Education Secretary Arne Duncan today (7/27/10) released the list of finalists for the second round of the Race to the Top federal grant program.  Arizona is one of the 19 finalists.  The other finalist are California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.  All finalists are invited to make a presentation to the review committee the week of August 9th.  The winners will be announced in September.
.
.
Governor Jan Brewer released a statement praising those who worked on the Arizona application.  She cited Senator Huppenthal’s SB 1040 (Teacher and Principal Evaluations), Representative McComish’s HB 2298 (Preparation Providers; Teacher Certification), and Representative Crandall’s HB 2733 (Department of Education; Data Collection) as legislation important to the Arizona application.  Brewer said, “[t]hese bills provided for the adoption of new teacher and principal evaluations, alternative teacher and principal certification, as well as an assessment of and governance for our data system.”
.
.
On March 4, 2010, Secretary Duncan announced the sixteen finalists for the first round of the program.  Arizona’s application came in 40th out of 41 applications.  Ultimately, two states were awarded the first round of program grants.  Tennessee was awarded almost $500 million and Delaware was awarded almost $100 million.  The U.S. Department of Education later released the scores and feedback for all applicants to review.  Arizona applied for the second round of the Race to the Top in June.

.

To read more, see below:

.

18 States and D.C. Named as Finalists for Race to the Top, US Department of Education, ED.gov, July 27, 2010

Statement by Governor Jan Brewer, July 27, 2010

Secretary of  Education, Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the National Press Club (announcing the finalists), July 27, 2010
.
What to Expect: Arizona’s Race to the Top Application, Arizona Education Network, December 17, 2009
.
Arizona Doesn’t Make “Race to the Top” Cut, Arizona Education Network, March 5, 2010
.
Only Two States (TN & DE)  Win Race to the Top Grants; Arizona’s Scores Released, Arizona Education Network, March 30, 2010

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 order to show the direct impact of  potential cuts to school districts if Proposition 100 fails, Governor Brewer’s Office of Strategic Planning and  Budgeting recently released a report that provides a district-by-district estimate of the impact of legislative budget cuts on Arizona school districts for the 2010-11 school year (FY 2011).  The report shows both the cuts that will be implemented as part of the budget if Proposition 100 passes and the estimates of additional (contingent) cuts for each school district if the May 18 sales tax election (Proposition 100) fails.
.
.
According to the report, if Proposition 100 fails, traditional public schools can expect a total funding cut of $748,775,148.  Public charter schools can expect a $63,663,047 total funding cut.
.
.
The table below has been condensed to show the most specific information related to traditional public K-12 schools.  Please note: Font colors differ district-to-district so as to make the table easier on the reader’s eye.
.
For a more detailed breakdown of funding cuts, click “Conditional Impact on Public K-12 School Districts”.
.
For a detailed breakdown of funding cuts to public K-12 charter schools, click “Conditional Impact on Public K-12 Charter Schools”.
.
.
Related Information:
Proposition 100: The 1% Temporary Sales Tax- Your Questions Answered!
.
.

Monday, Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan announced that Tennessee and Delaware were the only two winners of Phase One of the Race to the Top grants.  Tennessee was awarded almost $500 million and Delaware was awarded almost $100 million.

Delaware ranked first with 454.6 out of a possible 500 rubric score; Tennessee ranked second with 444.2 points.  Arizona ranked fortieth out of forty-one applicants with a score of 240.2 out of 500.  For a complete listing of the order and scores of the states that applied, click here.

Applications for Phase Two are due June 1, 2010.  Arizona is eligible to apply for this next phase of grants.  Duncan announced that 10-15 winners were expected in the next round of the competition for the remaining $3.4 billion.

Since this is the end of Phase One of the competition, scores and comments from the unsuccessful applications were released to the public.  To read Arizona’s Technical Review Form – Tier 1, click here.  To read Arizona’s Panel Review, click here.

.

For further information see below.

Delaware and Tennessee Win First Race to The Top Grants, U.S. Department of Education Press Release, March 29, 2010, ED.Gov

U.S. Names Education Grant Winners, New York Times, March 29, 2010

.

Tucson Unified School District is responding by offering the First Choice Schools program, which offers options including; OMA Gold schools (Opening Minds through the Arts), International Baccalaureate schools, artful learning schools, Montessori schools, and Reggio Emilia schools

.

Sunnyside School District is using technology to encourage students to remain in the district.  They are utilizing $213,300  to keep eighth-graders from leaving by loaning laptops this summer to qualifying students and enrolling them in a college-prep program.

.

Districts are even moving into the charter school arena.  Vail Unified already runs two charter school in their district; Vail High and Civano Community School. Mesa Public Schools recently announced that they received state approval to establish  charter schools in their district using a non-profit group created by the Mesa Unified School District.

.

For additional information, see below:

Sunnyside, TUSD work to counter charters’ lure, Arizona Daily Star, Jan. 24, 2010

Searchable database of private, charter and magnet schools (Tucson Area), Arizona Daily Star, January 23, 2010

Mesa district nonprofit group gets OK to run charter schools, East Valley Tribune, January 25, 2010

Arizona Charter Schools Association

December state payments to Arizona’s three public Universities were finally made on January 21, 2010.  The Arizona Republic is reporting that the payment did not include the amount owed the universities from the general fund; only the tuition held by the state was remitted.

.

University officials are concerned that continued late payments may affect the bond ratings for the Universities as well as possibly endanger federal aid.  Arizona cut $231.5 million from higher education in 2009.  Regents will be meeting to consider raising tuition further.  To read more about the effect of budget woes on Arizona’s Universities, see the articles below.

.

State finally pays schools, Arizona Daily Wildcat, January 22, 2010

State makes payment of $47M to universities, Arizona Daily Star, January 22,2010

.

Education Week has recently released its annual Report Card on American public education, and it shows mixed results for Arizona.  While Arizona scored at the top for Standards, Assessments and Accountablity [A- (89.8)], it finished near the bottom for school financing [D+ (66.8)].  Looking at the breakouts for school financing it is interesting to note that Arizona’s Equity score is  85.9 (B) while it’s Spending score is a dismal 47.8 (F).

.

It’s important to note that this report was drafted before the recent economic downturn. The report notes that, “…most of the indicators on which this year’s school finance  and Chance for Success grades were based lag behind the current state of the economy, both nationally and regionally…”

.

Here is a breakdown of Arizona scores in the six categories examined by Education Week.

.

Arizona Overall Score: C- (70.8)

.

Chance for Success: C- (70.9)

• Early foundations: C (74.0)
• School years: D (65.7)
• Adult outcomes: C+ (76.9)

K-12 Achievement: D (62.6)

• Status: F (49.8)
• Changes: D+ (67.0)
• Equity: C+ (77.6)

School Finance: D+ (66.8)

• Equity B (85.9)
• Spending F (47.8)

Standards, Assessments & Accountability: A- (89.8)

• Standards: B+ (89.3)
• Assessments: B- (80.0)
• School Accountability A (100.0)

Transitions & Alignment: C- (71.4)

• Early Childhood education: C- (70.0)
• College readiness: D- (60.0)
• Economy & workforce: B+ (87.5)

The Teaching Profession: D (63.4)

• Accountability for Quality: D (64.7)
• Incentive & allocation: D (65.4)
• Building & supporting capacity: D- (60.0)

.

For the  full report and explanation of the methods used in compiling this report, see the link below.

State of the States: Holding All States to High Standards: Fifty-State Report Card Finds Progress, Challenges, Education Week, January 14, 2010

State Report Cards, Education Week, January 14, 2010

.

.

Arizona enters the new decade as the national leader in school choice.  Arizona parents can choose to open-enroll their children in the public school that best meets their needs, choose among almost 500 charter schools or even receive a tax credit funded scholarship to offset some of the cost of private school.  Arizona parents have more choice than parents in any other state.

.

Unfortunately, while Arizona legislators have given parents more control over their children’s education, they have failed to keep up with other states’ investment in education.  Arizona ranks at the bottom in per pupil spending for public education and 90% of Arizona parents have chosen traditional public education and charter public schools.

.

Why is investment in traditional and charter public schools important?  In order to have a strong economy Arizona needs an educated work force to attract industry to the state.  If business cannot find workers qualified for the positions available they will not come to Arizona.  Moreover, if educated workers are not available businesses will leave Arizona.  Arizona citizens want smart government that will enact policies that will help create broad prosperity throughout the state and education is the cornerstone to building a stronger Arizona economy.  Investing in public education is investing in the economic future of Arizona.

.

As the legislature convenes for the new session, Arizona faces serious financial issues.  Arizonans should be watching for action in the legislature that reflects Arizona values and priorities.  New tax-credit proposals that diminish the general fund in a time of record deficits should be labeled fiscally irresponsible. Investment in public education should be employed to fire-up the economic engine of Arizona and help grow us out of our fiscal Grand Canyon.  Investment in public education has been the greatest economic driver in the history of the United States.  Now is the time for Arizona to re-invest in public education!

.

MaryLee Moulton

Board Member, Arizona Education Network

e-mail MaryLee Moulton at marylee@arizonaeducationnetrwork.com

.

.

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

Why did some Arizona legislators sign a “No Tax Pledge” that puts them in direct conflict with the Arizona Constitution they are sworn to uphold? Why did Arizona legislators sign a pledge to a special interest Washington Lobbyist named Grover Norquist?.

The question begs to be asked: How can one sign a “No Tax” pledge, which may violate at least multiple provisions and mandates of the Arizona Constitution, that all legislators swore to uphold?
.

It seems to be a clear conflict-of-interest to swear to two contradictory mandates.  What a conundrum for the legislators that signed an oath to a Washington lobbyist …Which oath should be upheld? 

.
It is the opinion of AEN that the Arizona Constitution, the very document that allows for elected officials to represent the constituents in Arizona, has supremacy and all other oaths and pledges must be secondary.
.

 In regard to taxation, the AZ Constitution is quite clear in Article 9, Section 1:  Surrender of power of taxation; uniformity of taxes
.

Section 1. The power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away.

.

In fact, every legislator is required, by Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 38-231 (under Article 4–Oath of Office) to take the following oath:

____________________________________________________________________________________
.
State of Arizona, County of ______________ I, _____________________(type or print name)

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the

Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially

discharge the duties of the office of ___________________ (name of office) _____________________

according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).
.
______________________________________
(signature of officer or employee)
.

____________________________________________________________________________________

.

However,  a number of Arizona legislators have signed a “No Tax” pledge to a Washington special interest group – Americans for Tax Reform.  (Click “No Tax” Pledge List for a complete list.)

.

The Arizona Constitution & Public Education
.

Arizona’s public school standing in the educational world has been slipping over the last decade, to the point where it has now reached a crisis point in funding, ideology and prioritizing.  It needs to be stated and reiterated that public education was vital to our Arizona founders, who recognized the integral relationship between a strong public education system and the viability of Arizona as a state.  For a brief history of the weight our forefathers placed on public education, visit: Public Education and our AZ Constitution.
.

Arizona founders crafted our constitution in a way to ensure its priority, as well as the means for funding it:
.

Article 11, Section 10. Source of revenue for maintenance of state educational institutions
.

Section 10. The revenue for the maintenance of the respective state educational institutions shall be derived from the investment of the proceeds of the sale, and from the rental of such lands as have been set aside by the enabling act approved June 20, 1910, or other legislative enactment of the United States, for the use and benefit of the respective state educational institutions. In addition to such income the legislature shall make such appropriations, to be met by taxation, as shall insure the proper maintenance of all state educational institutions, and shall make such special appropriations as shall provide for their development and improvement.
.

In addition, our forefathers added provisions into the constitution that require Arizona legislators to uphold the constitution.
.

Article 2, Section 32. Constitutional provisions mandatory
.

Section 32. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
.

Arizona is dead last in the United States of America in education funding, with the situation only becoming more bleak.  The AZ constitution requires, through taxation as a last resort, the Development and Improvement of public schools.  Public education is being woefully underfunded and it’s an incontrovertible fact that the Arizona founders wanted and mandated more for the economic development for the state of Arizona

Who signed a pledge to a special interest Washington lobbyist?

The folowing legislators signed the following ATR “No Taxes” State Pledge:

.
In the Arizona Senate:

Bob Burns (LD-9)
Pamela Gorman (LD-6) [Note: Sen. Gorman resigned January of 2010 to run for the CD 3 seat]
Ron Gould (LD-3)
Linda Gray (LD-10)
Jack Harper (LD-4)
John Huppenthal (LD-20)
Barbara Leff (LD-11)
Jay Tibshraeny (LD-21)
Thayer Verschoor (LD-22)
.

In the Arizona House of Representative:
Kirk Adams (LD-19)
Frank Antenori (LD-30)
Ray Barnes (LD-7)
Nancy K. Barto (LD-7)
Andy Biggs (LD-22)
Tom Boone (LD-4)
Judy Burges (LD-4)
Sam Crump (LD-6) [Note: Rep. Crump resigned February of 2010 to run for CD 3]
Adam Driggs (LD-11)
David Gowan (LD-30)
John Kavanagh (LD-8)
Bill Konopnicki (LD-5)
Debbie Lesko (LD-9)
Rick Murphy (LD-9)
Warde V. Nichols (LD-21)
Carl Seel (LD-6)
David Stevens (LD-25)
Andrew M. Tobin (LD-1)
Jerry Weiers (LD-12)
Jim Weiers (LD-10)
Steve Yarbrough (LD-21)

.

Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, ________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _______

District of the state of ____________________ and all the people of this state that
I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.
.

Other Media:

Tax foe in DC casts long shadow over legislature, Arizona Daily Star, August 23, 2009

Anti-Tax Pledge hangs over GOP, Arizona Republic, February 14, 2009

.

.

Education at Charters is Spotty, Oversight Lax, Arizona Daily Star, August 16, 2009

To view the performance rankings of all Arizona Charter schools on the AEN website, click here.
.
.

.

With the opening of schools this August, many classes have ballooned in size.  This is directly related to cuts in K-12 funding by the AZ legislature,  and there is a  threat of more cuts to come.  Since the state of Arizona does not yet have a budget, schools were forced to open while “guessing” at funding levels for this academic year.  To read about the impact on schools in the Phoenix area, click below.

.

K-12 Class Sizes a Growing Concern in Valley, Arizona Republic, August 15, 2009

Teacher performance pay impacted by recession (Willam Roller), Yuma Sun, August  16, 2009

Parents concerned about over-sized classes, 35+ kids (Jodie Heiser), ABC 15 News, August 15, 2009

.

Public education has long been recognized as the crucial component for ensuring our economic and civic structure in the state of Arizona.  John Goodwin, the first governor of the Arizona Territory, stated definitively that “self-government and universal education are inseparable.  The one can be exercised only as the other is enjoyed.”  As early as 1864 he called on the territory legislature to establish free public K-12 and university education, noting that “The first duty of the legislators of a free state is to make, as far as lies within their power, education as free to all its citizens as the air they breathe.”
.
Thus public schools were already well established in our state by December of 1910, when 52 delegates from across the Arizona territory came together to draft a state constitution.
.
The Arizona Constitution was not a haphazardly formatted document; nor was it a rigid, federally mandated decree by a group of men in powdered wigs and leggings.  The delegates, or constitutional framers, were miners, ranchers and small business owners–the hardworking, enterprising men who defined the “American pioneer” as we think of it today.  Their efforts, combined with several reviews by the voters of Arizona, shaped the enduring and progressive document that has ensured prosperity for our state and its citizens for generations.
.
In addition to the territorial legal precedent, the Arizona delegates also had the basic tenets of the Northwest Ordinance as a guideline for their new constitution.  The three-paged Ordinance outlined pre-statehood rule of law to the territories and underscored the four basic cornerstones of democracy and preeminent American values:
.
1.    Freedom of religion.
2.    Trial by jury.
3.    Public education.
4.    Prohibition of slavery.
.
Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance speaks to education in the following passage:  “…. knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
.
While the Northwest Ordinance and territorial laws provided the basic scaffolding, the elected delegates were allowed great liberty in how they arrived at the final destination of statehood. Their constitutional course was expected to be one that would be most “comfortably” maintained for the citizens; based largely, if not wholly, on the values and consent of the citizens they were representing in the process.  Addressing the manner of providing public education required the framers to consider the existing and future resources and potential of the territories, and their shared expectations for the growth of a great state.
.
Article XI of the Arizona constitution defines the basic parameters for a ‘general and uniform’ public school system from Kindergarten to the University level, outlines the administration of the schools and guarantees an education free from religious or political discrimination. The constitutional authors of 1910-1911 also had the foresight to avoid the unfunded government mandates that we often see today.  They made sure that the funding for Arizona’s public education system was well defined and enduring: Article 11, Section 10 reads:
.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.
.

.
.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
.
.
Our Arizona forefathers wisely set the bar at a level that would rise alongside the population; allowing for funding increases as needed and with a explicit directive to future legislators to ensure consistent, reliable support for the enhancement and prosperity of our public schools.  The Constitution does not read “We should provide for education” or “We should maintain our state educational institutions when we can afford it” – it states explicitly that public education funding must rise beyond the adequate and to the level of providing for the “development and improvement” of our state schools.
.
And yet, almost 100 years later, here we are. Per-pupil funding for our Arizona public schools has been on the decline for over a decade and our current legislative leadership is working diligently to unravel existing revenue for our public schools.  The constitutional law which requires our elected representatives to “make such appropriations” is being studiously ignored despite a rising outcry from parents, teachers, our military personnel and the Arizona business community.  To suggest that any article or section of our state constitution is simply irrelevant or inconsequential undermines the significance of our forefather’s vision and foresight. To ignore and/or undermine the constitution is, without a doubt, unconstitutional.
.
Our constitution matters.   It is, as Toni McClory states in Understanding the Arizona Constitution, “the most authoritative guide available” and a “continuing limitation on powers of government.”
.
In fact, our constitution matters enough that we require our elected representatives to swear an oath prior to taking office:
.
____________________________________________________________________________________
.
State of Arizona, County of ______________ I, _____________________(type or print name)

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the

Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially

discharge the duties of the office of ___________________ (name of office) _____________________

according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).
.
______________________________________
(signature of officer or employee)
.

____________________________________________________________________________________
.
Our current course is unacceptable.  It would be unacceptable to our forefathers, and it’s unacceptable to most Arizonans.  Arizona’s race to the bottom in the US education rankings is hurting the students in our schools today as well as the future of our economy.  It is time for every Arizonan to stand strong and give voice that it is time to reclaim the vision of our founding fathers and re-prioritize the values of our government.  Our children–our collective future–should come first.
.
.
.
.
To learn more about the history of Arizona and its constitution, we recommend the following sources:.

Smith, Zachary (2002) Politics and Public Policy in Arizona.  Can be viewed on-line via Google books at this address.

History of TUSD:  The First Hundred Years (2003) The Organizers 1867-1870 can be viewed here.
.
The Northwest Ordinance available online at Our Documents and at Early America.
.
Understanding the Arizona Constitution McClory, Toni; The University of Arizona Press, 2001. This informative book is available for check-out at your public library or for purchase at Amazon.com.
.
Arizona State Constitution can be found at the website for the Arizona State Legislature, Article XI, Section X can be found here.
.
Arizona historical information can be found at the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records.