Prop 123, the controversial school-funding initiative, was narrowly passing when the vote counters went to bed last night—and when I say narrowly, I mean it: Just 8,789 votes separated the Yes votes from the No votes.
The measure, which would add $3.5 billion to education funding over the next decade, was the brainchild of Gov. Doug Ducey, who pushed to tap the principle of the state land trust to provide the majority of the funding. While Ducey brought along the education establishment and the business community—and spent more than $4 million promoting it in recent months—critics complained that the plan shortchanged schools, set unacceptable caps on education funding and set a bad precedent of draining the principle of the land trust. (You can read the details here.)
Here’s what Ducey and Co. should worry about: Opposition to the campaign was growing in the final weeks and most of the ballots that remain uncounted are the vote-by-mail ballots that were dropped off on Election Day. If the No trend persists, Prop 123 could fail—which would be a shocking upset, given the wide public support and money behind it.
This article appears in May 12-18, 2016.
The “wide public support” was from political elites not from ordinary citizens as the vote totals prove.
Shifting the source and amounts of funding for public education would free up money to attract jobs, rebuild infrastructure and balance the budget. It’s pragmatic. That is what Trump will deliver. Better get used to it.
$3.5 Billion MORE of Arizona taxpayers money to fund more illegals and line the pockets of the liberal education establishment.
Mexico will be very happy,
What is the “liberal education establishment”? Are they people who believe the whole of society benefits from educating children and giving them the opportunity to do better in their lives? And, really, since we’re dead last in funding for education in the country (yes — LAST on almost every measure — except where we might be in 49th place) — this prop would hardly put a dent in what needs to be spent on education to try to prove to companies that we can grow an educated workforce and encourage them to come here. We have a history of severely underfunding education compared to most states. You get what you pay for. And we, as a state, have chosen not to pay for education. This prop robs from future kids — instead of doing what should be done (that everyone complains about) and fund education properly with taxes. In the end, the kids we don’t educate today, won’t be able to take care of you when you’re retired — because they won’t be earning enough in minimum wage jobs to get taxed enough to pay for your roads, your social security, your medicare, etc. Sure. Let’s keep kids down by not providing decent education to ALL kids — let’s make sure only the kids that can afford private schools or their parents can drive them all over to get to go to a “good” school — something that will help them (and us) the rest of their lives. Keep them down so that when it comes time to tax them, they earn so little that they CAN’T contribute back to society because they’re busy working 2 jobs to put food in their mouths. Let’s handicap them with a poor education. Because somehow that is better for everyone in society.
I wish that was all the “liberal education establishment” stood for. But everybody knows that it isn’t. Beside the fact that all the money in the world would not change outcomes, based on attempts to educate. Schools can not fix most broken homes. And society can’t buy results.
We must become more realistic about goals and agendas.
“…given the wide public support and money behind it.” Not sure there ever was wide public support behind it. Money behind it, yes, from a limited group of deep pockets.
Again… what is the “liberal education establishment”? I am one who hasn’t a clue what that means — it sounds like you’re trying to come up with a derogatory term for people who value education. And the dismissive “everybody knows that” platitude is just that — it means nothing and only people who agree with your point of view may “know” that. I certainly don’t know that. Or agree with what is obviously your opinion and not a fact. I know you can’t mean our public school teachers. They’re certainly not retiring in million dollar homes and benefiting from the riches we bestow upon them. Who do you think benefits when we put more money into public education — who are these phantom people getting rich off working in public education? And can someone please explain to me why it always seems to sound like people are attacking education — its very existence. The process of increasing knowledge and understanding and comprehension (about anything and everything). Why is it bad to be more educated? When did we start attacking people for wanting to know and learn more? Or wanting their kids or everyone’s kids to know and learn more? Why does every argument seem to make it sound like being educated is BAD??? Is it because it becomes an us/them thing and people are afraid of people with an education? This is something I will never understand. What is wrong with as many people as possible learning as much as possible? What’s wrong with everyone, regardless of their home situation, their cultural origins, their view on life, getting more education? And I beg to differ on the whole education doesn’t equal better outcomes. There are tons of studies out there showing the opposite — that kids with rough beginnings have a much better chance at better outcomes after educational interventions like getting to go to preschool. It’s not a guarantee (just like there’s no guarantee a rich, prep school teen with 2 parents at home will turn into a valuable member of society). And no, I’m not going to google it for you — if you want to educate yourself, I’m sure you could find the studies. And I’m sure all of them would be summarily dismissed as being a product of the “liberal education establishment” anyway, so there’s really no point in me doing the work for you since I would assume it would be totally labeled and dismissed.
“opposition to the campaign was growing in the final weeks”
– Yes, out here in Cochise county Prop 123 had 53% Yes votes in early mail ballots, but Yes votes were only 42% in election day in person voting. Hopefully those mail ballots dropped off on election day push No! over the top. I very much support education funding, but this was a bad deal for education and for our land trust, and it rewarded GOP legislators who just ignored the 2000 voter prop that required to increase education funding by at least the rate of inflation.
Can anyone explain how on a two-page ballot (front and back) one proposition has been completely tallied (Proposition 124), yet the other (Proposition 123) hasn’t? Also, am I the only one who noticed that the yes and no circles to be blacked in at the bottom of each ballot lined up when you held them to the light? It was also interesting that they provided a cheap felt-tip pen to use instead of a cheaper pencil. I had this terrible thought before I went to bed last night, if the ballots are being counted by a machine using light and a photocell to “count” marked ballots only those with a yes vote for both or a no vote for both propositions will clearly be tallied; However, if you voted yes for one and no for the other, when the ballot is illuminated the dark-filled circles from both sides of a yes-no ballot will require that ballot to be checked by hand. Coincidence….
Don’t worry the ballots are not being counted.
Ok… so, I guess it won’t be a discussion and it’s just going to resort to name calling and labels instead of discussing different points of view and trying to explain what you’re thinking and why you’re thinking that way, and instead becomes the “they destroyed everything” diatribe. It’s how you “win” a discussion these days. Blame everyone else, come up with random numbers and state them as though they’re verified facts. It’s the game of politics — say a lot of empty catch phrases with no substance and keep repeating them until you convince someone they’re facts. And… women “bear” children.
And liberals didn’t destroy education. In this state, liberals can’t seem to get a single thing passed through the state legislature (and often, they can’t even get their desired legislation out of committees to be heard by the whole legislative body — never mind get them to a doomed vote). If education is destroyed in AZ, I think you need to look elsewhere to lay your blame. Education has gotten worse here as funding has decreased. I’m sure it’s a coincidence, though. And I’m sure there are illegals that are solely to blame (because they control the legislature and the education system). There hasn’t been a liberal with any power in this state in how long? And in states that are more liberal — many have education systems that are doing just fine. There’s always room for improvement — but they don’t have nearly as far to go as AZ.
So… yeah, I guess this is done. Or at least I am. There’s no point in discussing something if the other person just keeps repeating empty catch phrases and placing blame on the other side with no supporting information.
Thanks Rat T, I can rest better knowing that the “Rule of Law” — that is, they make up the rules and that’s the law — is alive and well in Arizona. Now where can I find one of those T-shirts that say “I voted in Arizona and all I got was this lousy sticker.”? Oh wait, there they are hanging on the rack right next to the “I got a first-rate edumacation in Arizona – would you like fries with that order?” T-shirts.
At least you have admitted that our schools are full of illegals because of Obama.
And just when I was about to note that “What Again” had posted a comment without his very creepy fixation on rape, he screwed himself with his 2nd post where he got back to his strange and odd formulation regarding the “85%” of women who are apparently raped at the border. @what again is a creep and should be banned from this site (nothing to do with his politics). His rape fixation is strange and perhaps dangerous.
What, Again is not only strange and perhaps dangerous, he (she? Doubt it.) is also one of the most (if not THE most) uninformed and misaligned trolls I have ever had the displeasure of being exposed to on this site.
I’m sure that Gandalf and I are only a very small percentage of people who would love to see W.A. banned, but since he’s posting anonymously without an account to back himself up, it won’t happen. So unfortunately, we shall still be exposed to his unbalanced and unproven rants until he gets hit by a bus or chokes on a chicken bone.
I imagine one of those things will happen before, God forbid, he actually gains some common sense and/or decorum.
Tired of short sidedness in AZ, it is just about impossible for the average taxpayer to know what is actually meant when someone proclaims “education has gotten worse as funding has decreased.”
Number one, TUSD has seen a reduction in enrollment as some parents flee the mess. So wouldn’t that mean as classrooms shrink, spending drops because state income dropped? Schools have been closed, enrollment has declined, properties have been leased out or sold relieving some of the financial burden of maintenance (which also seems to have disappeared) for these buildings.
Number two, the only thing us out here in the real world hear is that if we don’t pay teachers more we will lose them. Really? So the solution is to pay them more and the kids learn better? Somehow many of us logical thinkers believe that may not be accurate.
We don’t hear solutions for education standards in the same sentence with more funding. Is it possible the message is flawed, or is it in fact a sad reality as America tries to compete with nations that try to work together to improve their economic future?
We have become a nation of anti everything. Maybe we all need to stop and think about it. America first has been replaced with “me first.”
Being raped as price of admission is indeed very sick. And there are those that just want to silence the truth.
Maybe ask youself, how many dollars in your pocket are a result of this exploitation.
Donna Arvello – So Donald Trump stands for the proposition that reducing funding for education is good for business, and will generate jobs? History does not support those statements.
David W. You can look up the stats on your own, I’m sure. But they can’t fill teacher positions that are open. Teachers stay for a few years and either leave teaching or leave the state. You can’t compare what would happen here with more funding with elsewhere unless you’re talking about really increasing funding. $350 a year per student won’t make a dent. What do schools get with more funding? They keep teachers who don’t feel abused, overworked and unappreciated. You get ed techs (people paid to help teachers in the classes — and stop relying on parents to volunteer to help in over-crowded classrooms). You get newer technology, smaller class sizes (so teachers can spend more time with each kid). You get music classes (in all grades and school — not just the schools have PTOs with parents selling cookies so their kids can learn how to play an instrument or sing in a chorus). You get art. You get playground equipment replaced when it’s at the end of its life. You get phys ed teachers. Parents won’t have to supply tissues and glue sticks and paper and scissors. Because there’s a fundamental understanding that school should be about teaching more than math and reading. But, if you’re all for bare-bones, give them a pencil and a piece of paper type of education, then I guess you’re happy with the status quo here. I’m not. All these things cost money. And the schools aren’t getting the money. Kids whose parents can cart them across town to a charter school or any other school take that (little) state money with them. Those schools do better because, typically, those schools have parents who make more, who have benefited from their own education so they put it back into those schools — and they have time to do it. My kid’s last school had a PTO that raised $30k — from the families of the kids who go to school there. In the poorer areas, that’s not even remotely a possibility. That $30k paid for paper, for part-year music classes, for a school counselor, for a nurse. So, yes, I believe in the basic concept of more money will get you more things. Could it be misspent? Sure. Could it get spread too thin? Sure. But please, let’s keep using that as an argument for why we don’t want to pay more into taxes and why kids here have an uphill battle when it comes to competing with peers from other areas of the country. Because saying that something won’t work and then not funding it is a guarantee that there will be no changes and no improvement. Pretending that money isn’t a big part of the issue won’t solve it. There are other issues — but you sure can’t solve the basic ones (no teachers, no supplies) if you don’t start with putting more money into the system. That’s our society. People don’t teach (work) for free — they’ve got bills to pay just like everyone else. You keep telling them that you don’t want to pay more taxes so that they can have tools to teach kids, lower the class size so they feel like they can really know each student and then expect them to take on 2 jobs just to live a middle-class life and mold the future of our society… Yeah… they’re going to leave. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/06/19/why-teachers-are-fleeing-arizona-in-droves/ — The Washington Post isn’t know as a liberal news source.
Maybe we should start by reviewing salaries of Superintendents and administrators that aren’t in the classroom. TUSD is not getting 50% of their money to the classrooms. Yet they found $1,000 per student more than other AZ schools. And that wasn’t counted in the percentiles.
What business are they in again?
Thanks for the well thought comments. I’m glad you chose not to leave.
But my frustration with that focus is that we’re pretending that all this money isn’t “going into the classroom.” Sure… but to a degree, it’s all going toward education. The money spent on putting food in my kid’s stomach — so he’s not hungry and can focus in class — that’s probably not part of the 50% calculation for going into the classroom. The bus that gets kids there (at least some kids) — not part of the 50%, but important to those kids who need it to go to school. Do they count counselor salaries in that “going into the classroom” figure? I think we need to analyze more than just the number someone throws out — because I don’t trust how those numbers got calculated, either. And what might be something that I consider fundamental to education is not part of what “goes into the classroom.” Diverting money from building maintenance because it’s not part of “going into the classroom”? Nah… I’d like that roof over my kid’s head to stay over his head and not crash on top of it. Who says how much money “needs” to go where to provide a decent education? Who came up with the 50% figure as a one size fits all solution just because some districts can do that? In small districts with less overhead, sure, less money is spent on transportation and buildings and management. And maybe we need to talk about splitting up school districts. But that’s a separate conversation to me. We still spend THOUSANDS less PER kid on education. It would take roughly $3000 more per kid per year to get to the national average. So, you can try to divert money in any way you see fit (and get rid of superintendents, who may make decent salaries, but are certainly not the reason we provide $3000 per kid less in education funding than the average) — but it won’t address the core problem. We don’t value education enough to put money where our mouths are. We attack the system while we starve it. They aren’t given a chance to succeed. Tell you what. At your next job, you earn $30k a year. And then you get criticized not just by your boss, but by the public at large about why you can’t make more of a difference. Then go without a pay raise for 5-7 years. Listen to people blame the system or the administrators or whatever else — doing everything shy of paying into the system to support it and make it easier to accomplish your goals and to take care of society’s kids. Blame the teachers and the administrators, but do nothing to change it except criticize HOW they’re spending the pittance they get (in comparison to neighboring states and the country as a whole) and that the reason that they’re failing is that it’s due to poor choices they’ve made with the little they have. To me, it feels like blaming the victim. Telling someone who’s poor to just budget better — because we all know, if you’re poor, more, harder work will fix it and they’re to blame for their lot in life. It certainly won’t help them if they have more money or were paid something close to a living wage. Just like our education system couldn’t possibly improve with more money. Like, say the $3000 per kid it would take just to get to be “average” in terms of school spending. Can’t we just aspire to being average in AZ — without having to beg or explain why that might be an ok goal?
As an out of state older visiter to Tucson, I am in a state of shock, reading about these problems. Please remember that we will not be here forever. Our children are our future and they only know what we teach them. Please give them the chance to make life better and not take away their future before they even get there.
David B. As someone who didn’t grow up here (in case it wasn’t obvious by my posts and my frustration), it is sad to see this. I don’t remember hearing things like this when I moved here in 2004. When the recession hit, it hit the area pretty hard — and it hasn’t fully recovered. The state decided that the voter approved mandate to keep increasing funding for education was going to be ignored by the legislators and the governor in order to deal with falling revenue (due to the economic downturn and the increase in “incentives” — read: continuing to lower taxes for individuals to win votes and for corporations to try to fool them into doing business here, despite the fact that they seem to hesitate when they see our education stats and wonder if they can convince their own workers to move here or hire enough people locally who can do the job).
So, the state has been ordered to pay back the money that they illegally withheld (yes, the state fought paying the back money that was owed by going to court and wasted who knows how much on lawyers and court fees instead of just finding a way to put the money back that was owed). This prop was to siphon money out of the long-term education fund (the state lands we have for it) early — to pay back the money the court said was owed. So, this prop takes money already set aside for education to pay a debt that should have been paid by taxes — but got diverted elsewhere. I read a good analogy somewhere that I’ll steal and alter a bit — instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, it’s robbing Peter’s savings account to pay Peter. Oh, and it adds a cap to future funding (can’t remember the details) and essentially nullifies the previous voter-approved mandate to increase funding. So, it’s basically given the state the right to continue not funding education and to deplete the savings for kids/education down the road, at a faster pace — and the prop only goes for 10 years. And it doesn’t make a dent in what is needed to help reverse what has been going for years here. The splashy ad campaign and supporters kept saying it was a “first step” — to what? There’s been no sign that they direction they plan to go is to fund education at a level that is needed. Political platitudes like “we value education” and “only a beginning” mean nothing to me based on their actions. If you go to court to try to get out of paying what is owed to the education system — how can you possibly believe the guys who do that are now suddenly champions of public education and are going to really fund it? Just because they say so to get you to vote for a prop that essentially negates the mandate to fund education? Sigh… I think they spent something like $5 million on their ad campaign to get people to vote for it — preying on the “the kids need the money” tactic (and never acknowledging that they’re the reason the kids need the money more than ever) and hoping no one would read between the lines. I’m sure that $5 million could have been used in a school somewhere.
The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp
This might have been the beginning of the fall for education. Once parents found out they didn’t have to feed, clothe or even discipline children, they decided to let society solve their problems.
Qualified parents would have had welfare, food stamps and other government assistance. This tipped the balance of parental responsibility and look what we have today.
Teachers have been asked to become parents for the irresponsible. That’s where we start to try to fix this mess.
Pray the “NO” vote carries it or we’ve got a serious problem with real estate taxes supporting school funding down the road. I don’t know about you but withe school tax and the “fairness tax”, I’m about tapped out and now with public lands that generated income on the chopping block, it’s going to get so much worse. An uneducated public, specifically school organizations that fell for this scam, are sadly lacking in research skills.
David, Truman signed the law to feed hungry children because children without food can’t learn and parents without money have no option but to send a hungry child to school. Do you honestly believe these hungry kids feel great and glorified by accepting a handout while their richer peers have delicious food to eat in front of them? Do you honestly think teachers don’t teach because kids get to eat. I really hope you are not a teacher because if you are, you are one of the irresponsible. What educators grabbing for the golden egg don’t get is that the education fund was just robbed because the state had already robbed the original education fund and the court ordered them to pay it back. Instead, they have sold public lands to private corporations that we will never get back. They will rape the land, deplete the water source and we are stuck with a constitutional amendment that is dangerous to our future survival in the desert. To me the irresponsible ones are the Duceys and the teachers who couldn’t see beyond the lying glitter. Why do you think ALEC funded by a Koch would spend $5 million dollars on a prop if they didn’t have a personal agenda and when people wake up, how in the hell will we ever get a constitutional amendment scrubbed from the constitution with 50 members of our state legislature, including the governor, being members of ALEC, who writes all of the dirty, hating bills!
Dan Hyde, you’re just full of misinformation today.
First: The Supreme Court’s 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe struck down a Texas law that allowed schools to verify students’ immigration status and deny enrollment or charge tuition to those who could not prove they were legally in the country. Attempts to overturn the ruling, most notably a 2011 Alabama law requiring schools to determine K-12 students’ immigration status and bar those without legal documentation from enrolling, have failed in lower courts. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A TAD BIT BEFORE THE HALF BLACK GUY HIT THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.
And then Factcheck.org: The Urban Institute doesn’t differentiate between non-citizens with legal residency and those without, meaning families of non-citizens who are in the country legally — those who hold so-called green cards — are included in this estimate.
In an e-mailed statement, Brnovich spokesman Ryan Anderson said the attorney general’s comments were based on the Pew report about children with undocumented immigrant parents.
“Arizona has one of the largest percentages of students with unauthorized immigrant parents in their homes in the nation,” he wrote.
BOTTOM LINE: About 11 percent of Arizona public-school students have at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant, according to the Pew Research Center. However, a majority of these children were born in the U.S. and, under the 14th Amendment, are citizens. Estimates for how many Arizona students are undocumented immigrants vary from 2.2 percent to 5 percent, significantly less than Brnovich’s statement of more than 10 percent.
Sorry soundcloud
The U.S. Census Bureau just released 2008 figures showing the national average total per-pupil funding from all revenue sources was $12,028. Although estimates of the number of school-age children of illegal immigrants don’t separate those attending public vs. private schools, it’s reasonable to assume that nearly all attend public schools since most come from lower-income families. Therefore, if one multiplies $12,028 by the roughly 3.7 million students with illegal-immigrant parents, then one gets a national total funding cost of $44.5 billion.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-costly/nQjSw/
2008…eight years ago. Do the math.
LOUD NOISES!!!