Tag Archives: public education

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 18, 2016

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, Economics, Education, General Arizona, taxes

Comments

4 Comments

Why Ducey’s Promise to Lower Taxes is a Lie

During Governor Ducey’s inaugural address in 2015, he indicated that he would not support higher taxes with: “prosperity moves, and as taxes go up, it moves away. Gone as well are jobs, people and companies that found a better welcome someplace else.” Likewise, during his 2016 State of the State address, he bragged about lowering taxes and assured Arizonans that he will “lower taxes this year. Next year. And the year after.” Yes, he has been consistent about his promise to lower taxes and even to do away with the state income tax. He obviously subscribes to the GOP mantra of supply-side (some call it trickle-down) economics.

The basic theory of supply side economics 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.

Take Governor Sam Brownback for example. When he took the reins in Kansas, he dropped the top income-tax rate by 25%, lowered sales taxes and created a huge exemption for business owners filing taxes as individuals. 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.

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. Oklahoma’s Republican Treasurer Ken Miller, who advocates for revenue-neutral tax cuts, blamed his GOP colleagues for the now “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.” To Arizonans I ask: “sound familiar?”

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.

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.”

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. 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.

Mainstream economic research though, 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.”

Yet, Governor Ducey insists on following the ALEC playbook with his plan to eliminate state income tax. 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.”

Stay tuned for the second half of this post in which I’ll explain why I claim Governor Ducey’s promise to lower taxes is a lie. Small spoiler alert…he may be committed to reducing income taxes, but there is WAY more to this story.

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

January 15, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

2 Comments

$82,996 is low income…REALLY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 12, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

2 Comments

Ducey on Education…What’s he really saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 8, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

5 Comments

Top Five – Discouraged but Hopeful

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

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

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

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

ducey tweet

 

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

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

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

Now, for what most gives me hope:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 6, 2016

Posted under

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

Comments

2 Comments

Bottom Five List – Discouraged but Hopeful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 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 28, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Budget, CTE/JTED, Education, Public Education, taxes

Comments

1 Comment

CTE is a win-win-win

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple was recently asked why his company moved its production to China. “It’s skill”, said Cook in response to Charlie Rose on “60 Minutes. “The U.S., over time, began to stop having as many vocational kind of skills” he said. “I mean, you can take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in a room that we’re currently sitting in. In China, you would have to have multiple football fields.” Okay, so the CEO of the most profitable company in the world moved production out of the U.S. because American workers don’t have enough vocational skills.   Surely, that makes alleged “pro-business” legislators stand up and take notice, right? You would think, but this is Arizona.

In our state, the public high school districts charged with offering these tuition-free “vocational kind of skills” or Career and Technical Education (CTE) are Joint Technical Education Districts (JTED.) These JTED offer a variety of programs in fields such as business, computers and media, health science; and industrial technologies just to name a few. Students in JTED programs earn high school credit, and in some cases, may earn college credit, industry certifications, and/or a state license through combination of hands-on training and classroom instruction.

As the Pinal County Chair for the Arizona School Boards Association, I toured the Central Arizona Valley Institute of Technology (CAVIT) in Coolidge this year.   This district has a partnership with eleven area high schools and offers aesthetics, cosmetology, dental assistant, fire science, law enforcement, massage therapy, medical assistant, nursing assistant, and veterinary assistant training programs. I was very impressed with what I saw at CAVIT. Engaged students were learning not only valuable trades skills that will earn them certificates and jobs when they graduate from high school, but also how to be valued employees. I left CAVIT thinking “this is exactly what we need in Arizona.”

Unfortunately, the AZ Legislature obviously doesn’t agree or just doesn’t “get it”. In 2011, they cut CTE funding for freshmen to the tune of $29 million. In 2017, another 7.5 percent cut takes affect. That may not sound like much, but on top of previous cuts it will devastate the program. In fact, JTED aren’t the only districts impacted since about 70 percent of the funding they receive is passed through to regular school districts where many of the classes are taught. JTED keeps the other 30 percent for operation of their central campuses. Jeremy Plumb, superintendent of Mountain Institute JTED in Yavapai County, said: [As the] programs continue to grow and expand critical partnerships; business and industry leaders are mind-boggled by the recent statewide program cuts.” Plumb also confirmed that Arizona is beginning to see epidemic employment shortages in industries such as health care, power and electrical systems, and aviation just to name a few. David Jones, president of the Arizona Construction Association, likewise confirms that quality carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers and landscapers are in high demand adding: “There’s a stigma attached to going to a vocational school in the U.S.” Perhaps, but this stigma hasn’t extinguished student demand in Arizona with over 90,000 students enrolled in one of the state’s 13 JTED. After all, college is expensive and job opportunities aren’t what they used to be. JTED offers an alternative with less risk and at least as much promise for a secure future.

Truth is, although Americans love to tout “college for all” fewer than one in three young people achieve that dream. Some can’t even make it to college, but the real problem is our drop-out rate which is the highest in the industrialized world. There are a variety of reasons, to include that many college students (as with high school students who drop out) can’t see a direct connection between their studies and future employment. In fact, 81 percent of high school dropouts say relevant, real-world educational offerings would have kept them in school. This matters because the average dropout will contribute about $300,000 less to society than their high school graduate counterpart. CTE participation has proven to help. In Tucson Unified School District, students who took three or more CTE classes saw as much as a 60 percent decrease in the likelihood of dropping out of high school. In the Mesa Public Schools, students taking just two CTE classes were 79 percent less likely to drop out. Of this type of “applied learning” Richard Condit, Chief Administrative Officer, Sundt Corporation said: It is clear that when students see application of content, they are more engaged in and committed to their education.”

Not only does JTED/CTE provide skilled workers to eager employers, and keep students in school, it often provides young adults higher paying jobs than if they had gone to a four-year college. This is especially true when the avoidance of student debt is considered. A 2011 Harvard study showed that 27 percent of people with post-secondary licenses or certificates—credentials short of an associate’s degree—earn more than the average bachelor’s degree recipient. In today’s tough economy, the percentage is probably higher.

So, CTE is a win-win-win program. And yet, our Legislature seems intent on killing it. Yes, I know it is a budget issue. Yes, I know Governor Ducey is determined not to raise taxes (at least not directly), but this is a choice! This is HIS choice! This is inspite (or maybe in SPITE) of the fact that a recent poll found 66 percent of Arizonans would pay higher taxes to improve public schools.

It is OUR choice whether we continue to let our elected officials act counter to our wishes. Guess what? We ARE the boss of them! We grant them their jobs, we pay their salaries, and we should be giving them performance feedback. Click here for the Governor’s feedback form, and click here to find and email your legislative district’s representatives. And, if you want to make a difference real-time during the next legislative session, click here for the form to sign up for the Legislature’s Request to Speak System where you can engage from your home computer and have your comments become part of the public record. You CAN do something and what you do will matter. As Nike says, “just do it.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 26, 2015

Posted under

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

Comments

2 Comments

Doing the Right Thing Isn’t Complicated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 24, 2015

Posted under

AZ Legislature, Education, Privatization, Public Education

Comments

5 Comments

You Don’t Know, What You Don’t Know

Yes, the AZ Republic called Senator Sylvia Allen “one of the best-known lightning rods in the AZ Legislature.”  Her stated belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and her suggestion that church attendance be mandated as a way to “get back to a moral rebirth in this country” are just two of the reasons for her notoriety. I was shocked when I heard of her appointment as Chair of the Senate Education Committee, but it shouldn’t have surprised me.

After all, I doubt her religious fervency is the reason AZ Senate President Biggs selected Allen to be the person who will control what education proposals make it out of the AZ Senate. Rather, I suspect it is her support of charter schools like the George Washington Academy she helped found in Snowflake. Listed as the “Administrative Program Manager” on their “GWA Teachers and Staff” page, Senator Allen’s employment with this school makes me wary of her ability to be impartial when it comes to legislation that favors charter schools over public district schools. Please know that I am not a charter “hater.” I recognize there are charter schools that fill critical needs. What I am, is realistic about the impact the diversion of tax payer dollars to privately managed charter and private schools is having on our public school districts and their students. Make no mistake; this is a zero sum game. When charter schools win, public district schools, often the hub of small communities, lose.

Senator Allen’s George Washington Academy may be located in the community of Snowflake, but it is managed by Education Management Organization (EMO) EdKey Inc., a for-profit management company that operates 18 schools in Arizona. Although its schools are technically “public” there are numerous differences between them (and all charters) and your average community district schools. For starters, the requirements for accountability and transparency are very different. Public district schools have locally elected governing board members that are accountable to the public. Not so with charter schools. In looking at the George Washington Academy website, they had no information about the school board on their school board page, and under school board agendas, only a statement that says: “Sorry, but that directory is empty.” I had to go to the corporate website (sequoiaschools.org) to see the names of their six governing board members, but there was no access to board agendas or minutes.

Another difference between public district schools and charters is the students they serve. Although both are required by law to take all students as long as they have existing capacity, charters often manage to be more “discriminating” in filling their student rosters. As the 2015-2016 school year is the first for the George Washington Academy, there were no AzMERIT scores or demographic information for the school. I did review the data for an EdKey, Inc. school operating under the same charter, the Pathfinder Academy. I discovered their students performed relatively well (this first year was tough on all schools) on the AzMERIT test with 57 percent of their students passing on the English score and 54 percent on Math. It is important to note though, that the school evidently is very homogenous, reporting no (or negligible) non-white students. They also had no (or negligible) homeless students, English language learners, or students with disabilities. I am a school board member of a small rural school where 24 percent of our students are classified as special needs. These students take the same AzMERIT test as all the other students. As you can imagine, this makes a difference. As does working with students who may be dealing with additional challenges (such as poverty) outside the classroom.

This isn’t just about academic achievement it is also about cold, hard cash. The current reality is that with open enrollment and school choice, all schools must compete for students and the funding that comes with them. This idea works great for students when schools are focused on improving so they can better attract students. It doesn’t work so well when the motive is profit-oriented. EMOs are in the business of making money and that means operating efficiently and profitably, but they may not always have all the students’ best interests in mind. That’s why attrition rates in charters are often high after the annual daily attendance records are turned into the state on the 100th day of the school year. After the 100th day, less than “ideal” students are often “encouraged” back to the public district school. The charter school keeps that year’s funding for the student and the district school must educate that child without any associated funding. And although EMOs may be focused on operating efficiently, administrative costs are often double those of Arizona’s traditional public schools, which have the lowest administrative costs in the nation.

I believe charter schools should supplement public schools not supplant them. The original intent of charter schools as envisioned by Albert Shanker, the president of the American Federation of Teachers (yes a union guy), was a public school where teachers could experiment with “fresh and innovative ways of reaching students.” That was until the corporate reform movement recognized the money (around $700 billion) to be made in the K-12 education market.

Yet, despite all the efforts of reformers and the fact Arizona has led the Nation in charter school development, a full 85 percent of Arizona students still attend public district schools. This is where our focus and that of those who represent us should be. In the first session of the 52nd Legislature, Senator Allen voted in accord with the Arizona School Boards Association’s position on only two of nine bills. That is right in line with her party, but it doesn’t bode well for her support of Arizona’s district public school children. Still, I must admit that I liked her words to the Arizona Republic in response to her appointment as the Senate Education Committee Chair: “I want to highlight the incredible teachers who are the reason for our children’s success. I also want to focus on parents’ responsibility in their children’s education. They are a critical part of their children’s success. We need to encourage that involvement.” I agree entirely with both of those sentiments and hope she genuinely believes them and acts accordingly as the Senate Education Committee Chair.

Words won’t though, raise Arizona’s academic achievement above the bottom three or four. Senator Allen appears to be predisposed to charter schools, her voting record has not been supportive of public district schools, she has extreme religious views and, she only has a high school diploma. Look, I am not criticizing her for not going to college, she’s obviously done well in spite of that. But, with that in mind, is she the right person to exercise this much control over what happens with education in our state? After all, there are a multitude of experiences higher education offers and in the absence of these experiences, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, and I hope Senator Farley is correct in his assessment that he believes Allen will “do a pretty good job.” Unfortunately, I believe our AZ students need more than “pretty good”, I think they need the very best we can bring. I have my doubts that Senator Allen is up to the job, but time will tell and I’ll be watching.