On May 18, Arizonans will vote on whether to approve Proposition 100, a temporary one-cent increase to the state sales tax that will help address the state’s budget deficit.
.

A new study by researchers at the Economic and Business Research Center at the University of Arizona finds that a yes vote on Proposition 100 would save more than 13,000 jobs and preserve more than $442 million in federal matching funds for Arizona.
.

Proposition 100, sent to the ballot by the Arizona State Legislature, asks voters  to raise the state sales tax by one penny to  to 6.6 cents per dollar for a three-year period. The sales tax would revert to 5.6% on May 31, 2013.  Estimates provided by Governor Jan Brewer’s office indicate the sales tax would generate $918 million in revenue each year.
.

The researchers concluded the revenue would provide significant economic activity throughout the state.
.

“Those dollars don’t disappear,” said Alberta Charney, senior research economist at the UA. “The government spends the money, thereby pumping it right back into the economy.”

.

The Arizona state legislature has already passed, and Governor Brewer has signed a contingency budget containing more than $867 million in cuts to education, public safety, health care and other state services if Proposition 100 does not pass. In this case, the Arizona university system would face a $107 million budget reduction, $42 million of which would go to the UA.
.

These cuts, the study found, also would trigger the loss of more than $442 million in federal matching funds, which are primarily allocated to the Department of Health and the Department of Economic Security. “The extent of the federal dollars being lost was a surprise,” Charney said.
.

Charney and her colleagues reviewed state agency budgets in detail to examine how funds are spent. They used a model that tracks the nature of spending by state agencies, projections of revenue generated by Proposition 100 and proposed budget cuts.
.

According to Charney, many of the jobs that would be saved are in the private sector, which would benefit from the increase in individual and agency expenditures made possible by the funds generated by the sales tax.
.

The researchers cite three primary reasons that a cut in the state government budget would generate a greater impact than an increase in the sales tax rate.
.

First, the government is a service provider and, generally, employs more people per $1 million in expenditures than do non-service providers. Consequently, a larger portion of government expenditures is paid as labor income than other sectors of the economy.
.

Second, more than 10% of the sales tax would be paid by out-of-state visitors.
.

Finally, the sales tax would be imposed primarily on the sale of tangible goods, few of which are actually produced in Arizona.
.

Even if Proposition 100 passes, the state faces a massive budget deficit that will require additional major cuts.
.

“You don’t grow your way out of this structural deficit as the economy recovers,” said Marshall Vest, director of the UA Economic and Business Research Center. “This is an important first step to addressing this structural deficit.”
.

The study does not account for additional impacts of dramatic cuts to K-12 and higher education, public safety and other state services–all of which are likely should Proposition 100 fail.
.

“We only looked at the flow of the money. We didn’t look at the long-term consequences of a drastically cut education system,” Charney said.
.

Vest believes voters will have an opportunity to communicate the value they place on services provided by the state: “I think we are at the point where taxpayers are going to have the opportunity to connect the dots between the taxes they pay and the benefits they receive.”
.

CONTACT: Alberta Charney (520-621-2291; acharney@eller.arizona.edu)
.

LINKS:
What Will It Cost If Arizona Voters Reject the One-Cent Sales Tax Hike On May 18, 2010? (http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/articles/2010/one_cent_sales_tax_increase_Arizona.asp)

Sales Tax Increase vs. Expenditure Cuts: An Economic Impact Study (http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/articles/2010/sales_tax_increase_vs_expenditure_cuts.asp)

Comparison of UA, REMI, and STAMP Simulations of Tax/Spending Increases: (http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/articles/2010/compare_ua_remi_stamp_simulations.asp)
.
Related Articles:
Proposition 100 — Your Questions Answered
.

.
Some interesting things have happened since we released our legislative voting tally last week.   Most of it has been very positive–we’ve received lots of great feedback and everyone who has contacted us directly has been interested in helping us to distribute more information to their local community groups.

It hasn’t been all sunshine and roses, however.  As someone who is relatively new to the ‘process’ of politics, I think the quick misinformation campaign that was launched against our group is interesting and worth sharing.   It is worth talking about publicly not just because we feel it is important to put the facts on record, but also because the ‘spin’ we’re seeing in this small example brings us right back to the very reason that AEN was formed in the first place.

Spin zinger one:  Arizona Education Network members are “union shills”

…..Fact:  Well, for starters, none of our AEN board members, writers, researchers or speakers are (or have ever been) union members.  We are not speaking for or representing any group other than our own…and we sure the heck aren’t getting paid or compensated in any way.

…..So why is this label being flung around?  We think it is probably because nothing politicizes education in people’s mind like the word ‘union’, and that name-calling is sometimes an effective tool to detract from the real issues.   And, yes, it could also have something to do with our rather uncreative choice for a group name (AEN is close to AEA, the teacher’s professional union in Arizona).

Spin Shot Number Two:  AEN has ‘close ties’ to other education groups.

…..Fact:   We are a relatively new group and are definitely working to form ‘close ties’ between parents, students and any of the existing groups that impact our schools.  We have spoken to school superintendents, elected officials, teachers (union and non-union), private school leaders, business officials, faith-based organizations, and a number of individuals who are concerned about education but are not otherwise affiliated with an organized group.

…..Education reform and improvement will not occur in a vacuum.  Our public schools are intrinsically linked with our individual communities, and it will truly take a collective effort to initiate state-wide improvements.  We certainly do not believe that we have the answers to all of the issues facing our schools, and we are grateful for the opportunity to learn and collaborate with others.

Spin zinger three:  We are a ‘front’ for a political party.

…..Fact:  No, we aren’t.  Our AEN members come from a wide variety of political backgrounds and our core team consists of several Republicans, a couple of Independents and a few Democrats.  One of our co-founders worked for a Republican Governor, another was not even paying much attention to politics at all until just last year.  We run the political gamut and probably could never come to a consensus about some of the singular ‘hot button’ issues….but we all are 100% unified in the belief that we need fact-based solutions to improve our public schools.

So why the accusation about the political party connections?

…..On the very same afternoon that we printed our voting record tally, a few politicians went into deflect mode and insinuated that our spokeswoman, Ann-Eve Pedersen, was some sort of party operative working on a partisan attack.

…..Their ‘evidence’?  Ann-Eve’s deceased father was active with his local Democratic party 20 years ago.  Her brother-in-law is also an active party member.  Though she herself is not active in party politics, she has donated to Democratic candidates in the past.

…..What they left out – Her father’s widow is a lifelong Republican and a number of her other relatives are active in conservative causes, including a cousin who worked for James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.  That’s just a start.  We haven’t finished dissecting her family tree just yet in an attempt to discredit her own personal actions and beliefs, but I’m sure there is more ‘dirt’ here…rumors abound that her dog might have Marxist leanings.

…..What was also missed?   Ann-Eve has been a dedicated, unpaid parent volunteer in our local schools for years.  She is also just one member of our group, albeit the one brave enough to stick her neck out as a public speaker and to endure prodding into her family’s personal life.   Our group is not defined by any one person’s political views, and we certainly do not represent, advocate for or wave the flag for any political party.

Which leads me back to the reason we formed AEN in the first place…

…..Ideology, spin and inflammatory rhetoric are no substitute for factual information.

…..The majority of Republican, Democrat and Independent-leaning families in our state send their children to public schools–support for education is not a partisan issue.  As a group, we will continue to insist that our elected officials use factual information and adhere to their constitutional duties to our children, communities and our schools.
.
.

.Legislative Districts are grouped by color for visual differentiation only.
*Resigned in 2010 to run for a Congressional Seat.

.
.

Our Methodology:

The Arizona Education Network has compiled a summary of all legislators’ voting records pertaining to their support of public education at all levels (K-University) during the 2009 Regular and Special Sessions.  Sifting through all the bills that were passed by the Legislature and sent onto the Governor’s office, AEN found twenty-one (21) different pieces of legislation that dealt directly with public education budgets and the dollars allocated to it.   AEN totaled each legislator’s votes “FOR” and “AGAINST” public education.  AEN also tallied the number of times a legislator did NOT vote on the legislation pertaining to public education budgets. In our state, which is ranked last in education funding,  AEN defines a vote to protect dollars allocated to public education as a vote “FOR” public education.    Conversely, AEN defines a vote to take budget dollars away from public education as a vote “AGAINST” public education.

The summary is organized by district and then by house:  Senate first, followed by the House of Representatives.  The first set of numbers following a legislator’s name provides the percentage of times the legislator voted “FOR” and “AGAINST” public education, as well as the percentages of times that legislator did NOT vote on the legislation.  This percentage was derived using the total number of bills on which the legislator could have voted.

The second set of numbers for each legislator shows the percentage of times he or she voted “FOR” and “AGAINST” public education, adjusted for the number of public education votes missed.  In some cases, adjusting for the number of missed votes resulted in a significant change in a legislator’s numbers.

.

Missed Votes:

Several special sessions of the Legislature were called during 2009, requiring legislators to report to the Capitol many times outside of the regular session.  This could be part of the reason your legislator missed votes.  If you are concerned with the number of public education votes your legislator(s) missed, AEN encourages you to contact your legislators to find out why.

For a short summary of each piece of legislation included in this analysis, please see the links below the table.

.

Link to Individual Legislation Summaries, PDF Format
.

2009 Regular Legislative Session:

First Regular Session SB1029 & HB2640

First Regular Session SB1035 & HB2636

First Regular Session SB1036 & HB2635

First Regular Session SB 1187 & HB2639

First Regular Session SB 1188

First Regular Session HB2028 & SB1189

First Regular Session HB2029 & SB1190

First Regular Session HB2643 & SB1470

First Regular Session HB2648 & SB1480

First Regular Session HB2649 & SB1477

.
2009 First Special Legislative Session

First Special Session SB1001 & HB2001

First Special Session SB1006 & HB2006

.
2009 Second Special Legislative Session

Second Special Session HB 2001 & SB1001*

.
2009 Third Special Legislative Session

Third Special Session HB2001 & SB1013*

Third Special Session HB 2002 & SB1016

Third Special Session HB2006 & SB1020

Third Special Session HB 2011 & SB1027

Third Special Session HB2012

.
2009 Fourth Special Legislative Session

Fourth Special Session SB1001

Fourth Special Session SB1002

.
2009 Fifth Special Legislative Session

Fifth Special Session SB1001

..

Update to post below:
.

US Census Department Figures show that the Arizona population increased 28.6% from April of 2000 to July 2009.

.

During the same period, average daily membership (the term used to refer to the total enrollment of students through the first 100 days of the school year) in Arizona schools increased 22.7%.  (According to a report to the Arizona Senate) .

.

So when special interest groups decry a 20% increase in education funding in the 2000-2009 period, they should notice that this increase did not even keep up with the increase in the number of school children in Arizona during the same period.

.

Original Post

.

In another effort to undermine the value of public education, the libertarian/limited-government-through-litigation group The Goldwater Institute sent out another email with misleading, outdated and disingenuous information.  Their “pitch” is that Arizona is spending more for education, and getting less for it.

.

However, this dog won’t hunt.  This is an old message that has been debunked repeatedly.   In 1979 Arizona was investing about 69% of the total general fund budget on K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.  Today about 57% of our state budget is devoted to our schools.  We are essentially paying LESS, and demanding MORE.
.

While Arizona’s overall spending on education has increased during that same time period, it has not kept up with the growth in our population.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) reported recently that Arizona actually spent more per K-12 student in 1986 than we did in 2006. This bears repeating:  Arizona actually spent $61 less per student than we did 20 years prior…and those latest figures were released before the most recent spending cuts.  The ALEC report also concurs with all of the other national education surveys that Arizona is ranked at the very bottom for educational investment among US states.
.

.
“How much is Arizona spending per student?”
.

The fact is that national surveys report that Arizona spends anywhere between $5,255 – $7,537 per student. However, special interest groups are claiming that we spend anywhere from $9,500 to “over $10,000” per student.  Notably ATRA, the fiscally conservative Arizona Tax Research Association, agrees that Arizona funding is $6,200* per student.
.
…..* ATRA Special Report, April 2009 “K-12 Education Funding – How Do We Compare”

…

As a general rule, other states identify three expenditures for per student spending:

• Teacher Salary

• Maintenance and Operations (M&O) costs to run the school

• Costs for the items directly used by the students in the classroom

The per pupil funding dollar is derived by adding total dollars spent of the above three items and dividing by the actual number of students served.

.

“Reactionary groups claim Arizona is spending $9,700 per student.  How did they calculate that number?”

.

In short, it’s a  numbers game.

.

They use all the income on the JLBC Report (1/27/09), including lunch money, after school sports, adult night programs, adjacent ways (sewer & road repairs as a result of city maintenance), and other non-revenue dollars and divide it by the number of students.

.

No other state counts this in their per student funding numbers. Reactionary groups use these numbers and include these things because they want to inflate this data in a period where Arizona is cutting education spending.  They are using the hard work of the JLBC to spin their message.

.

In taking a closer look at the 2000-2009 JLBC report, it is important to note that the 2009 figures are an estimate.  They do not include the cuts of $270M to K-12 Education or the elimination of $362M in New School Facilities (NSF) funding made during 2009.

.

These are the FACTS that you need to know:

•  Arizona spends less per student than almost any other state in the nation
•  National Education Association: 51st
•  U.S. Census Bureau: 49th
•  National Center for Education Statistics: 48th
•  Education Week: 50th
•  American Legislative exchange Council: 50th
•  Average reported difference between what Arizona spends per student and what the average US state invests = $3,068 per student

.

“Are these statistics acceptable for a 21st century classroom?”
.

Absolutely not.

.

For a full report on the above statistics, see Arizona K-12 EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS 2009, pdf.

.

References

.

US Population Statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, Cumulative Estimates of Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico and Region and State Rankings: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-pop-chg.html,

State General Fund Expenditures: The Fiscal Survey of States, National Governor’s Association, June 2009, http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/FSSpring2009.pdf

Projected State Budget Deficits: Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery, Center on Budget Policy & Priorities, Table I, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711

Education Expenditures and State Rankings:  American Legislative Council,  The Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis, 2008 http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/ReportCard08.pdf

GDP by State:  Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economic Slowdown Widespread Among States in 2008, Table 1 Real GDP by State 2005-2008, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htmysi

General Fund Spending as a Percent of Personal Income, Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2009, http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/gf%25azpi%2010-08.pdf

Arizona corporate and individual tax statistics: Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2008 http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/08taxbook/08taxbk.pdf

.

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

.

.

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

.

.

Legislators who signed the “no new tax” pledge (which AEN views as a conflict with the Arizona constitution – see below) received an okay from Washington anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist to vote for the Arizona appropriations budget containing the 1 cent temporary sales tax increase.  The permanent repeal of the state equalization tax ($250 million) and the proposed 30% cut in the corporate tax rate and the 6.6% cut in individual income taxes in 2011 is seen as a “net positive” that outweighs the temporary sales tax increase.  To read more about the influence of Washington special interest lobbyist Grover Norquist on the Arizona Budget, click the article below.

‘No Tax’ Leader OK with hike on ballot pledge by AZ GOP Reversed, Arizona Daily Star, August 8, 2009

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

.

For full  discussion of Public Education, the Arizona Constitutional and the “No New Tax Pledge,” click here.

Your Questions Answered!

.

Question: I just read that Senate President Robert Burns reiterated the urgency of our budget situation…just before he himself left for a special interest junket in Georgia.  Is this true?

Answer: Several concerned and confused voters contacted us after they had read two conflicting articles regarding Arizona’s ongoing budget crisis..

Both articles were from July 12, 2009.  The first contained a quote from Senate President Robert Burns where he said that the state’s financial status remains “an all-hands-on-deck situation.”  The second report stated that Senator Burns is heading out of Arizona this week to attend a special-interest group conference in Atlanta, GA. (see links to both articles below)

This sounded a little dubious to us – why would the leader of the Senate skip out on important, on-going negotiations this week regarding our unresolved multi-billion dollar deficit, especially just issuing the “all-hands-on-deck” directive?  While we hoped that this was just political gossip, we confirmed today that it’s true…Senator Burns is leaving this afternoon for a week-long American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) conference..

After checking out the agenda for the ALEC conference, we can’t say as though we blame him.   Why trudge through another week of heated negotiations and deal with large, complex and massively important issues like our state’s education system; when you can attend a “welcome reception” at the World of Coke (“taste over 60 different Coke products from around the globe!”), relax at the Hyatt Regency and attend a Braves Game with conservative sages like Newt Gringrich and Molson Coors Brewing Company Chairman Pete Coors?  The conference sounds like a great way to network and to gain access to the latest uber-conservative money…er, ideas.

Our commentary: In all seriousness, we can understand why Sen. Burns scheduled this trip.  He sits on the ALEC Board, and ALEC itself is a special interest group with a lot of street cred among conservative circles.  We also recognize that Burns has worked a number of long hours and reportedly missed out on a planned European vacation.

…BUT….

Here’s the thing we don’t understand.  Senator Burns is the leader of our Arizona Senate and one of the chief architects of the budget & legislative process this year.  Arizona is in a tenuous budget position and we are still facing a multi-billion dollar gap and a number of essential services in our state (including education) have been left with under- or un-funded essential services.  While Senator Burns cannot be held solely accountable for this situation, the budget is unresolved due to a number of wasted days and political games of ‘chicken’ that were squandered over 170+ days of the regular legislative session.

The unresolved issues with our budget have a negative impact on our schools, our state services, our ability to entice new business into our state and our overall economy.  First things first – our legislators have no business attending junkets, out-of-state conferences or special interest pep rallies before they have finished the primary job that we have elected them to do.

Monday Update:

The Arizona Guardian reported on Monday that the Senate Republicans actually closed their caucus to the public after a half hour of contentious debate.  Security guards asked spectators to leave the room after Senator Barbara Leff moved to discuss the budget in private.

When asked by a reporter about whether the closed caucus was in line with the Republican’s stated goal to maintain transparency during this session, Senator John Huppenthal reportedly ‘bristled’ and said “You guys are trying to degenerate this to trivia.  We’ve got the most severe budget.  Cut to the chase here. We meet in small groups all the time.  And what we’re doing here is getting the group together to try to come together as a team to tackle the biggest budget challenge in the history of Arizona.”

The Guardian article also confirmed that Senate President Burns “slipped out soon after the caucus began” so that he could head to Atlanta for the ALEC meeting…during, if we can requote Senator Huppenthal, “the biggest budget challenge in the history of Arizona”.

Wednesday Update:

Unfortunately, there is more to this story.  After placing several calls to Phoenix, your AEN correspondents have discovered that there are quite a few of our elected representatives who are skipping the ongoing budget work this week for a stay at the Atlanta Hyatt.

The list of our “representatives” who are reportedly bailed out of Arizona for a little Georgia hob-nobbing this week:  Representatives Cecil Ash, Ray Barnes, Nancy Barto, Sam Crump, John Kavanagh, Debbie Lesko, John McComish, Nancy McLain and Steve Yarbrough.

In addition to Senate President Robert Burns, Senators Pamela Gorman, Jack Harper, Barbara Leff, Al Melvin and Russell Pearce also on the list of ALEC conference attendees.  We are left (almost) uncharacteristically speechless.

_______________________________________________________________________________

References & Additional Information:

-Sharon in Senator Burns’ office confirmed his attendance at the ALEC meeting this week when we spoke to her on July 13^th.  Senator Burns can be reached at (602) 926-5993 when he returns from Georgia.

-Attendance slips for Ariz. special session (Associate Press), Arizona Republic, July 20, 2009

-Lawmakers lean on lobbyists more this year for travel funds (Amanda Soares), Arizona Guardian, July 17, 2009

-Burns, after lambasting Brewer, calls on her to ease up on rhetoric (Howard Fischer), Arizona Daily Star, July 12 2009.

-Political Insider:  Verschoor skips Atlanta event; Burns does not, Arizona Republic, July 12 2009.

-Senate GOP caucus explodes, closes door (Paul Giblin & Mary K. Reinhart) Arizona Guardian, July 13 2009

-The American Legislative Exchange Council conference agenda can be found here.
.
.

The following article is a rebuttal of sorts to information that has been disbursed by not only the president of the senate, but some legislators and special interest groups.  It contains information on pupil funding, teacher salary, school rankings and other subjects that need truthful clarity.  For a downloadable pdf of this 19 page article, click: AEN – Arizona K-12 EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS 2009.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

How Many Students Should There Be In An Arizona Classroom?

A Response to the ATRA Special Report April 2009

__________________________________________________________________________________________

A recent ATRA Special Report was released suggesting an improvement to the Arizona Public School System by recommending more children per classroom to make funding cost effective.  However, the recent ATRA Report admits two important facts:

1.    Arizona spends only $6,248 per student–which ranks the state 50th in expenditures per pupil (ALEC 2007)
2.    Arizona has the second highest student teacher ratio in the nation:  24.2 students to 1 teacher (ALEC 2007)

Although ATRA references these numbers in their report, they choose to make some interesting mathematical calculations to create a seemingly logical recommendation.  Basically, they suggest that if you have more students in a classroom than any other state, other than Utah, one simply multiplies the spending per student by the total number of students in an already overcrowded classroom and that mathematical product boosts Arizona to 16th in expenditures per classroom.  Interesting math.  ATRA maintains that “Arizona’s low rankings in per-student expenditures reflects the efficiencies gained by maintaining full classrooms.”

Is there a difference between “full classrooms” and “overcrowded” classrooms?  We think so.  There is a marked difference in how a classroom functions with  25 students versus even 22.

What do Arizona Parents and Community Members want for Arizona students?  How many students should be in a classroom?  One conservative group suggests 50 students in a classroom. Could you imagine your child in a classroom of 50?
.

What Can You Do ? Make sure your legislators know that overcrowded classrooms in Arizona are not the answer.  They place Arizona at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the country.   The Arizona state constitution requires that the legislature will “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.” Hold your legislator accountable to improve the education of Arizona students.

What’s Considered Classroom Spending in Arizona – Take a Look

A new report has been released by the Arizona Auditor General “Arizona Public School Districts’ Dollars Spent in the Classroom Fiscal Year 2008.”

The report says that the percentage of funds used in the classroom is down to 57.3% (from 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2001).  The spin on this report is that Arizona is wasting the rest of this money.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

1)  Look at what expenses are considered classroom and non-classroom. (i)

• Classroom dollars (57.3% of spending) include only classroom personnel (teachers in classroom & aids), general instructional supplies (paper, pencils, etc), instructional aides (textbooks, workbooks, software)& activities (field trips, athletics, choir & band)

• Non-classroom Dollars include; administration (superintendents, principals, clerical and other staff), Food service (cost of preparing & serving meals), transportation, instructional staff support services (librarians, teacher training, curriculum development) & student support services (counselors, audiologists, speech pathologists & nurses)

2)  The report states that classroom spending is down because costs of student support services is up.  The report looks discounts inflation as an issue and maintains that contracting of employees may make a difference.  While the report admits that student make-up (poverty rates) may be an issue they fail to point out that:

• In Arizona 18.9% of AZ school age children live in poverty (U.S. national average is 17%). This means they need more support. (ii)
  
  
• Arizona also has a high proportion of English Language Learners – which also requires additional teaching staff

3)  The report fails to point out that administrative expenses actually dropped last year from 9.5% in 2007 to 9.2% in 2008.

• The U.S. national Average for administrative expenses was 11.0% (iii)

4)  In making the case that districts are using the Proposition 301 money to replace rather than enhance teacher salaries the report fails to point out other costs and cuts that have influenced the percentage of dollars dedicated to classroom funding.  Consider:

• The state has cut “soft capital” which has forced district cuts to general instructional supplies (paper, pencils, etc) instructional aides (textbooks, workbooks, software)& activities (field trips, athletics, choir & band) – all these are components of “classroom spending”
  
• The state has mandated separate classes for English Language Learners (ELL) without any funding. These teachers have to be paid for by the districts but the teachers are considered “non-classroom spending.”
  

We hope the information we have pointed out will give you a better understanding the current state of classroom spending.

____________________________

(i):  Definitions found in the Appendix C of the report: http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2009_February/Classroom_Dollars_FY08_No_Districts.pdf
(ii):  This was a main reason pointed out in last year’s report, page 13 http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2008_February/Classroom_Dollars_FY07_No_Districts.pdf
(iii): http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2008_February/Classroom_Dollars_FY07_No_Districts.pdf  pages 19 & 23

.

Glen Kerslake of DM-50, Lawrence Portouw of Ft. Huachuca-50 and Steve Yamamori of Fighter County Partnership write a letter to Governor Jan Brewer highlighting the possible ramifications to the military installations in Arizona if the education cuts the legislature is proposing pass.

.

DM-50 letter to Gov. Brewer May 2009

.
Dear Governor Brewer:
.
We are writing to strongly encourage you to resist calls for further cuts to education
spending as you continue to make necessary budget decisions. From the perspective of
the most recent round of the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) process in 2005, further cuts in education endanger the $10B economic engine
we seek to preserve and grow; namely, our military installations.
.
Quality of education for family members continues to be a significant measure in the
Pentagon’s calculus of the value of a military installation. For example, during the last
BRAC round the Sierra Vista community put as much effort into preventing the
Pentagon BRAC commission from misrepresenting Fort Huachuca with the gross state
per-capita education spending statistic as it did in educating them about the true nature
of water in Southeastern Arizona. There’s no room for erosion (in either).
.
The Pentagon will make decisions to restructure basing of forces as US involvement in
the conflict in the Middle East winds down, as it fields new aircraft and major defense
budget changes are announced. Education is also a major factor in attracting the talent
needed by the many high-tech contracting firms that support Arizona’s military
installations. Rest assured that education will be one of the key factors in determining
the continued viability of Arizona’s military installations. Holding the line on education
spending is an investment in Arizona’s and America’s future.
.
The challenges of the current budgetary process are daunting, but they should not
cause us to make decisions that will have serious and unintended consequences. We
strongly urge you to resist attempts to further cut funding for education in Arizona
communities.
.
Sincerely,
.
Lawrence J. Portouw………………….Glen Kerslake.…………………Steve Yamamori
President,………………………………….President,……………………….Executive Director/CEO,
Fort Huachuca 50………………………DM- 50…………………………..Fighter Country
Partnership
.
.
.