Arizona’s public schools have over $1 billion in surplus, according to the Arizona Department of Education (ADE).
Tim McCain, chief financial officer for ADE, announced the surplus during last week’s meeting in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State & Local Resources. According to McCain, the maintenance and operations (M&O) budget carry forward is now over $1 billion.
Additionally, the M&O budget carry forward has a generally positive trajectory, growing from $400 million in 2020 to over $1 billion this year. These budgetary increases carried forward function to raise schools’ budgets.
“Budget balance carry forward goes to the next year for their increase, so their budget will be increased by the amount that they carried forward to the next year,” said McCain. “[Schools] would be able to spend those monies in the future as they go forward.”
McCain also reported that the cash not committed to the M&O budget currently amounts to about $300 million, a decrease this year compared to last but an overall increase since 2020.
The school district fund balance increased from $3.5-$3.6 billion for all districts in 2017, to $6.4 billion for all districts in 2023. The percentage of revenue has remained in the 40-50 percent range since 2018.
McCain clarified that some of the funds within the latest balance consists of bond building funds, around $2 billion.
The school district M&O balance has continuously increased from $355 million in 2017 to $1.38 billion in 2023, with the percentage of revenue likewise increasing steadily from six percent in 2017 to 19 percent last year.
McCain explained that these factors contributing to the budgetary growth could be attributed to increased K-12 funding; districts mitigating risk due to inflation, minimum wage increases, current year funding, and drop in enrollment; the teacher shortage; and the lack of a budget balance carry forward cap. Prior to 2017, there was a four percent cap that incentivized a “use it or lose it” approach to budgeting.
Further, McCain said that the federal COVID-19 relief funds served as another factor contributing to budgetary growth. Arizona received over $4 billion in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding. Over $277 million expired in September 2022, and over $1.1 billion expired last September. The remaining $2.5 billion are set to expire this September.
“The districts have been able to utilize ESSER funds where they would have normally utilized M&O funds for certain purposes, and be able to carry those funds over into the future,” said McCain.
Another budgetary growth factor according to McCain was the Classroom Site Fund expansion to include Student Support Services in 2022, and a $300-per-student increase in CSF funds.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) governing board silenced a grandmother’s speech for calling public schools “evil” in a public comments portion of a meeting earlier this month.
Janet Klepacz was discussing her appreciation for Department of Education Superintendent Tom Horne implementing an optional curriculum from PragerU, a conservative nonprofit that supplies free educational materials. Klepacz’s contested speech included a Bible passage referenced to compare the quality and state of public school education to the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt.
“Pray with me, believers, as I paraphrase Exodus 3:7-8 for today’s Peoria’s schools’ and board’s evil: we are awakening Lord God to our children, our grandchildren’s cries and misery of the suffering you have literally seen,” said Klepacz. “God, come down and rescue our children now from the evil government federal schools —”
It was then that board member Melissa Ewing interrupted Klepacz. Ewing raised a point of order on Klepacz’s language: specifically, the fact that Klepacz accused public schools of being evil places. Ewing didn’t specify what Klepacz said that constituted a rules violation.
“The language being used about ‘the evil,’” said Ewing.
Board President Becky Proudfit then elaborated on Ewing’s point of order. Proudfit directed Klepacz to adjust her speech to not say that public schools were evil.
“I think what she’s referring to is not what is being said, but rather how it’s being said, and the rules for public comment is to not openly attack any members of the board or the public,” said Proudfit. “Please continue with that in mind.”
Klepacz continued, only lasting a few more seconds before Proudfit called another point of order.
“Rescue our children now, God, from the federal government school, pushing documents on our children wrapped up under educational learning,” began Klepacz.
Proudfit again interrupted Klepacz. She claimed that Klepacz’s accusation of “pushing” certain documents wasn’t allowed.
“I’m sorry, the language,” said Proudfit. “How you’re speaking about, saying that ‘we are pushing.’”
Klepacz challenged Proudfit’s judgment, arguing that her speech was protected by the Constitution.
“Well, guess what: my words, I feel it, I see it. It is! That’s what free speech is, hello?” responded Klepacz.
The board’s interruptions of Klepacz didn’t go unnoticed.
Although most of the other parents that spoke after Klepacz addressed their grievances with PUSD’s decision to move public comment to the end of meetings, another parent and PUSD board candidate, Jeff Tobey, spoke against the treatment of Klepacz.
Tobey said the interruptions were a potential violation of Klepacz’s constitutional right to free speech. Tobey suggested that the board read up on free speech court cases, referencing Ninth Circuit Court decisions on criticisms of public officials.
“The encounter that I just witnessed really bothered me just now, because as a Jew, obviously I don’t necessarily believe in Jesus Christ, but I respect somebody coming up here and voicing their opposition to policies that are being presented as a district or feelings that they have on the matter or thoughts that incorporate an aspect of religion: we have to respect that, whether we believe it or not,” said Tobey. “I believe that in squelching that, you might have infringed on her rights.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
An Arizona State University (ASU) professor is among the 38 law professors petitioning the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the release of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
ASU law professor Gregg Leslie and 37 other professors submitted their petition days ahead of Tuesday’s hearing on Assange’s extradition from the U.K. Should the court deny his request to block his extradition, Assange will be taken to the U.S. to face 17 espionage charges over his 2010 publication of classified materials.
Among the leaked materials were footage of a 2007 airstrike in Baghdad revealing that soldiers shot 18 civilians from a helicopter, including a Reuters journalist and his assistant; nearly 391,900 Iraq War logs spanning 2004 to 2009; and the “Cablegate” files consisting of diplomatic cables revealing U.S. espionage against the United Nations and other world leaders, tensions with allies, and corruption in other countries.
The DOJ accused Assange of working with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to obtain classified information. The DOJ charged Assange with espionage in 2019, alleging that he used Manning to secure certain sets of classified Secret documents: about 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 State Department cables.
In 2020, the DOJ issued a second superseding indictment broadening the scope of the charges to include allegations that Assange recruited computer hackers to benefit Wikileaks. The indictment cited an alleged unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country in 2010, and a contract with a hacking group to obtain materials from the CIA, NSA, or New York Times.
Last week’s letter from the 38 law professors made the case that Assange qualified as a journalist and, therefore, the First Amendment protected Assange’s actions. The law professors countered that Wikileaks’ openness to receiving information didn’t qualify as Assange recruiting sources or soliciting confidential documents
“Award-winning journalists everywhere also regularly ‘recruit’ and speak with sources, use encrypted or anonymous communications channels, receive and accept confidential information, ask questions to sources about it, and publish it,” said the professors. “That is not a crime — it’s investigative journalism. As long as they don’t participate in their source’s illegality, their conduct is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.”
The law professors further warned that Assange’s prosecution served as an “existential threat” to the First Amendment and would, in time, enable the prosecution of other reporters. They cited the police raid of a local Kansas newspaper that occurred last August based on verbal allegations of identity theft.
“It could enable prosecution of routine newsgathering under any number of ambiguous laws and untested legal theories,” said the professors.
In that case, a disgruntled local restaurant owner had told the city council and the county attorney — the brother-in-law of the hotel owner housing her restaurant — that the local newspaper had illegally obtained documentation of an unresolved DUI charge that proved she had been driving without a valid license for over a decade. At the time, the newspaper had also been investigating claims of sexual misconduct by the police chief. Within days, the police conducted their unlawful raid. The newspaper had obtained the documentation legally through public records.
Similarly, editors and publishers of a number of news outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, argued that Assange engaged in journalism by obtaining and disclosing sensitive information for the public interest.
In a 2019 press release announcing Assange’s charges, the DOJ dismissed the claim that Assange qualified as a journalist.
“Julian Assange is no journalist. This is made plain by the totality of his conduct as alleged in the indictment — i.e., his conspiring with and assisting a security clearance holder to acquire classified information, and his publishing the names of human sources,” stated the DOJ.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Former boxing champion Mike Tyson recently launched a middle and high school in Phoenix, Arizona.
Tyson Transformational Technologies Academy is a Cognia Accredited Micro-School in Arizona for grades six to 12.
The world Champion boxer, entertainer, and entrepreneur partnered with the Foundations Academies School System and undefeated MMA fighter Daniel Puder to start the school.
“It’s important to me that I am able to share my life experiences to inspire the next generation,” Tyson said. “This new educational institution will build core values that I am honored and grateful to be part of the Arizona community. I was thrilled to be part of the ribbon cutting ceremony and meeting some of the students.”
The price of tuition is covered through the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) and internal school scholarships.
Since late 2022, all Arizona students have been eligible for an ESA as a K-12 student or as a preschool student with a disability. Families with qualifying students enrolled in the ESA program can use their ESA funds for expenses including educational services, education providers, curriculum, and other educational expenses.
Tyson’s school aims to “redefine learning by combining innovation, financial literacy, mentorship, and community engagement.” The academy will provide quality education and opportunities for personal growth to every youth regardless of their academic challenges, ethnicity, or socio-economic status, the Feb. 15 news release says.
“As a society, we get to build our youths for the next generation,” Puder said. “We are so blessed to have Mike Tyson part of our school system. He inspires our students.”
To enroll their child, parents can contact (480) 448-5181.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute is suing the Biden administration for fining Grand Canyon University for $37 million without explanation.
The U.S. Department of Education assessed a record fine of $37 million against the private, Christian university in October 2023. This marks the largest fine of its kind ever assessed by the department.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based conservative think tank, is suing the administration to get answers about the fine and hold the government accountable.
Fines on universities who have improperly dealt with sexual assault pale in comparison to those levied against GCU. The Department of Education fined Penn State University only $2.4 million for failing to report the crimes of serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky. Michigan State University was fined a mere $4.5 million fine for refusing to address sexual assaults committed by athletic director Larry Nassar, who abused more than 500 students.
The Education Department claimed to fine GCU for insufficiently informing P.h.D students that they may have to take continuing courses while completing their doctoral dissertations. The federal government report did not cite any student’s complaints, and Education Department personnel did not visit GCU as part of its so-called investigation.
The Goldwater Institute submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the department to gain clarity on the fine against GCU.
“The records may help inform the public about this extraordinary fine, as well as coordination between various federal agencies in what appears to be the intentionally targeting of a successful university—one that’s no stranger to run-ins with the feds—based on extraordinarily thin allegations,” a Goldwater news release says.
The Department of Education refused to turn over these public records, the think tank said, so it is suing the agency in federal court to get them anyway.
“With its motto of ‘private, Christian, affordable’ and its track record of graduating students into high-demand and high-paying jobs, GCU is a success story by any metric,” Goldwater Institute staff attorney Stacy Skankey said. “And it stands apart from universities across the country that are facing declining enrollment, that are indoctrinating students with radical politics, and that are under attack for failing to defend the First Amendment.”
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the Goldwater Institute was founded by Barry Goldwater. The story has been corrected.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
The gender support plan, filled out by school staff, caregivers, and students, allows schools to hide students’ identification as transgender from their parents.
The purpose of the document is to “create shared understandings about the ways in which the student’s authentic gender will be accounted for and supported at school.”
The district’s plan to support a minor’s transgender status despite parent support or knowledge appears to be in direct violation of the Arizona Parents’ Bill of Rights, which states that parents have the “right to make all health care decisions for the minor child.”
The form asks for the name the student uses, the name on their birth certificate, their gender identity, and so-called assigned sex at birth.
The “Parent/Guardian Involvement” section on the form measures parent knowledge of their child’s “gender status.” The form asks if parents are aware of the child’s gender status, then offers a scale of 1 to 10 to denote the student’s parents’ level of support.
“If support level is low, what considerations must be accounted for in implementing this plan?” the form asks.
The “Student Safety” section of the form establishes a “go to adult” at the child’s school, and asks “if this person is not available, what should the student do?”
In the “Privacy: Names, Pronouns and Students Records” section, the plan asks, “How will instances be handled in which the incorrect name or pronoun are used by staff members?”
The document asks for the “name/gender marker” on the student’s identity documents and entered into the Student Information System, as well as the name and pronouns to be used when referring to the student.
The form asks about what adjustments need to be made to protect the student’s privacy and who will be the point person for ensuring the adjustments are made.
Scottsdale also uses the document to denote what bathroom the student will use and where they will change clothes, demonstrating that the district would allow biological male students to share rooms, bathrooms, and changing rooms with females.
“What are the expectations regarding rooming for any overnight trip?” the form asks.
The district, which educates 22,000 students, also suggests that biological male student athletes would be allowed to play in girls’ sports.
“In what extracurricular activities or programs will the student be participating (sports, theater, clubs, etc.)?” asks Scottsdale Unified School District.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
