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)
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 23, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
A bill originally disguised as a nature-loving resolution passed by the Senate was rewritten completely through an amendment to qualify illegal aliens for in-state tuition. The same wouldn’t apply to nonimmigrant aliens.
“Notwithstanding any other law, a student, other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in 8 United States Code Section 1101(a)(15) […] is eligible for in-state tuition at any university […],” reads the amendment. “Persons without lawful immigration status are eligible for in-state tuition […]”
State Representative Daniel Hernandez, Jr. (D-Tucson) introduced the amendment. The proposed change comes into play as the border crisis continues to surge. Rural communities at Arizona’s border are pleading with federal authorities for help, as the number of migrants have more than doubled since Biden took office.
Yuma Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Vincent Dulesky reported one week ago that they are seeing surges of up to 100 illegal aliens at a time crossing the border.
“We’ve gone from months where we were seeing twenty [illegal aliens] a day, and now we’re seeing upwards to 450 a day,” said Dulesky. “We’re seeing groups of ten, twenty, thirty, all the way up to 100 [illegal aliens] coming through at a time.”
Their border patrol also noted that the border crossings aren’t occurring in the areas where previous President Donald Trump built miles of 30-foot-tall steel walls. The main flood of crossings have occurred where the Normandy fencing exists. The X-shaped barricades only serve to stop vehicles, not so much the foot traffic.
The amendment to S.C.R. 1046 would also loosen residency restrictions for American citizens. Other non-resident students could also qualify for in-state intuition, as long as they have attended any public or private high school option or homeschool equivalent in the state for at least two years, or graduated from any of those schooling options while physically in the state.
However, the amendment was clear in drawing the distinction between non-Arizona resident students and illegal alien students. Illegal aliens wouldn’t be held to those standards.
The amendment was scheduled to be considered on Tuesday by the House committee on education.
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 B Hernandez | Mar 21, 2021 | Education, News
By B. Hernandez |
A scathing ad campaign was launched on Sunday by the Club For Growth targeting Sen. Mark Kelly for his decision to vote against a student’s right to an education. Specifically, Kelly voted against Senator Ted Cruz’s Amendment #969, which would have helped students find open classrooms.
The amendment, which would have expanded parental choice in education, narrowly failed, with 49 Republicans voting in favor and all 50 Democrats voting against.
The Club for Growth announced the launch of the issue ads to be aired in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire, as part of its effort to support parental educational choice.
The Club noted in a press release that it hopes to “hold Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) accountable for siding with education bureaucrats and voting against Senator Ted Cruz’s Amendment #969.”
The amendment, according to the Club, “would have allowed our taxpayer dollars to follow students and parents, not education bureaucrats and would have provided children with an option for in-classroom education instruction if the child’s local public school does not commit to reopening.”
The Covid pandemic initially forced many K-12 schools closed. Across the country, many public school classrooms still remain closed due to pressure from the teachers unions.
by Catherine Barrett | Mar 15, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By Catherine A. Barrett |
Continuous learning, hybrid learning, and blended learning are terms utilized in defining teachers’ return to school by March 15. Online learning occurred between the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and this period where teachers are required to return to school, to their designated classrooms. However, students are granted the option to participate in remote learning.
The opinions regarding the return to classrooms proposals vary, with some vehemently opposing it. For instance, teachers disagree with each other, citing the overplaying their hand in letting students suffer through distance learning. There are also lingering questions concerning teachers’ silence over time, with reasons such as a fear of retaliation and isolation being cited. Teachers point to the fear of their contracts not being renewed and the subsequent “blow back” from not engaging in group think. In my opinion, this is quite unbelievable because this is a free world. Teachers should be heard, and after this, a return-to-work framework that favors them should be put in place.
Those supporting returning to classrooms, especially parents, argue that the right to accessing proper education was violated through remote education. Furthermore, individual learning strategies were not adequately addressed, resulting in the plans becoming ineffective over time. This resulted in substantial learning disparities between students. My opinion, based on the above, is that the option of remote learning should not be granted to students since the learning plans may not work.
In conclusion, I concur that teaching is a calling. Therefore, the debate concerning returning to classrooms should involve heavy consultation with teachers to formulate an appropriate return-to-work strategy. This will require cooperation from teachers and parents, and will be vital through the start of the healing process. However, I oppose the idea that those viewing the task as hard should quit their jobs because we need everyone’s input for an adequate return to class strategy. Therefore, instead of them quitting, they should offer ideas to facilitate learning in a post-Covid world.
Catherine Barrett is an Arizona Governor’s Master Teacher and currently Chair of citizens initiative petition, A Classroom Code of Ethics For Public Schools K-12. You can find her on Twitter @ReadersLeadPD, and on Facebook at Yes4Ethics
Catherine Barrett is an Arizona Governor’s Master Teacher and currently Chair of citizens initiative petition, A Classroom Code of Ethics For Public Schools K-12. You can find her on Twitter @ReadersLeadPD, and on Facebook at Yes4Ethics