How Does TUSD Compare? Six Arizona School Districts and Nine Measures for Evaluating Management Effectiveness
A Practical, Evidence-Based Approach to Measuring the Performance of Tucson Unified School District's Superintendent and Executive Management
John C. Blackshire, Jr. The Accountware Group | November 2026
TUSD Management Should Be Evaluated Against Comparable School Districts
How effective is the management of Tucson Unified School District (TUSD)?
That question cannot be answered by reviewing management presentations, counting the number of initiatives announced, or listening to explanations about why the District faces financial and educational challenges.
Management effectiveness must be measured through results.
But measuring TUSD's performance in isolation is not sufficient. The District must also be compared with other Arizona school districts operating under similar financial, educational, demographic, and organizational conditions.
If another district faces comparable enrollment pressures, serves students with similar educational needs, and operates under the same Arizona school finance system—but achieves better academic outcomes, stronger financial reserves, or lower operating costs—the TUSD Governing Board should understand why.
I recommend six primary Arizona school districts and nine performance indicators as the foundation for an objective evaluation of TUSD's executive management.
The objective is not to identify which district is best overall.
It is to determine whether TUSD's management is delivering reasonable educational and financial results given the resources available and the challenges it faces.
1. Why This Comparison Is Particularly Important Now
The Arizona Auditor General's January 2026 financial risk analysis identified TUSD as being among the state's highest-risk school districts.
The Auditor General reported several troubling financial developments:
Financial indicator | Earlier result | Later result |
General Fund operating margin | -2.93% FY2024 | -9.27% FY2025 |
General Fund operating reserve ratio | 21.51% FY2024 | 9.76% FY2025 |
Weighted student count | 47,085 FY2022 | 42,851 FY2026 |
Students attending | 38,010 FY2024 | 37,452 FY2025 |
Number of schools | 87 FY2024 | 87 FY2025 |
The FY2025 financial figures in this analysis were unaudited when published.
These results raise important questions about TUSD's ability to align operating expenditures with recurring revenues and declining enrollment.
The Auditor General also reported that TUSD redirected approximately $10 million in capital monies to operating expenditures in FY2025 and FY2026.
These findings do not prove that every financial problem was caused by poor management. School districts face external pressures, including demographic changes, inflation, special education requirements, and funding limitations.
However, they establish why the Governing Board should evaluate how effectively management has anticipated and responded to those pressures.
A management team should be evaluated not only on the problems it inherited, but also on the measurable results of the actions it has taken.
Source: Arizona Auditor General, School District Financial Risk Analysis, January 2026.
2. Which Arizona School Districts Are Reasonably Comparable to TUSD?
No Arizona school district is an exact match for TUSD.
TUSD is a large, established urban school district with diverse student needs, substantial facilities, and complex financial and operational responsibilities.
For that reason, I recommend using a combination of large metropolitan districts and Tucson-area districts.
Six primary comparison districts
School district | Principal reason for comparison | Important limitation |
Mesa Unified | Large, mature K–12 district with extensive facilities and complex operations | Different demographics, geography, and funding characteristics |
Sunnyside Unified | Tucson-area district with relevant urban educational and socioeconomic challenges | Significantly smaller than TUSD |
Amphitheater Unified | Tucson-area district sharing regional labor, housing, and operating conditions | Smaller and differently composed student population |
Peoria Unified | Large metropolitan K–12 district useful for staffing and administrative efficiency comparisons | Different community and enrollment characteristics |
Paradise Valley Unified | Established metropolitan district useful for examining enrollment declines, facilities, and financial management | Different socioeconomic composition |
Marana Unified | Nearby K–12 district useful for facilities, staffing, and operational comparisons | Different development patterns and enrollment pressures |
These districts form a proposed comparison group, not a statistically validated set of demographic equivalents.
Before finalizing the group, the Governing Board should evaluate differences in student poverty, English-language learners, special education, enrollment trends, grade configuration, transportation, and revenue sources.
Why these six?
Mesa Unified: Large-district management
Mesa is particularly useful because it operates a large, established public school system.
TUSD should be compared with Mesa on central administration, financial management, staffing, school facilities, and the ability to adjust costs as enrollment changes.
Sunnyside Unified: Urban educational challenges
Sunnyside provides a useful regional comparison for examining academic outcomes and operational performance in a district serving students with significant educational and socioeconomic needs.
The comparison should be adjusted for actual student characteristics rather than assuming the two populations are identical.
Amphitheater Unified: Regional operating conditions
Amphitheater shares many of the same Tucson-area employment, economic, and geographic conditions.
This makes it useful for comparing teacher staffing, administrative costs, instructional spending, and facility operations.
Peoria Unified: Administrative efficiency
Peoria provides a useful comparison for evaluating how a large district organizes and funds central administration, instructional services, and support functions.
Paradise Valley Unified: Managing an established school system
Paradise Valley is valuable for examining how an established metropolitan district responds to enrollment changes and the financial consequences of maintaining school facilities.
Marana Unified: Local operational efficiency
Marana provides a nearby comparison for facility utilization, staffing costs, operational efficiency, and financial management.
Its enrollment trends and geographic characteristics differ from TUSD, which should be reflected in the analysis.
3. Additional Districts That Should Be Used for Specific Questions
The six primary districts should not be the only comparison points.
Several other Arizona districts can provide useful information.
Chandler Unified can serve as an aspirational academic and management benchmark.
However, its student demographics and financial circumstances should be considered before interpreting differences.
Vail Unified can provide information about educational outcomes, facilities, staffing, and management of enrollment growth.
Catalina Foothills Unified is useful for evaluating educational achievement and instructional spending, but its student population is not directly comparable to TUSD's.
Phoenix Union High School District may be useful for examining urban secondary education. Because it serves high school grades, it should not be included in an unadjusted K–12 cost comparison.
Cartwright Elementary School District may provide useful comparisons involving economically disadvantaged students and English-language learners. Its elementary-only structure limits direct districtwide comparisons.
The objective should be to select the most appropriate comparison district for each performance measure rather than forcing every district into one overall ranking.
4. Nine Measures for Evaluating TUSD Management
I recommend that TUSD adopt the following nine measures.
# | Performance indicator | Proposed weight |
1 | Operating financial sustainability | 20% |
2 | Financial reserves and liquidity | 15% |
3 | Student enrollment and retention | 10% |
4 | Student academic achievement | 20% |
5 | School facility utilization | 10% |
6 | Administrative and overhead efficiency | 10% |
7 | Internal control and audit remediation | 5% |
8 | Financial reporting accuracy and transparency | 5% |
9 | Workforce stability and effectiveness | 5% |
Total | 100% |
The weights are proposed evaluation criteria, not existing TUSD Board policy.
Together, these measures provide a balanced evaluation of financial stewardship, educational outcomes, operating efficiency, and management accountability.
Measure 1: Operating Financial Sustainability — 20%
Question: Is management aligning recurring operating expenditures with recurring revenues?
The primary calculation is:
Operating Margin = (Operating Revenues − Operating Expenditures) ÷ Operating Revenues × 100
For statewide comparisons, the Board should use the Arizona Auditor General's consistently calculated General Fund operating margin.
TUSD's published operating margin deteriorated from -2.93% in FY2024 to -9.27% in FY2025.
This is a significant negative trend.
Compare TUSD with Mesa, Peoria, Paradise Valley, and Amphitheater.
The Board should examine both the current margin and the three-year trend.
It should also require a separate reconciliation of recurring operating revenues and expenditures across regular M&O and override-supported operations.
Moving costs from regular M&O to the new override is not necessarily a reduction in total recurring expenditures.
Proposed target: Eliminate the structural operating deficit and sustain recurring operations without relying on reserves or one-time funding.
Data source: Arizona Auditor General Financial Risk Dashboard, district budgets, Annual Financial Reports, and general ledger records.
Measure 2: Financial Reserves and Liquidity — 15%
Question: Does management maintain adequate financial resources to support operations?
The Auditor General's operating reserve ratio is calculated as:
Operating Reserve Ratio = General Fund Ending Fund Balance ÷ General Fund Expenditures × 100
TUSD's reported ratio declined from 21.51% in FY2024 to 9.76% in FY2025.
The Board should compare this result with Mesa, Peoria, Paradise Valley, and Marana.
It should also require monthly information on available operating cash and reserves.
Budget-limit reserves, accounting fund balances, and available cash must be reported separately.
Proposed target: Establish and maintain Board-approved minimum reserve and liquidity levels.
Data source: Arizona Auditor General, Annual Financial Reports, Treasurer records, and district financial statements.
Measure 3: Student Enrollment and Retention — 10%
Question: Is management retaining students and responding appropriately to enrollment changes?
Three measures should be tracked:
Enrollment Change = (Current Enrollment − Prior Enrollment) ÷ Prior Enrollment × 100
Student Retention Rate = Eligible Returning Students Who Reenroll ÷ Eligible Returning Students × 100
Enrollment Forecast Error = (Actual Enrollment − Forecast Enrollment) ÷ Forecast Enrollment × 100
TUSD's weighted student count declined approximately 8.99% between FY2022 and FY2026.
Compare TUSD's enrollment trends with Mesa, Sunnyside, Amphitheater, and Paradise Valley.
The Board should distinguish between demographic decline and enrollment losses potentially affected by district decisions.
For example, a district may experience fewer school-age children because of demographic changes. Management cannot control that trend.
However, management can influence program quality, family satisfaction, student retention, forecasting accuracy, and the alignment of operating costs with enrollment.
Proposed target: Improve student retention, reduce avoidable enrollment losses, and maintain accurate enrollment forecasts.
Data source: TUSD Data Reports, Arizona Department of Education, and Arizona Auditor General.
Measure 4: Student Academic Achievement — 20%
Question: Are students learning more and achieving better academic outcomes?
The Board should measure:
English Language Arts proficiency.
Mathematics proficiency.
Student academic growth.
Graduation rates.
Chronic absenteeism.
Achievement gaps.
Proficiency Rate = Students Meeting Proficiency Standard ÷ Students With Valid Test Results × 100
Academic comparisons should begin with Sunnyside, Amphitheater, and Mesa.
Chandler and Catalina Foothills can provide aspirational benchmarks, with appropriate demographic adjustments.
Districtwide proficiency rates alone are not sufficient.
The Board should examine improvement within comparable student groups, including students with disabilities, English-language learners, and economically disadvantaged students.
It should also examine student growth rather than relying exclusively on proficiency levels.
Proposed target: Establish annual proficiency and growth improvement targets, with specific attention to closing achievement gaps.
Data source: Arizona School Report Cards and Arizona Department of Education assessment data.
Measure 5: School Facility Utilization — 10%
Question: Is TUSD operating more building capacity than necessary to serve its students?
The calculation is:
Facility Utilization = Student Enrollment ÷ Functional School Capacity × 100
Compare TUSD with Mesa, Amphitheater, Paradise Valley, and Marana.
The Board should evaluate:
Number of schools.
Enrollment per school.
Functional building capacity.
Building-level operating costs.
Utilization trends.
Maintenance and capital requirements.
TUSD reported 87 schools in both FY2024 and FY2025 while enrollment declined.
This does not establish that a particular number of schools should close.
It does, however, justify examining whether the District's facilities remain appropriately aligned with student enrollment.
Capacity must be adjusted for legitimate educational requirements, including specialized programs and space restrictions.
Proposed target: Improve utilization and reduce avoidable facility costs while preserving educational quality and reasonable access.
Data source: District facilities studies, school-level enrollment records, capacity reports, and building operating costs.
Measure 6: Administrative and Overhead Efficiency — 10%
Question: How efficiently does management use resources outside direct instruction?
The primary measure is:
Administrative Cost Per Student = Defined Administrative Expenditures ÷ Student Enrollment
The Board should also track the percentage of operational spending directed to instruction.
According to the Arizona Auditor General's FY2025 spending analysis, selected Tucson-area districts reported:
District | FY2025 instructional spending |
TUSD | 48.5% |
Sunnyside Unified | 48.8% |
Amphitheater Unified | 49.9% |
Marana Unified | 54.0% |
Catalina Foothills Unified | 55.6% |
Arizona statewide | 52.1% |
TUSD's instructional spending percentage was below the statewide average and several nearby districts.
This is a legitimate reason to investigate differences in expenditure allocation.
However, instructional spending percentage is not the same as administrative overhead.
Transportation, facilities, student support, and other costs also affect the distribution.
A valid comparison must examine individual expenditure functions and use consistent definitions.
Proposed target: Reduce inflation-adjusted administrative costs per student and demonstrate that efficiency improvements support educational objectives.
Data source: Arizona Auditor General School District Spending Analysis and district expenditure reports.
Measure 7: Internal Control and Audit Remediation — 5%
Question: Does management correct the problems identified by auditors?
The calculation is:
On-Time Remediation Rate = Findings Independently Verified as Corrected by Deadline ÷ Findings Due for Correction × 100
The Board should separately report high-risk findings, repeat findings, and overdue corrective actions.
Compare TUSD with the six peer districts where sufficient public audit information is available.
This measure may require additional records because district audit remediation reporting is not standardized across all Arizona school districts.
A district should not receive credit merely because management submitted a corrective action plan.
The corrective action must actually resolve the underlying deficiency.
Proposed target: Correct 100% of high-risk findings by approved deadlines, with independently verified closure.
Data source: Internal Audit reports, external audit findings, management letters, and Audit Committee records.
Measure 8: Financial Reporting Accuracy and Transparency — 5%
Question: Does management provide accurate, complete, and timely financial information to oversight bodies?
The Board should measure:
Timely financial filings.
Significant post-filing corrections.
Accuracy of financial forecasts.
Timely disclosure of financial risks.
Communication of significant control deficiencies.
Completion of required reconciliations.
On-Time Filing Rate = Reports Submitted by Applicable Deadlines ÷ Required Reports × 100
All six comparison districts can be evaluated on regulatory filing timeliness and publicly reported audit findings.
Other measures, including the timeliness of internal management reporting, may require additional information.
Proposed target: 100% timely required filings, no material avoidable reporting errors, and timely communication of significant matters to the Board and Audit Committee.
Data source: Annual Financial Reports, regulatory filings, external audit reports, and public governance records.
Measure 9: Workforce Stability and Effectiveness — 5%
Question: Is management maintaining the workforce necessary to operate effective schools?
The Board should evaluate:
Employee Retention Rate = Beginning-of-Period Employees Remaining Employed ÷ Beginning-of-Period Employees × 100
Vacancy Rate = Unfilled Authorized Positions ÷ Total Authorized Positions × 100
It should also track time to fill critical positions, teacher experience, and use of temporary staffing.
Sunnyside, Amphitheater, Marana, and Mesa provide useful comparisons.
The Auditor General's spending data include teacher compensation and staffing measures, although detailed employee retention and hiring data may require records from individual districts.
Proposed target: Improve retention and reduce critical vacancies without compromising qualifications or educational services.
Data source: District human resources records, Arizona School Report Cards, and Auditor General staffing information.
5. How the Nine Measures Should Be Compared
The Governing Board should not simply rank TUSD from first to seventh and declare the result a management grade.
That approach would ignore meaningful differences among districts.
Instead, the Board should establish three comparisons for every measure.
First: TUSD's own historical performance.
Has TUSD improved or deteriorated over the past three years?
Second: The median performance of comparable districts.
Is TUSD performing above or below the typical result among reasonably similar districts?
Third: The best-performing relevant peer.
What can TUSD learn from a district achieving better results under comparable conditions?
A practical scorecard would look like this:
Performance measure | TUSD actual | Peer median | TUSD three-year trend | Management target |
Operating margin | Published result | Calculate | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Reserve ratio | Published result | Calculate | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Enrollment change | Published result | Calculate | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Academic proficiency | Published result | Calculate | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Facility utilization | Requires capacity data | Calculate where available | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Administrative cost/student | Calculate | Calculate | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Audit remediation | Requires audit tracking | Calculate where available | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Reporting accuracy | Calculate | Calculate where available | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
Workforce retention | Requires HR data | Calculate where available | Improving or declining | Board-approved |
The blank comparisons must be populated with verified data. It would be misleading to assign peer rankings without completing those calculations.
6. A Fair Comparison Must Account for Student Needs and Funding
One of the most important requirements is to avoid comparing districts without considering the students they serve.
The Board should establish a peer-selection matrix that includes:
Enrollment and grade configuration.
Percentage of economically disadvantaged students.
English-language learner population.
Special education population.
Student mobility.
Transportation requirements.
Enrollment trends.
Revenue per student and funding sources.
Number and age of facilities.
These factors influence costs and educational outcomes.
A district with higher special education transportation costs may have higher operating expenditures for legitimate reasons.
A district experiencing rapid enrollment growth may face different facilities challenges from one experiencing sustained decline.
Similarly, TUSD's desegregation-related funding and the new M&O override should be separately identified when comparing financial resources.
A fair comparison does not excuse poor performance. It helps distinguish unavoidable costs from management decisions that can be improved.
7. The Information Already Exists
The Arizona Auditor General provides two particularly useful sources.
Its annual School District Spending Analysis includes district-level spending, instructional spending, staffing, and other operating measures.
Its Financial Risk Dashboard provides standardized financial indicators, including operating margins, reserve ratios, and enrollment-related financial risks.
The Arizona Department of Education publishes academic performance and enrollment information.
TUSD also maintains school-level information and produces Annual Financial Reports, budgets, and operating records.
These sources should allow the Governing Board to begin a comparative analysis without hiring a consultant to invent a new performance measurement system.
Some information, particularly facility capacity, employee retention, and internal audit remediation, will require management records.
The Board should direct management to provide those records in a standardized format.
8. The Audit Committee's Role
The TUSD Audit Committee should have a clear interest in the reliability of management's performance information.
The Committee should not assume responsibility for managing the District or setting educational policy.
Those responsibilities belong to executive management and the Governing Board.
However, Internal Audit can evaluate whether the data used in performance reporting are complete, accurate, consistently calculated, and supported by reliable source records.
For example, Internal Audit could independently recalculate:
Financial operating margins.
Reserve ratios.
Enrollment changes.
Administrative expenditures per student.
Facility utilization rates.
Audit finding remediation percentages.
The Audit Committee can then report significant weaknesses in the performance reporting process to the Governing Board.
This approach is consistent with the COSO Internal Control–Integrated Framework's principles concerning management accountability, information quality, and monitoring.
9. What the Governing Board Should Require
I recommend that the TUSD Governing Board direct the Superintendent to produce an annual comparative management effectiveness report.
That report should include:
TUSD's results for the nine performance measures.
Comparable results from the six primary Arizona districts.
A three-year historical trend for each measure.
Adjustments and explanations for material demographic or funding differences.
Board-approved performance targets.
Identification of the executive responsible for each measure.
Corrective action plans for significant unfavorable results.
Independent validation of selected information.
The report should be made publicly available, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.
The Board should use the results as an important component of the Superintendent's annual performance evaluation.
10. The Central Question: What Results Has Management Produced?
TUSD's financial difficulties cannot be evaluated adequately without comparing its performance with other districts.
Mesa, Sunnyside, Amphitheater, Peoria, Paradise Valley, and Marana provide a reasonable starting group.
Chandler, Vail, Catalina Foothills, Phoenix Union, and other districts can provide additional information for specific educational or operating questions.
The nine recommended indicators offer a practical framework for evaluating management's results.
They address the central responsibilities of executive leadership: maintaining financial sustainability, improving student achievement, retaining students and employees, using facilities and resources efficiently, correcting control deficiencies, and providing reliable information to the Governing Board.
The Arizona Auditor General has already identified serious financial risks at TUSD.
The question now is whether management is achieving measurable improvements and how those improvements compare with the results of other Arizona school districts.
The Governing Board should not evaluate TUSD management based on how convincingly executives explain the District's problems.
It should evaluate management based on whether the District's financial condition, educational outcomes, and operating effectiveness are actually improving—and whether comparable districts are achieving better results.
That is the foundation of meaningful public accountability.
The Accountware Group — Independent Analysis of Public School Governance, Financial Management, Internal Controls, and Executive Accountability.
Comments