Category Archives: General Arizona

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 15, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, General Arizona, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

2 Comments

$82,996 is low income…REALLY?

Kudos to Arizona Representative Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction, who has introduced HB 2063 to cap the limit for corporate donations to School Tuition Organizations. His bill looks to cap the “year-over-year limit at 2 percent or inflation for the Phoenix metropolitan area” for corporate donations. 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, these STOs allocate at least 90% of their annual revenue to tuition awards for students to use to attend qualified schools. Proponents claim STOs allow underprivileged students the opportunity to attend private schools they would otherwise not have access to. Critics however, note that these corporate credits don’t truly serve the “low-income” population.

According to Arizona law, the current definition of “low-income” for this credit is a “family of four with an annual income of $82,996.” Given that the median household income for an Arizona family of four in 2014 was $50,068, that annual income really can’t be legitimately defined as “low income.” Jonathan Butcher, of the Goldwater Institute, said: “The eligibility is set up to help students no matter where they are in their life and where their family is,” he said. “The scholarships seem to be pretty modest, often around $2,000. Families can use the scholarships to get close to where tuition may be.”

Problem is, tuition at many private schools is much more than the scholarship amounts and parents are left to cover the rest. Senator Steve Farley, D-Tucson said “it’s almost impossible for someone who is poor to benefit because even if they get a scholarship, they still have to come up with the rest of the tuition.” For the 2013/2014 school year, limits were $4,900 for grades K-8 and $6,200 for grades 9-12. The average corporate tax credit scholarship for students at All Saints’ Episcopal Day School in Phoenix was $9,405. With the average private school tuition in Arizona for 2015 at $10,236, it is hard for low-income families to bridge the gap. And, there is no rule to preclude parents from getting multiple scholarships for their child from multiple tuition organizations. The state doesn’t track how common that is. Senator Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, (who profitably runs the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization), “admits many of the scholarship recipients likely would go to private school without the financial help.” Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prove these allegations since the STOs aren’t required to divulge information required to get to the truth.

Representative Coleman’s bill is meant to help ensure the program’s sustainability. Although Arizona lawmakers placed a statewide $10 million annual cap on the corporate credits, the law allows a 20% per year increase.   Next year, the cap for all private school tuition corporate tax credits will increase automatically to $62 million and by 2030; it will be ten times that amount. That number is especially significant when one considers that for the last budget year, Arizona’s corporate income tax collections were $663 million, and more than 7 percent of state tax revenues. One has to wonder where all this money is going and what the diversion away from the general fund does to the state’s ability to operate.

Senator Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, is against the cap claiming it gives “needy” children opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise have. She also claims that more money in scholarships means less students in public schools and that ultimately, saves taxpayers money. This claim only holds water if a student started out in public school before switching to a private school. A 2009 Arizona Republic article reported that out of the 50,000 private school students, only 7,350 students had been added since the tax-credit program started [in 1998]. Not exactly an indication of resounding success. The more likely driver for Senator Lesko’s support of this program is the fact that she is the Arizona state chair for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.) This Koch brothers-backed, tax-exempt organization works with its corporate members to create model legislation favorable to their corporate interests. Then ALEC provides these model bills to state legislators to implement back in their home states. ALEC’s Education Task Force has pushed school choice, vouchers, charters, parent trigger laws and yes, education tax credits. Along with providing the template for the legislation titled “The Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act” ALEC provides recommendations to state legislators designed to help them “sell” the program to the public. They acknowledge the model legislation includes “students presently enrolled in a private school” and therefore “reward[s] many families already financing their child’s education.” They tell legislators to consider limiting “eligibility to students who attended a public school in the last year or are starting school in their state for the first time.” This, they point out, will likely produce “a savings for state taxpayers since a scholarship covering private school costs in many cases will be less than the cost of state support provided to students attending a public school.”

They also recommend to lawmakers that if they “decide to include a statewide tax credit cap in the legislation…language should be added to automatically allow the cap to increase by 25% in any year after 90 percent of the cap was reached in the previous year.” As for the contribution amount allowed, ALEC states that although a 50% cap is deemed more equitable, making a higher “percentage of a donor’s tax liability eligible” for a credit can make it easier to raise donations. Higher amounts though they acknowledge, “open the program up to charges that money is being diverted from non-education programs to support private schools.”

The dollar amounts are significant. For the 2008 tax year, nearly three-fourths of corporations (over 35,500) that filed income taxes in Arizona had the minimum tax liability of $50. In 2009, there were 54 corporations reducing their state income tax via the private school tuition tax credits, lowering their income tax by over $5.5 million with a carry forward of $1.2 million to reduce future taxes. Then In 2010, 63 corporations donated $11 million to private school tuition organizations, with 8 donating at least $500,000.

This, all the while corporate taxes have been shrinking in Arizona. At 9.3% in 1990, corporate income tax is currently at 6.968% and will phase down to 4.9% by 2017. When fully phased in, these cuts will cost the state about $270 million each year, that’s enough to restore full-day kindergarten across the state and much, much more. This doesn’t even include the commercial property tax rate, which has also been cut from 25% in 2005 down to 18% this year.

 In addition to the issue of sustainability, is the issue of which private schools are getting the corporate tax credit money. At least one-fourth of the 64 schools on the states approved list of School Tuition Organizations certified to receive donations for the corporate income tax credits are religious institutions. Yes, the Arizona Supreme Court has deemed this constitutional via what many believe are convoluted reasoning, but it still should give pause to the majority of taxpayers – those that support the separation of church and state. Additionally, I was unable to determine of the $11 million donated by corporations in 2011 and in subsequent years, how much was actually paid out? There are numerous questions about these school tuition organizations and the corporate tax credits that fund them. Unfortunately, laws designed to preclude transparency and accountability prevent these questions being answered. It is obvious to me that Representative Coleman’s bill makes total sense, which unfortunately means it will probably be a tough sell in the Arizona Legislature. Let’s hope against hope that reason prevails.

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 12, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Education, General Arizona, Opportunity, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

2 Comments

Ducey on Education…What’s he really saying?

Governor Ducey’ State of the State address today at the AZ Legislature’s opening day was a fairly typical “state of” address. He talked about what he’s accomplished thus far and provided sound bites about what else he’ll do. He promised he’ll lower taxes each year and still invest in education. He claimed it doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. He did not of course, dilineate any specific plan to do this, but that isn’t really what a “state of the state” address is for. He provided examples of good things happening in public education, and stated that Prop 123 will give us opportunity to make substantial progress.” Have to inject here that although I am supporting Prop 123, it won’t really help us “make substantial progress.” Even if with the passage of Prop 123, Arizona won’t move up from 49th in per pupil funding. After all, it is only going to provide about $300 per student, still less than has been cut since the recession began. Not nothing, but not a game changer either.

Governor Ducey then made the prediction that: “In the years ahead, Arizona will be among the states investing the most new dollars in public education – all without raising taxes.” Just to be clear here, the Prop 123 monies aren’t “new monies”, they are monies that were already owed to our schools. Not sure the Governor sees it that way, but that is the truth. More funding, much more funding is needed and every bit will be welcome, but I just don’t see how we can make a dent in the need without raising taxes. I am positive we can’t do it by cutting taxes and giving our surplus away as corporate handouts. We just need to look at what Governor Brownback did to Kansas with his tax cuts.   When he took the reins in Kansas, he dropped the top income-tax rate by 25%, lowered sales taxes and created a huge exemption for business owners filing taxes as individuals. He claimed it would spur investment, create jobs and bolster the state’s coffers through faster growth, sound familiar? Now, five years after doubling down, his state lags in job creation, tax revenue is far short of expectations and bond and credit ratings have been downgraded. Rating agencies claimed the tax breaks were unsustainable and that the promised economic growth would be elusive. It is with great hubris this lesson would be ignored.

Ducey then touted the conservative mantra that more money doesn’t equal better education with “We know spending is not the measure of success. And it shouldn’t just be about the billions of dollars we are putting into public education; it must be about what our kids are getting out of their education.” He’s right, it shouldn’t be just about the spending. But again, just look at the schools wealthy people send their kids to. Those schools aren’t bargain basement…they cost big money because they have small class sizes, highly qualified teachers (some with PhDs from Harvard, Yale and Stanford), extensive curricula, fabulous facilities and the very latest in technology. Money is not the only solution, but it does matter.

Facts also matter, so I have to call a “not so fast” on the Governor’s reference to “until the thousands of kids on public school wait lists have access to our finest teachers and principals, our job isn’t done.” Firstly, although Ducey refers to “public school wait lists”, he means “charter school wait lists.” Yes, charter schools are technically public schools, but district schools don’t really have wait lists, they must take all who reside in their boundaries and also accept the vast majority of those students who apply via open enrollment. So how about those much touted charter school wait lists? Although the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) claims that waiting lists for charters across the Nation would top one million for the first time in 2014, a May 2014 report by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) gave nine reasons we should be skeptical of these numbers. Among the reasons were: students apply to multiple charter schools; waitlists can’t be confirmed and record-keeping is unreliable; charters accept applicants for students they have no intention of ever admitting; and many charter schools choose not to “back-fill” students who vacated during the school year (because accepting new students mid-year can create turmoil in the classroom), which would reduce their waiting list. Without the ability to verify the wait list data to determine its reliability, the NEPC study concluded that “policymakers would be wise to set aside NAPCS’ claims and wait for verifiable data.” After all, where charter schools are managed by for-profit corporations, the facilities built with taxpayer funding assistance eventually become property of the corporations. Paint me cynical, but when a governor cites waiting lists as the reason to expand these schools and says he is going to provide more dollars for this expansion, it is easy to see it is in the corporation’s interest to inflate those lists. He also though, talked about the “need to provide resources for aging schools to repair and rebuild their facilities for future students.” I’m hoping he is including district schools here since their facility maintenance and repair has been funded at only two percent of the need over a recent four year period.

Of course, Governor Ducey continues to want to reward those schools that are already succeeding. In his speech he spoke of “the need to reward schools that are helping kids reach their full potential…and that under our plan, schools that produce students who successfully complete AP-level, college-prep courses will be rewarded with more dollars.” Likewise, he said: “Schools in low-income areas – where educators and students face added challenges – will receive an even greater boost for helping kids beat the odds.” I totally understand his wanting to reward “good behavior”, but am concerned about a lack of concern about helping those schools and their students who are struggling. In my former Air Force life, higher-heaquarters inspection teams routinely visited bases to evaluate their performance. Where there were significant problems, “staff assistance teams” would be sent in to help fix them. Although the boss (wing commander) might be fired if the dysfunction was severe, the assistance provided after the fact was not punitive, but meant to help things get back on track. The vast majority of our struggling schools have administrators, teachers and staff working hard to make a difference. They need help, not punishment likely to accelerate their race to the bottom.

I was very happy to hear him acknowledge the importance of career technical education (CTE): “I know not every child plans to go to college – their K-12 experience also needs to prepare them for life. Which is why I’m targeting high-need employment sectors with a new focus on career and technical education. There is bipartisan support for this – so let’s get it done.” Of course, this wouldn’t be quite as critical this legislative session if it weren’t for the Legislative mandated cut of $30 million scheduled to go into effect next year. Nonetheless, he’s right, CTE is a win-win-win and the funding must be restored and hopefully, increased.

The Governor also gave note to the fact that “The state isn’t the only player in public education. Every day, philanthropic foundations in Arizona are investing in our schools. They are developing new school leaders, expanding educational opportunities for low-income children and funding the arts and sciences. I intend to partner with the heads of these foundations to provide an even greater opportunity and impact in our schools.” Good for you Governor! Just don’t forget that it isn’t the job of these philanthropic foundations to provide for public education. That, as outlined in the Arizona Constitution, is the primary job of the Legislature and you! Irrespective of how much you promote the growth of for-profit charter schools and the expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (essentially vouchers), the responsibility for the public education of Arizona’s one million plus students is still ultimately rests on your shoulders. I hear you saying many of the right things, I just hope your intent is pure and your commitment is real. Our students are not a talking point, they are young people who deserve every opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential.  Not only for themselves, but for the future of our State and our Nation.

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 8, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Democracy, early childhood education, Education, General Arizona, Opportunity, politics, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

5 Comments

Top Five – Discouraged but Hopeful

So hopefully you already read my Bottom Five – Discouraged but Hopeful, here’s the rest of the story. First, the rest of what gets me really discouraged:

5.  The Legislature seems intent on killing the CTE/JTED, a critical program for our state. Career and Technical Education (CTE) offered by Joint Technical Education Districts (JTED), includes a variety of “votech” programs for which students earn high school credit, and in some cases, may earn college credit, industry certifications, and/or a state license through combination of hands-on training and classroom instruction. Since 2011, the Arizona Legislature has cut CTE funding by more than 53%. Some $30 million will leave the program next year and Districts will also take a 7.5% cut to their per-pupil funding for their students who participate. These cuts are stupid for Arizona! As I’ve previously written, CTE is a win-win-win. It has proven to decrease dropouts by as much as 72% and the Alliance for Excellent Education estimates that “if half of Arizona’s 24,700 high school dropouts in 2010 had instead graduated from high school, the economic impact on Arizona would include $91 million in increased earnings and $7 million in increased state tax revenue.” The Phoenix Business Journal also made a great case for CTE: “By destroying one of Arizona’s most successful education initiatives – one with real economic returns – the state will not be able to provide the skilled workforce that companies demand before they relocate or expand operations here. That means we can expect reduced workforce development, fewer young people escaping poverty and achieving economic independence, and higher social services costs.” There is still time to help. Please click here to sign a petition to restore CTE/JTED funding.

4.  Arizona’s teacher shortage. Actually, Arizona doesn’t have as much a teacher shortage as it has a shortage of certified professionals willing to work for salaries that won’t pay the bills. As of December of last year (according to the AZ Daily Star), 84 districts in Arizona had more than 1,200 teaching position open and 700 of those occurred during this school year. The state also had at least 1,000 vacant teacher positions to fill before the start of the current school year. The Arizona Educator Recruitment & Retention Task Force reported in January 2015 that there is a 7% decrease in teacher prep program enrollment, that Arizona loses 24% of first year and 20% of second year teachers and that 24% of the current education workforce is eligible to retire within the next four years. We have a huge problem that is only going to get worse and I haven’t even mentioned the school administrator shortage that is right around the corner.

3.  Proposition 123. Okay, so earlier I said I had hope because a settlement was reached in the inflation-funding lawsuit. Unfortunately, we are a long way from actually getting the requisite funding to our schools. First, the voters must approve it in a special election on May 17th  and those against the settlement filed almost 50 statements in opposition. There is also the matter that the state Treasurer is against the deal but he hasn’t been able to get much traction on his fight. That fact, combined with the $1.75 million proponents have raised to sell the prop to the public will probably carry the day. I do though, worry about the long-term impact to education funding and, I don’t really don’t like Governor Ducey and his buddies claiming a victory on this one. An example is Ducey’s “hay making” tweet on December 30, 2015:

ducey tweet

 

Sorry Guv, but no, you really just paid 70% of what the people mandated and the courts adjudicated and technically, you are paying the schools with their own money. You’ll be “shifting the trend line upward” when you plus up the K-12 public education budget this year. After all, its not like we don’t have the money. Arizona realized $150.5 million more revenue than expected in October and November of 2015 after ending the fiscal year with $266 million more in the bank than expected. Add that to a $460 million in the state’s rainy day fund and you’re starting to talk real money. And, Arizona voters are pretty clear about what they want done with that money. A recent poll of Arizona voters showed 72% believe investing in public schools should be a priority for this surplus. If the Legislature and Governor were listening to the citizens of Arizona (who are the “boss of them”), they would give some of this funding to public education and truly begin to reverse the trend, instead of following the abysmal fiscal example of Governor Brownback in Kansas by reducing taxes and giving more corporate handouts.

2.  Voting records of our legislature when it comes to support for public education. I already talked about this in a previous post but it bears repeating. The bottom line is that on average, Arizona’s Democratic legislators scored 48 percentage points higher for voting in accord with ASBA’s position, than the Republicans. There are of course, anomalies, but it is clear that in general, the GOP-led legislature is anti-public education. Want support for public education? Vote more pro-public education candidates into office. Some suggestions of those running for the first time are: Jesus Rubalcava running in LD4, Courtney Frogge in LD10, Corin Hammond in LD11, and Larry Herrera in LD20. I’m sure there are many more but I know all these individuals personally and they are young up and comers…just what we need to lead Arizona forward.

1.  ALEC’s influence on Arizona legislation, especially where it affects public education. The American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) agenda to privatize public education includes the promotion of charter schools (corporate charters and virtual schools specifically), private school vouchers, anti-union measures, “parent trigger” laws, increasing testing, reducing or eliminating the power of local school boards and limiting the power of public school districts. Anyone tuned into Arizona education or politics knows that ALEC has also had significant influence in our state. The Goldwater Institute acts, as ALEC’s “Mini-Me” in Arizona and AZ Senator Debbie Lesko, as the AZ ALEC chair, has been the organization’s chief water carrier. Half of our state Senators and one-third of our representatives are known members of ALEC and there may be more.  Corporations fund their trips to ALEC Conference where model legislation is handed out for Legislators to take back to their states for implementation. The organization awarded Arizona a “B-” grade in education policy for 2015. The state’s charter school laws and school choice programs were awarded “A” grades, teacher quality and policies were graded “C-.” This most certainly means we’ll see more ALEC-drafted bills coming down the pike.

Now, for what most gives me hope:

5.  Superintendent Douglas finally seems to be focusing on the education of our kids. It’s been a tough year for the Superintendent, much of it apparently of her own making. But, she went on not one, but two listening tours around the state and evidently, really listened. Her “AZ Kids Can’t Afford to Wait” plan is focused on how to make things better for Arizona’s students, much of it revolving around improving teacher support to include increased salaries. This report shows that at least she understands what needs to be done. She survived the attempt to recall her; time will tell whether she can lead real change.   Current leadership aside though, I share Representative Randy Friese’s question as to why the Superintendent of Public Instruction is an elected position. After all, Arizona is one of only 13 states where this is the case and, the position is basically just an administrator who is only one member on the state Board of Education which is responsible for exercising general supervision over and regulating the conduct of the public schools system. AZCentral.com reported this week that Representative Friese intends to introduce a bill to make the change.

4.  Christine Marsh, Arizona’s Teacher of the Year, is really, really impressive. She is poised, articulate, and passionate and when she talks about public education, she takes no prisoners. In a recent article published AZCentral.com, she said that giving each individual student an equal chance to succeed is the point of public school education.   She pointed out that over 26% of Arizona’s children live in poverty, 4% more than the national average. “People need to understand the impact of poverty on students…and when we discuss school funding, we need to understand the impact our decisions have on each student,” she said. “[We need to] make sure that our policies and funding formulas don’t contribute to the problems they are supposed to be helping.” It is clear this outstanding teacher won’t be shy about speaking “truth to power.” Of course, I’m sure Christine would be the first to say that there are many, many more teachers just like her out there. I’m hopeful because of all of the great teachers serving Arizona’s students and am so very grateful for their service.

3.  District schools are still the school of choice for 85% of Arizona’s students. Despite having open enrollment and charter schools since 1994 and Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (basically vouchers) since 2011, almost one million students still attend district schools. The primary reason is that district schools are community schools with locally elected leadership that is responsive to the needs of the community. Charter schools and voucher provided alternatives will never serve the majority of students, that’s just not realistic. As members of the more than 240 school boards govern to improve achievement for the almost one million students in their care, they work to ensure the bedrock of our democracy/republic, “an educated citizenry” according to Thomas Jefferson, is realized.

2.  Arizona’s education advocates are really getting their act together, literally! The Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials (AASBO) worked together to craft a palatable compromise to settle the inflation-funding lawsuit. I know many are not happy about the settlement, but these three organizations worked tirelessly for five years to get Arizona districts the funding they were due. Yes, it is only two-thirds of what was owed, but two-thirds is better than nothing and nothing was a distinct possibility. This is especially true with Governor Ducey’s appointment of Clint Bollick to the Arizona Supreme Court. Had this issue come before him, it most certainly would have died a quick death. Another public education advocate, Support Our Schools AZ (SOSAZ), saw its “Arizona Parent Network” grow wings and take flight. In October, the organization hosted the first-ever Education Excellence Expo at Salt River Fields with 26 districts from all over the state showing off the excellence in Arizona’s public schools.

1.  Maybe, just maybe, Arizona voters are waking up. 2015 saw some encouraging upticks in support for public education. In early March, two mothers sparked a day of peaceful protest at the state Capitol. Close to 1,000 parents, students, teachers, and community members showed up to protest Governor Ducey’s proposed education budget cuts. I was there, and it was exciting to be a part of a genuine grass-roots movement that helped bring education to the forefront. That renewed focus no doubt aided in the successful passage of so many bonds and overrides such as in Maricopa County, where 23 of 26 districts had successful ballot measures. Results elsewhere were not as good such as in Pinal County, where only half of the measures passed, but overall, the numbers were up and that bodes well for public education in general.

What this exercise made me realize is that I really am more optimistic than pessimistic about public education’s future. I had to work harder to come up with the “what’s discouraging” than “what gives me hope.” Maybe that’s who I am, or maybe, I just believe that ultimately, “good” wins. “Good” in public education is that which serves the majority of our children; that which recognizes each of them deserves equal opportunity to be the best they can be; and that which best serves our communities, our state and our nation.   I believe that “good” in public education is that which is transparent, accountable, and dedicated to helping each child achieve their full potential. Anything else is so very much less than good – it is just plain evil.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 6, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Democracy, Democratic, early childhood education, Education, General Arizona, politics, Poverty, Privatization, Public Education, taxes

Comments

2 Comments

Bottom Five List – Discouraged but Hopeful

A recent article in The Atlantic magazine featured experts on K-12 education who offered their reasons for hope and despair with regard to education. It was an interesting read and prompted me to come up with my own list for Arizona. In this first of two posts, I share my “Bottom Five” list of what discourages me and what I’m hopeful about. First, what discourages me:

10. The extremely well funded efforts of the corporate “reformers.” Make no mistake about it, the effort by the corporate “reformers” to make sweeping changes to the Nation’s public education system is as much about making a profit as it is an interest in making a difference. The exact number is up for debate, but The Nation magazine says the American K-12 public education market is worth almost $800 billion. Now, everyone from basketball players to Turkish billionaires want a piece of the pie. It is no accident that the Koch brothers backed, corporate bill mill ALEC is pushing many of the reforms, and the technology magnates Bill Gates and Mark Zuckenberg are heavily involved in the “reforming.” All you have to do is follow the money and the intent becomes clear.

9.  The apathy of Arizona voters. I worked on three Arizona Legislative campaigns in the past few years and although I mostly enjoyed talking to voters, I was beyond dismayed when I learned that in 2014, not even half of the LD11 voters with mail-in ballots bothered to mail them in. These are people who are registered to vote and are on the Permanent Early Voters List (PEVL). They are mailed their ballots and can fill them out in the comfort of their home. They don’t even have to put a stamp on them, postage is pre-paid. These votes should have been the “low-hanging fruit.” Combined with the overall Arizona voter turnout of 27%, this is pathetic by anyone’s definition.

8.  The fact that Arizona leads in all the wrong metrics. Does Arizona care about children? Let me count the ways maybe not so much. According to the Annie E. Casey’s “Kids Count Databook”, Arizona ranks: 46th in overall child well-being, 42nd in economic well-being, 44th in education achievement, and 42nd in children’s health. The Databook also reports that 26% of Arizona’s children live in poverty, 4% more than the nationwide average. The personal finance website WalletHub reports much the same, ranking Arizona 49th for child welfare which shouldn’t surprise anyone given the dysfunction in our Department of Child Safety. I don’t know about you, but these statistics disgust me and should absolutely drive what our Legislature spends our taxpayer dollars on. It is about defining what kind of people we are, it is about helping those who can’t help themselves and it is about the future of our state.

7.  Some seem to think the path to success is to lower the bar. Even though there are people whose opinions I value that think Senator Sylvia Allen will do a good job as the Chair of the Senate Education Committee, I remain hopeful but have my doubts. Call me crazy, but I think the legislator with the most sway over what education bills see the light of day should actually have more than a high school education. Along those same lines, Arizona Representative Mark Finchem (LD11-Republican) evidently doesn’t think teaching experience is valuable for our county schools superintendents. He has already submitted House Bill 2003 for this legislative session, which seeks to delete the requirement for county schools superintendents to have a teaching certificate. Instead, it will require only a bachelor’s degree in any subject, or an associate’s degree in business, finance or accounting. I know some would ask why should county schools superintendents have certificates when the state superintendent of public instruction doesn’t require one. Well, I’d rather see us make it a condition of both jobs.

6.  The polarization of our county makes it seem impossible to come together to find real, workable solutions. I was recently speaking to a friend of mine who I’ve known for over 25 years. We started talking about education and he started railing about how all public schools do is waste money. He talked about the fancy new high school in his town that was built (in his opinion) much more ostentatious than necessary. “Why do the kids need that to learn” he asked? “Why not just give them a concrete box?” Really?? Where do I begin? Truth is, I didn’t even try because I knew he wouldn’t listen. He knew what he knew and no amount of fact was going to sway him.

But all is not lost and I am more optimistic than pessimistic about Arizona’s public education. Here’s what makes me hopeful:

10.  Across the Nation, more and more charter school scandals come to light every day highlighting the need for more transparency and accountability. I’m not glad there are charter school scandals, but I am glad the public are learning more about the dangers of a profit-making focus with inadequate oversight. That’s one of the reasons district schools have rules and controls; they are after all, dealing with taxpayer dollars. And oh by the way, it’s no longer just charter schools we need to watch. The continuous expansion of vouchers exponentially broadens the potential for abuse and requires the same kind of public oversight. There just is no magic pill to student achievement. It takes resources, dedicated professionals, and hard work. Short cuts in other words, don’t cut it.

9.  The fact that we still have dedicated professionals willing to teach in our district schools. Despite low pay, higher class sizes than the national average, insufficient supplies, inadequate facilities, and ever-changing mandates, Arizona still has close to 50,000 district teachers willing to be in our classrooms because they love the kids and they love their work. They are underappreciated and sometimes even vilified, but they know their work is important. Now, if only our Legislature acted like they knew this too.

8.  Recognition is growing that early childhood education is really important. Even Governor Ducey said in April 2015: “Research shows that a quality early childhood education experience can yield significant long-term benefits on overall development of a child. It’s the most profitable investment we can make in their future.” A recent review of 84 preschool programs showed an average of a third of a year of additional learning across language, reading and math skills. Preschool has also been shown to have as much as a seven-fold return on dollars spent over the life of the child. The public is starting to “get it” and support for preschool funding is growing.

7.  Speaking of Common Core, it seems to be working okay. Yes, I saw the recently released AzMERIT results, but we knew they would be low. That’s what happens when you raise the bar. Despite no additional funding or resources to implement Common Core (oops, I mean Arizona College and Career Standards), our districts made it happen and the numerous teachers and administrators I’ve talked to say our students are now learning more. Efforts are underway to determine what should be changed about the Arizona standards, but my guess is that they will be minor.

6.  If nothing else, the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) saves us from the really bad legislation that was No Child Left Behind. Everything I’ve read about the new ESSA touts it an improvement over its predecessor. It reduces what some considered Federal overreach and provides states more flexibility in implementing their K-12 education programs. Which, oh by the way, makes me concerned our state legislature will look to relax requirements where it serves them, at the expense of those children who most need our help. At least now though, they won’t be able to blame everything on “the Feds”, to include whatever version of the Common Core standards we end up with.

Please stay tuned, still to come are the top five reasons I’m discouraged and hopeful.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 26, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, General Arizona, Poverty, Privatization, Public Education, taxes

Comments

2 Comments

Doing the Right Thing Isn’t Complicated

When I read the recent Cronkite News Service article “20 Years in, Arizona charter schools on firm ground” I wanted to rename it “20 Years in, Arizona charter schools still serve only 15 percent of the state’s students.” That’s when I realized how pointless this debate is. You know, you tout charter school offerings and performance and I come back with “yeah, but charters cherry pick their students and don’t have to put up with the same level of transparency and accountability.” Enough already!

How about we try something different? First, we recognize that charter schools weren’t originally designed to compete with community district schools, but rather, “to allow teachers the opportunity to draw upon their expertise to create high-performing educational laboratories from which the traditional public schools could learn.” Except for the part of allowing “teachers the opportunity” some charter schools have mostly done that. Take BASIS schools for example. Known for their rigor and academic success, these schools have an in-depth enrollment process that includes a placement test, they push their students hard, and they require significant involvement by parents who are likely already more engaged with their child’s education than the average. These factors no doubt contributed to BASIS Scottsdale ranking #2 high school in the nation for 2015 by U.S. News & World Report. There are takeaways from the BASIS model that would likely improve academic success at some district schools, but their high attrition rate is proof enough that it won’t work for the vast majority of students.   District schools can’t “attrit” students – they must educate all.

Unfortunately, our system doesn’t encourage schools to learn from one another. Open enrollment and school choice force schools to compete for the students that bring the dollars they need to exist. This competition comes at a cost. Today’s schools must spend valuable education dollars branding themselves and marketing to attract students. Larger districts now have marketing and public relations people on staff, but there’s no new money to cover these costs. The reality is that in the existing climate of “no new taxes” there is only so much education money to go around and adding more schools to the mix can only dilute the quality for the majority of our students. Instead of focusing on what model can perform better given the right circumstances, we should be looking at what will work best for all the children in our public schools. We need to revise an antiquated school funding model that simply “counts noses” rather than considering student demographics, performance and other measures.

We also must find a way to give our schools more stability in their funding. Our school administrators are professionals and they can make wise adjustments when they know what’s coming. Problem is, education funding has been volatile and unpredictable and even that which is mandated by voters and adjudicated by the courts cannot be counted on. And although charters complain that they can’t go out for bonds and overrides, the $1,100 (in 2014) more per pupil funding they receive is much more stable than the locally controlled funding districts have the option to seek. An analysis from the AZ Republic showed that from 2002 to 2012 69 percent of school districts had not issued bonds (or were shot down by voters when they did) and 73 percent hadn’t gone out for capital overrides or couldn’t win voter’s approval. Of course, school choice also supports instability as when money flows from a district school to a charter; the costs do not go down proportionately at the district school. Rather, the district school cannot shift their costs fast enough as students and revenue leave and the fixed costs for the principal, utilities, building debt, etc. remain often resulting in larger class sizes and cuts to academic programming.

The Payson RoundUp was way on-point recently: “We’re dismayed that Arizona seems more intent on nurturing for-profit charter schools than in adequately supporting our existing public schools. It makes little sense for the state to spend public money supporting a privately operated school that will result in shutting down a school already paid for by those same taxpayers.” They also asked why if the Legislature believes that giving free rein to charters and paving the way for them to thrive is good for our kids, why didn’t they just do that for our district schools? Great question!

So instead of revisiting the 2008 initiative to combine 76 elementary and high school districts into 27 K-12 districts, maybe we should look at whether encouraging the establishment of 600-plus new charter schools (many of them run by for-profit companies) made Arizona’s public education system more cost-effective in general. Although Arizona Charter Schools Association CEO Eileen Sigmund claims that less than 5 percent of Arizona charters operate through for-profit companies, I was unable to verify her claim. In 2012, Arizona had 108 schools managed by for-profit EMOs, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools reported at least 30 percent of Arizona’s charter schools were run by for-profit EMOs in 2013 and in 2014, Arizona had close to 204 for-profit companies managing the state’s charter schools. In fact, the national trend is for charter schools to be increasingly managed by for-profit EMOs and it is estimated as much as 40 percent of all charter schools are operated by EMOs and account for close to 45 percent of all charter school enrollments. These statistics matter because when decisions are made by for-profit EMOs, they are often made at out-of-state corporate headquarters with profit, not students, in mind such as when they divert higher amounts of funding to administration. BASIS schools for example, directed close to $2,000 per pupil for administrators in 2014 while Peoria Unified School District only spent $732 per pupil for administration. Additionally, EMOs take advantage of the virtually non-existent requirements for accountability and transparency as well as favorable tax codes.

Ultimately, you can’t get the right result going after it for the wrong reason. I have to believe that if all we really cared about all our students receiving the best education possible, we could make it happen. In fact, if we only didn’t care who got the credit, we would be light years ahead. We know what we are doing now is more profit- and politics-based than truly pupil-based.  I know this is true, because we aren’t doing what we already know helps students thrive: high expectations, quality teachers who are respected as professionals, preschool, lower class sizes for at least the younger students, wrap-around services and community support for high poverty students, after school programs, remedial programs, home visitation programs and high quality child care. It won’t be easy, but it really isn’t that complicated. Of course, doing the right thing rarely is.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 20, 2015

Posted under

Budget, Economics, General Arizona, taxes, Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments

Stuck on Stupid

I continue to marvel at narratives that sell despite countering common sense. Take for example, supply-side (some call it trickle-down) economics. The basic theory is that marginal tax rates and less government regulation will help business expand and create more jobs. The Laffer Curve, named after Arthur Laffer, is a central theory of this philosophy and posits that lowering tax rates generates more economic activity eventually leading to more tax revenue. Proponents of this philosophy include the Koch-brothers-financed American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. They claim that the nine states without personal income taxes are outperforming the rest of the states and that their success can be easily replicated in those states that abandon their income tax.   The non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) however, says that Laffer focused on “blunt aggregate measure of economic growth” to support his contention. The truth says ITEP, is that states with personal income tax, even those with the highest rates, are experiencing as good, or better, economic conditions than those without. Still, there are plenty of examples of governors who insist on leading their states down the proverbial rabbit hole.

When Governor Sam Brownback took the reins in Kansas, he dropped the top income-tax rate by 25%, lowered sales taxes and created a huge exemption for business owners filing taxes as individuals. Brownback claimed the tax plan was a “real live experiment” in supply-side economics, one that would spur investment, create jobs and bolster the state’s coffers through faster growth. He followed this course despite warnings from Traditional Republicans for Common Sense, a group of 55 former Kansas GOP legislators who opposed the tax cuts, saying they would “create a $2.7 billion deficit within five years.” Now, five years after doubling down, his state lags in job creation, tax revenue is far short of expectations and bond and credit ratings have been downgraded. Rating agencies claimed the tax breaks were unsustainable and that the promised economic growth would be elusive.

In Oklahoma, Governor Mary Fallin and the GOP-led Legislature enacted a quarter-point reduction in the top income tax rate two years ago and corporate tax breaks when oil crude prices were riding high. Now they are in a slump and it is driving up unemployment and forcing major layoffs.   Representative Scott Inman, (D) said: “We didn’t create the proper tax structure to protect us from this type of boom-and-bust cycle.” Likewise, Oklahoma’s Republican Treasurer Ken Miller, who advocates for revenue-neutral tax cuts, blamed his GOP colleagues for the “self-inflicted” crisis. Miller said: “Common sense dictates that until the state proves it can live within its means, it really should stop reducing them, yet some ‘thinkers’ continue to advocate eliminating the state income tax – even arguing that the state’s largest funding source and be vanished without a replacement and still fund needed teacher pay raises.”

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker enacted several permanent tax cuts just as the national recession ended and state revenues began to climb. His speech this year to ALEC was all about how his “big, bold reforms took the power out of the hands of big government special interests.” What he didn’t say is that his reforms produced only about half of the jobs he promised and resulted in delayed debt payments and deep cuts to education to balance the budget. Despite his real track record, Walker continues to promote the Laffer Curve economics, renaming it “Kohl’s Curve” to sell the idea of deep discounts (tax cuts) and the volume (business expansion and jobs) it drives. In contrast, Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, who took office at the same time, raised taxes on upper income earners, closed corporate tax loopholes and invested in education and infrastructure. Now, according to U.S. News and World Report, Minnesota has outperformed Wisconsin on job creation, has lower unemployment and is a higher ranked place to live.

In North Carolina, with all three branches of government now securely under GOP control, money saved from cutting safety net programs wasn’t reinvested into education, job training or infrastructure, but given to the wealthy and corporations in the form of tax breaks. In September, the NC legislature signed a budget into law that provides $400 million in income tax cuts to be offset by taxes on repair, installation and maintenance services.   Alexandra Sirota, who studies tax policy for the NC Justice Center said the affect of the lower taxes “is a huge revenue loser” and that “the revenue losses aren’t fully accounted for in the next few years.” The NC Policy Watch has identified five reasons why NC’s tax cut plan is bad for the state and they all boil down to the fact that it will lose revenue, support corporations over citizens, and won’t improve the state’s economy.

Arizona’s Governor Ducey is following North Carolina’s lead in following the ALEC playbook with his plan to eliminate state income tax despite schools struggling to recover hundreds of millions in state aid they lost during the recession. During his gubernatorial campaign, he promised not to postpone a $225 million corporate tax cut to be phased in over three years. To the Arizona Tax Research Association, Ducey bragged about signing legislation to index the state’s income tax brackets ensuring salary increases that don’t outpace inflation don’t bump earners into higher tax brackets. Ducey claimed it was “an important first step in our mission to reduce income taxes in the State of Arizona every year.”

Most of these states are awash in red ink, and they aren’t the only ones. GOP governors of at least a dozen states are facing deficits of hundreds of millions or even billions which, despite campaigning on fiscal responsibility, is forcing them to slash spending, increase financial burdens on the poor and get creative in spinning their state’s status. At the root of it all are ALEC’s questionable economic and fiscal assumptions and faulty analysis. Specifically, these policies include deep cuts in income taxes, particularly for affluent households and corporations; a repeal of state income and estate taxes; and a shift in state revenues from graduated-rate income taxes to sales taxes that are much higher than what exist today. They also include the end of various state-based tax credits for low-income working families; a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) that would impose rigid constitutional limits on state revenues and spending; requirements that state legislatures garner two-thirds or other “super-majority” votes to raise any taxes or fees; and other mechanisms to reduce the funds available to finance public services. ALEC also pushes the repeal of state personal and corporate income taxes, which typically provide one-third to one-half of a state’s funding for schools, health care and other services. Oil-rich Alaska is the only state to repeal its income tax thus far, but in 2012, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri saw major efforts to do so, and Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina and South Carolina are looking at doing the same. Finally, ALEC and its supporters fail to acknowledge that public services such as education or infrastructure are important to a state’s long-term prosperity. Rather, they, like conservative Heritage Foundation chief economist Stephen Moore, give credit to the Laffer Curve strategy for the strong, long period of prosperity achieved by GOP hero Ronald Reagan. Economist Paul Krugman though, says the rapid growth during the Reagan years was driven more by conventional Keynesian deficit spending than by tax rate reductions.

The truth might be somewhere in between, but it cannot be argued that the middle class has been squeezed in the process. Since Reagan took office in 1981, the lower class has increased by three percent, the middle has shrunk by 9% and the upper class has grown by four percent. In that 70% of the U.S. economy comes from personal consumption, more wealth in fewer hands at the top keeps growth weak.

That’s one reason why Thomas Piketty in his 2014 best-selling tome “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, advocates a return to the good old days of 70 percent tax rates on the rich. Likewise, a paper by MIT Professor Emeritus of Economics Peter Diamond and Professor of Economics at UC Berkley Professor Emmanuel Saez concluded the revenue maximizing federal income tax rate for top earners is 76%. Even Pope Francis joined the fray by writing that supply-side theories are unconfirmed by facts and rely on “a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the socialized workings of the prevailing economic system.” One might even be prompted to ask if congressional majority Republicans were “spin doctoring” when they fired Former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf, last for scoring federal spending cuts as negatively affecting future budgets versus as stimulating the economy. They evidently wanted someone who would better implement “dynamic scoring”, a tool that would produce a more favorable analysis of their tax reform legislation.

GOP refusal to keep an “honest broker” as the head of the CBO is telling, as is the fact that although ALEC touts that state corporate tax cuts are critical to encouraging business and boosting the economy, mainstream economic research shows that state taxes average less than one percent of a business’ total costs. Extensive economic research indicates that tax-funded public services like education, health, transportation, and public safety are more important for attracting businesses and jobs.  In fact, Paul O’Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and President George W. Bush’s first Secretary of Treasury said: “[As a businessman] I never made an investment decision based on the Tax Code…[I]f you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements, they do it because they can see that they are going to be able to earn the cost of capital out of their own intelligence and organization of resources.” Robert Ady, of Ady International has assisted in countless business site locations. He says that “subsidies cannot make a bad place good.” Good places are competitive because their long-term business basics (labor, materials, marketing, overhead, and transportation) are solid. As Greg LeRoy, founder and director of Good Jobs First, said in his book The Great American Jobs Scam, “any subsidies are icing on the cake, but the cake is already baked.”

In this, as with any debate, it is possible to find a source to support any point of view. For me it is really this simple…does it make sense that you would tax the poor more to provide tax relief for the rich? Does it make sense that corporations are lured to locate in a state so they can pay even less than the under one percent they generally pay in corporate taxes? Or, does it make more sense that corporations are savvy and look at a variety of indicators to determine where to locate such as the quality of local schools, availability of a quality workforce, or a solid infrastructure? One doesn’t need to be a genius to understand basic economic concepts, all it really takes is a little common sense. A strong middle class is the best path to prosperity for our communities and our nation and economic policies that support its growth are the solution. Our tax policies should incentivize the behavior we need for the health of our communities, states and nation, not for the enrichment of a few. Finally, business definitely has a critical role to play, but so does government. It should ensure we are provided the basic essentials of safety, security, infrastructure and education and our tax policies should ensure sufficient revenue to do that properly.

No one party has the right answer here and there is no one right solution. It takes a smart application of available tools, wise employment of lessons learned and yes, a whole lot of common sense. Alas, as Voltaire is credited with saying in the early 1700’s: “Common sense is not so common.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 29, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Education, General Arizona, politics, Public Education

Comments

4 Comments

The Wall Street Journal thinks AZ Gov. Ducey is saving public ed

Wow! Talk about biased reporting and it’s not even from the “lame stream liberal” media, but a right-wing rag, The Wall Street Journal[i]. From the get go, it is clearly biased against education or, should I say, “the Education Spending Lobby.”

Jon Gabriel writes in the Wall Street Journal that Governor Doug Ducey “appears to have solved one of the hairiest problems in Arizona politics: How to give more money to teachers – without raising taxes – and settle a long-standing billion-dollar lawsuit filed against the Grand Canyon state by its own school districts.” Gabriel goes on to say that “Mr. Ducey, a former CEO of Col Stone Creamery, apparently knows how to wheel and deal.”

Give me a break! First of all, the money that Governor Ducey is “giving” the teachers already belongs to public education. The voters mandated this inflation funding be paid annually starting in 2001, and the AZ Legislature hasn’t paid it since 2009. Secondly, some school districts, along with the Arizona School Boards Association, Arizona Education Association and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials filed suit after trying to reason with the Legislature to no avail. Then the court agreed the Legislature owed Arizona school districts the money and they still didn’t pay up.[ii] Finally, after five years of lawsuits, the plaintiffs negotiated a deal that was acceptable albeit much less than ideal.

The Wall Street Journal article doesn’t talk about the amounts owed: $331M per year for failing to fully fund inflation and $1.3B in back pay and increased per pupil funding. It also doesn’t mention that increasing the state trust lands monies withdrawal rate from 2.5 percent to 6.9 percent will deplete future revenues for public education. Yes, AZ Treasurer DeWitt was originally concerned about exceeding 3.75 percent in withdrawals but then he said he could live with as much as a 5 percent withdrawal rate. Ducey wouldn’t budge from his proposed 6.9 percent however, leaving Dr. Randy Friese, LD 9 AZ Representative (D) to wonder if Ducey’s reason was that it would give him credit for the largest bump ever to public education.

Why did the plaintiffs agree to a deal that wasn’t ideal? That’s easy. It gets more money into district schools as early as late 2016. Arizona recently ranked dead last in the nation in public school spending per student a fact directly tied to the state’s performance in K-12 education.[iii] In addition, state “leadership” hasn’t exactly proven itself responsive to the voters, why should public education advocates have faith that would change? As for the WSJ article’s assertion that education funding was misspent because AZ had lower than national averages of classroom spending, that’s easy to explain. Yes, non-classroom spending (plant operations, food service, transportation, student and instruction support such as counselors, school nurses and librarians and administration) had increased as a percentage of overall spending. When less than two percent of what should have been funded for school facility maintenance and repair was paid, the costs for keeping old, rundown, less energy efficient facilities is naturally going to be higher.[iv] When bus fleets can’t be recapitalized, of course it costs more to maintain an aging fleet. And oh by the way, much of the so called “non-classroom spending” is fixed overhead costs which must be born no matter the level of overall funding. Naturally then, when the denominator decreases when the numerator stays the same, the percentage of the numerator increases.

Money is not the only answer to fixing public education, but it is definitely a part of the solution. At best (factoring in cost of living) Arizona teachers still make $12K less than the national average.[v] Class sizes also matter, that’s why it’s one of the first things private schools tout to attract students. Money does make a difference, that’s why wealthy parents will spare no expense in sending their children to the best that money can buy.

Sorry, I can’t buy in to Governor Ducey as the 2015 Public Education Hero of the Year. He has brokered a deal that pays the districts only 70 percent of what the voters mandated and the court validated was due. In addition, he is basically taking the money for that deal out of the public education’s own bank account. And oh by the way, the voters still have to say yes again in May 2016 for it to actually happen. Arizona has a rainy day fund of $460M on hand as well as a $325M budget surplus, some of which at least, could have been given to the districts now.[vi] No, I don’t think I’ll clap for the Governor just doing his job, sort of.

[i] http://www.wsj.com/articles/arizonas-end-run-around-the-education-spending-lobby-1448656992

[ii] http://azsba.org/?attachment_id=11411

[iii] http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2015/09/28/arizona-teachers-rankings-wallethub-study/72982460/

[iv] http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/31/20120131arizona-school-funding-gap-grows.html

[v] http://tucson.com/news/local/education/study-tucson-teacher-pay-well-below-national-average/article_87eb5060-940a-5262-a791-8e32c35f7ca7.html

[vi] http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/education/2015/09/16/jeff-dewit-doug-ducey-arizona-education-funding/72013722/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 29, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Democratic, Economics, Education, General Arizona, Opportunity, Public Education

Comments

6 Comments

AZ Public Education Funding is Far From Fixed!

Unless you’ve had your head under a rock, you’ve probably heard the Prop. 301 Inflation Funding lawsuit has been settled.  As with any compromise, no one got everything they wanted and there is still plenty of concern about various parts of the agreement. One of the more contentious is the Governor’s plan to increase the withdrawal percentage on the State Trust Lands Fund. AZ’s state treasurer, Jeff DeWitt, does not concur with any plan to pull more than 3.75 percent out per year, the Governor’s plan calls for 6.9 and will, says DeWitt, significantly reduce the amount of money available for public education down the road.

Public education supporters would certainly have liked to receive all districts were legally due. But, I’m guessing they just wanted to get what they could and move on. The harm though is that this agreement has proven to the AZ Legislature they can defy the people’s mandate and court orders with little impunity. I am guessing they will feel emboldened by the compromise reached, which because of all the loopholes they’ve put into place doesn’t really cost them anything in terms of doing whatever they want in the long run.

Secondly, I fear the settlement of the inflation lawsuit will convey to the public that public education funding has been fixed in Arizona. This is far from the truth, but with 45 districts’ bonds or override requests on the ballot this November, anything that drives doubt in the mind of the voters about the need could be very damaging.[i] Never mind the fact that it was the AZ Legislature that caused the necessity for local funding in the first place. After all, the Legislature made Arizona first in the nation in public education funding cuts since 2008 and these cuts just shifted the tax burden the local level in the form of bonds and overrides.   Unfortunately, this type of funding provides very little stability due to voter whim and is not the solution. An example is the Oracle School District override continuation that failed in 2013 by only 62 votes, costing the District $140,000 in funding the next year. Fortunately, the continuation passed in 2014, but numerous have had multiple years of failed override initiatives.

A big part of the problem is political. The Republican Party of Maricopa County recently announced their opposition to all 28 ballot initiatives in the Phoenix Valley, claiming that districts haven’t been fiscally responsible.[ii]  This allegation just isn’t true, as annual Auditor General Audits prove. Our public districts have also worked very hard to become more efficient and according to the AZ Office of the Auditor General 2014 report, administrative costs continue to decline. Yes, costs for plant operations, food service and transportation increased slightly,[iii] but with only two percent of the funding requirement provided for facility renovations and repairs between 2008 and 2012, increased expenses can be no surprise.

Of course, this is about much more than just our public schools. It is about an assault on our communities, our way of life and our very democracy. As Garrison Keillor said: “When you wage war on the public schools, you’re attacking the mortar that holds the community together. You’re not a Conservative, you’re a vandal.” No offense meant to our GOP brethren who support public education.

Arizona’s school children need your support on November 3rd. Six straight years of state cuts to education combined without success in seeking locally approved funding have led four school funding referendums on the ballot in Pinal County this year. Apache Junction is seeking an M&O Override for 15 percent, J.O. Combs Unified is pursuing a bond measure for $40 million, and Florence Unified and Coolidge Unified are seeking a consolidation/boundary change. Each one of these measures is critical to providing their students the opportunities they deserve. Each of these is in fact, critical to moving our communities, our county and our state forward.

Apache Junction has been forced to operate without override funds since 2010 and J.O. Combs has been unable to pass an override continuation for three years resulting in a loss of $2 million. The Florence and Coolidge Unified consolidation/boundary change will decrease the tax rate for CUSD, provide necessary classroom space for FUSD, provide more efficient use of taxpayer monies. Tax payer monies will be saved because FUSD will accept $16 million in CUSD debt bringing three schools and 40 percent of San Tan Valley area, vs. laying out $60 million for a new high school. These ballot measures make sense, are about our children, and make long-term best interest for the voter.

Now it is up to you. Ensure you are registered to vote, get informed and then actually vote. If not for Arizona’s children, then for yourself. Arizona can’t compete if our students can’t compete. Our students can’t compete if their teachers are underpaid, their schools are poorly maintained and their technology is yesterday’s. Today’s students, are tomorrow’s leaders, whether they are ready or not.   Let’s ensure they are ready!

[i] http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/education/2015/10/28/many-arizona-school-bond-override-races-face-polarized-voters/74416714/

[ii] http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/education/2015/10/28/many-arizona-school-bond-override-races-face-polarized-voters/74416714/

[iii] http://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/AZ_School_District_Spending_FY2014_State_Pages.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 14, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Democratic, Education, General Arizona, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

Leave a comment

Taxpayer dollars belong to all of us

It was very interesting to read of the Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision on charter schools. On September 4, 2015, the Court declared the state’s charter school law unconstitutional. As reported in the Washington Post, Wayne Au, an associate professor at the University of Washington Bothell, was a plaintiff in the charter school legal challenge.   At the hear of the ruling Au said, “was the idea that charter schools, as defined by the law, were not actually public schools.” This stems from the provision in Washington’s state constitution that only “common schools” shall receive tax dollars for public education. In Washington State evidently, an appointed board, not an elected one, governs charter schools. The Washington State Supreme court decided the lack of oversight this allowed did not meet the definition of “common schools.”

While reading the article, I found myself thinking of the frenzied march in Arizona, toward the privatization of public education. Arizona has long been a leader in the number of charter schools established and our Legislature has established numerous work-arounds to divert taxpayer dollars into private and for-profit school coffers.

The Post article’s allegation that “ALEC’s influence on Washington State’s charter law is unmistakable”, is no surprise to me. The American Legislative Exchange Council is no friend of public education, the common good, or our democracy. As pointed out by the Post, ALEC is known for promoting a broad privatization agenda, “stand-your-ground gun laws, and anti-democratic voter registration laws.   ALEC’s agenda to privatize public education includes the promotion of charter schools (corporate charters and virtual schools specifically), private school vouchers, anti-union measures, “parent trigger” laws, increasing testing, reducing or eliminating the power of local school boards and limiting the power of public school districts.

Of course, anyone tuned into Arizona education or politics knows that ALEC has also had significant influence in our state. The Goldwater Institute acts, as the ALEC’s Mini-Me in Arizona and AZ Senator Debbie Lesko, as the AZ ALEC chair, has been the organization’s chief water carrier. Half of our state Senators and one-third of our representatives are known members of ALEC and there may be more.  It should be no surprise then that Arizona earns a “B” grade (3rd best) in education policy as the state leads the nation in number of charter school and has a very robust program to divert tax payer dollars to alternatives to traditional public education.

A disturbing similarity between Arizona and Washington State charter operations is that neither is overseen by a locally elected governing board. This fact ensures there is virtually no transparency nor accountability on how our tax dollars are spent therefore, no ability to ascertain the effectiveness of the programs or return on investment in general. This design is not by accident. As Peter Green has pointed out on his Curmudgucation blog, “charter supporters seek to redefine public schools as schools that have public money but without public accountability and regulation.” ALEC likes it this way because this smoothes the path to privatization. It goes like this: 1) drive a market for privatization by selling the story that public education is failing, 2) starve public education of funding to make it increasingly difficult for them to succeed, 3) continuously expand ways to divert taxpayer dollars from public education to private options, 4) sell the idea that public tax dollars for education should follow each child to the school of their choice, and 5) prevent the requirement of transparency and accountability such as is required of community district schools.

That is not the only similarity between the states’ two education systems. Just like Washington State, Arizona’s Legislature continues to withhold funding they owe the school districts. In Arizona, the funding in immediate question is the $300M in inflation funding from the Proposition 301 law. The people voted this issue into law in 2000 and the courts ruled in 2014 that the districts are indeed owed the funding and still, the Legislature refuses to pay up. In 2012, the Washington State Legislature was ordered to fully fund education, but they failed to do so. In August of this year, the WA State Supreme Court ordered fines of $100,000 per day until the Legislature complies. They have yet to do so.

The Washington State Supreme Court said: If a school is not controlled by a public body, then it should not have access to public funds.” We should all agree with this concept and demand full transparency and accountability whenever public funds are involved. Taxpayer dollars don’t belong to any one of us, they belong to all of us. We as the primary stockholder of our government, have the right and responsibility to know how they are spent and what our return on investment is. Anything less is more than suspect, it is un-democratic and un-American.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 8, 2015

Posted under

Democratic, Economics, Education, General Arizona, Opportunity, Patriotic, politics, Poverty, Public Education

Comments

Leave a comment

Ed Feulner and your Heritage Foundation, me thinks thou protesteth too much…

Nothing like some conservative propaganda first thing in the morning to get a liberal’s blood flowing. Yesterday morning, my Google alert on Arizona public education sent me a commentary from “The Daily Signal” which is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. I try to be well read, especially on matters of public education, but I also know the source is important. So, I noted this commentary was 1) written by Ed Feulner who for 36 years, served as president of The Heritage Foundation and “transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas”; 2) was originally published in the Washington Times; and 3) The Heritage Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, touts itself as “the trusted conservative leader” and probably more telling, has endorsements by Senator Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on its website home page.

Okay, so this is a commentary from a hard-core conservative. That got me thinking about what being a conservative really means. Wikipedia says conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. It also says that there is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of converts depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. According to Merriam-Webster.com, conservative describes someone who: believes in the value of established and traditional practices in polities and society and is not liking or accepting of changes or new ideas.

It seems to me, somewhere along the line what it means to be a conservative became perverted. Conservatives today seem to be about exploring new ways to do things (when it provides profit), keeping government small and out of business (unless it is the private business of same-sex couples or a woman’s medical choices), and tearing down traditional social institutions (such as public education.)

Mr. Feulner’s commentary makes the point that children deserve more options than just public schools. What our children (all of America’s children) DESERVE, is well-funded, high quality public schools. Thomas Jefferson said, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Public schools have always been what best served to “educate and inform the whole mass of the people” and even today, in a state that leads the nation in the number of charter schools, a full 83 percent of Arizona’s students attend community public schools. Among the reasons for this is that no matter how much school choice is expanded, choice doesn’t guarantee opportunity or availability and, it is hard for the kids to be the priority when profit is the motive.

I’m on the governing board of a small rural district. Of the 410 students in my district, about 150 students living in our District have opted to exercise their school choice options. The other 410 students that attend our District are either happy with their community school, or they can’t take advantage of the opportunity. It is ironic that those who can’t take advantage of the opportunity are often the same disadvantage students those promoting school choice claim they want to “help.”

Mr. Feulner says that Education Savings Accounts (vouchers) enable families to deposit their children’s state per-pupil” funding in an account that can be used for a variety of education options. Since when did the state per-pupil funding belong to each child? I thought it belonged to all Arizonans collectively. In 2014, the average state and local taxes paid were $5,138. The primary funding source for K-12 education in Arizona is property tax, both at the primary and secondary (where approved) rates. The rest of it comes from the state general fund in the way of equalization funding, where required. The average property tax collection per capita in Arizona was $1,052. The amount deposited in ESA accounts is much more however, than parents pay in “school tax.” The range of funding for ESAs is from $2,000 to $5,500 for non-disabled students, and $2,000 to $30,000 for disabled students. The average ESA funding in 2014-15 was $5,300 per student without special needs and $14,000 when special needs students were factored in. As you can see, it isn’t only the parent’s taxes that provide for the per-pupil funding, the rest of us contributed as well. That’s why I don’t buy the assertion that the funding should follow the child, as if it belongs to them. It doesn’t belong to them or their parents, it belongs to all of us and we deserve transparency and accountability for how it is spent.

In addition to questions as to how my tax dollars are spent, I question the education being offered these students. Yes, unlike when you take your child and educate them with your money (not public tax dollars), I believe I have a legitimate say in what children are taught, when my tax dollars are used to teach them. In community public schools, locally elected school boards provide oversight of District operations and parents and community members are welcome and encouraged to stay tuned into what is taught, how it is taught, and who is teaching it. Locally elected school boards even approve textbooks. This process is not always perfect (such as with the Gilbert School Board recently voting to put abstinence-only avocation stickers in their science textbooks), but at least it is done in the light of day and can be addressed by those in disagreement.

Feulner is incensed that the ALCU is suing Nevada to keep its Education Savings Account law from taking affect. The ALCU says the ESA program “violates the Nevada Constitution’s prohibition against the use of public money for sectarian (religious) purposes.” He makes the point that the ESA funds go from the state to parents, not from the state to religious schools as if this makes all the difference. This is the same logic the Arizona Supreme Court used in legalizing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (vouchers) in Arizona. Sounds like hair splitting to me.

Then, Feulner cites the example of a legally blind student and his parents used his ESA to provide him a great alternate education and save money for his college as well. Sure there are going to be many examples of how ESA’s serve children, especially those with special needs. I’m not against all use of ESAs, just as I’m not against all charter schools. There are special needs and circumstances these alternatives provide well. But, I don’t buy that ESAs are the best way to educate the majority of our children. I also don’t buy the pretense that this is all about parental choice, saving taxpayer dollars, or improving education. I believe this is about 1) making the education of your child YOUR problem thereby relieving legislators of the responsibility, 2) providing more profit opportunities for private business, 3) hiding conservative education agendas, 4) giving taxpayers less say over how their tax dollars are spent and ultimately, and 5) weakening our democracy.

You might think that tying ESAs to the weakening of our democracy is a bit much. Well, as those who desire to, take advantage of vouchers, they reduce the funding available to our community district schools. As the funding is reduced, more parents will be dissatisfied with the quality of educational opportunity in their public schools and more will leave. Those eventually left in our public schools will be those with no alternative and most likely those of color whom, for the most part, live at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Our public schools are already experiencing the worst segregation seen since the 1960; it will only get worse.

In addition to the downward spiral of funding school choice forces upon community public schools, those who leave these schools also take with them their parent’s support and involvement. These parents are those who have typically worked for improvement in their community public schools and they are missed when they leave. Local governance (as does our entire democratic process) counts on informed and involved community members. Make no mistake. The war currently being waged on public education is a war on our democracy. As for those who would point out our nation is a republic, not a democracy, I say “get over yourself.” In the United States, we each have a voice and a vote. Assaults on those most precious rights are decidedly “un-American” and “un-patriotic”, and must be met head on.  Oh by the way, did I mention that ESAs (whether they are Education Savings Accounts or Empowerment Scholarship Accounts or vouchers) are one of the primary weapons of the American Legislative Council (ALEC) in their war on public education?  Don’t know what ALEC is?  You should.