Category Archives: Public Education

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 16, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, Public Education

Comments

8 Comments

Open letter to those opposed to Prop. 123

Cross-posted by Christine Marsh, Arizona’s 2016 Teacher of the Year:

To all of the folks who are voting “No” on Prop. 123,

In case people don’t read to the end (but read to the end), if you are voting against Prop. 123, contact your legislators and the governor and tell them why. If Prop. 123 fails, the false narrative from our legislators and the governor will likely be something along the lines of this: “SEE?! We knew that the public didn’t care about public education. And this proves it.”

As a teacher in the trenches, I have to wonder where the public has been for the past six years. Education—students, teachers, parents, support staff—has been left to languish in the bottom of the nation for many years. We have the worst funding in the entire nation, and we’re over $3000 per student per year below the national average (we’re about $15,000 below the states that fund their public education the best/highest).

We also have the lowest administrative costs in the nation, the highest class sizes in the nation, and we’re in the bottom four states for what we pay teachers.

We already have a teacher shortage, and with roughly 30% of our state’s teachers retiring in the next five year, we’re reaching crisis proportions. In many districts, it’s already a crisis.

As a teacher, I feel abandoned by the public. You can say, “I didn’t cause this. I’ve voted for education-friendly people.” But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the voting public has continued to elect legislators and other politicians who simply do not care about public education.

Now, when we have a bit of light (meaning—yes—money) coming our way, the public that has essentially abandoned us for the past many years wants to extinguish it by killing Prop. 123.

You do realize that we’re in this mess because of the way Arizonans voted (or apathetically skipped voting) in 2014, right?

You also realize that the plaintiffs (representing the schools) have been fighting for this money since 2010, right? Where were you then? Why didn’t you vocalize your support?

You hopefully also realize that as much as we want to, we can’t force the legislature to pay. And, apparently, we can’t throw them in jail for their refusal to pay, either (although, I wish we could). It’s ironic that we can throw “deadbeat dads” in jail, but not deadbeat legislators and that Ducey is going after deadbeat dads.

If you vote this down, what’s your plan? The fact is that we have a legislative majority that doesn’t value public education, so the chances of them paying are slim to none. You can’t claim that they “should” pay and that the money exists without raiding the trust land, because what “should” happen doesn’t matter. The facts matter, and the fact is that they won’t pay. They’ve already proven that they won’t. So if Prop. 123 doesn’t pass, we won’t see the money for many years, if ever. (Remember “Flores Vs. Arizona”? It took over 20 years to settle that case).

So if you vote this down, do you have a plan?

Are you going to as aggressively fight to elect new legislators as you are fighting to defeat Prop. 123?

Or are you going to kill this one chance at light and abandon public schools again? Again??

Please, have a plan if you kill this.

Because with this particular legislature, we won’t be seeing any other funds any time soon.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 14, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, politics, Public Education

Comments

3 Comments

Mad as Hell and You’re Not Going to Take it Anymore!

Okay fellow liberal southern Arizonans, I get it. You are mad as hell and you aren’t going to take anymore. Prop 123 is a bridge too far, a river too wide and the proverbial final straw breaking the camel’s back.

I join you in being pissed off. I’m pissed at the Legislature who has failed to follow the people’s mandate since 2009 and ignored the Superior Court judge’s order to follow that same mandate. I’m pissed that Governor Ducey is dead set against raising the appropriate revenue to ensure our districts get the funding they are due. I’m also pissed at the current and previous state treasurers who have come out against Prop 123 since I wonder where they’ve been as the Legislature has steadily eroded our districts’ budgets.

I’m especially pissed though, at the voters who continue to elect anti-public education candidates, whether they voted for them, or just didn’t vote at all. After all, we know that 89 percent of Arizona voters prioritize K-12 public education funding at the top and that two-thirds are willing to pay more taxes to make that happen. We also know that in 2014, only 36 percent of eligible voters actually voted. Polls tell us what voters want, but they aren’t voting in a way to ensure they’ll actually get it.

I just wonder how many of you (who have decided this is the time and the place to plant the flag of “I’m not going to take it anymore”) are in the classroom, administering a school district, serving on a school board, or even have children currently in K-12 district schools. I ask this because I’m fairly sure all of these people are pissed too and they’d like to plant their own flags. But, they know that if Prop 123 doesn’t pass, it will be their students/children that suffer. It will be the 5th graders who have never been in a fully funded classroom. It will be those numerous students in Arizona who now have long-term uncertified and/or substitute teachers because of the severe shortage* of teachers in our state. It will be those students in class sizes higher than the national average because that is the only way districts could make ends meet. It will also be those students who are in facilities that haven’t been properly maintained because districts only received 2 percent of required funding to do so.

We now have Prop 123 because parents, teachers, school board members and others kept the pressure on to settle the school inflation-funding lawsuit. Years and years of cuts have made Arizona #1 in cuts to public education funding and Prop 123 won’t make much of a dent in that, but it is a start. Let me be clear…this is ONLY a start. It ONLY settles the inflation-funding lawsuit. The next step is up to all of us. We simply must elect different legislators if we expect different results. To do otherwise begins to meet the definition of insanity. We totally have the power to do this, we need only exercise it.

Please start now by taking the Prop 123GO Pledge.** Also as a reminder, the last day to register to vote in this special election is April 18th and early voting begins on April 20th. Our kids are counting on you to put them first, to end the wait, to up the fight. I will be there for them, will you?

Notes:

*To be clear, we probably have enough certified teachers in Arizona, they just can’t support their families on a teacher’s salary and have decided to work in other fields. In 2014, Arizona was 45th in the Nation for teacher salaries.

**If you are a school district employee or board member, please remember that district resources (including email) cannot be used to produce or circulate pro/con election materials.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 9, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, Opportunity, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

2 Comments

Is It Really School’s Choice?

Representative Vince Leach, R-SaddleBrooke, recently replied to a constituent’s concern about SB1279, Empowerment Scholarships; expansion; phase-in, with:

“You are correct in assuming I am in favor of this bill.  Rather than a long, rambling explanation of my position, I simply refer you to the linked research paper: http://www.edchoice.org/research/2015-schooling-in-america-survey/. Please refer to page 27.  It reveals what I believe most people have missed in the school choice discussion.  And that is, while about ~85% of student attend public schools, given the choice, only ~36% would choose to attend public schools.  SB1279 is narrowly defined, it specifies that qualified student includes a child who meets the family income eligibility requirements for free or reduced price lunches under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Acts, rather than the specified educational scholarship. IT is for these reasons and many more that I support this bill.”

Obviously when quoting statistics, one must pay attention to the source of the information. The research paper Leach refers to is from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. The Foundation was named after Milton Friedman and his wife Rose who extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention. An eventual advisor to President Ronald Reagan, Friedman was the first to float the idea of school vouchers which many, particularly in the South, viewed as a way to fight desegregation. He wrote in 1955 that he would choose forced nonsegregation over forced segregation and that “under [private schools] there can develop exclusively white schools, exclusively colored schools, and mixed schools.”

Inspired by Friedman, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) made a nationwide push (sending a model voucher bill to 16,000 state and federal officials) toward private school vouchers in 1981. Education historian Diane Ravitch writes that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) touted the voucher model legislation “to introduce normal market forces” and to “dismantle the control and power of teachers’ unions.” At a 2006 ALEC meeting, Friedman asked, “How do we get from where we are to where we want to be?” The ideal way he said “would be to abolish the public school system.” He recognized “you’re not gonna do that”, but that introducing a universal voucher system would be a more palatable way to achieve the same end result. Friedman went on to say that you have to change the way tax dollars are directed, instead of financing schools and buildings, the funding should follow the child.

ALEC has unfortunately enjoyed much success in pushing model voucher legislation to state lawmakers. It should be no surprise then that our schools are more segregated than at anytime since the mid 1960s. The Southern Education Foundation shows that private schools are whiter than the overall school-age population in the South and the West and that Black, Latino and Naïve American students are underrepresented. In fact, private schools are more likely to be virtually all white (90 percent or more) with 43 percent of the nation’s private school students attending these “white” schools versus 27 percent of public school students. These statistics, argues the Southern Education Foundation, show that more needs to be done to ensure equitable access to any schools that receive taxpayer monies. Basically, private schools should be required to admit anyone who applies, just as public schools do. If they don’t, they shouldn’t receive public funding.

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice however, maintains:

“School choice levels the playing field by helping those with lower incomes have access to the choices that others now have and even take for granted. It is not a scandal that those who are able to access better schools choose to do so; it is a scandal that because of the government school monopoly, only some are able to access better schools.”

The Southern Education Foundation counters that line of reasoning with:

 “The number of black, Latino and Native American students enrolled in private schools is far lower than the number of minority families that could afford it. The fact is that, over the years, African American families and non-white families have come to understand that these private schools are not schools that are open to them, especially in light of their traditional role and history related to desegregation of public schools.”

The Friedman Foundation does not see a problem with this of course (of course) and said:

“Just as parents should have the right to say to schools, ‘You’re not the right fit for my child, I’m going to find another school,’ schools should also have the right to say to parents, ‘We’re not the right fit for your child.’”

So, let me get this straight. Representative Leach supports the idea that private schools taking taxpayer dollars should be able to exclude children they don’t believe are a “right fit” for their school. Evidently, his definition of school choice is that schools should have the choice, not the students or their parents. This isn’t school choice; it is state endorsed discrimination.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 25, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Democracy, Democratic, Education, Opportunity, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

Leave a comment

Living in La-La Land?

Not one to give up on any ALEC-concocted or promoted government shrinking effort, AZ Senator Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, managed to gain traction this week on her latest version of this year’s voucher expansion. The zombie voucher expansion effort was resurrected when it became apparent the House couldn’t pass its original version to make every AZ student eligible.  HB 2482 stalled due to public outcry over lawmakers trying to settle the inflation funding lawsuit with a reduced payment via Prop. 123, while siphoning even more away from public schools with the proposed total expansion of vouchers.

“To the rescue”, rides Senator Lesko, the Arizona ALEC Chair, with her bill, SB-1279. Introduced as a “strike-everything” bill, it was fast-tracked for consideration and met the Appropriations versus the Education Committee to no doubt provide some cover for the contentious bill. Instead of full expansion, Lesko’s bill settles for expansion to free- or reduced lunch program eligibility which for a family of four translates to an annual income of no more than $44,863. The bill passed on an 8-5 vote.

In that the voucher is only worth $5,400 and the average cost of private school tuition is Arizona is about $10,000, it is highly unlikely that those lower on the socio-economic scale will be lining up anytime soon to ditch their district schools. Rather, Lesko’s bill serves to again chip away at the foundation of our public school system and yes, the very core of our democracy.

To my point, Representative Rick Gray, R-Sun City, was quoted by Howard Fischer as saying that it is wrong to look at how the legislation will affect public schools. ” it really comes down to that child, and what’s best for that child” he said. What a crock of BS! Gray is saying that state legislation shouldn’t be concerned with how it affects the largest portion of the state budget and the 900,000 district school students it provides for? That’s like a U.S. Congressman saying that federal legislation regarding the military shouldn’t be concerned with its affect on national defense, but rather on the individual soldier. The soldier might appreciate the consideration, but the misplaced focus would no doubt weaken our ability to defend our Nation.

These efforts aren’t about the individual child, or even children in general. What they are about is shrinking the government and reducing the ability of the people to participate in their democracy. Our Tea-publican Legislature won’t be happy until they have total control over every aspect of an extremely limited government which is all about keeping them in power and making their wealthy supporters even more wealthy. That’s the real bottom line and anyone who believes otherwise is living in La-La Land.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 11, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Democracy, Education, humanity, Opportunity, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

2 Comments

Winners and Losers

Donald Trump likes to talk about winners and losers, mostly that he’s a winner and that pretty much everybody else is a loser. It seems his definition of a winner is someone who is bold, strong, and of course, successful in business. Of course there are many who question whether he really is the “yuuuuge” business success he claims, but at the very least, he has made himself appear successful.

Of course, we know that things are not always how they first appear.  Trump may appear to be strong, decisive and ready to “Make America Great Again” but he truly has not offered one viable solution to do that. Take K-12 education for example. The only plan he has voiced is to rid us of Common Core (something he wouldn’t have the power to do.)  Given his focus on business, I’m guessing “The Donald’s” plan for education involves making our students commodities to be traded on the open market; where for-profit schools compete for the spoils and students are turned into winners and losers.

Problem is, I don’t think the American public really wants a “winners and losers” outcome from our public education system. Rather, I believe the vast majority want first, their child to be a “winner” and then, for all children to have the opportunity to win. Most of us recognize it behooves us all to ensure we keep all students “in the game” and moving toward the goal line.

Of course there are many who aren’t losing as a result of the corporate reform movement of public education. There are those who are profiting from the semi-or full privatization of K-12 education, a $700 billion market in the U.S. There are state legislators who would deflect their responsibility for educating the state’s children by encouraging parents to give up their child’s right to public education so they can use the voucher system. There are also parents who are wealthy enough to send their children to private schools on their own dime, but are happy to take our money (tax dollars) and pocket their own.

The bottom line if we continue to allow a system of education that produces winners and losers, is that we all lose. There is a significant cost to our society whenever a student does not succeed in school and it is a cost we likely bear in one form or another for the entire life of that student. Only when all students regardless of socio-economic status, graduate ready to become productive citizens of our democracy do we all win. In this time of “it’s all about me and mine” it would serve us best to remember we really are “all in this together.”

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 2, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, early childhood education, Education, Public Education, Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments

Liars Figure and Figures Lie

The Office of Arizona Auditor General just released its 2015 “Dollars in the Classroom.” The report makes it clear that Arizona continues to struggle to adequately fund district schools while trying to stay consistent with classroom dollars and keep administrative costs below the national average.

The report also highlights the lower teacher salaries and larger classes which translate into fewer dollars for teaching and learning. But, what isn’t clear in the report is that the definition of “classroom” has changed. In last year’s budget, “classroom” was redefined as instruction, instructional support and student support. This change was made to more accurately reflect all the costs that go into classroom instruction, such as: physical and occupational therapists; reading and math intervention specialists; media specialists/librarians; counselors and social workers. The Auditor General’s Report doesn’t reflect that change for 2015.

Even so, the report shows school district classroom spending at 53.6%, whereas the AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction’s report shows charter school classroom spending at 50.8%. Likewise, a recent report showed that AZ charter schools spend more than twice the amount school districts do in administration (costing taxpayers an extra $128 million). Charter schools may be public schools, but they are not included for analysis in the Auditor General’s Dollars in the Classroom Report (surprise, surprise.)

Although Arizona spends less on administration than any other state and is far below the national average, it’s classroom spending continues to be low. There are multiple reasons for this such as: low-overall funding (48th in nation); students poorer than the national average who require additional support services (ELL instruction; meal assistance; tutoring; etc.); higher plant operation due to temperature extremes; higher costs per square footage due to aging and inadequate funding for maintenance; and higher transportation costs due to vast rural and remote areas.

Dr. Tim Ogle, Executive Director of the Arizona School Boards Association, writes that “We continue to stand by the fact that the “dollars in the classroom” measure is an outmoded way of benchmarking how Arizona supports student success. It does not describe effective use of dollars dedicated to teaching, learning and graduating students that are equipped with the skills to succeed in the real world. The real issue should be student achievement.”

Ah yes, but true achievement is hard to track, measure, and compile. True achievement is tracked by teachers in their classrooms, and parents in their homes. True achievement comes when the environment surrounding a student is conducive to learning, and when the adults at every stage of the process, are student focused.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 29, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

Leave a comment

The color of accountability

I wasn’t surprised by The Republic’s recent findings that during the 2015-16 school year, the vast majority of funding ($20.6 million) for vouchers was taken from public schools rated A or B, but only $6.3 million was taken from schools rated C or D. I’d previously seen a statistic that in 2012, about 92 percent of students taking advantage of the voucher (Empowerment Scholarship Account) program would have attended private schools anyway regardless of voucher availability. Let’s face it; this was never about helping the poor, disadvantaged minority child. The reality is that vouchers were never for poorer Arizonans who can’t cover the average private-school tuition costs of $10,421 when a voucher provides only $5,200.

And yet, the AZ Legislature is pushing two bills to fully open the floodgates on voucher availability, making every student in Arizona eligible for vouchers for homeschooling, tutoring, private school, or to save for college. This, despite the fact that there is little accountability in the program. Yes, recipients must provide quarterly reports of their spending, but DOE staffing for oversight is reportedly insufficient and the schooling options that vouchers pay for have no responsibility for reporting any kind of results. The taxpayer then, has no way to determine return on investment.

Here’s where I start to get confused. The GOP nay, Teapublican-led Arizona Legislature, loves to tout the need for accountability of taxpayer dollars. They are great however, at picking and choosing their targets for applying this accountability. [Please read on, this post isn’t really about vouchers.]

In 2015 for example, Representative Mark Finchem, R-LD11, basically accused both the Phoenix Union High School (PUHSD) and Tucson Unified (TUSD) school districts of using desegregation (deseg) funding for purposes other than what they were intended for. TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sanchez said he was not aware of any misuse, citing the fact that there is a strict review process for every deseg dollar spent. In fact, oversight of this funding is provided by the plaintiffs in a deseg suit against the district, the DOJ, a federal judge and the special master, a deseg expert overseeing the district’s efforts all get to weight in on how deseg funds can be used. Finchem though was undeterred and demanded forensic audits that the schools would have to pay for because “these are taxpayer dollars and we want to make sure those dollars are being spent wisely, that they’re not being misappropriated. And I think that’s an obligation this body has to see to it that those dollars are spent that way.”

Fortunately, SB 1120 failed. Senator Steve Farley, D-LD9, who had a child in TUSD, said, “Finchem represents no part of the Tucson Unified School District.” Finchem never took the time to discuss the issue first with Sanchez, meet with district officials or review audits already done according to Farley.

So, why don’t AZ Legislators care about accountability when it comes to vouchers, but are all over it when it comes to desegregation funds? Could it just have something to do with the socio-economic status and color of most voucher (private school) students versus those who are beneficiaries of deseg funds? Just sayin’…

I must admit I hadn’t really taken the time to learn the details about deseg funding (my district doesn’t get any) until a recent email exchange with Representative Vince Leach, R-LD11. In his email, he intimated that “districts continue to violate civil rights after billions of dollars have been spent to fix the problem” and asked, “Where is the accountability in that?” Again, that whole accountability thing. Yet, when I asked him to please vote no on the voucher expansion, citing in part the lack of accountability, he said “I think you know I am going to vote for them.”

So yes, I took the time to learn more about desegregation funding. The issue dates back to at least 1974 when two families filed separate lawsuits against TUSD and the court found TUSD “had acted with segregative intent” and failed to fix the problem. In 1979, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation against PUHSD and a lawsuit was filed in 1982 for allegedly engaging in segregation practices. Problems were also found in the Tempe Elementary School District to include deliberately segregating minority and non-English speaking students, assigning minority teachers to the district’s poorest schools and placing a disproportionate number of English language learners in special education classrooms. Schools in wealthier parts of the District also had full-day kindergarten, nurses and librarians, but the others did not.

In 1985, Arizona enacted legislation to allow districts under federal court orders or OCR agreements to bring racial and ethnic balance to their schools and provide equal access to high quality education, to levy property taxes above their revenue control limit. As a result, those districts were able to levy a limited amount of higher local property taxes without voter approval. Although there were some problems along the way, in 2005, PUHSD gained “unitary status” followed by TUSD in 2009. This status meant that these districts had formally fulfilled their desegregation court order. Plaintiffs in the TUSD suit disagreed the problem was fixed, filed an appeal of the District’s unitary status designation and in 2011; the Appeals Court reversed the decision and appointed a highly paid special master (in Massachusetts) to help TUSD develop a new “road map.” This road map outlines required activities including student assignment, transportation, faculty and staff assignment, quality of education, discipline, family engagement, access to facilities and technology and transparency and accountability.

There are now 19 school districts with almost 250,000 students (about 23% of the total) around Arizona that receive $211 million for racial and ethnic discrimination remediation (unchanged since 2009.) Since 1986, the total comes to $4.3 billion, with 97 percent going to Phoenix and Tucson Schools. Only PUHSD and TUSD actually receive “desegregation funding”, the other 16 districts have administrative agreements with OCR. Two bills in the AZ Legislature, seek to reduce and eventually eliminate all this funding (within 5 years for those with OCR agreements and 10 years for those in unitary status.) SB 1125 (a follow-on to last session’s unsuccessful 1371), sponsored by AZ Senator Debbie Lesko, R-LD21, passed by the Senate Finance committee on 2/11/16 and claims state property tax rate caps require the general fund to make up some $23 million in 2015 in desegregation funding garnered at the local level. HB 2401 sponsored by Representatives Vince Leach and Mark Finchem is a companion bill which has been retained on the calendar as of 2/23/16.

Of her bill, Lesko said “That’s money from all over the state that shouldn’t just go to a couple districts.” She thinks that rather then relying on deseg funding, districts should ask voters to approve budget overrides. According to the Senate Fact Sheet for SB1125 however, although the state funded this “cap gap” through FY 2015, the Legislature has now capped the state’s cost of the 1 percent cap program to $1 million per county, i.e., the state passed on a portion of the cost for the gap to the counties (who must then pass these costs on to the taxpayer.) Irrespective of the caps however, affected districts contend they would be violating a federal agreement and a lawsuit will ensue if the funding is discontinued. Additionally, according to a recent analysis by The Republic, districts receiving desegregation funding did not spend more per pupil than all others in 2014. This is because there are many different funding sources for schools including varying amounts of federal dollars, bonds and overrides.

For PUHSD, the largest in the state with over 27,000 students, the loss of deseg funding would translate to about $53 million and would require closing four high schools with a loss of 702 teaching and staff jobs (estimates put the state-wide loss of jobs at about 2,500.) The superintendent, Dr. Chad Gestson, says, “The proposed elimination of desegregation funding is simply a huge tax cut on the backs of our poorest students.” He goes on to say that the ramifications go beyond public education and will affect property values, crime rates, reduced tax base, more burden on the city, county and state and a lower quality of life. Superintendent Robbie Koerperich of Holbrook Unified School District says “we all deserve it…we [shouldn’t] bring Holbrook [down] to the same level as similar school districts, but we should fund the other districts to bring them up.”

Proponents of the funding however say the results speak for themselves with the graduation rate at PUHSD at 80 percent up from 55 percent 15 years ago. Same thing with dropout rates that went from 15 percent over 20 years ago to 3.4 percent today. The Districts grads are also earning more scholarships for college than only six years ago, $50 million now, versus $13 million then.

The $211 million currently spent in deseg funding works out to an average of $844 per student. The question we should be asking isn’t “is it unfair for the 19 districts under deseg orders or with OCR agreements to receive this funding”, but what is the appropriate level of funding for all our students. Arizona k-12 education saw the highest cuts in per pupil funding in the Nation from 2008 to 2014 and to move up to even 45th place, we would need to spend $1 billion more, or almost $950 per pupil. Of course, other than the badly needed Prop 123 monies, our Legislature isn’t talking about education plus-ups, only cuts. (Sorry, but the recent restoration of all but $2 million of JTED funding doesn’t count, that was just about rectifying the bad decision made in last year’s budget.)

To the Arizona Legislature I say, the voters are waking up to your pretension that you give a damn about All Arizona’s children. To the voters, I say NOTHING speaks louder than your vote.

 

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 23, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, early childhood education, Education, Poverty, Privatization, Public Education, taxes

Comments

5 Comments

Screw you, I’ve got mine

Now that it looks like the AZ Legislature will be successful in finally opening the floodgates on vouchers (empowerment scholarship accounts) for K-12 education, I’ve got some other ideas they should consider. After all, the Legislature has made it clear that taxpayers are the ones best equipped to decide where their tax dollars go and that transparency and accountability don’t matter. Other than quarterly reports on spending, there is virtually no accountability in the voucher program; students aren’t even required to test and private schools don’t need to report any kind of results so there is no way for taxpayers to determine if their tax dollars were well spent.

Since I don’t have any children or grandchildren, I’ve been thinking about how I can take advantage of the Legislature’s privatization fixation. My first idea is one of safety and security. We don’t live in an incorporated township, so we rely on the county sheriff’s department to ensure our safety and security. The service provided is adequate, but I really think I can do better by looking to a private security firm to meet my needs. After all, surely a private security firm can do a better job right? That Blackwater firm was just an anomaly, right? So, I’m not sure what percentage of my tax dollars support the county sheriff’s office, but I want the state to give that back to me and I’ll hire my own guys. I’ll probably have to pay extra for the private solution, but it will be worth it.

While I’m at it, think I’ll look at the taxes I pay for maintenance of roads. After all, what do I care about roads in other parts of the state? I want the roads I drive each and every day to be in pristine condition. Maybe the state should just turn every road into a toll road and then I would only pay for those roads on which I drive. What? There would be many cases where there isn’t enough traffic to support maintenance of roads in remote areas? Too bad, so sad, not my problem.

Oh, and I live within a half mile of a fire department so I don’t think I should have to pay as much in taxes as those who live further away. After all, if there is a fire at my house, the department will save money in fuel and travel time to deal with it.

Obviously, I provide the above to make a point. When did we descend into this “screw you, I’ve got mine” mentality? No matter what proponents claim, vouchers are NOT the solution for the vast majority of Arizona’s children. What they are, is a way to: 1) redistribute our tax dollars from the greater good to those who LEAST need the help; 2) bolster the private education industry and; 3) relieve the state Legislature of the responsibility for ensuring and providing for education. The two major jobs of the state are to provide for public safety and public education. Once these voucher bills pass, legislators will no doubt feel they can wash their hands of the responsibility to “provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system.” Truth is, they will have just done the very thing that drives a stake in the heart of their ability to ensure a “uniform” system.

Make no mistake; this is NOT about providing parents a choice. What it is about, and has always been about, is the corporate “reform” of public education or in other words, taking the “public” out of public education. Vouchers are also not ensuring the best for ALL our students. With every student exits their district school on a voucher, the fixed costs of running that district must be born by a smaller budget, which means the students left in are increasingly short-changed. The nature of the beast is that these students will invariably be those with the most challenges such as English Language Learners, special needs students, or just those lowest on the socio-economic ladder. Unlike district and charter schools, private schools can choose whom they wish to admit. They also don’t provide transportation and their tuition commonly exceeds the $5,200 parents receive with the voucher. It is not hard to see why many of Arizona’s parents will continue to choose to send their children to their community district schools and yet, these schools will increasingly be abandoned in terms of state support.

I’ve made it known that I am for the approval of Prop. 123 to get more funding into our schools now! Is it the way I would want to do it? NO!! I want to Arizona to stop giving corporate handouts and if necessary, to raise taxes to fund the type of schools our students needs for the future we all want. After all, Arizonans largely support this. If this opening of the floodgates on vouchers passes though, I may have to rethink my position. It is bad enough that the Legislature has thumbed it’s nose at the will of the voters, the decisions of the court and has finally agreed to pay our schools only 70 percent of what they owe with money that is already technically theirs. I can’t stomach the thought of this money getting siphoned off by those who could largely afford to go to private schools without the voucher money.

If you agree, you can’t just sit silently by and let this happen. If you want things to be different, you MUST ACT. Call your legislator, send them an email and make comments in the Legislature’s “Request to Speak” program. If you aren’t signed up for the program, please email me and I’ll personally go to the Capitol and sign you up (you must be signed up through the kiosk at the Capitol to be able to actually comment on bills.) Then you can, from the comfort of your home, tell the Legislature just what you think about the bills they are considering and, your comments will become part of the permanent record.

Ultimately though, the only long-term solution is to elect pro-public education legislators to replace those who aren’t acting in our students’ or our state’s best interest. Please ACT NOW. Our kids are counting on you and they can’t wait any longer for us to come to their rescue.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 5, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

Leave a comment

The Real Super Bowl

Capitol Media Services reported this morning that a “New deal could restore $28M, keep JTEDs alive.” Even though Governor Ducey has said he won’t support any bill that doesn’t keep the budget balanced, a Legislative veto-proof majority organized by Senator Don Shooter might save the day. That is of course, unless Senate President Andy Biggs refuses to have the bill considered. Biggs has said that although JTED started out as a good idea, it “has become a way for schools to get extra tax dollars for programs that really do not qualify for as CTE.” Shooter’s bill however, includes a requirement for audits and will include a new grading system, and Bigg’s has indicated these changes will help.

I predict the bill will pass given wide support by both the education and business communities and the fact that for the most part, the Legislature knows they made a dumb mistake in cutting the program in the first place. Or, I could give them credit for being really smart and cutting the program last year without the cuts taking affect until next year so they could be big heroes in restoring it this year if the voters put up a fuss. Nah…let’s stick with the first scenario. The bigger issue to me though, is the duplicity with which our state leaders are dealing with education. After all, they have no problem with exponentially expanding the amount of taxpayer dollars that go to private schools (92% of which are religious), but absolutely can’t stomach districts schools trying to improve their programs and ensure sustainability.

I’ve written before how CTE is a win-win-win, so I won’t belabor that point again. If the Legislature wants to place more rules on uses for JTED funds, that’s one thing. But it is entirely hypocritical for them to have cut the funds in the first place when the districts are just following the established rules. That reminds me of how districts followed the rules to create their own charter schools and then the legislature changed the law to prevent them from doing so.

It’s like this. Imagine the Super Bowl this Sunday isn’t between the Panthers and Broncos but between the Districts (underfunded district schools) and the Privates (well supported private schools.) Both sides have been training as hard as they can with the resources available to them. Unfortunately, the Privates have several advantages not afforded the Districts. First, the Privates were able to have all their first picks in the draft before the Districts could weigh in. Second, the Privates aren’t required to divulge any information about their team or their strategy whereas the Districts must divulge all, to include their playbook. Third, the Privates have unlimited potential for funding which allows them to hire and hold on to good coaches and trainers while the Districts struggle to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of each. Fourth, the Privates are flown to the game in first class style aboard their private jet. The Districts however, can’t afford a jet and they make the day long trip via bus to the game location. Fifth, the night before the game, the Privates are treated to a steak dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steak house while the Districts have a meal at McDonalds. Finally, the morning of the game, the Privates prepare in a luxurious locker room with all the amenities, while the Districts crowd into one of the stadium restrooms. Finally, to cinch the deal, the Privates have lobbied for government subsidies designed to lure players from the Districts. Of course, the costs for the Districts to maintain their team infrastructure remains fairly constant despite the attrition of players, so the funding they have left makes it even tougher for them to compete.

Who do you think would win the game? Not hard to figure it out is it? And yet, the Districts do more than their fair share of winning. As I have said before, I am not anti-choice. I just believe that the choice should be made with all the cards on the table. Corporate reformers have managed to sell the narrative that public schools aren’t working and the only way to save American education is to turn it over to the private sector. Truth is though, it is easy for the privatized schools to claim they work when they make the choice about who they admit, what rules they follow and what results, if any, they divulge. As many have said, it seems like school choice is more about choice for the schools than choice for the students or their parents.

I say let parents make the choice, but let’s demand both teams play by the same rules, particularly when it comes to return on taxpayer investment. More importantly, let’s all of us ensure that our overall system of education is producing the results needed for our students, our state and our Nation. To achieve the right result, we must focus on the right goal, that which made our country great. A free public education for all provided the fuel that allowed our economy to thrive and inspired the American Dream. It is too bad that keeping that dream alive isn’t the real Super Bowl that captures our attention.  The path we are on now will only serve to exacerbate income inequality and the death of that dream. It is about choice…a choice that is ours to make. It is our duty to make it wisely.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 2, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Democracy, early childhood education, Economics, Education, Opportunity, politics, Poverty, Prisons, Privatization, Public Education, taxes, Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

AZ again at bottom in “50 States Report”

The Network for Public Education (NPE), a public education advocacy group headed by the Nation’s preeminent public education expert and advocate, Diane Ravitch, released their “A 50 State Report Card” today. As the name indicates, the report card grades the 50 states and the District of Columbia on six criteria: No High Stakes Testing, Professionalization of Teaching, Resistance to Privatization, School Finance, Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely, and Chance for Success. Letter grades from “A” to “F” were then averaged to create the overall GPA and letter grade for each state.

I was proud to note the study was conducted with the help of Francesca Lopez, Ph.D. and her student research team at the University of Arizona. They assisted in the identification of 29 measurable factors that guided the ratings of the six criteria and created a 0-4 scale for ratings and then evaluated each state on the 29 factors. The graders were tough, with only 5 states earning an “A” grade and no state’s overall grade exceeding a “C.”

Not surprising to anyone who keeps up with Arizona public education, the state ranked 48th, but I assume only because Arizona begins with an “A.”   Arizona’s grade of 0.67 earned it an overall “F”, numerically tying it with Idaho and Texas (in 49th and 50th place), just above Mississippi.

The first criterion evaluated was “High Stakes Testing” which according to NPE has caused “the narrowing of the curriculum and excessive classroom time devoted to preparing for tests.” The organization also points to peer-reviewed studies highlighting “the potentially negative impacts of this practice, including the dismissal of quality teachers and the undermining of morale.” Five states received an “A” grade for their rejection of the use of exit exams to determine high school graduation, the use of test results to determine student promotion, and educator evaluation systems that include test results. Arizona received a grade of “C” in this area.

The second criterion evaluated was “Professionalization of Teaching”, because “many of the current popular American reforms give lip service to the professionalization of teaching while displaying an appalling lack of understanding of what professionalization truly means.” NPE points to research that “shows that experience matters and leads to better student outcomes, including increased learning, better attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals.” High grades were given to states that exhibited a commitment to teaching as a profession. Unfortunately, no states were awarded an “A” in this area and only two states, Iowa and New York received a “B.” Arizona received a grade of “F” which goes a long way towards explaining our state’s critical shortage of teachers.

In the area of “Resistance to Privatization”, seven states received an “A” grade. The evaluation of this criterion was centered on school choice policies that “move control of schools from democratic, local control to private control.” Market-based approaches (vouchers, charters and parent trigger laws) reports NPE, “take the governance of schools out of the hands of democratically elected officials and the local communities they serve, and place it in the hands of a few individuals – often elites or corporations with no connections to the community.” Such policies drain resources from neighborhood schools and don’t overall, produce better results in general. NPE writes “they also serve to undermine the public’s willingness to invest in the education of all children while creating wider inequities across the system as a whole.” Since NPE believes in strengthening community schools, they evaluated states on whether they have laws, policies and practices that support and protect their neighborhood schools. As an early leader in school choice, Arizona more than earned the “F” grade it was awarded.

Since the level of poverty in a school is the single best predictor of average student performance, “School Finance” was another criterion evaluated. NPE looked at whether states adequately and fairly funded their schools noting that “resources like smaller class sizes and more support staff lead to significantly higher achievement and graduation rates – especially for poor and minority students.” Only one state, New Jersey, received an “A” grade in this area. This is not surprising since in the past decade, the gap in spending between rich and poor districts has grown by 44%. NPE calls for states to sufficiently fund public education and implement progressive financial polices that “provide the most funds to districts that demonstrate the greatest need.” The factors used to determine a state’s grade were: per-pupil expenditure adjusted for poverty, wages and district size/density; resources spent on education in relation to the state’s ability to pay based on gross product; and increased proportion of aid given to high-poverty districts than to low-poverty. Once again, Arizona received an “F” grade in this area.

In evaluating the criterion of “Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely”, NPE looked at how states’ education dollars are spent. As research shows the significant benefit of early childhood education, high quality pre-school and all-day Kindergarten were a significant factor in the evaluation as were lower class sizes and the rejection of virtual schools.   In this area, Arizona received a “D” grade, with no states receiving an “A” and only Montana receiving a “B” grade.

“Chance for Success” was the final criterion evaluated. It looked at state policies directly affecting the income, living conditions and support received by students and their parents/guardians. NPE says that residential segregation is largely responsible for school segregation. However, the organization says, “state policies that promote school choice typically exacerbate segregation and charters often isolate students by race and class.” The states that had fewer students living in or near poverty, and have the most integrated schools received the highest grades. No states received an “A” grade, but 10 received a grade of “B.” In this final area, Arizona received a grade of “D.”

It can be no coincidence that Arizona continues to finish last, or close to last, in the vast majority of every report on state public education performance. In fact, the only report I’ve found it to be rated better than at the bottom is from the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Report Card on American Education. Not surprising from this highly conservative “bill mill” for the Koch Brothers and the GOP, which works to develop model legislation favorable to its corporate members and provide it to legislators for implementation in their states. It speaks volumes about ALEC’s focus when even though Arizona ranked 47th on the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), they gave the state an overall B- on education policy. That’s because ALEC values states’ support of charter schools, embrace of home schools and private school choice programs, teacher quality (as defined by the National Council on Teacher Quality) and digital learning. For the most part, the positions ALEC takes on education policy are the exact opposite of NPE’s positions. ALEC pushes school choice and the privatization of public education and in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute does it’s part to support ALEC in it’s efforts to kill public education. What’s in it for ALEC, the Goldwater Institute, their legislators, donors and corporate members? As is often the case, it’s all about money in the form of campaign donations for legislators, profits for those in the for-profit charter and private school business, increased tax breaks for donors and welfare for corporate members. You might ask how privatizing education can lead to increased corporate welfare when such privatization will undoubtedly lead to increased costs? (Think privatization of prisons.) Easy, when the state’s cost for “public” education is passed on to those taking advantage of the privatized option via vouchers and charters. It is well known that both often cost more than the state provided funding covers and parents must pick up the tab.

I attended the first NPE Conference held in 2013 in Austin, Texas where I was privileged to meet and hear Diane and numerous other leaders in the effort to save public education. I, like them, believe (as Diane writes in the NPE report) “educating all children is a civil responsibility, not a consumer good.” And although the phrase “civil rights issue of our time” is way overused, I deeply believe it rings true when, (as Diane writes) it refers to “sustaining our system of free, equitable and democratically-controlled public schools that serve all children.”  I’ve quoted him before, but John Dewey’s words bear repeating until we, as a nation “get it”: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.” Yes, we should act on public education as our very democracy is at stake, because it is!