Arizona’s charter schools are about to receive a fresh infusion of taxpayer dollars in a federal grant from the United States Department of Education. The grant is expected to fund the establishment of two dozen new charter schools and bolster another 23 already in operation.
As reported by The Center Square, the state of Arizona has received approximately 24% of the $143 million awarded across the nation by the Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program, a total of about $34.8 million. The outlet noted that although the funding originates from fiscal 2024 it will be distributed in annual disbursements through 2029.
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) December 4, 2024
In a press release from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said, “I am extremely pleased that we have received this federal grant that will create 24 new high-quality charter schools and help another 23 existing schools with models and practices that result in academic growth. I want to commend the department staff who competed for this funding. Their work has resulted in the state receiving the largest recipient of this grant, per capita, in the country.”
Horne added, “Arizona is the leader in the country on school choice and charters are a major component of that. These dollars will serve a vital purpose in making sure that an estimated 10,000 students in traditionally underserved areas will have a chance to select a high-quality charter school. Every student in every part of our state, urban or rural, rich or poor, deserves this opportunity and I am very pleased to be a part of this effort.”
Speaking with AZ Capitol Times, Horne explained Arizona’s long-term history of fostering charter schools saying, “The charter schools in Arizona go back to the 1990s.” Then, he noted that as a state legislator, he championed charter schools and their purpose. “Even a good district school may not necessarily meet the needs of all the students,” Horne told the outlet. “And so the parents should have the ability to find a school that does meet those needs.”
In the release, ADE stated that it has already begun work on the upcoming project “which aims to increase the number of high-quality charter schools focusing on educationally disadvantaged students.” It added that such students are identified by their economic disadvantage, disability status, as non-English speakers, and as “other demographic groups.”
The statement outlined the grant’s purpose stating:
“The grant also seeks to close achievement gaps in academic scores, provide technical assistance to educators to improve teaching and learning and encourage dual or concurrent enrollment in college level courses. The expectation is that students will experience at least one year of academic growth on state tests for math, reading and language arts with a long-term measurement of cumulative three-year growth.”
At present, approximately 560 charter schools are in operation throughout Arizona serving about 231,000 students. The Center Square report cited the Arizona Charter Schools Association. Under Arizona law, all charter schools are open enrollment and as a result enjoy wide adoption. The outlet reported that the California Department of Education, Colorado League of Charter Schools, New York State Education Department, Utah Association of Public Charter Schools, and Rhode Island Department of Education also received 2024 grant funding as well.
“I am not a charter school fan,” Joe Biden declared in his 2020 presidential campaign. That’s disappointing, but not surprising, coming from the self-declared “most pro-union president” in history.
His would-be successor, Kamala Harris, claims to still be equivocating, as is her wont, over her position on charter schools. But she has the enthusiastic support of the teachers’ unions, so that’s a bad sign too.
Her dilemma is that the teachers’ unions, the political partners of the Democrats, are dead set in their opposition to charter schools for two reasons. They expose the education failures of the union-dominated district schools, and most charter school teachers aren’t unionized and therefore don’t pay union dues.
Charter schools, first created in the 1990s, are publicly funded but independently administered. They don’t charge tuition and aren’t allowed to “cherry-pick” the best students.
Charter school opponents once could claim that charter schools “don’t work” to improve academic outcomes. But we know now that this is simply not the case.
Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) released a 2023 report tracking charter school outcomes over 15 years. The study covered 2 million charter school students in 29 states with a control group in district schools. It is arguably the most comprehensive, credible study ever done of charter schools.
The conclusion was decisive. Most charter schools “produce superior student gains despite enrolling a more challenging student population.”
CREDO’s first study in 2009 showed no improvement in student outcomes from charters, a result still cited as evidence that charters fail to help those deemed “uneducable” by some. But each subsequent CREDO report has shown improvement and superior performance overall.
New York charter school students gained 75 days reading improvement and 73 in math each year compared with traditional schools. In Washington state, the numbers were 29 days in reading and 30 in math. In Illinois, it was 40 in reading, 48 in math.
The recent study also showed that black and Hispanic students achieved disproportionately large gains. A section in the CREDO report described several “gap-busting schools” which educate students from underprivileged backgrounds to perform at the same level as white peers. So much for the myth of “uneducable” students.
The overall statistics would be even better if not for the 15% of charter schools that underperform their local district schools. The telling difference is that failing charter schools can be and are closed. Failing district schools just keep on failing year after year.
There is even more good news. Charter schools benefit even those students who do not attend them. According to an analysis by the Fordham Foundation, at least 12 studies indicate that the scores for all publicly enrolled students in a geographic region rise when the number of charter schools increases. Moreover, neighboring schools which don’t experience academic improvement often showed progress in school attendance and behavioral problems due to competing with charters.
The reason is obvious. The mere presence of choices for parents breaks the district school monopoly. Competition brings more accountability and a “customer orientation” that benefits everybody.
It’s no coincidence that, while traditional public schools have lost students, charter schools have gained over 300,000 students over the last five years. But the institutional opponents of the charter schools are unmoved by the good news. The growth of charters would undoubtedly be even greater if not for the relentless opposition of the teachers’ union/Democratic Party axis.
Ironically, for charter school opponents, charters are highly popular with the working class, ethnic minority constituencies they claim to champion. A poll this May by Democrats for Education Reform found that 80% of black parents and 71% of Hispanics had a favorable view of charters, as well they should.
But the teachers’ unions don’t give away their formidable political support, and they clearly dominate educational policy making with today’s Democrats. The Biden/Harris administration has continued a program of budget cuts and onerous regulations for charter schools, including a proposed reduction for the Charter Schools Program, which provides grants and was even supported by the Clinton and Obama administrations.
The Democrats – and all of us – have a clear choice to make between the needs of students versus the demands of the teachers’ unions.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Amid the passage of historic school choice legislation in Arizona, the educational opportunities available to students and families today are unparalleled with the state’s universal ESA program. In addition to providing Arizona families with voice, choice, and agency in their child’s education, the ESA program has the potential to save Arizona taxpayers considerable funds from future school district bond and override measures.
However, to realize these savings, a long overdue conversation about rightsizing Arizona’s public schools is necessary. Despite significant population growth within Arizona, the enrollment forecasts for most school districts anticipate a period of long-term decline due to lower childbirths, affordability, and alternative options. This demonstrates a pressing need to review the budgets and assets of public school districts and align them with future enrollment projections.
Given the significant competition from the rise in homeschooling, as well as charter and private schools, public schools are no longer the only game in town. As a result, greater scrutiny from local taxpayers is needed in holding school districts fiscally accountable by questioning their need for additional funds through bonds and overrides.
What Are School Bonds & Overrides?
School bonds are loans that school districts sell to investors, who are repaid through the district’s future property taxes. These bond funds have specific limitations on their use and cannot be used to increase staff salaries. In most instances, these funds are leveraged for infrastructure projects involving the construction of new facilities or upgrades to existing ones. In contrast, overrides go directly to school districts and can be used for staff salaries and various programs outlined by the district requesting the override.
This November, a total of 23 school districts in Maricopa County will have bond and/or override measures on the ballot. Among these 23 districts, at least 4—Kyrene Elementary School District, Mesa Unified School District, Gilbert Unified School District, Scottsdale Unified School District—are in dire need of rightsizing before requesting additional funds from taxpayers based on their pronounced decline in enrollment.
In particular, Mesa USD, the state’s largest school district, enrolls fewer students today than it did in the fall of 1990. Yet, the district’s real estate portfolio somehow contains 78 schools, in addition to various non-instructional facilities and offices throughout the city. Mesa USD, as well as surrounding districts in similar positions, need to do right by taxpayers in exploring the sale of underutilized real estate before passing the buck to taxpayers.
As seen in the table below, only Gilbert USD has shown an increase in enrollment since the fall of 2000, and none of the districts can report an increase in enrollment in the last 10 years. Given the growth in ESA adoption and charter school enrollment, the pragmatic move is to respond to these declines now by rightsizing these districts, pursuing the sale of district assets, and removing administrative bloat.
Among the clearest signs of waste and inefficiency can be found in the amount of unspent federal pandemic relief funds provided to schools around the country. In the case of the 4 school districts requesting additional funds from taxpayers, they collectively still have access to tens of millions in unspent, flexible funds that are set to expire in a year.
What this experiment in “helicopter money” confirms is that the problem ailing local school districts is not a lack of funds, but rather their inability to direct funds efficiently. In the absence of a public monopoly, this decline in public school enrollment will continue to eat into taxpayers’ wallets with the additional forces of demographic shifts, affordability, and competition from the growing number of viable and efficient alternatives in the form of charter schools, private schools, microschools, and homeschool co-ops.
In adjusting to this historic era of school choice, the need for fiscal accountability remains essential on behalf of public school districts that have been reluctant to change and control their costs. To avoid perpetually funding buildings and bureaucracy, local taxpayers and residents must ensure their voices are heard.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizona resident and previously worked in K-12 education as a principal and teacher. He currently leads a nonprofit microschool.
Have you heard the outrageous story of what happened recently in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital? Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.), elected in 2022, had campaigned on school choice for tens of thousands of children, mostly minorities, who are forced to attend failing public schools in places like Philadelphia.
“It’s what I believe,” Shapiro, then state attorney general, assured voters as he ran for governor. Last month on a national Fox News broadcast, Shapiro was unequivocal in his support for school choice because “every child of God” deserves “a quality education.”
But there’s a force far more powerful in politics than Shapiro’s convictions, such as they are. And that force is the teachers unions. They put on a full-court press to stop the roughly 10,000 vouchers for the poorest kids in Pennsylvania’s worst school districts even though the state budget bill gave billions more for the public schools. It didn’t matter that this voucher program comprised less than 0.5% of state spending. The union brass commanded Democrats to vote no on even a single penny going to schools that work.
In the end, Shapiro did a full flip-flop. He vetoed his own promise. He might as well have declared that black lives don’t matter.
Shapiro has presidential ambitions — so he figures he needs the teachers unions behind him. But if he can’t face down Randi Weingarten, how is he ever going to stand up to bullies like China’s President Xi Jinping or Russia’s President Vladimir Putin?
This story isn’t just about Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. In North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency in the Tar Heel State because the legislature wanted to fund vouchers for kids to go to the best schools possible. Egads!
In Arizona, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs wants to defund a school choice program that is already serving tens of thousands of kids, most of whom are Hispanic, with proven results of better performance and higher test scores. Why would she kill a program that is working? The teachers unions want the money and the kids under their control.
In New York City’s Harlem neighborhood, charter schools are flourishing. They are alternatives to public schools but are still regulated by the state. They are oversubscribed because parents want to choose the best school for their kids. Now, the Democrats want to put a cap on the charter schools because the teachers unions want to warehouse the kids in public schools where a majority of the kids can’t read or do math at grade-level proficiency. In other words, many of the public schools are worse than mediocre. And it’s not for lack of money. New York spends more than $20,000 per child in public schools.
Did I mention that in nearly every one of these cases across the country, the Democrats blocking private and Catholic school options went to private schools themselves? Or they send their kids to private schools. But poor black kids aren’t allowed that same opportunity? These are hypocrites with a capital H.
There’s a cruel historic irony here. Sixty years ago this summer, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood before the doors of schools to prevent black children from attending the schools with white children. He was trying to preserve the stain of segregation.
Today, Democrats are employing the same tactic to keep minority kids from attending excellent schools. Why? They say that school choice will hurt public schools or cause more segregation.
Wrong on both counts. Monopolies are always bad for consumers and competition improves service. Education choice requires public schools to compete. Would you get good and friendly service if there were only one restaurant in town?
Instead of draining public schools of money, studies show that per-pupil funding rises when some kids take advantage of vouchers to attend alternative schools. Charter and Catholic schools tend to be, in most cases, more racially diverse than inner-city public schools.
I’m a parent of five boys, so I know that each of my kids has different skills, interests, behavior issues and attention spans. To warehouse them all in the same schoolroom is madness. Schools should be tailored toward the kids and serve their interests — not those of the $1 trillion a year public-school-industrial complex.
More importantly, as an economist, my biggest worry about America’s future is what happens when kids are graduating without being able to read their diplomas and with no useful skills. There are hundreds of schools around the country where not a single child can pass a basic math or reading test.
That’s an economic, civil rights and national security tragedy. Shame on Democratic leaders, and some Republicans, too, for putting their own political ambitions ahead of our nation’s children.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy.”
It’s not exactly breaking news that America’s public schools are failing academically.
There have been encouraging stories of charter schools and other schools of choice successfully raising achievement levels for underprivileged students previously deemed uneducable.
But our schools are still producing a generation of students lacking basic computational or literacy skills, much less an understanding of government, culture, or science. That is, unless you count gender ideology and slanted anti-American interpretations of history.
Twenty-three public schools in Baltimore this year had zero students rated proficient in math and several more had only one or two. Baltimore spends $21,000 per student yearly, but it’s unfair to pick on Baltimore. Neither its spending levels nor the dreadful outcomes distinguish it from many other urban school districts.
Many Americans are aware and concerned. We even know a lot about what works (school level control and accountability) and what doesn’t (more money, more administrators). Yet at every turn, efforts at system reform have been stymied by…teachers’ unions.
Until the 20th century, Americans would have been astonished to see a critical policy debate dominated by a public union. Such unions didn’t even exist until President Kennedy approved collective bargaining for federal employees in 1962. Until then, union bosses and government leaders had been skeptical of the notion.
Franklin Roosevelt said, “The process of collective bargaining…cannot be translated into public service.” AFL – CIO President George Meany agreed that “it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
They were saying that true collective bargaining is a two-way negotiation to divide the profits generated by an enterprise, in which unions must limit their demands so their companies remain viable.
But as Philip Howard explains in his new book on public unions, government by design doesn’t generate any profit. Any concessions made to government unions come at the expense of taxpayers, who are seldom represented in the negotiations.
After decades of “negotiating” with friendly politicians whom they help elect, government employees have gained immense wealth and influence. It hasn’t turned out so well for the rest of us.
For example, government unions were effectively able to dictate health policy, including shutdowns and mandates, during COVID, as CDC e-mails subsequently revealed.
Worse, teachers’ unions demands that public schools close and stay closed during COVID prevailed despite overwhelming evidence that it was unhelpful. Millions of students will endure permanent educational scars from the union intransigence.
Union participation in policy making goes far beyond healthcare. Government unions work hard and successfully to boost virtually all tax and spend proposals, especially at the state and local levels. After all, tax revenues pay their salaries.
Unions have also been successful in thwarting the growth of charter schools in the three decades of their existence. This is a particularly impressive display of raw political power since charter schools have proven themselves many times over to be academic successes serving those students who need it most.
Moreover, there is no coherent argument that charter schools harm public schools because they are public schools, albeit usually without mandatory unionization, but still with long waiting lists.
Union workers are notoriously difficult to fire, thanks to the work rules they write for themselves. California is able to terminate only about one of each 100,000 teachers annually for poor performance. Derek Chauvin, the murderer of George Floyd, was a known bad cop with multiple citizens’ complaints, but was protected by union work rules from losing his job.
All these instances and many more are the result of unions essentially dictating the terms of their employment. Citizens’ interests are secondary. Government has been rendered nearly inoperable for everyday Americans.
Although government unions seem to have a vice-like hold on their privileges, there may be a solution this time. Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires that every state “shall be guaranteed a republican form of government,” meaning that policy decisions can be made only by elected officials and may not be delegated.
State and local officials must reclaim their authority either by challenging union-made policies in courts or simply by refusing to comply with them on constitutional grounds.
The framers of the Constitution would be honored if we used their great gift to make government work again.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
