Page 10 - the NOISE October 2015

sChool wars: a primer on The BaTTles oF over Funding and TesTing in arizona eduCaTion
TrusT Funds
As the year 2014 neared a close, Doug Ducey had just been elected governor and Arizona was doing its best to prepare for a projected $132 million deficit. Citing financial straights, Mr. Ducey cut $100 million dollars from state universities. Meanwhile, a Census Bureau report emerged ranking Arizona 49th in state spending on students, more than 30% below the national average. Hoping to remake his image on education, the governor laid out a 10–year plan last month to inject nearly $2 billion into K–12 schools. The money is proposed to come from the state’s Land Trust.
When Arizona became a state, it was trusted 9.3 million acres of federal land to be managed “for the highest and best use” of K–12 education. Rather than sell off the land immediately, as a number of states did, Arizona decided to establish the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), which would have the sole responsibility of managing the territories with a goal of long–term
revenue sustainability.
The careful planning paid off. In 2014, the combined value of trusted lands was $5.1 billion
and rising every year. The vast portion of the money generated annually by ASLD — through leases, mineral rights and sales of trust land — goes to K–12 education.
Mr. Ducey’s 10–year plan essentially quadruples (from 2.5% to 10%) the usual amount of money coming out of the fund for schools over the first five years, then decreases to half that much (5%) for the following five years. Though the plan does slightly dip into the Land Trust principle, the state’s budget projections show that because of its steady growth rate, the total value of ASLD lands will still be higher after Mr. Ducey’s proposed program is completed than it is now.
At first, the plan seemed to have widespread support. It provided much–needed cash without raising taxes or dipping into funds that could be used elsewhere. It would require voter approval, but this seemed an easy sell to a state openly lamenting the condition of its schools. Education groups and representatives from both parties expressed tentative support.
But as the weeks go by, there is a growing chorus of voices criticizing the plan and reminding Mr. Ducey that Arizona’s K–12 schools are already due money. A lot of money.
uninFlaTed
A voter–approved state law passed in the year 2000 requires that the amount of Land Trust money paid to public schools increase each year with inflation. When the state found itself in the middle of the 2008 recession, the mandate was either intentionally or accidentally left by the wayside. From the years 2009–2013 the total paid to Arizona public schools remained flat as inflation rose.
The largest education groups in the state filed suit against the legislature, demanding the money that schools were owed by law. The law suit dragged on for years, but in July of 2014, a judge finally ordered the legislature to pay K–12 schools an additional $330 million a year to account for the failure. Republican lawmakers appealed the ruling and have generally been trying to avoid paying.
The governor’s 10–year plan sounds unsettlingly familiar to educators who are familiar with this saga. A voter–approved initiative to increase K–12 funding? The state had obviously ignored such laws before. And even if voters supported it and the legislature respected it, the funds wouldn’t be available until 2017.
As the arguments continued to play out, Mr. Ducey received his first vocal opposition from the most controversial figure in Arizona education, Superintendent Diane Douglas.
Ms. Douglas, who oversees the entire Arizona Department of Education, has put forward her own proposal for extra K–12 funding. She points out that the supposed budget deficit of 2014, which led Mr. Ducey to deprive universities of significant funds, had been an accidental hoax. When the final dollar was tallied, the state actually showed a $266 million surplus, with a $460 million “rainy day” fund to boot. Ms. Douglas believes the state should use these funds immediately.
Core issues
The relationship between Ms. Douglas and Mr. Ducey has been on shaky ground since she took office. Ms. Douglas was elected to office almost entirely on a single platform: the rejection of Common Core testing in Arizona schools. Her rebellion against the federal standard is one example of similar struggles going on all over the country. Educators and parents opposed to Common Core believe the tests are a one–size–fits–all federal intrusion into local communities. It is another manifestation of the“state’s rights”debate, common in conservative and libertarian leaning states like Arizona.
In an effort to quietly subvert these objections in 2010, then–governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order rebranding the tests as “AzMerit” testing, saying, “no standards or curriculum shall be imposed on Arizona by the federal government.” But even though the name now had a more local flavor, the content of the tests did not change. (Her budget proposal to the legislature reportedly even referred to “Common Core” by name, despite her own order.) Voters were not fooled, and the plan backfired. Now it looked to parents as if the highest official in the state was actively trying to hide Arizona’s acceptance of federal testing standards, which seemed even worse. It was in this context that the anti–Common Core rhetoric of Ms. Douglas took on popular appeal.
After taking office, Ms. Douglas fired the executive director and assistant executive director of Arizona’s Board of Education, who she described as “two liberal staff who have publicly stated they will block all efforts to repeal or change Common Core.” Anyone who hadn’t been paying attention to the debate was suddenly interested in this political newcomer and her agenda. Educators grew uneasy with the exercise of power. Within a week, Mr. Ducey publicly declared that Ms. Douglas had no authority to fire or hire the staffers, and that they could immediately
10 • october 2015 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
sTory By j. kendall perkinson phoTo By Callie luedeker
return to their jobs. Ms. Douglas went on the offensive, accusing her fellow Republican of refusing to take her calls and being part of “a shadow faction of charter school operators and former state Superintendents who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools.”
reCall(s)
Two Arizona residents who anticipated such behavior had started the process of recalling Ms. Douglas the very day she was elected. This was largely seen as a symbolic political gesture that would probably fail. By state law, signatures cannot be collected for a recall until the official has been in office for six months, so the campaign waited calmly in the wings. Then the firings happened. Having exceeded her legal authority and ostracized the entire Board of Education and the governor only three months into her term, it suddenly seemed as though a recall of Ms. Douglas might actually have popular support.
This is not the first time voters have attempted to recall Ms. Douglas. Interestingly enough, her previous experience with the process was directly related to her opposition to a K–12 funding initiative. After being elected to the Peoria Unified School Board in 2005, she simultaneously became the treasurer of a group dedicated to opposing a one cent sales tax to fund schools. Unable to stomach an education board member who actively fought small tax increases for childrens’ education, parents gathered signatures for recall. The effort failed.
The new plan by Ms. Douglas to use a budget surplus and the rainy day fund to inject immediate money into K–12 schools stands as her last potentially saving grace in the realm of public opinion. Signatures to recall her from office will be collected until December 30, and must number roughly 365,000 for the campaign to be successful.
BalanCing aCT
The other primary detractor of Mr. Ducey’s budget plan is State Treasurer Jeff DeWit, who oversees the trust fund in question. He calls the plan irresponsible, saying, “The money in the more than 100–year old Trust is Arizona’s to manage, not to give.” He notes that after Mr. Ducey’s 10–year plan ends, K–12 schools will have to endure $8 billion in cuts over the next four decades, suggesting that Arizona is playing kick the can with student futures.
Some Democrats point out that even with Mr. Ducey’s plan, Arizona will only rise from 49 to 46 in state rankings of expenditures per student. A report by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee largely validates most of the governor’s claims about his plan, but notes that Arizona will forgoe about $1 billion in return on investments that could have been made with the money.
Parents and educators are growing impatient. Education funding is clearly a priority for most of the state, but the fight to determine exactly where that money will come from amidst a budget surplus and a growing trust fund is now reaching a fever pitch. Whatever the solution, Arizona students seem likely to come out ahead (however modestly) in the short term. The possible costs to future students is where the debate will likely center in the coming months.
| J. Kendall Perkinson is schooled on schooling. news@thenoise.us newsfeature