I don’t make a habit of posting long passages written by other people, but I did it Friday when I put up Richard Gilman’s entire post on how scam private schools will pop up if the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (aka Vouchers on Steroids) become universally available in Arizona, and I’m doing it today with a large portion of an editorial from the Arizona Republic. Because, if those folks can say it better than I can, I’m happy to give them the floor — or the post, as the case may be.
Over the years, the Republic has done some excellent investigative reporting on various aspects of education in Arizona. This editorial, Education needs don’t match lawmaker wants, which links to some of the paper’s recent articles, is a continuation of the tradition. After describing students who are in the greatest need of increased educational attention, children living in poverty in general and a large portion of our minority populations in particular, and saying we need to make a concerted effort to improve their educational attainment, the editorial criticizes lawmakers for moving in the opposite direction.
Arizona’s GOP majority Legislature is pushing an expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, a voucher program that takes money out of public schools to pay for private or church school tuition.
Touted as a way to increase school choice and help low-income students, the current program is most used by students in wealthy districts, reporting by The Republic found.
Arizona’s quest for school choice has resulted in a large number of charter schools. The unintended consequence: charters serve disproportionately fewer Latino students, according to the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting.
Education tax credits, also designed to increase school choice, also fail to deliver for those who most need help. Tax credit money designated for private schools disproportionately benefits well-off families, according to another Republic investigation.
Public school tax credits also tend to go to wealthier schools, where parents can afford the donations.
Now lawmakers are considering what could be a significant blow to efforts to raise the achievement level of Arizona’s poorest and most disadvantaged students.
There is legislative push to end desegregation funding that allows some districts to focus on improved learning opportunities for students facing challenges. It is being done in the name of fairness, because not all schools benefit from being able to levy property taxes to remedy identified problems with how minority students were treated.
The system may be flawed. But denying funds that schools use to address the needs of Latino, Black and Native American students makes little sense.
It makes more sense to find ways to increase funding for all schools – especially those with greatest needs.
Arizona’s leaders need to look at the demographics in our schools and find ways to reduce – not increase – achievement inequities in our schools.
This article appears in Feb 25 – Mar 2, 2016.
One newspaper quoting another. You just got to love 21st century journalism. makes me wonder what the first paper copied it from.
At least this author wrote two paragraphs, Comrade Safier is usually only good for one.
Looks like the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting board could use a taste of their own medicine. http://arizonawatch.org/about
#ArizonawatchBoardSoWhite.
Tell me about your diversity policy again…..
David: dare we conclude that your re-posting of this piece from the Republic means you oppose the “legislative push to end desegregation funding”?
If so, how do you feel about Dr. Sanchez’s recent voluntary relinquishment of millions of dollars in deseg funding so he could reduce the local tax rate by a minuscule amount? (“Tax relief!” Always a good thing, right?)
It goes without saying that we’ve got a bad bunch in the AZ legislature and in most state level offices these days, who can be depended upon to undermine the best interests of the state’s children in every possible way (defunding public education, proposing zero-accountability voucher expansion programs, raiding the state land trust to pay less than what is owed to the education system, shredding various social safety nets that support children and families), but what about our leaders in Baja Arizona? Are they providing any sort of effective “push back” to the toxic state-level program? Why does it look more and more like what we have in our largest local public school district is a Superintendent (backed, strangely, by a supposedly “progressive” board majority) who is collaborating with state-level leaders to reduce — and perhaps eventually to phase out — much needed desegregation funding in this poor, segregated school district?
No doubt it is irritating to local education “leaders” to have to meet reporting requirements and document proper application of funds, while the plaintiffs in the case continue to complain (justifiably, from what I’ve seen) that the right type of reporting is still not taking place, but is a proper remedy for this irritation to hike legal expenses in pursuit of Unitary Status so that once that status is achieved, we can then phase out $60 million in supplementary funds that could be used to benefit students in this underfunded, segregated school district?
How about properly applying the funds and assembling solid documentation of student benefit? What a revolutionary concept for TUSD. Perhaps it should be attempted. What do you think, David?