Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization: Charter Schools

Part II

It is recommended that you read Part I of this series before moving on to Part II.   Click here to go to that article.

.

.

I have heard that charter schools get different funding than traditional public schools. Is this true?

Charter schools are funded using an equalization formula that is similar to that of traditional public schools. However, because charter schools do not have geographic boundaries and taxing authority, property taxes do not provide any of the funding that goes to charter schools. Charter schools get the majority[1] of their funding from the state’s general fund.
.

You say the funding formulas are very similar. How is the charter school funding formula different?

Charter school funding is the total of the Base Support Level (BSL) and a funding category entitled Additional Assistance. The BSL is computed in the same way as traditional public schools–weighted student count times the statutory base level–which is discussed in Part I of this series. Additional Assistance is a per-pupil dollar amount set by the legislature and multiplied by the simple, non-weighted student count. Additional Assistance is intended to fund capital and transportation costs for charter schools. However, charter schools can use this money flexibly and are not limited to using it for capital or transportation expenditures[2].

Charters do not receive additional funds for teacher experience or performance-based compensation systems. Charters also do not qualify as isolated schools when computing their weighted student count, though they do qualify as small schools (under 600 students) when weighting the student count.
.

Are there other ways in which funding for charters differs from that of traditional public schools?

Yes, because charter schools do not have a property tax structure upon which their funding is based, they do not have access to the funding mechanisms this provides to traditional public schools. Further, since charter schools are exempt from the uniform building requirements set by the School Facilities Board (SFB), they receive no funding for building renewal[3], emergency deficiency correction or school construction from this state-funded entity.
.

I have heard many times that charter schools are less expensive to operate on a per- pupil level than traditional schools. Is this true?

When you compare the average dollars spent at traditional and charter public schools, it may initially appear that charters are cheaper to operate[4]. A large portion of this difference can be attributed to the fact that charter schools enroll significantly fewer special-needs students than do traditional public schools. Also, some of the state mandates that apply to traditional school districts do not apply to charter schools–the requirement to hire certified teachers does not apply to charters, for example. The absence of these mandates can, in some instances, translate into lower operating costs.
.

What do special-needs students have to do with it?

For whatever reason, charter schools enroll fewer special-needs students than traditional schools. The Arizona Department of Education report entitled 10/1/2009 Federal Child Count by PEA (Public Education Agency) updated as of 2/1/2010 indicates that nearly 93% of all special needs students in the state are enrolled in traditional public schools. When calculating a simple average expenditure per student, traditional schools will average a higher cost per student than charters because they are getting more dollars for the special-needs students. If the distribution of special-needs students in traditional versus charter public schools was more even, you would expect the simple per-pupil average to be nearer to that of traditional schools.
.

Outside of the special needs funding issue, do charter schools receive more or less funding than traditional schools?

Traditional schools claim charters receive more funding; charters claim traditional schools receive more funding. In reality, it is too simplistic to state that one type receives more or less funding than the other. It depends on the individual characteristics of the traditional and charter schools used for comparison. While both charter and traditional schools receive the same Base Support Level funding from the state, they each receive (or may be eligible to receive) other unique funding. Below is a simplified comparison.

.

Additional funds only traditional schools can receive:

• Desegregation funds: These funds are limited to districts named in federal or state desegregation cases.
• Adjacent Ways funds: This is tax money spent on construction projects not related to education but which improve access to and/or the functionality of the school property, including street, water and sewer improvements that are adjacent to school property.

• Isolated school adjustments: A small number of rural schools in isolated areas receive funding to adjust for lost economies of scale.
• Drop-out prevention funds: A small number of at-risk schools are eligible for these funds.
• Career ladder funds: These funds are available to a limited number of districts that opted into qualified performance-based compensation programs before the state closed the program to new schools. The state is awaiting a higher court decision on a successful lawsuit that declared this system unconstitutional. If the high court upholds the lower court decision, the future of these dollars is unknown.
• Tax overrides and bonds: These funds are available only in those districts in which voters have agreed to tax themselves to fund the measures. See Part I of this series for more information on overrides and bonds.
• School Facilities Board funding for construction, building renewal (building renewal funding has been cut to zero for the past three fiscal years), and emergency deficiency corrections.
  .

Funds only charters can receive:

• The state general fund provides Additional Assistance to replace capital and transportation funding provided to traditional schools.
• Charters can borrow funds from lending programs dedicated to charters. For more information, see the article entitled JP Morgan Chase Creates $325 Million Funding Initiative for High-Performing Charter Schools here.
• The AZ Charter School Incentive Program provides funds to start new charter locations. This addresses the lack of funding by the State Facilities Board to which traditional public schools can turn when building schools.
• In addition to state and federal grants for charter schools, there are many national foundations (i.e. Walton, Gates, Broad and Dell) awarding grants specifically to charters.
• Buildings and land are owned by the charter. If the charter sells capital assets—including land and buildings—the proceeds belong to the owner of the charter school.
  .

As you can see, different schools have access to different types of funds, depending upon the schools’ individual characteristics. An apples-to-apples comparison is difficult to make, given the number of variables between schools.

.

So why isn’t funding between charters and traditional schools the same?

As noted in part one in the series Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization, access to funding between traditional public school districts is not equal. Local voter support for property taxes, desegregation agreements, the size of the school and other factors combine to determine an individual school’s access to funds. The same principle holds true when you compare funding for charter schools with traditional public schools.
.

Different characteristics between schools translate into eligibility for different funding sources. Many public education stakeholders view this state of affairs as inequitable. Two lawsuits against the state—Foley v. Horne and Hobday v. Horne—are currently pending. Both cases contend that access to public education funding in the state is not equal and is therefore unconstitutional.

[2] Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are exempt from both the minimum facilities standards set by the School Facilities Board (SFB) and the requirement to provide transportation to school for their students. This gives charters maximum flexibility in spending Additional Assistance funds for non-capital and transportation purposes.

[3] Though traditional public schools are eligible to receive funding from the SFB, the state has defunded building renewal dollars for three consecutive fiscal years beginning in 2008. The traditional schools must continue to comply with the SFBs minimum building standards even in the absence of funding for such.

[4] According to the Arizona Department of Education State Superintendent’s Report, 2008-2009, traditional schools spent $2,330 more per student than charter schools.

.

.

.

Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization:

Part I: Traditional Public Schools
.
To read Part II: Charter School Finance and Equalized Funding, click here.
.

.

What does it mean when I hear that Arizona is an equalized funding state?

The Arizona state constitution calls for the legislature to “enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system.” Equalization laws strive to standardize the amount of funding a school district receives to educate each student regardless of differences in property wealth between districts.

.

What does property wealth have to do with school funding?

Prior to 1981, schools were funded mainly by the collection of property taxes from the residents and businesses located in the school district. Districts with high property wealth could generate lots of money to fund schools with relatively low tax rates, while districts with lower property wealth struggled to generate funds for their schools.

.

Does equalization mean my property taxes no longer fund public schools?

No. Public schools are still funded by property taxes. The first funding source for public schools is local property tax collections. The next funding source is the state property tax, better known as the county equalization tax[1]. Finally schools are funded by the state’s general fund. If a school district does not receive enough money from local property taxes to fund its schools, the state’s general fund, which has been supplemented by the state equalization property tax, makes up the difference in the funding needed.

.

So how is equalization different from the old system of funding schools via property taxes?

The equalization law established a formula that attempts to standardize revenues and expenditures across school districts to fund annual budgets. The law dictates how much money can be raised for annual maintenance/operations[2] and capital needs[3]. In other words, the state legislature became the body that determines how much revenue can be generated to fund school budgets instead of a school district generating as much money as the district’s property wealth could muster.

.

So, how does the state decide how much money school districts will get?

The formulas used to determine this are very complicated. In the simplest terms, the state sets the Base Support Level (BSL)–or per pupil funding level–for maintenance/operations budgets. The maintenance/operations budget is the largest portion of a school’s budget. It pays for all day-to-day operations in a school year and its largest component is salaries. It also sets the base levels for unrestricted capital and soft capital funding. Capital funds are provided for expenditures on furniture, fixtures and other items that are expected to last for more than one operating year. Soft capital is provided for textbooks, software and other instructional materials used directly by students in the classroom.

.

To explain this in the simplest way possible, the state takes a count of students by district. The BSL and capital funding levels are multiplied by the number of students in each district. The dollars are totaled, and this sum becomes the equalization base funding level for each school district.

.

The equalized base funding level is the amount of money the state authorizes school districts to receive from property taxes and the state’s general fund.

.

It doesn’t seem right that a school district receives the same amount of money for every student. Isn’t it more expensive to educate high school students, for example, than it is second graders?

The state recognizes that some students require more resources to educate than others. When computing the maintenance/operations portion of school funding, the student count in each district is actually a weighted student count[4]. A wide array of weights has been established for use in the funding formula, depending on the types of students in the mix. For example, the weight for a high school student is higher than the weight for a second grade student. The weight for a student with a learning or physical disability is higher than the weight for a student who does not have a disability. But, regardless of the weighting system, a student in any one category–a fourth grade student with a hearing disability, for example–will bring the same amount of funding to whichever district the student attends[5].

.

What about teacher compensation? Some teachers have more credentials and experience than others. Wouldn’t school districts with highly skilled and experienced teachers have to pay more of their maintenance and operations dollars for salaries than others?

Yes. The state formula includes adjustments to accommodate high levels of teacher experience (in excess of the state average calculation) and those districts that participate in Career Ladder and other qualified performance-based pay systems. School districts that employ highly experienced teachers and/or who participate in these merit pay programs receive more dollars than districts that do not[6].

.

If the state guarantees full funding for each student, what stops school districts from setting property tax rates really low and getting most or all of their funding from the state?

The legislature also sets the Qualifying Tax Rate (QTR). This is the tax rate the legislature uses to determine how much money a school district will get from the state, if any. The QTR is multiplied by each district’s Net Assessed Property Value (NAV). The answer to that equation determines the source(s) of a school district’s funds.

.

• If the equalization base funding level is greater than QTR x NAV, local property taxes will not be adequate to fund the district’s budget. The remaining amount of funding is provided by the state’s general fund. This is called basic state aid.

.

• If the equalization base is less than QTR x NAV, no basic state aid is provided and the primary property tax rate is set at the level required to generate the equalization base.

.

Don’t high-wealth districts still have an advantage over lower-wealth districts? Their property tax rate can still be much lower even though both are capped at the QTR.

Yes, wealthier districts can enjoy lower rates and still fund the equalization base. However, school districts cannot assess rates lower than 50% of the QTR. If the property values in the district are such that this tax rate generates more funds than the equalization base, the excess taxes are remitted to the state to offset basic state aid for other districts. In actual experience, there are very few school districts that can fund the equalization base with a tax rate less than 50% of the QTR. The school districts that do are generally districts with high property wealth and relatively few student-aged residents.

.

If the state limits the amount of money a school district can generate for its annual budget to the equalization base funding level, why is the primary property tax rate on my tax bill higher than the QTR?

Property tax rates used to fund public schools can be, and generally are, higher than the QTR. This is because the state allows school districts to budget for expenditures that are outside of the equalization base funding level. Some of these expenditures are funded by property taxes that require voter approval before they can be assessed; other expenditures are funded by property tax rates that do not require voter approval to be assessed.

.

Now I’m really confused. When can a school district assess property taxes for expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

Let’s start with non-voter approved tax assessments. School districts operate under different conditions that make it unrealistic to standardize funding completely. For example, some school districts operate under government-mandated desegregation and civil rights agreements. Compliance with these agreements incurs unique costs in these districts. Consequently, the legislature allows the districts to generate revenues through additional property taxes that do not have to be approved by the property owners in the district.

.

Another type of expenditure outside of the equalization base funding level is expenditure for adjacent ways. School districts incur costs to improve a public way that is adjacent to land owned or leased by the district. These expenses may include intersection traffic signals, sidewalks, utility lines, etc. The state allows a school district to impose a non-voter approved property tax to fund costs for specific projects.

.

Other non-voter-approved expenditures include spending on transportation costs in excess of those provided by the state’s equalization formula, small school adjustments, dropout prevention, and more.

.

School districts add up the amount of revenue needed for each of these expenditures and, using the NAV, determine the additional property tax rate that needs to be charged to generate this revenue. This additional property tax rate is added to the rate necessary to fund the equalization base funding level (the QTR), and the district’s primary property tax rate is determined. This is why on many property tax bills, the primary property tax rate is likely higher than the QTR set by the state.

.

What are voter-approved expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

The state allows school districts to ask voters to approve maintenance/operations and capital budget overrides to increase funding for schools during the seven-year life of the overrides. Currently districts can ask for two types of maintenance/operations overrides: a ten-percent K-12 override and a five-percent K-3 override. School districts can also ask voters to fund a ten-percent capital budget override. Finally, a school district can sell voter-approved bonds to increase capital expenditures beyond the unrestricted capital funds provided by the state’s equalization formula[7]. School districts decide to ask for an override and/or capital bond issue, determine the tax rates required to fund the proposals and place the requests on their local ballot for voters to approve or reject. If approved, the additional tax rates are assessed and shown separately on the property tax bill as secondary property tax rates.

.

What stops a school district from going crazy and levying outrageous property taxes for expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

Many of the non-voter approved expenditures outside of the equalization base are unlimited in their scope. What keeps school districts from taxing property owners indiscriminately is legislation called Truth in Taxation (TNT). Passed in the late nineties and amended several times thereafter, TNT requires taxing bodies–including school districts–to provide public notice of intent to raise taxes. If school districts taxed for revenues in an unreasonable manner, constituents could use the TNT notification to identify the parties responsible and vote them out of office. TNT laws also require the legislature to reduce the QTR and the equalization property tax rate to compensate for across-the-state increases in property values. These measures are intended to have a dampening affect on tax rates.

.

It seems like the old system was a lot simpler. Why did the state decide to create an equalized funding system?

During the 1970s, a wave of litigation in the United States was decided in favor of plaintiffs who sued on the theory that funding schools based mainly on property wealth was unconstitutional. Though no lawsuit was brought in Arizona at that time, the legislature heeded the constitution’s “general and uniform” language pertaining to education and enacted the equalized funding mechanisms described in this article.

.

[2] The maintenance/operations budget makes up the lion’s share of a school district’s funds and is comprised mainly of salaries for staff. It also includes student transportation costs, career ladder, teacher experience payments and other annual operating costs.

[3] The state provides funding for two types of capital expenditures. Unrestricted capital pays for a district’s capital needs – expenditures on facilities and equipment with a life span greater than one year. Soft capital is used for the purchase of materials generally used directly by students in the classroom, like textbooks, software and equipment investments that last longer than one year. There are separate base funding levels for these two types of capital expenditures.

[4] The weighting system is too complicated to describe in this article. There are Class A weights and Class B weights. The M and O calculation uses a different weighted student count than the capital calculation. Suffice to say here that the formulas attempt to adjust for different types of students when computing the amount of funding per student.

[5] Small school districts (under 600 students) and isolated school districts receive additional weight to adjust for the economies of scale that are lost under these circumstances. This is an exception to the equalized per student funding between districts.

[6] The state legislature has closed most merit pay programs to new school districts, citing questions regarding the effectiveness of the programs. Consequently, school districts that did not install programs prior to this closure do not qualify for this extra funding. The Gilbert Public School District successfully sued the Arizona Department of Education, contending the program is unconstitutional as it pertains to the “general and uniform” clause. The case is currently under appeal to a higher court. Meanwhile, the state legislature has proposed to end state funding of these performance-based systems and allow county officials to levy the property tax needed to fund this increase to a school district’s equalization base, shifting the funding from the state level to the local.

[7] Districts also sell bonds for new school construction. In 1994, the state high court ruled this method of funding school facilities to be in conflict with the “general and uniform” language of the constitution. In response to this case–Roosevelt v. Bishop–the state established the School Facilities Board (SFB) which sets uniform standards for the physical facilities of school districts and oversees the allocation of funding for construction, building renewal and deficiency correction from monies allocated by the state’s general fund. However, this legislation does not preclude a school district from selling bonds to raise capital over and above that provided by the SFB for purposes of constructing schools and improving facilities beyond the minimum standards required by the law.

.

.

.

.

Part I: Traditional Public School Finance & Equalization Funding

Part II: Charter School Finance & Equalization Funding

.

.

Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization:

Part I

.

What does it mean when I hear that Arizona is an equalized funding state?

The Arizona state constitution calls for the legislature to “enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system.”  Equalization laws strive to standardize the amount of funding a school district receives to educate each student regardless of differences in property wealth between districts.

.

What does property wealth have to do with school funding?

Prior to 1981, schools were funded mainly by the collection of property taxes from the residents and businesses located in the school district. Districts with high property wealth could generate lots of money to fund schools with relatively low tax rates, while districts with lower property wealth struggled to generate funds for their schools.

.

Does equalization mean my property taxes no longer fund public schools?

No. Public schools are still funded by property taxes. The first funding source for public schools is local property tax collections.  The next funding source is the state property tax, better known as the county equalization tax[1]. Finally schools are funded by the state’s general fund.  If a school district does not receive enough money from local property taxes to fund its schools, the state’s general fund, which has been supplemented by the state equalization property tax, makes up the difference in the funding needed.

.

So how is equalization different from the old system of funding schools via property taxes?

The equalization law established a formula that attempts to standardize revenues and expenditures across school districts to fund annual budgets.  The law dictates how much money can be raised for annual maintenance/operations[2] and capital needs[3]. In other words, the state legislature became the body that determines how much revenue can be generated to fund school budgets instead of a school district generating as much money as the district’s property wealth could muster.

.

So, how does the state decide how much money school districts will get?

The formulas used to determine this are very complicated. In the simplest terms, the state sets the Base Support Level (BSL)–or per pupil funding level–for maintenance/operations budgets. The maintenance/operations budget is the largest portion of a school’s budget.  It pays for all day-to-day operations in a school year and its largest component is salaries. It also sets the base levels for unrestricted capital and soft capital funding. Capital funds are provided for expenditures on furniture, fixtures and other items that are expected to last for more than one operating year.  Soft capital is provided for textbooks, software and other instructional materials used directly by students in the classroom.

.

To explain this in the simplest way possible, the state takes a count of students by district.  The BSL and capital funding levels are multiplied by the number of students in each district.  The dollars are totaled, and this sum becomes the equalization base funding level for each school district.

.

The equalized base funding level is the amount of money the state authorizes school districts to receive from property taxes and the state’s general fund.

.

It doesn’t seem right that a school district receives the same amount of money for every student.  Isn’t it more expensive to educate high school students, for example, than it is second graders?

The state recognizes that some students require more resources to educate than others.  When computing the maintenance/operations portion of school funding, the student count in each district is actually a weighted student count[4]. A wide array of weights has been established for use in the funding formula, depending on the types of students in the mix. For example, the weight for a high school student is higher than the weight for a second grade student.  The weight for a student with a learning or physical disability is higher than the weight for a student who does not have a disability. But, regardless of the weighting system, a student in any one category–a fourth grade student with a hearing disability, for example–will bring the same amount of funding to whichever district the student attends[5].

.

What about teacher compensation? Some teachers have more credentials and experience than others.  Wouldn’t school districts with highly skilled and experienced teachers have to pay more of their maintenance and operations dollars for salaries than others?

Yes. The state formula includes adjustments to accommodate high levels of teacher experience (in excess of the state average calculation) and those districts that participate in Career Ladder and other qualified performance-based pay systems. School districts that employ highly experienced teachers and/or who participate in these merit pay programs receive more dollars than districts that do not[6].

.

If the state guarantees full funding for each student, what stops school districts from setting property tax rates really low and getting most or all of their funding from the state?

The legislature also sets the Qualifying Tax Rate (QTR).  This is the tax rate the legislature uses to determine how much money a school district will get from the state, if any. The QTR is multiplied by each district’s Net Assessed Property Value (NAV). The answer to that equation determines the source(s) of a school district’s funds.

.

• If the equalization base funding level is greater than QTR x NAV, local property taxes will not be adequate to fund the district’s budget. The remaining amount of funding is provided by the state’s general fund. This is called basic state aid.

.

• If the equalization base is less than QTR x NAV, no basic state aid is provided and the primary property tax rate is set at the level required to generate the equalization base.

.

Don’t high-wealth districts still have an advantage over lower-wealth districts?    Their property tax rate can still be much lower even though both are capped at the QTR.

Yes, wealthier districts can enjoy lower rates and still fund the equalization base. However, school districts cannot assess rates lower than 50% of the QTR.   If the property values in the district are such that this tax rate generates more funds than the equalization base, the excess taxes are remitted to the state to offset basic state aid for other districts.  In actual experience, there are very few school districts that can fund the equalization base with a tax rate less than 50% of the QTR.  The school districts that do are generally districts with high property wealth and relatively few student-aged residents.

.

If the state limits the amount of money a school district can generate for its annual budget to the equalization base funding level, why is the primary property tax rate on my tax bill higher than the QTR?

Property tax rates used to fund public schools can be, and generally are, higher than the QTR.  This is because the state allows school districts to budget for expenditures that are outside of the equalization base funding level. Some of these expenditures are funded by property taxes that require voter approval before they can be assessed; other expenditures are funded by property tax rates that do not require voter approval to be assessed.

.

Now I’m really confused.  When can a school district assess property taxes for expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

Let’s start with non-voter approved tax assessments. School districts operate under different conditions that make it unrealistic to standardize funding completely. For example, some school districts operate under government-mandated desegregation and civil rights agreements. Compliance with these agreements incurs unique costs in these districts. Consequently, the legislature allows the districts to generate revenues through additional property taxes that do not have to be approved by the property owners in the district.

.

Another type of expenditure outside of the equalization base funding level is expenditure for adjacent ways.  School districts incur costs to improve a public way that is adjacent to land owned or leased by the district.  These expenses may include intersection traffic signals, sidewalks, utility lines, etc. The state allows a school district to impose a non-voter approved property tax to fund costs for specific projects.

.

Other non-voter-approved expenditures include spending on transportation costs in excess of those provided by the state’s equalization formula, small school adjustments, dropout prevention, and more.

.

School districts add up the amount of revenue needed for each of these expenditures and, using the NAV, determine the additional property tax rate that needs to be charged to generate this revenue. This additional property tax rate is added to the rate necessary to fund the equalization base funding level (the QTR), and the district’s primary property tax rate is determined.  This is why on many property tax bills, the primary property tax rate is likely higher than the QTR set by the state.

.

What are voter-approved expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

The state allows school districts to ask voters to approve maintenance/operations and capital budget overrides to increase funding for schools during the seven-year life of the overrides. Currently districts can ask for two types of maintenance/operations overrides: a ten-percent K-12 override and a five-percent K-3 override.  School districts can also ask voters to fund a ten-percent capital budget override. Finally, a school district can sell voter-approved bonds to increase capital expenditures beyond the unrestricted capital funds provided by the state’s equalization formula[7].  School districts decide to ask for an override and/or capital bond issue, determine the tax rates required to fund the proposals and place the requests on their local ballot for voters to approve or reject. If approved, the additional tax rates are assessed and shown separately on the property tax bill as secondary property tax rates.

.

What stops a school district from going crazy and levying outrageous property taxes for expenditures outside of the equalization base funding level?

Many of the non-voter approved expenditures outside of the equalization base are unlimited in their scope. What keeps school districts from taxing property owners indiscriminately is legislation called Truth in Taxation (TNT). Passed in the late nineties and amended several times thereafter, TNT requires taxing bodies–including school districts–to provide public notice of intent to raise taxes. If school districts taxed for revenues in an unreasonable manner, constituents could use the TNT notification to identify the parties responsible and vote them out of office. TNT laws also require the legislature to reduce the QTR and the equalization property tax rate to compensate for across-the-state increases in property values. These measures are intended to have a dampening affect on tax rates.

.

It seems like the old system was a lot simpler.  Why did the state decide to create an equalized funding system?

During the 1970s, a wave of litigation in the United States was decided in favor of plaintiffs who sued on the theory that funding schools based mainly on property wealth was unconstitutional.  Though no lawsuit was brought in Arizona at that time, the legislature heeded the constitution’s “general and uniform” language pertaining to education and enacted the equalized funding mechanisms described in this article.

.

{Part II on Charter School funding below}

[2] The maintenance/operations budget makes up the lion’s share of a school district’s funds and is comprised mainly of salaries for staff. It also includes student transportation costs, career ladder, teacher experience payments and other annual operating costs.

[3] The state provides funding for two types of capital expenditures. Unrestricted capital pays for a district’s capital needs – expenditures on facilities and equipment with a life span greater than one year. Soft capital is used for the purchase of materials generally used directly by students in the classroom, like textbooks, software and equipment investments that last longer than one year. There are separate base funding levels for these two types of capital expenditures.

[4] The weighting system is too complicated to describe in this article.  There are Class A weights and Class B weights.  The M and O calculation uses a different weighted student count than the capital calculation.  Suffice to say here that the formulas attempt to adjust for different types of students when computing the amount of funding per student.

[5] Small school districts (under 600 students) and isolated school districts receive additional weight to adjust for the economies of scale that are lost under these circumstances.  This is an exception to the equalized per student funding between districts.

[6] The state legislature has closed most merit pay programs to new school districts, citing questions regarding the effectiveness of the programs.  Consequently, school districts that did not install programs prior to this closure do not qualify for this extra funding. The Gilbert Public School District successfully sued the Arizona Department of Education, contending the program is unconstitutional as it pertains to the “general and uniform” clause. The case is currently under appeal to a higher court.  Meanwhile, the state legislature has proposed to end state funding of these performance-based systems and allow county officials to levy the property tax needed to fund this increase to a school district’s equalization base, shifting the funding from the state level to the local.

[7] Districts also sell bonds for new school construction.  In 1994, the state high court ruled this method of funding school facilities to be in conflict with the “general and uniform” language of the constitution.   In response to this case–Roosevelt v. Bishop–the state established the School Facilities Board (SFB) which sets uniform standards for the physical facilities of school districts and oversees the allocation of funding for construction, building renewal and deficiency correction from monies allocated by the state’s general fund.  However, this legislation does not preclude a school district from selling bonds to raise capital over and above that provided by the SFB for purposes of constructing schools and improving facilities beyond the minimum standards required by the law.

.

.

Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization:  Charter Schools

Part II

.

.

I have heard that charter schools get different funding than traditional public schools.  Is this true?

Charter schools are funded using an equalization formula that is similar to that of traditional public schools.  However, because charter schools do not have geographic boundaries and taxing authority, property taxes do not provide any of the funding that goes to charter schools.  Charter schools get the majority[1] of their funding from the state’s general fund.
.

You say the funding formulas are very similar.  How is the charter school funding formula different?

Charter school funding is the total of the Base Support Level (BSL) and a funding category entitled Additional Assistance.  The BSL is computed in the same way as traditional public schools–weighted student count times the statutory base level–which is discussed in Part I of this series.  Additional Assistance is a per-pupil dollar amount set by the legislature and multiplied by the simple, non-weighted student count.  Additional Assistance is intended to fund capital and transportation costs for charter schools.  However, charter schools can use this money flexibly and are not limited to using it for capital or transportation expenditures[2].

Charters do not receive additional funds for teacher experience or performance-based compensation systems.  Charters also do not qualify as isolated schools when computing their weighted student count, though they do qualify as small schools (under 600 students) when weighting the student count.
.

Are there other ways in which funding for charters differs from that of traditional public schools?

Yes, because charter schools do not have a property tax structure upon which their funding is based, they do not have access to the funding mechanisms this provides to traditional public schools.  Further, since charter schools are exempt from the uniform building requirements set by the School Facilities Board (SFB), they receive no funding for building renewal[3], emergency deficiency correction or school construction from this state-funded entity.
.

I have heard many times that charter schools are less expensive to operate on a per- pupil level than traditional schools.  Is this true?

When you compare the average dollars spent at traditional and charter public schools, it may initially appear that charters are cheaper to operate[4]. A large portion of this difference can be attributed to the fact that charter schools enroll significantly fewer special-needs students than do traditional public schools. Also, some of the state mandates that apply to traditional school districts do not apply to charter schools–the requirement to hire certified teachers does not apply to charters, for example.  The absence of these mandates can in some instances translate into lower operating costs.
.

What do special-needs students have to do with it?

For whatever reason, charter schools enroll fewer special-needs students than traditional schools.  The Arizona Department of Education report entitled 10/1/2009 Federal Child Count by PEA (Public Education Agency) updated as of 2/1/2010 indicates that nearly 93% of all special needs students in the state are enrolled in traditional public schools.   When calculating a simple average expenditure per student, traditional schools will average a higher cost per student than charters because they are getting more dollars for the special-needs students.   If the distribution of special-needs students in traditional versus charter public schools was more even, you would expect the simple per-pupil average to be nearer to that of traditional schools.
.

Outside of the special needs funding issue, do charter schools receive more or less funding than traditional schools?

Traditional schools claim charters receive more funding; charters claim traditional schools receive more funding.  In reality, it is too simplistic to state that one type receives more or less funding than the other.  It depends on the individual characteristics of the traditional and charter schools used for comparison.  While both charter and traditional schools receive the same Base Support Level funding from the state, they each receive (or may be eligible to receive) other unique funding.  Below is a simplified comparison.

.

Additional funds only traditional schools can receive:

• Desegregation funds: These funds are limited to districts named in federal or state desegregation cases.
• Adjacent Ways funds: This is tax money spent on construction projects not related to education but which improve access to and/or the functionality of the school property, including street, water and sewer improvements that are adjacent to school property.

• Isolated school adjustments: A small number of rural schools in isolated areas receive funding to adjust for lost economies of scale.
• Drop-out prevention funds: A small number of at-risk schools are eligible for these funds.
• Career ladder funds: These funds are available to a limited number of districts that opted into qualified performance-based compensation programs before the state closed the program to new schools. The state is awaiting a higher court decision on a successful lawsuit that declared this system unconstitutional.  If the high court upholds the lower court decision, the future on these dollars is unknown.
• Tax overrides and bonds:  These funds are available only in those districts in which voters have agreed to tax themselves to fund the measures.  See Part I of this series for more information on overrides and bonds.
• School Facilities Board funding for construction, building renewal (building renewal funding has been cut to zero for the past three fiscal years), and emergency deficiency corrections.
  .

Funds only charters can receive:

• The state general fund provides Additional Assistance to replace capital and transportation funding provided to traditional schools.
• Charters can borrow funds from lending programs dedicated to charters.  For more information, see the article entitled JP Morgan Chase Creates $325 Million Funding Initiative for High-Performing Charter Schools here.
• The AZ Charter School Incentive Program provides funds to start new charter locations.  This addresses the lack of funding by the State Facilities Board to which traditional public schools can turn when building schools.
• In addition to state and federal grants for charter schools, there are many national foundations (i.e. Walton, Gates, Broad and Dell) awarding grants specifically to charters.
• Buildings and land are owned by the charter. If the charter sells capital assets—including land and buildings—the proceeds belong to the owner of the charter school.
  .

As you can see, different schools have access to different types of funds, depending upon the schools’ individual characteristics.  An apples-to-apples comparison is difficult to complete, given the number of variables between schools.

.

So why isn’t funding between charters and traditional schools the same?

As noted in part one in the series Q and A on Public School Finance and Equalization, access to funding between traditional public school districts is not equal.  Local voter support for property taxes, desegregation agreements, the size of the school and other factors combine to determine an individual school’s access to funds. The same principle holds true when you compare funding for charter schools with traditional public schools.
.

Different characteristics between schools translate into eligibility for different funding sources. Many public education stakeholders view this state of affairs as inequitable.  Two lawsuits against the state—Foley v. Horne and Hobday v. Horne—are currently pending.   Both cases contend that access to public education funding in the state is not equal and is therefore unconstitutional.

[2] Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are exempt from both the minimum facilities standards set by the School Facilities Board (SFB) and the requirement to provide transportation to school for their students.  This gives charters maximum flexibility in spending Additional Assistance funds for non-capital and transportation purposes.

[3] Though traditional public schools are eligible to receive funding from the SFB, the state has defunded building renewal dollars for three consecutive fiscal years beginning in 2008.   The traditional schools must continue to comply with the SFBs minimum building standards even in the absence of funding for such.

[4] According to the Arizona Department of Education State Superintendent’s Report, 2008-2009, traditional schools spent $2,330 more per student than charter schools.

.

.

In June of 2009, Arizona Education Network published an article explaining how individual and corporate tax school tax credits worked.  (We encourage you to read this article first in order to understand the structure of the Arizona private school tax-credit program before continuing with this article.) Since then, investigative reports in the East Valley Tribune and the Arizona Republic have brought into question the efficacy of the program and the practices of the School Tuition Organizations, which act to pass through the tax credits to the private schools.  In the wake of the investigations, two house panels have held hearings into private school tax credits.

.

Arizona Education Network decided to take a closer look at the private school tax credit program and its history in order to understand the evolution of the program, the issues that have been raised and the potential changes in the future.  In order to respond to the many inquiries we have received (and make this easier on the layman), we will be using the Q & A format.

..

Why is there so much interest in using public tax dollars for private schools?

.

There are several arguments made:

• Some believe that in areas where schools are failing, all options, including private schools, must be looked at for the benefit of the children in these areas that are poorly served by their current public schools.  This argument is most prevalent in inner-cities where the vast majority of students are at, or near, the poverty level; and in fact, this is where voucher programs were first proposed.  Milwaukee and Cleveland were some of the first cities to offer vouchers, and it was a case from Ohio – Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (2002) – which the supreme court upheld in the use of vouchers.
  .
• Another argument is that private schools provide competition for public schools and that this should be encouraged.
  .
• Some go even further, proposing privatizing all education through a voucher system: in essence dismantling the public school system.  The best known advocate of this argument is economist Milton Friedman.
  .
• Finally, some of those who attend private schools argue that it is their right to decide how to use their tax money to educate their children, regardless of the performance of their public schools or their income.

.

What are vouchers?

.

Vouchers are payment certificates directly issued by the government to parents to pay for private school.  They have been very controversial because, historically, they have run into problems with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The First Amendment states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and court cases regarding vouchers have centered on these clauses.

.

How did vouchers wind up being upheld by the Supreme Court?

The path of vouchers in the legal system is very interesting and it all has to do with the changing interpretation of the Establishment Clause.  Here are some of the Supreme Court cases that determined the progress to federally approved vouchers.

• Everson v Board of Education (1947) – This case found that the a board of education could authorize the reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic school.  “In fact, the decision established the now-crucial distinction between aid provided directly to religious schools and aid provided to children or their parents…”(NeoVouchers, Kevin Wellner, p. 50).   However, Everson also held two important points; 1) “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’” (Everson) and 2) “Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,  the First Amendment did not apply as a restraint against the states.” (Everson) However, Everson upheld the application of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, meaning the First Amendment applies to the states and is binding.
  .
• Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) – While Everson permitted direct aid to parents for their children, Lemon established the rules.  Lemon struck down “Rhode Island’s 1969 Salary Supplement Act provid[ing] for a 15% salary supplement to be paid to teachers in nonpublic schools at which the average per-pupil expenditure on secular education [was] below the average in public schools.”  And “Pennsylvania’s Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, passed in 1968, authoriz[ing] the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to ‘purchase’ certain ‘secular educational services’ from nonpublic schools, directly reimbursing those schools solely for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials.” (Lemon)  Lemon found that “[b]oth statutes… involve[d]  excessive entanglement between government and religion.”  The Lemon decision laid out what came to be known as the “Lemon Test”. “A law, the court explained, violates the establishment clause if it fails any of the three parts of the following test: (1) the law must serve a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.” (NeoVouchers, Kevin Wellner, p.59)
  .
• Mueller v Allen (1983) – The first shift came in Mueller v Allen.  The Supreme Court upheld “[a]  Minnesota statute (§ 290.09, subd. 22) [that] allow[ed] state taxpayers, in computing their state income tax, to deduct expenses incurred in providing ‘tuition, textbooks and transportation’ for their children attending an elementary or secondary school.” (Mueller v Allen).  This included parents whose children attended parochial schools.  The court ruled that the law met the “Lemon Test”.
  .
• Aguilar v Felton (1985) – In this case the court held unconstitutional “New York City['s] use [of] federal funds received under the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to pay the salaries of public school employees who teach in parochial schools in the city.” (Aguilar) The decision cited excessive entanglement under the “Lemon Test”.
  .
• Agostini v Felton (1997) – Agostini reversed the Aguilar case; the court ruling that, “[t]he Aguilar Court erred in concluding that New York City’s Title I program resulted in an excessive entanglement between church and state.” (Agostini) “The key modification was that entanglement alone would not result in a finding of unconstitutionality.” (NeoVouchers, Kevin Wellner, p.60)
  .
• Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District (1993) – We cannot leave out Arizona’s own contribution to the evolution.  In Zobrest, the ”[p]etitioners, a deaf child and his parents, filed this suit after respondent school district refused to provide a sign language interpreter to accompany the child to classes at a Roman Catholic high school.”  The court ruled that, “Government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge just because sectarian institutions may also receive an attenuated financial benefit.”(Zobrest)
  .
• Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002) - This brings us to the case that approved vouchers on the federal level. The Zelman case ruled on the legality of the Cleveland pilot program to provide vouchers to students in a public school district that was failing on a massive scale, necessitating federal intervention and a state takeover.  In the decision, the court affirmed that, “[t]here is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system.”  The decision went on to say, “[t]hree times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing. Three times we have rejected such challenges.”  The key phrase here is “neutral” – the “Neutral Test” has replaced the “Lemon Test“.  The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling that, “ the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause.”

..

Why doesn’t Arizona use vouchers?

Even though federal law now permits vouchers, the use of vouchers is not permitted under the Arizona state constitution.  This is because the Arizona constitution contains a “Blaine Amendment Clause“.  The Blaine amendment was a constitutional amendment proposed by then Congressman James Blaine in 1875 to ban the use of  revenue raised by taxation for private schools; specifically religious schools. While the amendment to the constitution failed, many states (including Arizona) adopted a version of the amendment into the state constitution. The Arizona constitution article IX, Section 10.  reads:

“No tax shall be laid or appropriation of public money made in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation.”

.

Thus, Arizona lawmakers needed sought to find another way to to fund private school: tax-credits.

.

How do tax-credits avoid the “Blaine Amendment” prohibition?

Tax-credits are not refunds; they are “credits.” The funds never make their way into the state general fund, but they come back as a credit OUT of the state’s general fund. The tax-credit money must be paid to a middle-man, a school tuition organization (STO), which then distributes the funds to students through “tax-credit scholarships”.   Because the funds are not received by the state directly and are not paid out by the state, they are not subject to the Blaine Amendment.

.

Was the private tuition tax-credit challenged in court?

Yes, it was challenged in Kotterman v Killian (1999) and went to the  Arizona State Supreme Court.
.
The State Supreme Court found that, “schools are no more than indirect recipients of taxpayer contributions, with the final destination of these funds being determined by individual parents.” (Kotterman).  The final conclusion affirmed that, ”[w]e hold that the tuition tax credit is a neutral adjustment mechanism for equalizing tax burdens and encouraging educational expenditures.” (Kotterman).  The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case.

.
It is interesting that in the decision, the Arizona Supreme Court brings up the religious discrimination issue as it pertains to the “Blaine Amendment”.   The opinion states that, “[t]he Blaine amendment was a clear manifestation of religious bigotry, part of a crusade manufactured by the contemporary Protestant establishment to counter what was perceived as a growing ‘Catholic menace’.”  It goes on to find that while there is “… no recorded history directly linking the amendment with Arizona’s constitutional convention…we would be hard pressed to divorce the amendment’s language from the insidious discriminatory intent that prompted it.” (Kotterman) Some in the pro-voucher movement have suggested that there may be a potential federal case in the offing challenging the states which have a “Blaine Amendment” on discrimination grounds.  It is debatable as to whether such a case would succeed. However, if it did and the Blaine Amendment was thrown out, Arizona would be free to offer vouchers.

.

Are there any other cases that may affect tax-credits in the future?

There is currently a case working its way through the federal appeals court. On October 21, 2009,  the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its April 2009 decision that the Arizona School Tuition Organizations Program for private schools is unconstitutional.

.

In the case of Winn v Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, the court supported  “Plaintiffs argue[ment], however, that Section 1089 violates the Establishment Clause precisely choices available under the program serve to restrict parents’ opportunities to select secular educational options for their school-age children, skewing parents’ incentives to send their children to religious schools. As such, the program is not ‘neutral in all respects toward religion’ and, concomitantly, is not a ‘program of true private choice.’”  This returns the argument to the Establishment Clause and the Zellman case’s neutrality test.  It will be interesting to see how the Supreme court applies these issues to tax-credits vs. vouchers.

.

Interestingly, “[a]n analysis of 2008 scholarships by The Arizona Republic showed religious schools received 93 percent of the $54 million given to school-tuition organizations that year.  The Republic went on to report that, “If the U.S. Supreme Court decides not to review the case, it will go back to the Arizona’s U.S. District Court for a full hearing. If the Supreme Court decides to review the case, the justices would ask for further legal and oral arguments from attorneys on both sides. The court could reverse the Appeals Court decision and end the case or uphold the Appeals Court decision to send the case to a lower court for a full trial.”

.

How does Arizona’s tax-credit specifics compare to those of other states?

Arizona pioneered the use of tax-credits to circumnavigate the restrictions of the “Blaine Amendment”.  Several other states have implemented tax-credit programs following the Arizona model.  Click here to see a chart that compares Arizona tax-credits to those available in Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, Rhode Island and Georgia.

.
.
In Order to adopt best tax-credit practices, which state should Arizona emulate?

Arizona’s individual tuition tax-credit plan should adopt that same standards as Arizona’s corporate tuition tax credit plan.

• While the individual tuition tax-credit program is not means tested, the corporate tuition tax-credit plan is limited to families with 185% of the income required to receive free & reduced lunch
• While the individual tuition tax-credit program allows earmarking of donation if not for a dependent, the corporate tuition tax-credit plan allows no earmarking at all
• While the individual tuition tax-credit program has no restrictions requiring prior public school attendance, the corporate tuition tax-credit plan mandates that students must start off in public school or be in Kindergarten to apply
• Although the individual program has no cap, the corporate plan is capped at $17.3 million (although that is permitted to grow at 20% per year)

.

Do tax-credits save the state money?

Proponents of tax-credits argue that tax-credits issued on behalf of students attending private school save the state money because the tax-credit is less than the per-pupil funding level allocated by the state for a student in public school.   However, the state saves money only if the benefitted students start out in public school.  When tax credits support students who are already in private school and would have chosen private school anyway, there is no savings to the general fund.  The Arizona Republic article points out that out of the 50,000 private school students, only 7,530 students have been added since the tax-credit program started. Moreover, if public school students switch from public to private schools they only receive a partial subsidy of their private school tuition, leaving the families to make up the difference between the subsidy and the full cost of private school tuition.  Therefore, there is a cost-shift from public payment for education to private, individual payment for education.  Is that the best way to build an educated work force?  How will low income students be able to afford to subsidize their education?

.

Why publicly financed education?

Parents have the choice of sending their children to a public school or a private school at their own expense.  More importantly, choice is now available under the public school umbrella; among traditional public schools and charter schools.
.

Universal public education in the United States is a cornerstone of our democracy.  While citizens of the United States pay taxes for a variety of services, none has had a greater economic impact on the United States than the investment in public education.
.

Reforms in public education are moving to outcome-based models.  By shifting tax funds to private schools, lawmakers risk sending funds to institutions with no accountability for how funds are spent or any test of outcome of their education model.  In a time of tight budgets and cuts to public education, allowing tax-credits to private schools, without any accountability for spending or assessment of success does not appear to be a sound public policy decision.

.

MaryLee Moulton, Arizona Education Network

MaryLee Moulton can be contacted at marylee@arizonaeducationnetwork.com

.

Referenced articles:

Tax credit sponsor’s vision unrealized, East Valley Tribune, June 15, 2010

Researcher: Tax credits cost state millions, Livewire Blog, AZ Central.com, February 8, 2010

Tax Credits & STOs: Overview, Arizona Education Network, June 6, 2009

Rigged Privileged, East Valley Tribune, August 1, 2009

‘Republic’ analysis: Tuition tax credits drain state money, Arizona Republic, October 14, 2009

Public Schools: Make Them Private, Milton Friedman, Cato Institute, June 23, 1995

Attorneys to ask high court to review Ariz. tuition tax credits, Arizona Republic, October 22, 2009

Referenced Book:

Wellman, Kevin, G., NeoVouchers, New York: Rowman & Littlefield , 2008.

.

Arizona is an “equal funding” state for education.  This means that each school district receives the same funding per student from the state.  The only local option or local control permitted to school districts are overrides and bonds.  Overrides are generally for maintenance and operations (M&O) and are limited to 15% (recent legislation raises the limit to 17%) of the district M&O budget based on equalization funding.  Capital outlay (soft capital items that cannot be bonded for) overrides are also allowed but  recent legislation will now restrict them to 10% of RCL (Revenue Control Limits).   Finally, local communities are also still permitted to bond for building and maintenance of schools.

National surveys on per pupil spending place Arizona at the bottom of most lists; and these surveys were completed before last year’s mid-year cuts.  The following are Arizona’s most recent per-pupil spending rankings:

National Education Association: 51^st

U.S. Census Bureau: 49^th

National Center for Education Statistics: 48^th

Education Week: 50^th

Even the very conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ranks Arizona 50th.

(For a full explanation of Arizona rankings click here.)

There are 89 overrides,bonds or other school funding issues on the ballot for November 3rd, 2009.  Local Arizona communities are exercising the control they have in order to raise more money to spend on educating their students.  Arizona Education Network encourages voters to vote “YES” to these overrides, bonds and other funding issues so these Arizona school districts will have additional funds available for educating the next generation of Arizonans.

The following is a list of school district override and bond ballot initiatives by county. (Information provided by county election offices or county school district offices.):.

Apache County

St. John’s School District #1

• Override

Ganado School District #20

• Override

Cochise County

Sierra Vista School District #68

• M&O Budget Override

Douglas School District #27

• Bond Election

Coconino County

Flagstaff Unified School District #1

• M&O Budget Overrides

Freedonia Mocassin Unified SchoolDistrict #6 (also part of Mohave County)

• K-3 Budget Override
• K-12 Budget Override

Tuba City Unified School District #15

• Capital Outlay Override.

Gila County

Miami School District #40

• M&O Budget Override

White River Unified School District #20

• M&O Budget Override.

Graham County

Thatcher School District #4

• M&O Budget Override

.

Greenlee County

Morenci Unified School District #18

• K-3 M&O Budget Override
• K-8 M&O Budget Override

La Paz County

Parker Unified School District #27

• K-3 M&O Budget Override
• K-12 M&O Budget Override.

Maricopa County

Arlington Elementary School District #47

• K-3 Budget Override

Cave Creek Unified School District #93

• K-3 Budget Override

Creighton Elementary School District #14

• M&O Budget Override
• Bond Election

Dysart Unified School District #89

• M&O Budget Override
• K-3 Budget Override

Fountain Hills Unified School District #98

• M&O  Budget Override
• K-3 Budget Override

Fowler Elementary School District #45

• Capital Outlay Override

Gila Bend Elementary School District #24

• Bond Election

Glendale Elementary School District #40

• K-3 Budget Override

Glendale Union School District # 205

• M&O Budget Override

Higley Unified School District #60

• K-3 Budget Override

Liberty Elementary School District #25

• M&O Budget Override
• K-3 Budget Override

Litchfield Elementary School District # 79

• Bond Election

Littleton Elementary School District # 65

• Bond Election

Madison Elementary School District # 38

• Bond Election
• Capital Outlay Override

Mesa Unified School District

• M&O Budget Override

Morristown Elementary School District # 75

• M&O  Budget Override

Osborn Elementary School District #8

• M&O Budget Override
• K-3 Budget Override

Paradise Valley Unified School District #69

• M&O Budget Override

Pendergast Elementary School District #92

• M&O Budget Override

Peoria Unified School District #11

• M&O Budget Override

Phoenix Elementary School District #1

• M&O Budget Override
• K-3 Budget Override

Phoenix Union School DIstrict #210

• M&O Budget Override

Saddle Mountain Unified School District #90

• Bond Election
• M&O Budget Override

Scottsdale Unified School District #48

• K-3 Budget Override

Temple Elementary School District #3

• Bond Election

Union Elementary School District #62

• M&O Budget Override

Washington Elementary School District #6

• K-3 M&O Budget Override

WickenburgnUnified School District  #9

• M&O Budget Override

Mohave County

Lake Havasu Unified School District #1

• K-3 M&O Budget Override

Topack Elementary School District #12

• K-3 M&O Budget  Override

Peach Spring Unified School District #8

• K-3 M&O Budget  Override
• K-12 M&O Budget Override.

Navajo County

Pinon Unified School District #4

• K-3 M&O Budget Override
• K-12 M&O Budget Override

Winslow Unified School District #1

• M&O Budget Override.

Pima County

Amphitheater United School District #10

• M&O Budget Override
• Capital Outlay Override

Catalina Foothills Unified School District #16

• Bond Election

Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Unified School District #40

• K-3 Budget Override
• K-12 M&O Budget Override

Sahuarita Unified Schol District #30

• M&O Budgwet Override
• Bond Election
• Bond Investment Income Question (details not provided)

Tanque  Verde Unified School District # 13

• M&O Budget Override
• Bond Election

Tucson Unified School District #1

• M&O Budget Override
• Capital Outlay Override

Vail Unified School District

• M&O Budget Override
• Bond Election

.

Pinal Couty (Did not provide District Numbers)

Apache Junction Unified School District

• M&O Budget Override

Casa Grande School Elementary School District

• Override Election

Casa Grande High School District

• Override Election

Coolidge Unified School District

• M&O Budget Override

Eloy Elementary School District

• Override Election

Maricopa United School District

• M&O Budget Override

Picacho Elementary School District

• M&O Budget Override

Ray Unified School District

• Override Election

Red Rock Elementary School District

• M&O Budget Override

Superior Unified School District

• Special Election (details of special election not provided)

Toltec Elementary School District

• M&O Budget Override Election

.

Santa Cruz County

Nogales Unified School District #1

• K-12 M&O Budget Override

Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District #30

• JTED (Joint Technology Education District) Election

.

Yavapai County

Beaver Creek Elementary School District #26

• Bond Election

Mingus Union High School District #4

• M&O Budget Override

Cottonwoood-Oak Creek Elementary District #6

• M&O Budget Override.

Yuma County

Hyder Elementary School District #16

• M&O Budget Override