Now that the Arizona budget has been on the books for a few weeks, some reporters are taking a look back, and I’m beginning to read a new take on education funding that gives Governor Ducey and Republicans measured praise for putting some new money into schools. It may not be enough, the articles are saying, but it’s something. Educators should give our governor credit for making an effort to help our schools and accept the money graciously instead of bitching and moaning because they don’t think it’s enough.
I beg to differ. It’s not enough, not nearly. And most of it will find its way to fewer than 20 percent of the state’s public schools.
Here’s an example of the new spin on education funding from an Arizona Capitol Times article. The headline: Public education advocates bemoan school money still not enough. The word choices tell the tale. Education advocates “bemoan” the money. Complain, complain, complain. They say it’s “still not enough.” Will nothing satisfy them?
Here’s how the article begins:
Education issues captured much of the attention this legislative session, but public school advocates say they’re disappointed with the outcome.
It’s hard to argue the budget doesn’t focus on education when much of the new spending focuses on K-12 or university education initiatives. The fiscal year 2018 budget adds $163 million above inflation funding to schools.
A news release from the “Reelect Doug Ducey” committee couldn’t put the budget in a more favorable light.
Let’s take a look at that $163 million in new education dollars. $163 million. That sounds like serious money. But let’s remember, the Arizona legislature began stealing from schools back in 2009, and the new $163 million, even when it’s added to the money voted in with Prop. 123, still doesn’t bring education funding back to the level mandated by Prop. 301 which passed in 2000. We’re still not back to the “good old days” eight years ago when funding was merely awful. We sure haven’t invested more in our children’s educations. The Republican obsession with tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthy and the business community made sure of that, beggaring the state budget so it can’t even find the money to fund schools at a level required by law. You don’t steal $100 out of someone’s pocket, give back $60 and expect a thank you.
Then there’s Arizona’s national standing. Add the new $163 million to the Prop. 123 money, and we’re still in 49th place in funding per student, trailing 48th place Oklahoma. Another $100 million could put us in 48th place, barely. If we aspire to take 47th place from Mississippi, well, we’re not even close. The 47th slot would cost us $600 million, almost four times this year’s added money. And if we wanted to dream the impossible dream of reaching the national average, that would cost us $3.5 billion more a year.
We’re spending less than we did in 2009. Mississippi-level education funding is a bridge too far. The national average might as well be on another planet. But education advocates should be satisfied with the governor’s gesture financial largesse? Sorry. No.
As for that $163 million, as insufficient as it is, most schools, about 80 percent, will only see a quarter of it. The rest will go to select schools, mainly in high rent districts.
Every school will get a piece of the $34 million set aside for teacher raises. Of course, it only comes to an extra 25 cents an hour, two dollars a day if they want to take it in a lump sum. Arizona has the lowest paid teachers in the country. Don’t expect them to be overwhelmed with gratitude for the state’s contribution to a pay raise.
Another $38 million will be spent on results-based funding. Here are the details about how the program works, but basically it comes down to this. Something like 15 percent of schools will get $225 to $400 per student, while the rest get nothing. That’s enough to give teachers in those schools a $3,000 to $4,000 raise and still have half the money left over to buy all kinds of educational goodies other schools can’t afford. Next year, some schools with more than half their students on free or reduced lunch will get a share of the results-based money, but after that, nearly all of it will flow to schools filled with affluent students.
Another $80 million is set aside to build, renew and maintain schools. That may sound like a serious commitment, but since 2009, the state has cut a total of $2 billion from capital funding. This year’s $80 million allocation comes to 4 percent of what the state owes. This time when Republicans stole $100 from the schools’ wallet, they only gave back four bucks. Instead of the thank you they were hoping for, they’re getting a $2 billion lawsuit to try and recover the funds.
If that $80 million were spread across the state, at least everyone would get some of that four cents on the dollar, but that’s not how the money is allocated. Most of it, $64 million, will go to build schools in three districts: Vail, Queen Creek and Chandler, all high rent districts. Now, it may be those districts are where new schools are most needed, but the fact remains, most districts won’t even get a peek at 80 percent of the money. The remaining $16 million is set aside for building renewal grants. Districts will have to fight over whose schools are most dilapidated to get some of the scraps left over after Vail, Queen Creek and Chandler districts get themselves a few brand spanking new schools.
That leaves $11 million from the $163 million. It’s sprinkled over a number of feel-good projects Ducey can add to his “Education Governor” resume, but it’s too little money to make much of a difference for many students.
So, public education advocates are bemoaning the education money that’s been added to the state budget? They’re complaining it’s still not enough? Damn right they are! It’s far too little, and it’s unevenly distributed. Them that have will get more, and everyone else gets a 25 cents an hour raise.
This article appears in Jun 1-7, 2017.
I hear Steve Farley is running for governor. I hope he and other Democratic candidates for high office in this state are aware that the problems with our education systems in Southern Arizona are not exclusively caused by insufficient funding, and (GASP!) not all of these problems are the fault of Republicans. If they’re going to be effective advocates for improved services to constituents, they’re going to have to have some “increased accountability and oversight” moves as well as “increased funding” moves ready to deploy.
Thanks, David. One of my kids went to one of the TUSD schools where the drinking fountains were just found to have high levels of lead contamination:
http://tucson.com/news/local/education/elevated-levels-of-lead-found-at-pima-county-schools-facilities/article_a0f33304-d901-5946-8164-d7b2854a75d9.html
There were other safety issues at the site, including a deteriorating electrical system that kept shorting out and producing smoke which triggered repeated building evacuations in one of the buildings where the kids spent most of their time.
It was very puzzling that, in a context where we heard constantly about the lack of funding necessary not just to deliver good education, but even to maintain sites that are not dangerous to the health of students, during the time my student was enrolled in the district, TUSD chose to give 3 and 1/2 million dollars of desegregation funding back to taxpayers in the form of a reduction of its desegregation tax levy and to inflate central administration salaries and create new central administrative bonuses. Meanwhile, the sites continued to deteriorate and teacher salaries and bonuses remained unacceptably low as funds available to increase teacher salaries and bonuses (123, 301) sat in district bank accounts.
How is this to be explained, in the funding context you outline in this article? Funds were given back to taxpayers and inserted into the pockets of already well-compensated central administrators and held as a “surplus in reserve.” Why weren’t they used to increase safety of the sites (say, for example, checking lead levels in the drinking fountains) or to create faculty hiring or retention bonuses for shockingly underpaid teachers?
More funds are needed, it’s true. But it gets hard to make the case for more funding when some of our largest public districts where the leadership has been in the hands of Board members with strong ties to the local Democratic party produce so many examples of poor decisions made about what to do with existing funds. And, by-in-large, you haven’t been one to ask for improvement or challenge the status quo — or those responsible for it — in the largest local district making the poorest funding allocation decisions. At least not publicly.
So what reason do members of the public have to believe that, if more funds were granted across the board, you and others in your network could be effective in asking that they be applied for the benefit of students and teachers? If that cannot be done, sorry to say it, but many of us doubt that it would be the health and safety of or quality of education offered to STUDENTS that would benefit from any funding increase granted to the largest local public district, a district serving close to 50,000.
The bonuses for high test score schools likely will not end well unless it evolves. There have been well over 300 implementations of performance funding and performance pay implemented over the last 155 years – many of them thoroughly documented in published research papers.
Highly accomplished researchers from Gene Glass on the left to Jay Green have undertaken very serious runs an succeeding at something that has never succeeded. They have all crashed and burned. Vanderbilt was named the research center for all of the performance pay trials conducted by the Obama administration. They too all crashed and burned -its all documented.
This new system is a close cousin of the system in place in England from 1862 to 1890. It took thirty years for them to realize all of the damage being done.
Arizona is the only state in the nation where performance pay has worked and where the teachers union has supported it. Now, I wonder why that is? And, I wonder what was done differently? And, pray tell, why weren’t those differences integrated into this proposal?
State Sen. Steve Farley announced on Tuesday he is running against anti-education Gov. Doug Ducey.
Farley outlined a three-point plan to restore education funding in Arizona:
#1 – A K-12 system that is a foundation for opportunity system for all Arizonans, second to none.
#2 – A university system that’s strengthened, not cut.
“Thats where the new industries will be coming from. And when people who go to university come up with new industries, they’re going to stay in Arizona. You won’t have to bribe them to come to Arizona. They’ll be here,” Farley says.
#3 – A community college system that’s a lifelong institution for training and retraining.
“We’ve cut our K through 12 system by 21% since 2008. We’ve cut our university system by $2.5 billion. And we’ve cut off community colleges in Pima County and Maricopa County entirely from state funding,” Farley says.
It’s time to vote for change. http://farleyforarizona.com/
Where’s the oversight and accountability plan, Larry?
Is there one?
Without responsible regulatory oversight, increased funding will not produce the desired result.
It’s kind of like increasing water to a garden that hasn’t been weeded: the weeds benefit as much or perhaps more than the plants you want to encourage.
I hope we’ll be seeing more than just empty promises like those quoted above from Farley. What’s needed is a concrete, implementable, professionally informed plan that includes increased oversight, not just increased funding.
In order to receive great education you have to be prepared to big expenses. Money goes the same path with the education. You cant earn big money if you arent smart enough. This concept, however, is alien to those who have no money to afford to go to a fancy college. There are, however, websites that offer a free access to their essays database like http://reviewessayservice.com/ for example. They also claim to give professional help to those who want to be educated and independent from the system.
Charter schools have no oversight and accountability and private schools where ESAs or vouchers support them report nothing. Public schools have to be transparent and are audited, but are underfunded and given less than charters who often have uncertified instructors. The playing field is not level and teachers cannot live on the pay when 14% of a public school teacher’s income goes towards retirement and social security. There is a shortage of educators which means there is weakness in AZ’s economic engine. It must change. Funding education at 75% of inflation is unpatiotic.
Lisa Loschetter-Geusic:
Why is the solution to the problems you mention with charters and privates to cut off their public funding, rather than to increase their oversight and accountability requirements?
Is TUSD fully transparent? Have there been problems with its Board’s observance of Open Meeting Law or with the degree to which its representatives tell the public the truth about what is going on in the district? Is it using exclusively fully credentialed, certified teachers? How many of its classrooms are covered by uncertified substitutes whose labor has been outsourced to ESI?
Did TUSD use the 123 and 301 funds it had available to increase teacher salaries and distribute teacher bonuses, as it should have? If funding shortages are so dire, why did TUSD give 3 and 1/2 million dollars of desegregation funding back to taxpayers?
Why does TUSD have a much more serious problem with teacher shortages than other local districts, including Flowing Wells? Might it have something to do with working conditions or the quality of management in the district?
Have you ever watched a TUSD Board meeting and listened to what constituents say in the Call to the Audience? Do you track implementation of the Unitary Status Plan or how much of the short supply of funds available to the district has been going to lawyers who are asked to engage in what some would call unnecessary conflicts with the desegregation authorities, rather than to improve services to students? Recently, TUSD used district resources to file an application for partial Unitary Status with the courts. The request was denied. Why?
The education system in Arizona is in trouble. But in fixing it, we have to understand what the problems are. There are a number of problems, not just underfunding. If a car is not working because there are holes in the fuel line and the gas you put in doesn’t make it to the engine, you don’t get it to run just by adding more gas. You fix the holes, then add more gas.
TUSD is a district that serves close to 50,000 in this region. It is not “one among many.” It is a significant feature of the education landscape in Southern Arizona, serving a large percent of the region’s students. If there’s a weakness in our “economic engine,” TUSD is a big part of it, and its problems can’t be solved just by the application of increased funds. Its representatives and decision makers have proved that to the public time and time again: deseg funds, 301 funds, 123 funds.
It’s no doubt too much to ask of the simplistic, “rally the masses” language used in political campaigns that it reflect the complexity of the problems the state actually faces. But Democrats painting pictures of a bright future for voters after a massive increase in funds to the public district education system damn well better have an oversight and accountability plan tucked in their back pocket, or they’re going to run into grief with the results of their proposed “fix” for our education problems when it becomes apparent to the public that the gas poured into the machine at taxpayer expense is not actually increasing the vehicle’s ability to get students where they need to go. And they’d be well advised to increase accountability and oversight requirements in charters and privates rather than brutally cutting off public funds to them: the problems in the public district system — even if they WERE caused solely by deficient funds — cannot be fixed overnight, and people who’ve left the public district system after direct experience of its deficiencies in meeting their students’ needs are not going to respond well to having access to alternatives blocked.