Category Archives: Uncategorized

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 13, 2016

Posted under

Budget, Education, Public Education, Uncategorized

Comments

4 Comments

It’s Complicated

To my post on Blog for Arizona yesterday, former AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, John Huppenthal posted the following comment:

“The 170,000 charter school students save taxpayers over 290 million dollars per year. The Peoria school district is projected to grow substantially over the next decade. With charter schools, they will not grow as much. They have enormous advantages, both financially and organizationally, over charter schools and if they can keep improving, they will actually be able [to] suck these students back into their school system from charter schools. I actually see this effect in the Chandler Unified school system. As Chandler has improved from 38% excellent rating to 75% excellent rating you can see certain charter school[s] dying on the vine. Meanwhile, public schools nationally have dropped from 36% excellent rating to 24%. Wrong direction. Competition and great leadership were both necessary for Chandler to get to where it is. We will see if Peoria is also the racehorse that responds to the challenge.”

As far as Huppenthal’s blog comments go, this is one of the more coherent ones and the statistics he cites made me want to dig in. Let’s look at a few: 

1.  170,000 charter school students – True. There are 170K or so charter school students in AZ – 170,700 at 556 schools during the 20015-16 school year to be exact.

2.  Charters save taxpayers over 290 million dollars per year – Misleading. According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee in an overview prepared 6/22/2015, charter schools cost the state $1,232 per pupil more in Basic State Aid funding than district schools in FY 2014. Of course, that’s where it really starts to get interesting because district and charter schools each receive funding the other doesn’t. For example, districts can seek overrides and bonds and School Facilities Board funding for construction, emergency deficiency corrections and building renewal (of which there have been zero dollars for over the last three years.) Charter schools on the other hand, get “additional assistance” monies from the state general fund to compensate, and have much more flexibility in spending these monies. Charters can also get AZ Charter School Incentive Program funds to start new locations and charter land and buildings become capital assets of the charter holder regardless of whether taxpayer dollars were used to acquire said land or buildings. New this year, Governor Ducey included $100 million in the 2017 budget for the creation of an Arizona Public School Achievement District (PSAD) that will use taxpayer dollars to reduce bond borrowing costs for charter expansion or new builds. Unlike the funding provided through private investors (such as the Phoenix Industrial Development Authority enables), taxpayers are on the hook for PSAD monies if the charter holder defaults and I suspect (as with any charter bonds) the loan is ultimately repaid with taxpayer dollars.

For the actual numbers, I went to the 2014-15 AZ Superintendent’s Report, which shows that total revenues for districts exceeded those for charters by $1,278 per pupil. Given the students enrolled in each at that time, that amounts to a total amount of almost $206 million less spent on charters, not $290 million. But, only 86.57% of the total revenues for districts came from various in-state sources whereas 91.18% of charter’s revenues did. This means that in strictly “state” dollars, the district schools only cost the state $776 more per pupil for a total “savings” by charters of $125 million last year. Of course, I didn’t yet mention the $800 more per student in “small school funding” charters can get through legal, but creative accounting of their multiple locations. Oh by the way, it is also important to note that one reason district schools get more federal dollars than charters is because they educate significantly more special needs students, which are more expensive to educate and for which, districts almost never receive sufficient funds (from any source) to cover the costs.  (If I got all of this wrong, someone please correct me! I find it hard to believe charters save any substantial money over districts, maybe there’s funding I’m not counting.

Rather than focusing on who spends more though, shouldn’t we really be focusing on who uses the money more effectively? A report written this year by the Grand Canyon Institute, shows charters spend twice the amount ($1,403 vice $628 per pupil in 2014/15) on purely administrative costs than their district counterparts resulting in less money getting into the classroom. In fact, if the seven largest charter holders spent the same on administrative costs as districts, the state would save $54 million per year. BASIS Inc. alone, with 8,730 students, spent 30 times more on general administration than the six largest districts combined (225,000 students.)

3.  They have enormous advantages, both financially and organizationally – False.  If anything, charters have the advantage. From the beginning, Arizona’s charter laws were designed to free charter schools from most regulations and reporting requirements. They aren’t required for example, to follow the same procurement procedures as districts, which allows them to avoid getting competitive bids on major purchases. This lack of accountability/transparency has raised concerns about charter holders “double-dipping” for profit by procuring goods and services with their own companies. In addition, charter teachers aren’t required to be certified, nor are charters required to meet the minimum facilities standards set by the School Facilities Board (SFB) nor the requirement to provide transportation to school for their students. They also don’t have the same requirements for accountability and transparency with no locally elected governing boards and no requirement to be included in the annual AZ Auditor General’s (AG) School District Spending reports. The fact the AG does not compile, analyze spending, or make their review available to the public contributes to the overall lack of accountability we see with Arizona charter schools.

As for the improvement in Chandler “excellent” ratings or the national “excellent” ratings, I looked at the Arizona’s A-F accountability system and AIMS scores, the AzMerit scores, and the NAEP assessment, but was unable to verify the data. With regard to Huppenthal’s assertion that  “competition” was necessary for Chandler to improve, I don’t buy it. After all, Arizona has had “competition” between district schools since 1994 when “open enrollment” was first approved.  And, I find it offensive that he refers to Peoria as a racehorse that needs to “rise to the challenge.” As an “A” district they are one of the top 45 districts and charters in the state. I think they have more than already “risen to the challenge.” Besides, the education of Arizona’s children isn’t some sort of sports competition. It is important work critical to the successes of our communities, our state and our nation. The professional educators in our district schools get that, while some of the state’s charter holders laugh all the way to the bank.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 16, 2016

Posted under

Democracy, Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

Shining City on the Hill?

Yesterday, I was sitting on an American Airlines flight reflecting on my trip to our Nation’s Capitol. I was there to learn more about changes in federal laws impacting education, to network with other school board members from across the country and to advocate our members of Congress.

I had lived in D.C. twice previously, both times assigned there by the U.S. Air Force. This time though, I looked through a brand new lens. During my 22-year military career, I (appropriately) saw myself as a servant of the people. When I stood outside the White House grounds viewing the world’s most powerful leader’s residence, I felt a different call to duty. At that moment, I was reminded of our responsibility to ensure the right person sits in the Oval Office and is held accountable by each of us. Too much is at stake – from representing us to the rest of the world to controlling the launch of nuclear weapons. Not only do we have the right to vote, but a sacred duty to do so. Not primarily in our own interests, or to further our own ideology, but to ensure a more perfect union, a safer world, and a lasting legacy for all of our children.

To me, our visits to Capitol Hill highlighted the representative nature of our form of governance. At any given office we visited, there were often three groups in queue to advocate or lobby for their cause or industry. Sometimes those meetings were with the actual gracious lawmaker (as with Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick), but other times, we were relegated to a young staffer (as with Congressman Paul Gosar.) Either way, we and many others funneled through to influence and seek favors. But, since there will never be enough resources to accommodate all requests (many from opposite ends of the spectrum), winners and losers are assured and conflict is the natural by-product.

There were too, those visiting their nation’s Capitol to see democracy in action. Many of them school children with bar coded tour labels stuck to the front of their matching school logoed t-shirts. There was a man with a bullhorn whose message I didn’t quite get, but he was intent on exercising his first amendment rights even if no one cared to listen. I also noticed the youth that defines so many of those who live and work in the city. It occurred to me that although the average age of those in the U.S. Senate is 61 years old, the daily grind of running our country is in the hands of those with enough energy to meet the challenge.

So, what’s my takeaway? Am I more or less hopeful for the future? Guess I have to say I’m still somewhere in between. Spending time with fellow school board members – “volunteer” elected officials from around the country who had made the trip to D.C. to fight for their students – made be optimistic. Hearing their stories of the on-going war against public education in their states highlighted the hard fight still ahead. The countless young people everywhere I looked, made me optimistic. But, so were there signs everywhere that the world is becoming more dangerous by the minute with bollards, fences, metal detectors and armed law enforcement officers around every corner. Going to see the Senate in session, only to find them departed by the time I worked my way through all the security checkpoints, reminded me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

The one thing I know for sure after my visit is that our democracy is sacred and must be safeguarded. President-Elect John F. Kennedy quoted John Winthrop in 1961 when he said: “We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill – the eyes of all people are upon us.” I don’t think it is too extreme a stretch to say this year’s presidential election could decide whether that shine returns to its original luster, or is forever tarnished. It really is up to each of us, let’s hope we are up to the challenge.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

May 15, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Equality, LGBT, LGBT Equality, Public Education, Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

Biggs is a Neanderthal

In directing public school districts to let students use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, President Obama’s administration recognized the need to provide top-down cover for a group of people that are routinely subjected to severe discrimination. They also recognized that assuring the civil rights (the right to receive equal treatment and ensure one’s ability to participate in civil life without discrimination or repression) of a minority couldn’t be left to the majority. That’s why Diane Douglas is wrong when she says “Every local community across Arizona is unique, and I know that the people who live in those communities should be making the decisions when it comes to this and many other education issues.” How well did “leaving it to communities” work for Black people in the deep South during the Jim Crow days?

Look, I get that many people are uneasy with the whole transgender issue. I managed Wingspan, (Arizona’s LGBT Community Center), for over a year and had more exposure than most to the transgender community. We had transgender people on staff (a couple of them were transitioning during the time I worked there) and we supported the Southern Arizona Gender Alliance (SAGA.) If I am totally honest, I still struggle with totally embracing this community. But, I have great respect for what transgender people go through just to be themselves. And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no one would put themselves through the ridicule, discrimination and pain of transitioning unless they felt they had no other option. My bottom line is that I accept transgender people and respect their right to live freely and safely as equal members of our society.

Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs obviously doesn’t feel the same way. He said the Administration’s directive “has no place in the value system that we seek to instill in our children from their earliest age” and that “the rules and norms of modern society may change, but biology will not”. With this statement, Biggs demonstrates what a complete Neanderthal he is. First of all, the definition of biology is that it is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, EVOLUTION, distribution, identification and taxonomy. Biology, as the study of life and living organisms, is not static, but constantly changing. I read once that 100 species per day go extinct and that in 2011, scientists discovered nearly 20,000 new species. Obviously, biology DOES change and more importantly, the more we learn, the more our understanding of it changes.

Secondly, we can’t really “instill” gender identity in our children. We can try to get them to conform to “social expectations that may accompany a given gender role” “but this can exacerbate the disconnect transgender children feel. I have met very young children who absolutely know they weren’t born into the correct gender. The lucky ones have supportive parents who help them pave their own path. Those not so fortunate have a much tougher road to hoe, one that more often than not leads to multiple suicide attempts (if the first try doesn’t succeed.) The American Psychological Association corroborates that transgender children are more likely to experience harassment and violence in school and other group programs than other children. Transgender adults are at increased risk for stress, isolation, anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem and suicide. In fact, transgender people have an extremely high rate of suicide attempts, 41 percent versus a national average of 1.6 percent.

In addition, there are biological causes for the “gender dysphoria” or “gender identity disorder”(GID) many transgender people experience. “Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones.” Genetic variation, hormones, and difference in brain functioning and brain structures provide evidence for the biological cause of   In fact, twin studies indicate GID is 62% inheritable. (NOTE: gender identity has nothing to do with sexual preference and a transgender person may or may not have had any surgeries to bring their body in “conformance” with their gender identity.)

Ever notice how if Arizona lawmakers and administrators don’t want to deal with an issue, and it doesn’t detract from the ability of one of their supporters to make profit, it becomes something that should be dealt with at the local level? Just look at Douglas’ comment on AZCentral.com that she has“full confidence that government at its least and lowest level is most answerable to constituents on these matters.” Yet time and again t found these same people have found local government is incapable of making decisions about “life-altering” matters such as the use of plastic shopping bags, the admission of guns on school property, and the rights of pet shops to sell puppy mill dogs; all of which had significant lobbyist support for state lawmaker intervention.

As with any struggle for civil rights, this one will be tumultuous. The best approach is for communities to learn about the issue and have open discussions about the way forward. It cannot though, be left to individual communities to determine the “rightness” of the equality sought. That’s why the President’s directive is important. It is a validation of the “immortal declaration” in the Declaration of Independence that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It really is that simple.

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

May 6, 2016

Posted under

Democracy, Democratic, Patriotic, politics, Uncategorized

Comments

6 Comments

Our Nation Hangs in the Balance

Nine months ago, it was virtually impossible to imagine Donald Trump as the apparent nominee of any political party in the United States, let alone that of a major one. Yet here we are. And although I understand the seething sentiments behind his rise, I am still incredulous that his “shtick” has actually worked.

I recently had a conversation with my Dad about whom he was going to vote for in the primary. When he told me Trump, it took me back a little, but then I delved a little deeper. My Dad was a Green Beret and still lives, eats, and breathes his military service. When I asked him what he thought about Trump saying he would “force the U.S. military to commit war crimes”, he responded with “oh he’s just spouting off.”

This statement made me realize that there really is no making sense of those who vote for Trump. They like how he speaks his mind, but then when he goes overboard, they chalk it up to Trump being Trump (boys will be boys.) They like his toughness, so much so that those who have been abused at campaign rallies actually draw the ire of Trump supporters. They eat up the nonsense he spouts off because they want to believe America can return to a “simpler” timed.

At 84 years of age, my Dad has a solidly middle-class quality of life that is much better than he could have envisioned as a young man. Despite that, I suspect he longs for the “good old days” portrayed in Leave it to Beaver and the Andy Griffith show. Yes, life was simpler then and the American Dream was very much alive (at least for some people.) The truth is though, no matter who gets elected President, America will never be going back to those days. Our country is less homogenous and more complex than ever and that trend will only continue.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this morning, the director, Rob Reiner, said of Trump: “The words that have been flung out from his mouth are insane. If he was not a celebrity, if Donald Trump was not a celebrity, the words that come out of his mouth, you’d see a guy in a park, a lunatic in a park on a soapbox, and you’d walk right by him. But the fact that he is a celebrity, all of a sudden, we’re all interested.” (I actually think it also has to do with him being very wealthy.)

Then, when one of the show’s regulars, Willie Geist, basically asked how Reiner explains all the millions and millions of people who like what they hear from Trump and are voting for him? Reiner said “Well, there are a lot of people who are racist.”

Much has been made of the shocked reaction of the hosts and regulars to Reiner’s comment because after all, any reasonable person could easily conclude not only are some of Trump’s supporters racist, but that he himself is both a racist and a mysogynist. Trump is the one who said:

He also by the way, was the only presidential candidate endorsed by David Duke of the KKK.

The real shocker is that any thinking person would be remotely surprised that Trump is referred to as a racist, and I applaud Rob Reiner for saying what others haven’t. Reiner should “know one if he sees one” after all, he played Archie Bunker’s “Meathead” son-in-law on “All in the Family” for seven years. Come to think of it, Archie Bunker’s world is probably a place many of Trump’s supporters would like to revisit. Communities were less diverse, women didn’t work outside the home and deferred to their husbands, and political correctness wasn’t even a term yet.

The really depressing thing for me about the Trump candidacy is not the candidate himself; he’s just one delusional narcissist. What most has me down about the Trump phenomena is how many people have bought into his bullshit hook, line and sinker. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that all Trump supporters are bad people. Many of them are probably just people who have been dealt some hard knocks in life and are tired of things not getting better. It is scary though that even if Trump loses, his supporters will still be around and they’ll likely be even more angry and vocal. This will pose a problem for the next president to deal with. We certainly don’t need a country more polarized than it is now.

In the final analysis though, those who truly believe Trump is the answer are probably on the fringe. Most of us know that no president has the power to fix all that ails us and ultimately we need a steady hand at the helm. Who shows up to vote though, will determine what the future holds. It brings to mind the Thomas Jefferson quote “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

I’m advocating that for the November elections, you commit to voting and that you get one new voter to the polls. I’m calling it #YouPlusOne. The future of our nation likely hangs in the balance.

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 3, 2016

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

New contributor to Restore Reason blog

Bill Maki is another southern Arizona resident who writes about a variety of issues on his blog, skyislandscriber.com. He will be contributing posts here on the Restore Reason blog as well and is graciously allowing me to cross-post on his blog. Welcome Bill.

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!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 17, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Education, General Arizona, Public Education, taxes, Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments

Open Letter to Governor Ducey

It was fitting that your propaganda piece, “Arizona schools win big in my budget” was published in AZCentral.com’s “AZ I See It” column. After all, I understand this is your view of reality. But, the fact that it is your view, doesn’t make it factual.

You open your piece speaking of last year: “we protected priorities, like K-12 education…” Not sure how you can claim you protected K-12 education when in 2015, you cut $113.5 million from K-12 district schools and reduced charter additional assistance funding by $10.3 million. This year, you claim credit for “an historic $3.5 billion funding package for schools.” Yeah Governor, you are just a regular education philanthropist, digging deep into the schools own coffers (state trust lands revenues set aside for education funding) to give our schools the money they’ve been owed since 2009. You offered this deal to take additional monies from state trust lands, despite Arizona ending last fiscal year with an extra $312 million in the bank and being on-track to end FY2017 with $621 million. To add insult to injury, you now plan to pad the states’ rainy day fund with an additional $10 million to bring the balance to $470 million. I have to wonder how many corporate tax breaks will that fund?

 Despite your largely unearned grandstanding, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Prop. 123, because I think it is the only way we will get any significant additional funding for our schools anytime soon. Rest assured though that education advocates throughout the state are going into this eyes wide open. We know there are caps and triggers in the deal that could allow the legislature to cheat our kids yet again. Just know that we will be more vigilant than ever and that “Hell hath no fury” like advocates scorned after negotiating in good faith.

Of course, taking credit for new funding when you are really just restoring it seems to be a trend for you. You claim to be targeting high-need employment sectors with a “new”, $30 million investment in career and technical education (CTE.) Give me a break! This is the same $30 million the Legislature cut from CTE in 2015. It is definitely not a “new” investment and you aren’t even proposing to give it all back at once. Rather, you: plan to give only $10 million per year over three years; only want it spent on certain kinds of programs; and are requiring matching funds from business. House Minority Leader Eric Meyer said “two thirds of the JTEDS across the state will disappear under this plan, it will create havoc.” He went on to question “why we are ‘fixing’ this program that already works so well to train our kids for the workforce.” These programs are proven to produce higher graduation rates, provide job skills for those not necessarily destined for college, and provide employers the skilled workers they so badly need. The reduced funding won’t only hurt JTEDs, but also district schools who get funding for their students participating in the job training programs.

Speaking of reduced funding in district schools, I noticed you didn’t mention that FY2017 will see the implementation of last year’s legislation to change the district funding model to “current year funding” versus the “prior year funding they’ve been using for the past 30 plus years. Essentially, this will immediately cheat our district schools out of one year’s worth of funding totaling $40 million across 64% of Arizona’s districts. And, while you claim this year’s budget proposal makes new investments in our universities, you failed to mention that your “plus-up” is really only $8 million, less than 10% of the $99 million cut in the 2015 budget. As for our community colleges, I note you also didn’t mention restoring any of the state funding you entirely eliminated from Maricopa and Pima colleges in 2015.

I do thank you for inviting all Arizonans to read your budget and join the conversation about it. You do, after all, work for us and we absolutely should give you feedback on the job you are doing. You can bet I’ll visit azgovernor.gov/budget, read your budget in detail, and comment. I wholeheartedly encourage all my fellow Arizonans to do the same.

Respectfully, Linda Lyon

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 30, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Education, Public Education, Uncategorized

Comments

3 Comments

Here we go again…

The second regular session of the Arizona 52nd Legislature officially begins on January 11, 2016.   If past performance is any indication, that means it won’t be long until we see numerous anti-public education bills proposed, some of which will be reruns. With the Inflation Funding Lawsuit settled (pending approval by the voters on May 17th), it will be interesting to see what comes up next. Governor Ducey and the GOP-led legislature will no doubt continue to make political hay from the settlement, but pro-public education advocates are loaded for bear and will be watching for what the legislature does next with regard to public education.

The Friends of ASBA, a sister organization of the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), compiles a record each year of how Arizona legislators voted on high priority K-12 education bills. The record shows how each AZ legislative member voted on education bills during the session. I wanted to compute a score though, so I awarded 10 points for each vote in accordance with ASBA’s position, 1 point for those votes in opposition to it and 5 points when a member was eligible to vote but did not. Then I divided each member’s total by the number of bills they voted on.   When a bill did not come before a member, I just reduced the denominator (total number of bills) by one.

As you might suspect, Republican legislators scored an average of 39 percent for voting in accord with ASBA recommendations and Democrats scored 87 percent. This is not to say that every Republican voted against all public education legislation, or that every Democrat voted for all of it. Bright spots on the right side of the aisle include Representatives Heather Carter with a score of 91, Chris Ackerley with a score of 73, and Representative Bob Robson with a score of 77. Senators Jeff Dial and Adam Driggs both had scores of 70.  All Democrat’s scores were 80 percent or higher except for Senator Barbara McGuire with a 73 and Senator Ed Ableser (who has since retired) with a score of 74.

2015 was a very busy year for education advocates but luckily, their earnest efforts paid off and those bills most harmful to our public education students did not pass. Examples include HB2174 introduced by Rep Mark Finchem, which sought to expand empowerment scholarship accounts once again, HB2190 also introduced by Finchem, which would have prohibited implementation of AZ College and Career Ready Standards (already in use for 4-5 years), and HB 2079 sponsored by Petersen and SB 1173 sponsored by Yee, which would have imposed even more restrictions on local bonding efforts.

The second session of this legislature promises to be as exciting as the first and public education proponents will no doubt be watching determine the Governor and Legislature’s true intentions regarding public education. If the 2016 budget does not include a plus-up for public education, that will be a clear sign that despite the inflation lawsuit settlement, they 1) are not listening to the citizens of Arizona who have made clear that education is a funding priority (as a recent poll showed), 2) are not really friends of public education and 3) really are out to privatize Arizona’s public schools, to the detriment of those students least able to take advantage of other options. Money may not be the only answer, but it can be no coincidence that Arizona was 48th in the Nation for cuts to per pupil funding and 44th in education performance. It is way past time to move the marker in the right direction.

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.”