Good job AEN. As usual you are addressing an issue promptly and factually.

Thank you, Steve!!

Being that this was from the 2007 AG’s report, it stands to reason that the 2008 Excess Utility Formula that was eliminated in the 2009 legislative session was established as a means to address this rise in expense for our state schools. I must admit, it’s hard to read that that was in the 2007 report and not find the absence of that data in the 2009 report to be just a TAD curious. I mean…it’s almost like someone left it out so as to skew the report to make it look like those district “bureaucrats” are inflating the plant operation costs. Nah!

Eric: I admit my statement was an anecdotal statement based on round table discussions with family and friends who themselves are “Cradle Arizonans.” But these are people who, like myself, have been educated in the state; some of whom send their children to the very same buildings they attended. So while I can’t quantify it with national data I have no means of accessing, sometimes seeing is believing.

Eric T :
@Sam D
“We have “extreme weather conditions” in AZ.”
I didn’t say we didn’t. But the cold extremes in some parts of AZ are basically the same thing that happen in a large portion of US States and the hot extremes are mostly when school is not in session. I know it can still be 100 in Aug (and can be that in May, too), but we still only have to deal with the edges of summer’s heat, not the whole thing and not the worst part. Your anecdotal evidence of the problems that occur which cost M&O monies are the exact same things that every school in every district in the nation has to deal with. Saying that the extreme weather in AZ should cause us to spend more that other states does not wash.
“Furthermore, ANY “Cradle Arizonan” knows a majority of our schools have been around for ages.”
First, it’s a nice statement with no backing, just worded such that -surely- no one would ever question it. After all, ANY one would know it. Second, the age of the schools and how hard it is to heat and cool them is meaningless without the comparison to other states and their typical facilities. Perhaps you can provide some way of making a fair comparison.

Hi Eric,

Just wanted to point to what a prior 2007 Auditor General report (funny that it wasn’t in this one!) says about the extreme weather in AZ:

Plant operation and maintenance costs—Arizona school districts continued
to allocate a significantly larger percentage of their dollars to plant operation and
maintenance costs than the national average. Plant costs include expenditures for
the care and upkeep of buildings, grounds, and equipment; utilities; and security.
For fiscal year 2007, this category accounted for 11.3 percent of current
expenditures in Arizona school districts, which is 1.7 percentage points higher than
the national average.
Arizona’s high plant cost percentage may be related to its higher-than-average
percentage spent on supplies, which includes energy costs. Arizona’s energy and
other supply costs account for most of the difference between the national and
state percentages.

The replies at me from my first post both ended with a couple paragraphs about the difficulties in the school districts and the terrible state legislature, etc. I felt they seemed to sum up as if I think the school districts are bad and the legislature is the bee’s knees. Not true.

My issue was only with this Q & A. I don’t think it is fair representation of what is in the audit report.

“Furthermore, ANY “Cradle Arizonan” knows a majority of our schools have been around for ages.”
First, it’s a nice statement with no backing, just worded such that -surely- no one would ever question it. After all, ANY one would know it. Second, the age of the schools and how hard it is to heat and cool them is meaningless without the comparison to other states and their typical facilities. Perhaps you can provide some way of making a fair comparison.

“It sounds more to me like they are explaining it in layman’s terms. The author(s) is also explaining what has been left out of the report, and why the missing (or appendix info) is relevant.”

You have proven my point that the Q & A is disingenuous. Their attempt to explain supplanting in layman’s terms totally changes the definition of supplanting. But when you reread it 2x, you still came away with the feeling that no supplanting was taking place.

If districts were spending the Prop 301 monies on CSF, then the percentage of spending would be as shown on page 5 of the audit report.

The way the Q & A was written, you were led to believe statements like this:
“The report does not mention any of these cuts to explain the .4% dip in classroom spending.”

This is in bold italics in the Q&A.

The reason the report doesn’t mention these cuts to explain the dip, is because they don’t explain the dip. The cuts reduced the non-Prop 301 dollars available for educational funding. There was also a decrease in Prop 301 funding. However, if the percentage of non-Prop 301 funds spent in the classroom had been mmaintained and the Prop 301 fund were all spent in the classroom, then the classroom percentage would have been 59.7%.

Another quote from the Q & A:
“The report claims districts are supplanting money because it assumes that anytime a cut is made to the overall salary, the district is not fulfilling its obligation for CSF dollars to increase teacher salaries.”
The report does not make this assumption, the Q & A does. The audit report does not make it’s case on average teacher salary increse or decrease. It makes it’s case on overall percentage of funds that are spent on the classroom.

Eric T: after reading your comment I re-read the post 2x. I don’t think they are countering the audit findings. It sounds more to me like they are explaining it in layman’s terms. The author(s) is also explaining what has been left out of the report, and why the missing (or appendix info) is relevant.

Too often our information from the media and politicians is taken out of context to the point that it become MISinformation! The spin I had heard on this report so far was something like; “Arizona schools wasting more on administration!” If you read the report above (and the actual facts in the Auditor Gen report), that assertion doesn’t ring true (at least when compared to average US admin costs).

At the end of the day, I always pause and wonder who is looking out for the best interests of our state and our nation. I am not an expert in this area, but I am glad a group of parents has taken the time to start looking into this kind of thing!! Our leading state legislators are horrible to our schools right now and I feel bad for the teachers (and principals!!) who must feel like they are constantly under attack by wacko posturing and stereotyping.

We have “extreme weather conditions” in AZ. Some of our rural areas were hit by a heavy winter. We live in a state that can find many school districts experiencing one extreme to the next in the course of a school year. When my son started school, temps were 100+ degrees. The A/C went down twice, and once for as long as three continuous days not too far into the first month of school. Heat went out earlier this winter. And my son’s school is in an affluent neighborhood, with engaged parents who pick up where the state leaves off. The school is clean and well maintained. But when the M&O funding has decreased across the district, as it has in every district statewide, we have to hold tight through the high temps and lows temps and just consider ourselves lucky that the ceiling tiles aren’t falling on top of any of the kids.

Furthermore, ANY “Cradle Arizonan” knows a majority of our schools have been around for ages. Heating and cooling 30-50+ year old buildings that are NOT energy efficient can cripple districts where M&O has been significantly cut. Additionally, during the 2009 session, the Legislature ELIMINATED $80 million in funds designated as part of a 2008 utility formula for “excess utilities.” In other words, funding from the state that allowed districts to compensate for the increase to their utility bills was cut. If your employer cut your pay by 10-30%, do you think you’d rearrange your spending to ensure your utility bill was paid on time?

The lights have to stay on regardless of the heat. It’s a safety thing, dude.

While people argue the legality of this versus the legality of that, some of the reasoning behind these arguments offend common sensibilities. It’s unfortunate that we’ll sit in judgment as districts are — for the most part — doing the best they can under the circumstances. The Legislature continues to cut and restrict funding to our public schools AND our teachers, while simultaneously holding our education professionals AND administrators to the furious fire of fiscal accountability and increasing the demand and expectation for high performance.

At the same time, the Legislature and lack-luster media manage to get the general public in such a froth that they storm into over crowded classrooms around the state demanding more, while voting over and over again for the same cast of characters that pass legislation that allocates less and less into our public education system. All the while charter schools are given a hall pass on their outrageous administrative expenses.

Now I ask you: Where’s THAT outrage?

A quick example of the way the percentage should go up…
If spending were exactly 50/50 before Prop 301, then out of a $100 budget, $50 would be spent on CSF, $50 oustside. Say Prop 301 brought an additional 5% of education funding. After the addition of Prop301 money, the $100 would grow to $105. The extra $5 is supposed to go entirely to CSF, so that would be $55 for CSF, $50 for non-CSF. That would be 52.3% for CSF and 47.7% for non-CSF.

The audit clearly shows this is not happening.

And just for good measure, the comment regarding the, “much higher plant operating cost due to our extreme weather conditions,” does not make sense. The most extreme weather for the vast majority of AZ schools occurs in the summer when school is, for the most part, not in session. Other areas of the country have their worst weather when school is in session.

I just read the Arizona Republic’s piece and was really disappointed that they let some anti-public-school group like Goldwater spin it around. The fact that this report was so politicized is deplorable.

Kyrene Rankings Top All in Classroom Spending

The Auditor General’s report “Arizona Public School Districts’ Dollars Spent in the Classroom Fiscal Year 2009”was released last week. This report provides a snapshot of how Arizona’s school districts are spending the funds they receive. The report categorizes dollars spent in two broad categories: “Classroom Instruction” (or “dollars spent in the classroom”) and “Non‐classroom.”

This report presents state-wide trends in classroom and nonclassroom spending, including a preliminary analysis of the association between the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom and student achievement.

Kyrene continues to rank at the top of list for classroom spending. The report once again showed that Kyrene spends more money in the classroom than any other like-sized District. In fact, Kyrene ranked 9th highest in the state above over 200 other school districts. The 8 schools above Kyrene represent two ‘medium sized’ districts of 600 – 1,999 students and six ‘very small’ districts will less than 200 students.

The State-wide average for instructional spending was 57.5%. Within the category of ‘large school districts’ (like Kyrene) the average instructional percentage was 56.9%. Kyrene spends 62.9% of its funds in the classroom. This is a 9.4% higher than the state average. In the other ‘non classroom categories, Kyrene demonstrated excellence above their peers as well:
• Kyrene spends 20.4% less in administration than its peers.
• Kyrene spends 22.8% less in plant operations cost than its peers.
• Kyrene spends 27.3% less in transportation than its peers.