Two topics that arise year after year, teacher’s salaries and public-school budgets, are often misunderstood and misrepresented. In fact, many say the RedForEd movement was created and nurtured with those misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
The misunderstanding and misrepresentation has led to frustration for taxpayers and parents. Many of whom feel that no matter how much they pay in taxes, nothing seems to get better in kids’ classrooms.
A new study by the Goldwater Institute indicates those feelings and frustrations might be justified.
According to Goldwater, the “20×2020” plan, approved by Arizona lawmakers in 2018, was designed to provide enough funding to give Arizona teachers a 20% raise. However, Goldwater has discovered that schools are not allocating the funds the way lawmakers intended them to be.
In The Truth about Teacher Pay in Arizona: How Arizona School Districts Have Held Back Teacher Salaries, Blamed Lawmakers, and Continually Captured Public Sympathy, Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute found that “school districts used the majority of the new 20×2020 funds simply to replace, rather than add to, existing buckets of state money for teachers (and vice versa). The result: During the 2019-2020 school year alone, teachers received at least $170 million less from their school districts in salary increases than Arizona taxpayers provided for. And it’s part of a decades-long pattern in Arizona education.”
So what are schools doing with the extra funding that is being provided?
“District spending on administration, for instance, has risen by nearly $2,000 in inflation-adjusted terms per class of 20 students, even as teacher salaries were no higher through fiscal year 2020,” according to Beienburg.
Each year, teachers use their own money to buy supplies and decorations for their classrooms and to help offset the consistently growing list of “must buy” supplies sent to parents at the start of the school year. Yet, during the 1983-1984 school year almost 2,000 managers, supervisors, and directors were inexplicably added to Arizona school districts’ payrolls.
Many teachers have expressed frustration about not being a priority and tend to put pressure and blame on lawmakers as part of their demands for more money. It seems, though, that it is the school district administrators who need to feel the pressure and are to blame.
This last year has also placed additional stress on teachers and parents, with virtual and hybrid learning due to COVID-19.
Members of the state legislature requested that the COVID-19 stimulus revenue funds were given for school district use but the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) has declined to distribute much of the millions of dollars.
While it may be easy to blame political leaders and taxpayers for lack of support and failing to prioritize teachers, it seems to many observers that the attention should be on the ADE, school district administrators, and school boards who need to review and reconsider their budgets and priorities.
Arizona voters are asking lawmakers to lead on Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs), and their voices just got louder.
The state’s ESA program—which allows families to use a portion of the state dollars allotted for their children to pay for private tuition, tutors, and other teaching tools—has transformed thousands of lives both before and during the pandemic. For years, the testimonies of parents have been nothing short of remarkable:
As one mother put it this past year to members of the State Board of Education, “ESA saved my son from a path that would have compromised him on a systemic level…”
From another mom: “I am a parent of three children on ESA, but I also have a master’s degree in elementary education, and ESA has saved the educational lives of my three children…. We have tried public, private, and charter schools… [and] my child was able to meet some of her IEP [Individualized Education Program] goals in four months that no school had helped her to achieve in four years.”
And from a mother in rural Arizona: “I want all to know that this ESA option to educate my children truly saved my family; my oldest has significant disabilities and she attended our public school through her ninth grade year… So many years were spent advocating and begging and pleading for her to be educated, and more importantly, even wanted… ESA has opened up our world to educational opportunities never to be found in the public school setting…”
Now, Arizona lawmakers are on the cusp of extending this same opportunity to thousands more children via SB 1452, which would provide ESA eligibility to low-income and veteran families.
Right now, only special needs students and select other groups, such as children whose parents are on active duty or were killed in the line of service, are eligible to participate in the program. But as Gaby Friedman of the Torah Day School testified to lawmakers in March 2021, the impact of ESAs on kids at her school has shown the need to give the same opportunity to even more families:
“Maya (not her real name) is six, comes from a low-income family, and is disabled…Maya is eligible for the ESA because she is a special needs disabled student…What I thought her story shows is that an ESA works for an individual child…Maya is not the only one with unique needs. There’s many parents out there… and their children aren’t getting the education that they want. Those children might be not disabled…but they need more than what they’re getting. And that’s why this bill is so important.”
Arizona voters increasingly agree.
Multiple recent polls have found overwhelming bipartisan support across Arizona for increasing access to ESAs. Now, a new Goldwater Institute poll has again found massive support among both rural and metropolitan regions of the state. The poll, which was conducted in March and April 2021 across three separate legislative districts (LD4, LD13, and LD25), found that over two-thirds of all respondents, including 70% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans, voiced support for extending program eligibility to all low-income students in Arizona. In contrast, out of the overall sample (N=641), just 21% of voters opposed increasing ESA eligibility.
Conducted March 29– April 6, 2021. N=641. Margin of error <6%. Results above exclude respondents who identified their political affiliation as “Other.”
Union organizers and district superintendents may have the bigger megaphone and messaging apparatus, but our education system ultimately exists to serve Arizona students and their families. Especially in the wake of COVID-19 and the academic disruption unleashed by public school shutdowns over the past year, that truth seems increasingly clear to voters. May it be equally clear to Arizona’s policymakers.
This article was published by the in defense of liberty blog on April 14, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from the Goldwater Institute
A swim coach is challenging the city of Scottsdale over its apparent favoritism in granting a private swim club exclusive access to city pools. The Goldwater Institute and American Freedom Network have joined the fight; they say the city’s actions have created a monopoly on public resources, and therefore are a violation of the Arizona Gift Clause. The coach backed by Goldwater, Joe Zemaitis, founded and oversees a K-12 swim club in the Metro Phoenix area called Swim Neptune. According to Zemaitis, their club has been attempting to gain access to Scottsdale public pools since 2007 – well over a decade.
Swim Neptune was never granted entry to the pools. However, Scottsdale always allowed entry for one private, city-sponsored team: the Scottsdale Aquatic Club. What’s more, that swim club reportedly received entry at a greater discounted rate. Despite Swim Neptune offering far greater compensation for pool access, the city would only admit the Scottsdale Aquatic Club. The Goldwater Institute claims that this violates Arizona’s Gift Clause prohibiting the government from giving gifts to private entities.
In a press release issued by the Goldwater Institute, Zemaitis summarized the city’s various methods of rejection in response to their club’s many requests for access.
“Since 2007, we’ve been aggressively pursuing space in the Scottsdale pools,” said Zemaitis. “They seem to reinterpret the rules and rewrite the rules every time we are eligible under their criteria, they change them again to try to freeze us and our residents out, and it’s simply not fair.”
In a press release, the Goldwater Institute said that families have suffered due to the city’s actions.
“Scottsdale’s unconstitutional actions against Swim Neptune are preventing the swim club’s Scottsdale families from using facilities that they’re already paying for with their taxes. That means that these families have to drive to surrounding cities to get swim lessons, eating up more time and money for something they should be able to get in the town they live in. One of those kids, 14-year-old Ethan Mindlin, was cut from the Scottsdale Aquatic Club when he was younger—and today, he’s won an Arizona state championship for swimming with Swim Neptune. But his family has to drive 45 minutes each way to take him to practice because Scottsdale has turned their back on him.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, National Litigation Director for the Goldwater Institute Jon Riches shared further insight about the relationship between the city and Scottsdale Aquatic Club.
“The team’s been there for several decades. I think part of it is sort of bureaucratic inertia. The city and this particular team always had this strange, cozy relationship,” said Riches.” The city wants to continue to pursue it at the exclusion of other groups. I don’t know exactly the ‘why.’ The most dangerous phrase in the English language is, ‘We’ve always done it this way.’”
Riches explained that Zemaitis reached out to the Goldwater Institute years ago when his issues with the city were happening initially. At the time, their team referred Zemaitis’ case to the American Freedom Network – Goldwater’s network of pro-bono attorneys. Their attorneys sent the city of Scottsdale a letter, which prompted the city to put the pools out to bid.
Zemaitis and Swim Neptune didn’t receive relief at that point, because the city quickly canceled the bid and awarded Scottsdale Aquatic Club access. That’s when their case first went to trial.
After the case was appealed, Goldwater stepped in. Their team recognized similar patterns of potential Gift Clause violations. Riches stated that this case tackled a new issue presented under the clause: public resources versus expenditures.
“The government can’t spend public expenditures on private purposes,” asserted Riches. “[This case explores] what the test [is] for public resources for the exclusive benefit for private parties.”
Riches shared that they may receive a decision by the court by the end of this year, or early next year at the latest.
“This isn’t fair for [Zemaitis] or his kids. If the city can give special interests and treatment in this case, they can give anybody special treatment,” said Riches.
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.
Earlier this month, the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners failed in their attempt to punish a psychologist seeking her license under the universal licensing law.
Dr. Carol Gandolfo applied to practice after the landmark legislation passed in April 2019. The board denied Gandolfo’s application, as well as four others. They claimed that Gandolfo didn’t qualify under the law because she’d moved to Arizona before the law was enacted. Since she didn’t qualify for the protections of the universal licensing law, the board used old licensing standards to claim that her degree was insufficient because it wasn’t from a regionally-accredited school.
The Goldwater Institute stepped in on Gandolfo’s behalf to fight the board. This caused the board to reverse its decision on how they’d interpreted the law in her case and the four others. However, the board decided it wasn’t done with Gandolfo.
The board opened up an investigation in a furthered attempt to deny her a license. They characterized Gandolfo’s volunteer activities with groups like law enforcement and first responders as unlawful. In doing so, they accused her of practicing without a license.
However, those accusations didn’t stick. After some months of investigating into Gandolfo, the board submitted a nonpunitive letter acknowledging that Gandolfo didn’t engage in any wrongdoing.
Now, nearly two years after initial passage of the law, Gandolfo has been cleared to receive her license to practice.
The Goldwater Institute issued a statement on the board’s decision to close their complaint.
“At a time when more Arizonans are in need of mental health services, the Board should focus on allowing respected professionals to provide those services,” stated the Institute. “The Board’s decision today allows Dr. Gandolfo to get back to providing the care she is trained and experienced to provide, and it assures other Arizonans that they can practice their professions free from arbitrary restraints of occupational licensing boards.”
Licensing boards have proved to be a double-edged sword for businesses. Proponents for expanded boards focus on the potential protections it can offer the consumer by preventing inadequate, harmful, improper, or dangerous practices, they argue.
Proponents for limited boards – or, no boards at all in some cases – argue that they stymie healthy competition, which also impacts the cost to both consumers and businesses. They also argue that they establish barriers between an individual and their profession.
Just before the onset of the COVID-19 nationwide health emergency last February, the Goldwater Institute noted that over 750 businesses benefited from the new universal licensing law. In June – several months into the pandemic – nearly 1,200 individuals gained their Arizona license under the law.
At the time of that report, several hundred other individuals had filed their applications. Only 16 were rejected out of all those who filed. 12 of those rejected applications had nothing to do with credentials, however. The individuals merely failed on the technicalities of residency requirements. A board official clarified that those applicants weren’t ultimately considered rejections because they reapplied for a standard license.
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.
