Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Time topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa board hears study session on instructional minutes, lawmakers’ rules and scheduling trade‑offs
Summary
District presenters drove a study session explaining which instructional minute requirements are statutory and which are ADE recommendations, showing that following all ADE recommendations would exceed a typical elementary school day; board members pressed for audits and scheduling fixes to protect core instruction.
Tracy Islas opened a study session with a presentation on state and local requirements for instructional minutes, followed by an extended board Q&A on how recommended minutes from the Arizona Department of Education would affect local schedules.
Eric Von Berg told the board that the legal framework begins with Arizona Revised Statutes, which the State Board of Education implements through administrative rules and the Arizona Administrative Code. He cited the K‑3 English language arts requirement as a statutory example and noted that most minute totals published by ADE are recommendations rather than mandates. “You will see those throughout our slideshow. They’re prefaced by the ARS for Arizona revised statutes,” Von Berg said.
Mr. Estrada and Von Berg then walked through ADE’s recommended minutes by content area and grade band. They said that if a school followed every ADE recommendation for content areas such as ELA, math, science, PE and computer science, the elementary daily instructional time would need to be substantially longer than the district’s current 6.5‑hour elementary day. In the example shown for kindergarten, district staff calculated a recommended instructional day of about 7.2 hours — not including recess and lunch.
Board members pressed presenters on three recurring concerns: whether recommended minutes are intended to be cumulative for students requiring more intensive supports, how block scheduling and a 32‑minute lunch window at some high schools affect students’ access to unstructured social time, and how behavior disruptions factor into the legal calculation of minutes.
Von Berg clarified that the K–3 90‑minute ELA requirement is statutory under the ADE implementation, while most other minute allocations remain recommendations. On interventions, he said recommended tiered minutes (tier 1, tier 2, tier 3) are sequential and should not pull students out of core instruction. “When you’re addressing students with intensified needs, the one thing you want to make sure is that you are not removing them from core instruction,” he said.
Board members asked whether the district is auditing schedules to ensure compliance and to protect high‑quality grade‑level instruction. Leadership pointed to a districtwide continuous improvement process that included master‑schedule audits at elementary schools, monthly registration reviews at secondary levels, collaboration with research and evaluation teams and routine ADE audits. Superintendent Strom emphasized a focus on “quality first instruction” and said principal supervisors are working with site leaders to review minute allocations.
The board requested follow‑up work on real‑world impacts of scheduling changes — including alternative scheduling options, effects on extracurriculars and teacher workload — and the presentation closed with staff confirming continued monitoring of ADE and State Board rule changes.
Next steps: staff will continue master‑schedule audits, coordinate with site leaders to reduce unintended trade‑offs between core instruction and pullout supports, and report back with any proposed scheduling adjustments for the board’s consideration.
