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

Click here to find your District

AZ Legislative Districts Map, pdf

.

For information about facts on school choice, funding, taxes, as well as our protocol and a blank copy of the survey, please see below. If a candidate did not submit a survey, it is noted by their name.
.
For a bar graph overview on how each question was answered by all candidates, click Overview of Survey 2010.

.

.
.
Some facts to keep in mind when reading the surveys:
.

School Choice:
Arizona already has a robust school-choice environment.  In fact, we are a leader nationwide in the school-choice movement.  In addition to traditional public schools, Arizona has approximately 500 charter schools, provides public tax credits for private schools, and allows home schooling.  However, with all this choice, nearly 90% of the parents still choose to send their children to public schools.
.

Taxes:
Our state general fund spending hasn’t varied much when it is compared to the total personal income of Arizona citizens each year.  The highest income to state spending ratio in the last 16 years was 5.2% in 1995 – it was 4.7% in 2008.
.
What has changed dramatically is our tax structure.  Corporate income tax rates have declined from 9.3% in 1990 to 6.98% in 2008.  The JLBC reports that our yearly corporate tax revenue was actually lower between 1998-2004 than it was in FY 1997.
.

Personal income taxes have dropped from a range of 3.80-7.00% in 1990 to 2.59-4.54% in 2008, and the number of tax credits and loopholes introduced during that time means that many individuals and businesses pay less than their actual published tax rate.
.
For more information about taxes, see:
AEN & ASBA–Your Questions Answered, pdf
Arizona Indicators, Public Finance, Arizona Tax Burden : May 2009
Historical Perspective on Arizona’s Tax Structure: Past, Present, and Future, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

.

Funding: According to most national sources, Arizona ranks near the bottom of all states in per-pupil funding.  The latest figures from the 2007-2008 Census Bureau [1] show Arizona at  $7, 608 per pupil compared to the national average of $10, 259 per pupil.  (New York led the funding at $17, 173 per pupil.)

.
It is worth noting that these figures do not include the steep cuts to public education legislators made during the last two years.  The Arizona legislature cut $2.2 billion from K-12 and university/community college funding since 2008 [2].  These cuts have crippled many school districts, especially in rural areas.   The cuts have resulted in class size increases; the loss of specialist teachers and programs like music, P.E. and gifted services; even the loss of basic necessities like paper.  While some point to high administrative costs to justify these cuts, administrative costs in Arizona for public schools average nearly 2% less than the national average of 9.0%.
.
To read more about funding issues, see:
AZ School–Examination of the Facts ,
Arizona Auditor General Report on Classroom Spending 2009: A Closer Look
Per Pupil Spending by State 2007-2008 [1]
Education Reductions, Plus Rollovers, January 2009 [2] (This entailed cuts of over $1 billion to K-12 education in the last 18 months plus the additional borrowing of nearly $1 billion from the schools to help fill the deficit.)
Budget Cuts JLBC July 2010

.

Survey Protocol:
All candidates running for the state Senate or House of Representatives in the 2010 primary were asked to complete our survey on issues surrounding public education in Arizona.  The survey consists of 12 multiple-choice questions.  A comment section follows each section allowing candidates the opportunity to clarify or elaborate upon their answers.  Per our protocol, candidates were emailed the survey on on June 22 and sent two reminder emails prior to the July 16 deadline.  If a candidate did not submit a survey, it is noted by their name.
.

You may wish to take the survey yourself to help you identify your own educational priorities; or, you may want to mail a copy to a candidate who did not return a survey to AEN.  Click Blank Survey 2010, pdf to get a copy of the survey for your use.

.

According to the report, Arizona has faced four consecutive years with a budget shortfall.  Since 2008, the state has enacted $12.5 billion in one-time budget solutions to address these shortfalls, including but not limited to $2.2 billion in permanent spending reductions, $918 from Proposition  100–the 1-cent sales tax increase approved by voters in the May 18 special election, and $1.5 billion in rollover and payment deferrals.

Over the last four years, Arizona’s K-12 public schools have seen a $883.9 million reduction in funding.  Similarly, funding for the state’s community colleges has been cut by $53.5 million and the universities by $232.5 million.

To review the JLBC’s Comprehensive Budget Solutions for Fiscal Year 2008 – Fiscal Year 2011, click here.

Related AEN articles:
Public School Finance & Equalization Funding: Your Questions Answered
Traditional Public School Finance and Equalized Funding: Your Questions Answered
Charter School Finance and Equalized Funding: Your Questions Answered
AZ Schools – Examination of the Facts
2009 Legislative Sessions: Education Funding Voting Record by Legislator

The spring 2010 Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) scores were released Thursday by the Arizona Department of Education.  According to the ADE, test scores were “steady” in reading in grades three through five.  In grades six through twelve, reading scores went up.

.
Science scores for grades four, eight and high school were also slightly higher.
.
Math scores overall decreased.  This was an expected result due to new, rigorous internationally bench-marked math standards, however.

Scores for schools and districts on Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards can be found at www.azed.gov.

For a spreadsheet of scores by school and district, click: AIMSSpring2010
.
.
For Arizona Schools Data and Statistics for each school and school district in District Performance, Yearly Progress and AIMS results, click here.
.
Related Articles:

Arizona Students Still Lag in Science on AIMS Exam, Arizona Republic, July 14, 2010

AIMS Results for Mesa Public Schools Students Generally Higher in all Grades, Arizona Republic, July 14, 2010

AIMS Math Scores Decline; Tougher Benchmarks Cited, Arizona Daily Star, July 14, 2010

.

On June 30, 2010 Phoenix-based PBS channel Eight recently aired a special edition of Horizonwhere host Ted Simons moderated two Clean Elections debates with the candidates running for Superintendent of Public Instruction. The first debate featured the Democratic candidates Penny Kotterman and Jason Williams. The second debate featured Republican candidates Margaret Dugan, John Huppenthal, and Beth Price.
.
To view the Democratic Candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction debate, click on video link below.

.

.
.

To view the Republican Candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction debate, click video link below.
.

.

.

On July 12, 2010 Arizona Public Media televised a debate for Superintendent of Public Instruction titled The Democratic Schools’ Chief Candidates Face-Off.
.

.

Penny Kotterman says she wants to set high standards and high expectation for our schools. Jason Williams says the elections of 2010 will have a significant impact on Arizona’s trajectory.  To find out more, click here to watch the video.

.

A wide variety of education subjects including teacher accountability, standards, AIMS testing, education spending and all-day kindergarten were addressed.

.

To learn more about the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and its importance go to Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction; Why You Should Pay Attention to this Office

.

To view the Democratic Candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction debate, click on video link below.
.

.
.

To view the Republican Candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction debate, click video link below.
.

.

To learn more about the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and its importance to public education, go to Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction; Why You Should Pay Attention to this Office.

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.

.

.

The Arizona Education Network and other parent and community organizations have sponsored or have spoken at several community forums about the state of education funding and Proposition 100.  You can find the presentations  and/or links to the school districts here.
.

Community-Wide Forum with Tucson Leaders on Prop 100 4/22/10

.

The Arizona Education Network brought together a panel of leaders throughout Tucson to discuss the effects of Proposition 100 on the state.
.

Panelists included:

Nic Clement, Flowing Wells Superintendent and head of the local School Superintendents’ Collaborative
Chuck Huckelberry, Pima County Administrator
Rainer W.G. Gruessner, M.D. , Chairman, UA Department of Surgery
Penelope Jacks, Children Action Alliance, Southern Arizona director
Sue Krahe, Our Family Services director
Stephen MacCarthy, University of Arizona Vice-President for External  Relations
Ron Shoopman, President of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council

.
One Cent Sales Tax Considered to Save More than Education: KOLD7, Tucson, April 22, 2010
Proposition 100 Forum Stirs Community Support, Outrage: Arizona Daily Wildcat, April 23, 2010
Tucsonans Meet to Discuss Proposition 100, KVOA4, April 23, 2010

.

Downloadable PDF Presentations:

Dr. Rainer Gruessner: Dr Gruessner Health Cuts Presentation

Dr. Nic Clement: Dr. Nic Clement Presentation

.

.

League of Women Voters: Proposition 100 Debate

.

The League of Women Voters sponsored a debate on Proposition 100 on April 13, 2010.  Ann-Eve Pedersen of the Arizona Education Network and Pete Hershberger, former Republican representative presented the pro-Prop 100 view; former Republican Pima County Supervisor Paul Marsh and John Kromko, the head of the Pima Association of Taxpayers, represented the opposition.  You can read the full article here.
.

Proposition 100 Debate/Panel Discussion

.

April 11, 2010: Ann-Eve Pedersen from the Arizona Education Network, and Farrell Quinlan, the Arizona State Director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses discuss Proposition 100 on April 11, 2010.
.
.

.
.
.

Amphitheater Public School District

.

The Arizona Education Network co-sponsored three forums on Proposition 100 and proposed cuts to the Amphitheater School District.

You can download the presentation by Dr. Balentine in PDF format: Amphitheater Forum Presentation April 2010
You can download the presentation by Scott Little, CFO in PDF format: AEN/Amphi Final Presentation: Scott Little

Missed the forums?  We’ve got you covered!  Click here to watch all or part of the presentations by the Arizona Education Network, Dr. Vicki Balentine, and Scott Little, as well as the “Q & A” portion of the event.
.
Amphitheater Public School District, April 5-7, 2010:

Amphitheater Forum Presentation April 2010
Amphitheater Public Schools
701 W. Wetmore
Tucson, Arizona 85705
(520) 696-5000
http://www.amphi.com/

.
.

.

.
.
.