ADE recommendations and to prepare the board for future discussions about schedule, staffing and master-schedule audits.

Ending: Staff identified follow-up work: the specials design team will continue its review and report back with staffing and schedule proposals; district instructional leaders will continue master-schedule audits and professional learning to support high-quality first instruction; and the board and staff will separate legally required time from advisory recommendations as they consider any schedule changes.