by B. Hamilton | Apr 7, 2021 | Education, News
By B. Hamilton |
PHOENIX — Rep. Michelle Udall, chair of the House Education Committee, sent a letter to Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction asking why the state is holding on to $85 million, that Udall says could help school districts avoid teacher layoffs.
Udall also noted in her letter to Superintendent Kathy Hoffman that “in addition to withholding these millions from our schools, ADE is also spending more than $7 million of it to simply administer the funds (the maximum allowed).”
Udall’s questions come in the wake of several districts announcing layoffs due to declining enrollment. Declining enrollment means declining funding as school dollars are allocated based on attendance.
“Unfortunately, as we see from the current events in Gilbert and other districts facing similar decisions in the coming weeks, this money has not been allotted where it is needed most,” wrote Udall referring to reports of teacher layoffs.
From the Yellow Sheet:
The AZ Dept of Education plans to use some of its Covid relief dollars for a marketing campaign to bring families back to the fold. The campaign, which will cost about $150,000, is aimed at students who left district and charter schools for alternative options during the pandemic or who delayed enrollment.”
“Instead of allocating all of the available money to districts who need it, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is for some reason holding onto nearly $85 million of discretionary money from the initial $1.5 billion allotment that should be put to use to help stabilize Arizona schools so that they don’t have to make premature reductions in staffing when many of those students may be returning in the coming school year.
Across the state, districts are seeing dramatic declines in enrollment as parents go in search of educational opportunities other than the hybrid-online type that the teacher’s union pushed even as the pandemic waned, and evidence showed that children were not super-spreaders. In fact, over 55,000 K-12 students have disenrolled for the state’s traditional public schools.
Despite the decline, which has been occurring over a number of years and was only exacerbated by the teachers’ recent refusal to return to in-classroom learning, Udall believes that students may return, and premature layoffs would lead the districts to rely on long-term substitute teachers.
Even though the ADE has received over $1 billion in CARES Act ESSER and ESSER II funding, Udall told Hoffman that the Legislature “is currently working on a state budget that, I believe, will help alleviate the intense fiscal pressure some of these schools are facing.”
RELATED ARTICLE: Gilbert Public School District’s Fewer Students Results In Fewer Teachers
“But that won’t happen until the budget process is finished,” warned Udall. “You currently have on hand millions in discretionary funds that could, and should, be made available immediately – discretionary funds that were given to the Arizona Department of Education for precisely this purpose.”
Hoffman responded on Twitter that the money was not enough.
Udall and Hoffman may not believe there will ever be enough money for schools. On the other hand, parents who have fled the schools believe that there will never be again enough students to fill the schools and employ the teachers that abandoned their kids at such a critical time.
by Catherine Barrett | Apr 6, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By Catherine A. Barrett |
After a year of remote learning, there are differences in the learning system that are noticeable today. Firstly, is my new role being the position a hybrid teacher is now a social worker and academic teacher. It is my job to teach and take care of my students social charges/needs. Secondly, there is difficulty conducting parent-teacher communication as it requires flexibility of schedule from both parties, which has proven exhausting. Thirdly, there is a job redundancy since the teacher or records must fill in the social worker invention form to have it returned. The teacher is then required to supply the same answers from the student. That is avoidable by a simple phone call from the counselor to the student’s family to fill the form.
After identifying the problem, I took it upon myself to build a parent academy with the school principal’s approval. The academy is yet in the planning stages, but we plan on launching it in August 2021. The project has been instrumental in bringing parents together to solve some of the problems we face. Notably, there is a lack of counselors in the planning group. Therefore, it is of interest because counselors do not see the project as one that should be of interest towards fulfilling their roles. After following up on this, the most common answers I received were that they were too busy and their commitment to teaching or being called upon to provide substitute coverage and counseling students they could not spare time for the academy. That has raised the question of if bureaucracy in public schools is affecting the delivery of services. That is concerning because the public requires results from the education system.
Nevertheless, the academy is still in the planning stage, and we have engaged the public and business sectors to provide for a mentorship program. The parents and students must work together to ensure the all-round growth of our students.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 3, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
After House passage, a bill to require teachers to hold back any K-4 students if they don’t meet promotional criteria was withdrawn. It was scheduled to appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.
State Representative John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) was the legislation sponsor. The bill would have required school boards to enact policies and procedures with teeth to enforce these changes.
However, the bill had major exceptions to the rule it sought to establish.
The bill would have allowed any third graders who were English language learners (ELL), experiencing a special education referral or evaluation, diagnosed with a “significant reading impairment” or disability to progress to the fourth grade without meeting criteria, or receiving intervention and remedial services. The exceptions would have also extended to any third grader who demonstrated “sufficient reading skills” or “adequate process” toward third grade reading standards.
Third grade is likely emphasized in this bill because it’s largely acknowledged as a critical progression point for children in their literacy. However, these exceptions wouldn’t have applied to third graders only.
The bill would have extended similar exceptions to first through fourth graders if they were given a special exception by the district’s governing board, an ELL, in the process of special education referral or evaluation, or diagnosed with a “significant reading impairment” or disability.
The House had passed it originally, with amendments, back in February along party lines.
Democrats opposed to the bill said that it would make students more likely to drop out and end up as criminals. They accused the bill of simply “failing” and “forced flunking” of students.
Certain studies have challenged that narrative. 2017 research from Harvard indicated that holding students back in the third grade didn’t increase their likelihood of dropping out of high school.
Republicans in support of the bill responded in kind.
“That’s the key word: what they need. What they need is education. They need to be able to prepare to go forward,” said State Representative Kevin Payne (R-Peoria). “If they’re being pushed along without the proper knowledge, that’s setting them up for failure. We’re not failing them, we’re holding them back. There’s a big difference.”
Fillmore ran a similar bill last year, one that would’ve extended to all grade levels.
Notes on the bill indicate that it was withdrawn from committee last week.Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 29, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Phoenix – According to their proposed fee increases, Arizona State University (ASU) has determined that a master’s in Gender and Women’s Studies should be more affordable than most other graduate programs.
ASU’s Gender and Women’s Studies students face a mere $80 increase. Other masters programs face increases up to hundreds of dollars higher. On the low end, Crime Analysis bears a $100 fee increase. On the high end, students wishing to receive their master’s in either Accountancy or Taxation must pay $1,000.
The new tuition schedules indicate that millions in federal COVID relief dollars weren’t enough for Arizona’s three public universities.
In December, Governor Doug Ducey gave $115 million of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act funds to the state’s three universities. Both the University of Arizona (UArizona) and ASU received $46 million, and Northern Arizona University (NAU) received $23 million.
From the Joint Legislative Budget Committee:
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund ($736 million): Federal Funds are distributed directly to institutions of higher education (IHEs). Arizona IHEs received $304 million from COVID 3. Of this amount, approximately $122 million went to public universities, $82 million to community colleges, and $101 million to private institutions. So far, Arizona IHEs have been allocated $432 million from COVID 4 and are expected to receive additional funds. Of the $432 million, $198 million will be distributed to public universities, $167 million to community colleges, and $67 million to private institutions. For both COVID 3 and COVID 4, some of these monies must be used for student grants, while the remainder may be used to offset revenue shortfalls. For public universities, a total of at least $118 million must be distributed as student grants. COVID 3 monies must be spent by September 30, 2022, and COVID 4 monies by September 30, 2023.
It is unclear what university expenditures necessitated fee increases, especially considering that students attended virtually during the pandemic.
Concerning the new tuition schedules, ABOR emphasized that none of the three proposals included any tuition increases. However, ABOR didn’t say anything about increased program fees.
ABOR Chair Larry Penley said in a press release that the new tuition schedules created by the university presidents “reflects our commitment to ensuring an affordable education even as our institutions experience fiscal challenges wrought from the pandemic.”
That commitment looks like an $80 program fee for an online Master of Arts degree in Women and Gender Studies, compared to a $1,000 per semester program fee increase for Master of Accountancy students.
It is unclear if the decision to increase program costs correlates to the anticipated earnings associated with a field. In those two examples, the average salary for a Women and Gender Studies graduate is $56,233, whereas the average salary for an individual with a Masters In Accountancy is $71,899.
Despite the massive amount of federal dollars, the proposals submitted by the three presidents also included changes to college fees, program fees, class fees, and meal and residence hall rates.
Here are what the increased costs include at one of the universities, ASU:
College of Health Solutions
- Doctor of Audiology: $800/semester program fee increase
- MS Communication Disorders: $1,700/semester program fee increase
- MS Nutritional Science (Dietetics) – Online: $45/credit hour program fee increase
- MS Strength and Conditioning: $2,500/semester – new program fee
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation
- MS Regulatory Science: $2,000/semester – new program fee
Hershberger Institute for Design and the Arts
- M of Architecture ; M of Visual Communication Design ; M of Industrial Design ; M of Interior Architecture ; M of Landscape Architecture ; M of Urban Design: $575/semester program fee increase
- MS in Architecture: $875/semester program fee increase
- MS Design in Industrial Design, Interior Architecture, Visual Communication Design: $500/semester program fee increase
Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
- Master of Human Resources and Employment Law: $725/credit hour – new program fee
- Master of Human Resources and Employment Law (Online): $658/credit hour – new program fee
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
- MA Women and Gender Studies (Online): $80/credit – new program fee
Thunderbird School of Global Management
- MA Global Affairs and Management: $489/credit hour program fee increase
- MA Global Affairs and Management (Executive): $489/credit hour program fee increase
Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions
- MS Crime Analysis: $100/credit hour – new program fee
- MA Policy Advocacy (Online): $100/credit hour- new program fee
W.P. Carey School of Business
- Graduate Certificate in Marketing (Online): $375/credit – new program fee
- Graduate Certificate in Real Estate: $375/credit – new program fee
- Master of Accountancy: $1,000/semester program fee increase
- Master of Taxation: $1,000/semester program fee increase
Linked here are the NAU and UArizona proposed program fee increases.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 25, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
A bill further regulating K-12 sex education courses moved closer to full passage on Wednesday. In a 6-4 party-line vote, the House Judiciary Committee determined that parents should have a greater say in what their kids learn when it comes to sex education.
The bill would require school boards to give parents advance notice of the education, acquire signed and written parental consent, as well as inform parents about their rights to opt into the course and review the materials and activities.
Currently, parents must opt their child out of the instruction. And, gender identity and gender expression weren’t included as topics requiring parental consent – just sexuality.
The bill would also limit schools from offering sex education, AIDS, and HIV instruction until students are in the fifth grade.
If passed, schools would have until December 15 of this year to change their courses to comply with the new law.
In the event that schools are modifying or drafting sex education courses thereafter, all corresponding committee meetings and proposed curriculum must be made public. The community would have 60 days and at least two public hearings to weigh in on the proposed curriculum.
The bill specified that schools aren’t required to offer sex education instruction.
For charter schools that do wish to teach about AIDS or HIV, they must ensure that the curriculum will be grade-level appropriate, medically accurate, promoting abstinence, discouraging drug use, adn dispelling myths about transmission. These schools would also be granted the ability to have the Arizona Department of Health Services or Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to review the materials.
Only four committee members voted against the bill: César Chávez (D-Phoenix), Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe), Diego Rodriguez (D-Phoenix), and Domingo Degrazia (D-Tucson).
Committee members Walter Blackman (R-Snowflake), Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), Beverly Pingerelli (R-Peoria), Russell Bowers (R-Mesa), and Quang Nguyen (R-Prescott Valley) voted in favor of it.
Senate Education testimonies from those urging passage of the bill asserted that parental rights are being violated daily, and that parents know what’s best for their children. They cited examples of schools telling parents and children that sex education classes are mandatory, refusing to share curriculum materials with parents, and circumventing parental notification on the implementation of new curriculum like “Genderbread.”
The ACLU argued that the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause, saying that LGBTQ students’ rights would be threatened. Other teachers testifying concurred.
During the final vote in the Senate, Democratic opposed empowering parents to choose whether their children received exposure to certain sex education courses.
Juan Mendez (D-) likened the negative commentary around parents’ lack of knowledge on the materials within school sex education courses as “scare tactics.”
“[S]tudents are going to hear and learn all about this stuff whether or not parents want them to. So, do you want it to happen alone on the internet? Or, in the safe embrace of a school setting with comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education?” asserted Mendez. “We should be providing youth with opportunities to increase their knowledge, explore values, and develop positive skills. Any of that would do so much to mitigate interpersonal violence and dating violence.”
State Senator Sally Ann Gonzalez (D-) accused the bill of targeting LGBTQ students, and limiting teachers and administrators from creating safe, inclusive environments. She went so far as to claim it could violate Title X and the Constitution, therefore opening up the state to legal battles.
“This bill is a sweeping bill that impacts the ability of teachers to speak about a wide range of issues impacting all students,” stated Gonzalez. “Everyone has a gender identity and a sexual orientation, so this bill would – could inhibit the profession of everyone’s experience of gender and romantic relationships in the world.”
State Senator Jamescita Peshlakai (D-) dismissed the examples provided by XX as an exception to the rule – a few, one-off incidents of the very worst types of education presented to students, not the norm.
The Senate passed the bill in a close, party-line vote on March 3.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
by Pastor Drew Anderson | Mar 24, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By Pastor Drew Anderson |
“School Choice is the civil rights issue of today.” These powerful words are from a powerful civil rights icon named Reverend HK Matthews. Rev. Matthews made this statement on a video he recently provided in his support for Senate Bill 1452 which is legislation that will help low-income families receive the best education possible through a school choice program called Empowerment Scholarship Accounts or ESA’s.
Rev. Matthews marched in Selma, Alabama in 1965, demonstrated with Martin Luther King Jr., was beaten, and was jailed 35 times in his advocating for equality, so if anyone is qualified to speak on civil rights, it is Rev. Matthews. At 93 years old, he is considered a living legend and is still fighting for civil rights, and that fight is for school choice.
I agree with Rev. Matthews because I was a product of school choice myself and know personally what a lifesaving tool it is. As a poor black kid from the south side of Chicago, I was able to attend one of the best private schools on a football scholarship and going to that school allowed me to achieve my dreams of playing in the NFL.
Education is the one great equalizer that can provide the best way out of a bad situation, it was for me and I know that this is especially true for our low-income and minority children.
Some people ask me, ‘What is school choice?” and put simply, it is the freedom for parents to have their child receive whatever education they think is best. We know that all children don’t learn the same, so having different education options is crucial. Options include district, charter, and private schools, online/virtual options, in-home tutoring, micro schools, pods, or whatever helps with each child’s individual learning needs.
Remember, education dollars are really just tax dollars from parents, so parents ought to be able to have a say on how their dollars are spent on their kids’ education.
Rev. Matthews and I are not alone in supporting school choice for our students especially during this dire time where students of color are failing at record numbers due to distance learning. In committee, Senator Paul Boyer referenced a very recent poll conducted in Arizona by Cygnal (named by the New York Times the most accurate pollster in the nation) which had irrefutable results:
- 77% of Arizonans believe that COVID has caused students to fall behind in their learning because of the mass school closures and distance learning.
- 75% said they support school choice.
- 73% said low-income kids in Arizona should have access to an ESA to help them catch up in their learning loss (only 12% disagreed).
The poll shows that minorities and Democrats, of which I am both, support school choice and ESA’s even more so than Caucasians and Republicans. This only reinforces what we are seeing both nationally and in Arizona, that people of all parties and race support low-income and black and brown students (who are now about 12 months behind their white counterparts) to receive the help they desperately need. While this disparity has always been a problem in the minority community, COVID has made it even worse.
All of this brings me to the recent vote on Senate Bill 1452, legislation that would provide ESA’s to low-income families which will allow them to use their tax dollars to provide the best education for their children. Even though Democrats like myself (and the 73-75% of Democrats surveyed that support school choice and ESA’s for low income kids), not one Democrat has yet to vote for this needed legislation.
On top of that, the Democrat Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman even sent her lobbyist (paid by public tax dollars) to oppose this bill when it was heard in Committee last week.
They keep saying they want to increase funding to schools, but we should care more about students rather than buildings, that’s why it’s called per-pupil funding, not per-school funding. We need to get out of the mindset that we need to prop up and support physical schools ahead of supporting kids.
This leads to my disappointment of the anti-school choice group Save Our Schools, who also testified against the bill. Their problem starts with their name as they are more interested in supporting brick and mortar schools and the funding that goes to them then they are in supporting or “saving” our students.
In closing, to address those who will not support giving low-income and minority kids every option possible to make up learning losses from COVID, I once again refer to the words of Rev. Matthews and say, “Shame on you!”
(Drew Anderson currently serves as Lead Pastor of Legacy Christian Center in Phoenix and the Chaplain of the NFL Alumni Association in Arizona, and played linebacker in the NFL for the Denver Broncos and Arizona Cardinals)
