Education funding proposals are making news, if not progress. Doug Ducey is touting his plan to take $325 million a year from the state land trust. He held a telephone town hall in Peoria (One of his grandiose statements was trashed in an AZ Republic fact check). And his office put out a video which could stand a bit more substance, not to mention higher production values. His dark money friends have more cash, so I’m guessing they’ve got something more professional in the works.
Senate President Andy Biggs and House Speaker David Gowan have a plan of their own, as do the Democrats and Diane Douglas. Douglas is trying to get the word out on her funding and other proposals with her “We Heard You” tour, a follow-up to her “We Are Listening” tour (She’s scheduled to hit Tucson Nov. 19). In a “strange bedfellows” twist, Douglas said she wants to find ways to collaborate with people she’s clashed with, by which she means Doug Ducey and the State Board of Ed. Meanwhile, she says she talked with the Arizona Education Association when she was putting together her proposals and apparently received a more positive reception. AEA President Andrew Morrill had some good things to say about her approach.
Andrew Morrill, president of the association, said the report covers some topics like student poverty he feels have been widely swept under the rug.
“Here’s an elected leader of education, and one I know has been in the press for a variety of reasons, but who says we better have a conversation about students not only about how they learn but how they live,” Morrill said of Douglas.
There’s a headline for you. Tea Party Meets Teachers Union. Handshakes Follow. It’s not a marriage made in heaven—there are lots of areas of disagreement—but Douglas and the AEA have found some common ground, grounded in trying to do what’s best for Arizona’s children.
Meanwhile, some Republican legislators are working to throw a monkey wrench into all the education proposals. Rep. Mark Finchem and House Majority Whip David Livingston want everyone to slow down and take a breath. We’re going about this funding thing all wrong, they say. We need specific goals with metrics so we can measure the educational effects of adding funding. Otherwise, funding the schools at the level required by law, which still leaves us hanging around in the bottom of the per-student funding barrel is . . . right, you guessed it . . . “throwing more money into education.”
Livingston today told our reporter that he concurs with Finchem’s complaints yesterday that the education funding plans proposed thus far are missing accountability measures to ensure the money will actually improve the state’s education system and make sure the additional money doesn’t just go into a black hole. “I think [Finchem] is correct that just throwing more money into education doesn’t fix anything. What good does that do? We need results, we need better results,” he said.
I’m not telling tales out of school when I say that Finchem and Livingston are part of The Ted Cruz for President Arizona Leadership Team. I’m sure they’re both proud of being part of what Cruz calls “such an accomplished group of conservatives in Arizona.”
This article appears in Oct 8-14, 2015.
Unfortunately I have heard from other legislators this statement about “throwing money at education without accountability, throwing money down a black hole.” It is hard to believe this nonsense. All public schools want to do is to be put whole, AT THE MINIMUM, which still makes Arizona 48th, 49th or 50th In per student spending. They are not even talking about moving to 45th. Do Ducey and Biggs meet with potential businesses and tell them we cut $90 million from universities and we are 49th in K-12 education. It’s like John McCain, 894th in a class of 899, and we are supposed to be impressed? Our last rank will really impress the hell out of tech businesses. Republicans, Arizona is near the bottom and complete mediocrity is the best we can do?
If we developed a local job economy, built homes, and collected appropriate taxes we would be fine.
No growth, no taxes, no taxes no funding.
Phoenix will keep it. When will the formula be understood?
Debbie T is right on. We need to support job creating, wealth generating projects such as Rosemont and Resolution Copper. Mining made and supported Arizona for more than a century and can continue to do so – if allowed. Otherwise, we will continue to export good, well paying jobs and a sustained tax base to Latin America.
Believe me, I know this to be true as I have been involved in helping numerous companies develop natural resource projects down south for many years. Why, because it is too difficult to permit something in the US, even while adhering to the same environmental and social standards in Peru or Chile. Keep it up liberals, and you too will soon suffer even more from you foolish and impractical ideals.
I read recently that education is one of the largest job creators in Arizona. Consequently are communities suffer when universities must let go of people, and teachers are paid so poorly with poor working conditions that they don’t want to work here. What could be better for all than fully funding education in Arizona? Children gain, communities have more qualified people, and we then will attract more companies. Companies want good education for their employees’ children. So we are failing Arizonans terribly by saying we are ‘throwing money at education’ instead of saying, “Let’s fully support our families, generate more qualified people, and create more good job opportunities”. Education is an important part of our infrastructure. Somehow we have gotten everything backwards and there is plenty of evidence to support that.
“Keep it up liberals, and you too will soon suffer even more from you foolish and impractical ideals.”
Bisbee boy was actually sounding half-way reasonable until he overstepped and exposed himself as just another “slash-and-burn” radical-right anti-environmentalist…
Then legislators get grumpy if parents, teachers and school districts don’t bow down and thank them for giving schools the crumbs off the table. And don’t forget, you account for those crumbs. We don’t want them just flushed down a black hole, you know like for leaky roofs, broken toilets, and run down buses and the like. Well we will give you a tiny bit more money, no where near what the law provides, and no where near mediocrity, and you better bow down to Sweepstakes Biggs and Goldwater clone Ducey, and the Anti-Common Core clones. Jay Lawrence?
David reports that a Republican concern is “the education funding plans proposed thus far are missing accountability measures to ensure the money will actually improve the state’s education system and make sure the additional money doesn’t just go into a black hole.”
There are things the State can and should be doing to ensure that Arizona’s public districts are more accountable. Those would include following up on complaints about observance of open meeting laws in governance meetings and providing oversight on and guidance for the installation of appropriate supports to financial transparency. Instead they choose to exercise their “oversight” role by inadvisable interventions in the delivery of culturally relevant curricula. Priorities? The State needs to understand that setting achievement benchmarks is not going to improve performance. Improving coaching and support and ensuring that funds are applied where they can most benefit students is what will improve performance, but that’s a lot harder to achieve than just setting a “cut score” and demanding that it be met. It requires professional knowledge of the field of education, which is something our Republican legislators largely lack and evidently do not feel is necessary for them to formulate effective and appropriate laws and policies.
The public district I’m most familiar with locally (TUSD) ranks pretty low on its performance in the area of observing “public institution” protocols and in communicating accurate information to the public. It would seem like there should perhaps be some relationship between funding and a district’s ability to manage funds and report accurately on their use. If the Republicans at the state level are falling short in their oversight and enforcement in this area, Pima Democrats are falling short on their advocacy. They are much more concerned about getting more money in than they are about tracking public districts’ performance and ensuring that protocols are in place to support proper application of funds and proper reporting to the public on their use.
The hypocrisy is that charter schools, don’t need all this accountability. Hire your relatives, check, buy from relatives or yourself, via ghost company, check, don’t perform as well as public schools, check, ace out hard to manage students, check, fake waiting lists, check, “voluntary” required “donations”, check. Two accountability standards, private charters (but getting public funds), versus true public schools.
There are many forms of hypocrisy in Arizona, and here’s another one:
“Supporters of Public Schools” who say they want transparency and accountability but don’t observe public school districts closely enough to know whether they are actually delivering on what they are legally required to provide.
Adelita Grijalva’s mother-in-law hired as a TUSD principal without appropriate public disclosure of the relationship in advance of the board vote, check. Changes made to the audit committee and internal auditor position description that tamper with financial accountability, check. Proper protocols for bidding not observed, check. Inaccurate information delivered to the public about what the Arizona Open Meeting Law actually requires in Calls to the Audience, check. Violations of the Arizona Open Meeting Law in governance meetings both at central and on the sites, check. I could go on, but I won’t. Listing all the problems would take far too long.
“Supporters of Public Schools” should not imply that “true public schools” are spotless on these issues. If they care about transparency and accountability they should recognize that they have an obligation to serve as watchdogs, ensuring that public districts are required to COMPLY WITH these laws that are so important. They should actively support the campaigns of board candidates that take transparency and accountability seriously. And they should not imply that all charters are financially irresponsible and academically lower performing than public schools. Some charters are non-profits not out to mis-use public funds and they actually deliver quality educational services to the students enrolled in them.
Really have a vendetta against TUSD? When were you fired? When are you going to run for the Board?
Mr. Ducey has mismanaged education funds. Has acted like a Dictator without the public vote, give the money to Charter Schools. Charter Schools do not hire certified teachers, they can pull anyone off of the street, degree or no degree to teach our children. We are in a race for the stupidest people in the United States. He has also cut food subsidies for poor children, and is hurting mothers that struggle to keep food on the table. These Conservative Nut Jobs only know how to tear down government, destroy, mismanage the governments assets. They are not the party of Republican, they are rabid dogs that steal out of your trash can, poop all over your yard, and bite your children. They are liars and theives. I am tired of it, he has to go before he drains Every last penny of our assets, like they did when Bush was in office. Ducey is after the land trust now.
No, Ms. Perkins, I do not have a “vendetta” against TUSD. I have never been employed by them, and I was not fired by them. I have actively supported the needs of more than one TUSD site, and I actively supported a TUSD board candidate in the last election cycle who understands the transparency issues, donating to her campaign and walking door to door on her behalf.
What was your role in the last TUSD board election? Do you intend to take an active role in the next election? Do you attend TUSD board meetings or watch them online? They are all available on the district’s website. If you avidly support cutting off funding to charters and increasing funding to all public districts — regardless of whether they observe the law and implement appropriate “public institutions” processes and protocols — I recommend you start paying attention to what some districts in the “true public school” system are doing with the money allocated to them. You might want to take note, for example, of the young Superintendent’s compensation package, and compare and contrast it to the maintenance condition of the sites and the rate of pay of teachers in the district. Can this district afford to award the Superintendent the right to exchange up to 50 unused vacation days for compensation at the rate of $1,000 per day? I agree that public schools in Arizona are underfunded, but I do not agree that funding should be increased to a district where the governing board majority makes these kinds of decisions about what to do with the very insufficient funds available to them.
If you were actually concerned about the things you SAY you are concerned about (financial transparency and accountability), you would be as outraged by the shenanigans in TUSD as you are by the “lack of transparency” in charters. But your last comment above tips your hand. You are NOT really concerned about transparency and accountability or about ensuring quality education is delivered to students. You have an ideological ax to grind, and your commentary is not worth responding to.
I am sickened by how hard TUSD supporters will fight to defend the status quo.
Here’s a link to an AZ Daily Star editorial on the TUSD Superintendent compensation package:
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/tucson-unified-superintendent-s-percent-raise/article_2f0dd6fc-85ff-5ead-93e1-1b6f5e69b64d.html
It includes a link to the contract itself, with all the details, including the vacation pay exchange rate.
I’m in favor of increasing funding to public schools generally and I’m also in favor of requiring charters to be more transparent. But I’m not in favor of public funds being used the way TUSD is currently using them, and I think those who want funding to public schools increased need to include as part of their “case for increasing support” what their strategy is for dealing with districts like TUSD, which seem to have a great deal of trouble deciding to apply the funds given to them in ways that actually support students’ learning needs.
I am curious about possible unintended (or perhaps very intended) consequences of using $325M a year from the state land trust; not at all sure what that means, or what happens down the road – 3 short years is a billion dollars. Who is going to really get some money and how will they use the land? What will it look like? Will we have more new buildings and plumbing and copper wire while we simultaneously create more abandoned buildings? Is it really just more money for the few people who really don’t need it, but who will make sure that selected politicians and businessmen get some down the line? I am glad that a GOP governor is actually trying to make the “super majority” in PHX face some facts and quit ignoring public mandates and judicial orders. But who can trust the words “state trust” in this case – anymore.