In November 2023, there will be 23 districts within Maricopa County that are asking voters to approve a new Bond Issue, Budget Override, or District Additional Assistance.
One of the constant themes from the Educational Industrial Complex is that schools are underfunded and teachers are woefully underpaid. However, in the Arizona state 2024 budget, 50% of the total budget is allocated to education which includes K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities.
According to the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee, per student funding at the state, local, and federal levels in fiscal year 2024 is an estimated $14,673 per student. This is up from 2023 funding at $14,025 per student. Contrast that with 2015 which was $9,124 per student.
To put the spending issue into perspective, Mesa Unified, the state’s largest district, is asking for an approval for $500 million in new bonds as well as a 15% budget override. However, the district has $182 million in unspent funds from the 2018 Bond initiative as well as $173 million in unspent COVID relief funds. Couple this with the $863 million the district will receive from the state in fiscal year 2024 and that’s roughly $1.2 billion dollars. Why is the district asking for more?
Despite this funding, the academic achievement for Mesa schools districtwide is abysmal. In 2022, only 38% of students were proficient or highly proficient at English Language arts, and only 31% of students are proficient or highly proficient at math. In addition, the 2022 graduation rate was 76%.
Some might argue that the recent steep inflation devalues the increased education spending by the legislature. But this is a two-way street. After all, taxpayers are also subject to inflation and asking them to keep increasing funding for an obviously broken system is not sustainable.
Finally, history shows that Mesa taxpayers are not anti-education. In 2018, they passed a $300 million dollar bond to increase funding. Fast forward to 2023 and the financial picture for Mesa schools is much healthier. Why are they asking for more money despite the fact that academic scores have remained flat for the last four years? The answer is not additional funding.
Enough is enough. The people of Arizona should reject all bond and override initiatives.
Nancy Cottle is a longtime East Mesa community resident. You can follow her on X here.
At the August 8th governing board meeting for Mesa Public Schools (MPS), conservative board member Rachel Walden was attacked and silenced. Apparently, her line of questioning and discussion of agenda items did not fit the approved district narrative and ruffled the feathers of fellow board member Kiana Sears.
Two of the items pulled from the consent agenda by Mrs. Walden were for the renewal and expansion of non-competitive contracts for mental health services to be provided by A New Leaf and Empact on campus at two district schools. In discussion on the first item, the contract with A New Leaf, Mrs. Walden was questioning the wisdom of giving A New Leaf space in schools to provide mental health services rather than simply referring students in need to mental health services available in the community.
“As difficult as the mental health crisis is, we need to stay in our lane and do everything that we can to improve student outcomes. So where are the afterschool tutoring programs? That’s something I’ve been asking for a long time,” said Mrs. Walden. She continued, “We should focus on what we’re tasked with doing and then we can refer out the other services.”
The reasoning behind this discussion was to point out that by bringing mental health services into the schools, the district would be diluting its resources with activities other than the one that is statutorily mandated, which is education. Mesa Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis remarked, “When we talk about bringing partners into our school system, we use partners only when we have exhausted all of the resources available at the school. That is counselors, social workers, psychologists…that are working to solve the many challenges of children. So, when we have run out of all of our skills and assets, that’s when we would rely upon a community partner.”
Mrs. Walden questioned how the district could be exhausting all resources when it has more than the state average of school counselors. The district has 2.5 times the number of school counselors as the state average on a per student basis.
Superintendent Fourlis commented that having the resources on campuses alleviated logistical issues with parents getting their children to the outside service. She said, “Providing services closest to the student to reduce the amount of instructional time is very important…. Often times, there’s just not enough services available, and so bringing them to school where they can take students out of class for a 30-minute time perhaps versus having to take a half a day out of school, drive, get to an appointment, and so on. It becomes access and convenience for the families.” Mrs. Walden nullified that justification by correctly noting that mental health care providers will come to a student’s home.
In the middle of this exchange between Mrs. Walden and Superintendent Fourlis, otherwise disinterested board member Kiana Sears interrupted the conversation and called for the question essentially silencing Mrs. Walden’s inquiry into the details of the agenda item. The call for the question was seconded by Dr. O’Reilly, thereby ending the discussion and forcing a vote on the agenda item. To his credit, Dr. O’Reilly recognized that seconding the call to the question was a mistake and later apologized to Mrs. Walden for silencing her voice. Mrs. Sears has yet to acknowledge such contrition.
After silencing Mrs. Walden and moving to the vote on renewal and expansion of the contract with A New Leaf, President Hutchinson proceeded to carry water for A New Leaf, lauding its 52 years of service “to our families and our kids” and that it is “very well respected for the decades of work that they have done to keep this community whole.” She went on to say, “A New Leaf has been there, and this is an amazing organization that is local, and they are embedded in our community and in our schools and have been for years, decades as a matter of fact. So, let’s move on to the next agenda item…”
The next agenda item pulled by Mrs. Walden was similar to the first one—the approval of the contract for Empact to provide on-site mental health services on campus. During the discussion, Mrs. Walden questioned how these providers (A New Leaf and Empact) were chosen. Superintendent Fourlis responded, “I will tell you that this is an interesting question. As needs have arised (sic), throughout our community, we have responded, and community partners have responded differently. There is a scarcity of resources available, and so when our schools and our parents are asking for the help, we are grabbing the help that we can. And so there is not a plethora of services…and so to answer your very specific question, we did not do an RFP process.”
Did you catch that? “Community partners responded differently”? Responded to what? Community partners have never received a notice to respond to.
And what does Superintendent Fourlis mean by, “we are grabbing the help where we can”? While she’s making it sound like a desperate grasp for services of a couple of randomly selected organizations, it is actually closer to a pre-arranged preferred selection.
Consider this. Mesa Public Schools and A New Leaf have shared a cozy relationship for years. A New Leaf’s CEO, Michael Hughes, previously served on the governing board of MPS for 20 years from 1994-2014. No doubt, he made lots of close friends in the district during his tenure. In 2021, the MPS Governing Board, including President Hutchinson, approved what appears to be a very favorable lease agreement to A New Leaf for district owned office space. (See image below)
Then, in 2022, no less than 3 members of A New Leaf’s management, including Michael Hughes, donated to President Hutchinson’s re-election campaign. Now in 2023, the governing board, including President Hutchinson, has voted to renew and expand a non-competitive contract for A New Leaf to provide services on MPS campuses. And the narrative the superintendent is pushing is that A New Leaf was chosen because they responded to some non-existent public call for services and that there is a scarcity of services in the community.
As Mrs. Walden was challenging Superintendent Foulis’ claim of scarcity of services, again, disinterested Mrs. Sears interrupted the conversation to express her “outrage” at Mrs. Walden for her line of questioning and discussion. But questions and discussions based on Mrs. Walden’s interactions with her constituents are how a representative government is supposed to operate. She is seemingly the only board member acting as the representative of the community by engaging in such questioning and discussions rather than just rubber stamping every agenda item that is presented.
But that didn’t stop Mrs. Sears from fabricating a false narrative toward the end of the meeting that Mrs. Walden believes the district should just “turn our backs on our parents and our kids.” Mrs. Sears expressed anger at Mrs. Walden based on that false narrative, and this dangerous and dishonest behavior incited community anger toward Mrs. Walden. You would think President Hutchinson, who was presiding over the meeting, would have stopped this unfounded attack on Mrs. Walden. But instead, she allowed it to continue without calling the meeting back to order and telling Mrs. Sears that she was violating the district code of ethics.
Not only is President Hutchinson complicit in Mrs. Sears’ dangerous and dishonest behavior, but it has become clear. Conservative voices in Mesa Public Schools are not welcome. And any conservative who dares to challenge the preferred narrative will be bullied and silenced. It once again goes to show you: elections have consequences, especially at the local level.
You can watch the portion of the meeting discussing A New Leaf below.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
Up to 62 percent of Arizona’s public-school districts and charters have no written plan for maintaining current operations once relief monies run out next September.
Most districts’ lack of preparedness was revealed in an auditor general special report issued last week. 55 percent of those districts and charters revealed the absence of a plan in an auditor general report, with another seven percent failing to respond to the auditor general’s request for a written plan.
The COVID-19 relief funds presented an overall boon to public school districts and charters: from 2020 onward, district fund balances increased by 34 percent ($1.13 billion) and charter fund balances increased by 115 percent ($310 million).
However, the true amount of funding spent or remaining remains a mystery for over one-third of the schools. 213 districts and charters (36 percent) reported relief monies contradicting their reported fund balance.
The auditor general specifically named Gilbert Unified School District (GUSD) and Portable Practice Education Preparation (PPEP) for reporting to have spent all $41.5 million and $4.8 million of their relief funds, respectively. However, the auditor general found that GUSD had used $30.4 million for continuing costs, $24.7 million for salaries and benefits, and a fund balance increase. The auditor general also found that PPEP had only reported $2 million spent for employment retention salaries and benefits with student count declines, and a fund balance increase.
Due to the lack of transparency, the auditor general promised to add additional fund balance/reserve reporting to district and charter fiscal year 2023 annual financial reports and fiscal year 2025 budget forms.
Additionally, 9 districts and 16 charters haven’t corrected their cited noncompliance with statutory reporting requirements. In January, that number was 21 districts and 64 charters. 27 districts and 26 charters didn’t submit required follow-up reporting.
Districts and charters reported spending $2.2 billion of the $4.6 billion in relief funding through last June. The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) only spent 21 percent of its discretionary relief funding as of last June, leaving a remainder of $322 million (79 percent).
The district that received the most relief funding was Mesa Unified School District at $291.6 million, followed by Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) at $289.15 million, Phoenix Union High School District at $182.21 million, Cartwright Elementary School District at $124.76 million, Washington Elementary School District at $119.51 million, and Alhambra Elementary School District at $103.74 million.
Details on school expenditures using COVID relief funds remain murky at best. While the auditor general successfully categorized a number of expenditure types for schools — maintaining operations, mental and medical health, personal protective equipment, technology, school facilities, and food service — there remained the “miscellaneous” or “other” category of expenditures, totaling nearly $121.4 million already spent and over $196.45 million planned for future use.
“Miscellaneous” spending on classroom salaries and benefits totaled $21.66 million, and $23.63 million for other classroom spending. Non-classroom salaries and benefits classified as “miscellaneous” totaled $4.77 million, and $70.8 million for other “miscellaneous” non-classroom expenditures.
As AZ Free News reported last year, districts like Mesa Public Schools (MPS) refused to divulge how millions were issued in expenditures behind labels like “indirect costs,” “other,” and “etc.” MPS claimed it couldn’t produce records that didn’t exist.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction gave an update on the new Empower Hotline from the state’s Department of Education.
On Thursday, Superintendent Tom Horne provided an update on the Empower Hotline program and elaborated on some of the concerns that his staff had fielded since the March launch. According to the Department, “the Empower Hotline allows parents to report inappropriate content being taught that detract from teaching academic standards. These include those that focus on race or ethnicity, rather than individuals and merit, promoting gender ideology, social emotional learning, or inappropriate sexual content.”
In a release sent after the update, the Department made clear that complaints submitted through the Empower Hotline have revealed potential violations to state law and demonstrate that elements of Critical Race Theory are present in the public school system.
Horne issued a statement in conjunction with the press release, saying, “Despite those in ideological groups and some in the media that propagate the urban myth that CRT is not a part of the school system, we have evidence from the empower hotline, that there is enough CRT in our schools to constitute a problem, though it is obviously not universal. We also have evidence that schools have put systems in place to hide or attempt to hide critical personal information from parents about their child. This is in direct violation of Arizona law, A.R.S. §1-602.”
The Arizona Department of Education pointed to three examples of vetted concerns brought to staff through the Empower Hotline. The first came from Mesa, where the Department shared that “a teacher reported through the hotline that the Mesa school district has a training program for teachers that clearly states that certain Americans are ‘living under a system of white supremacy.’” Horne added, “That is a divisive and bigoted statement that has no place in education. We are individuals, entitled to be judged by what we know, what we can do, our character, and not the color of our skin. To its credit, Mesa is in discussion with the Department about this.”
The other two examples occurred in the Catalina Foothills School District and in the Chandler Unified School District. In the Catalina Foothills instance, the Department revealed that a concern was raised regarding “a spreadsheet distributed in this school district with a list of pronouns chosen by students. The email and attached file clearly show the school withholding information from parents contrary to A.R.S. §1-602.”
In Chandler, the Department reported that “a lunch time Gay-Straight Alliance Club was created to discuss gender issues but also included the distribution of emancipation paperwork, which a parent only knew about because parents found it in their students backpack. Both of the above are examples of activity contrary to Arizona law.”
Since assuming office in January, Horne has worked tirelessly to shed light on what children are being taught and exposed to in their schools, giving interested parents the transparency that many have demanded in increasing numbers over the past few years. Horne stated, “Since its inception earlier this year, ADE has been compiling information regarding inappropriate activity occurring in Arizona schools through the Empower Hotline. These complaints have come not just from concerned parents but also from teachers. When parents saw during COVID what students were being taught on their laptop, they were outraged by CRT content, and went to school board meetings, where some were treated rudely. The Employer Hotline directs them to a method to communicate their concerns.”
The Department also communicated that the Hotline had received 30,000 crank calls and emails since its inception in March, promising that “all legitimate complaints received through the Empower Hotline will continue to be accepted and investigated.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Many are surprised to learn that Mesa Public Schools (Unified District #4) has had a co-ed option for restrooms, locker rooms, and overnight facilities since 2015. The district leadership at the time quietly developed a Transgender Support Plan for children. This includes choosing which facilities the child wants to use along with a new name and new pronouns. This plan involves no parental consent or parental notification.
Due to public comment and internal questions, Board President Hutchinson, under the guidance of Superintendent Fourlis, asked for a legal opinion from the Board’s counsel, Udall Shumway. A brief memo was placed on the agenda for the meeting May 9, 2023, and Udall Shumway determined that the Transgender Guidelines stand.
In the meeting I asked about the criteria for a child to be placed on this plan. Kacey King, the district’s counsel said, “for younger children a teacher or counselor might suggest that they put it into writing.” I was shocked at this statement. This is absolutely not the role of teachers or counselors. I have been told that school counselors are simply there to determine what barriers exist that may prohibit classroom learning.
To have a counselor or teacher help put a child on a Transgender Support Plan is simply wrong, particularly without any communication with the parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that parents possess the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children. This right does not belong to any school or staff. Public school offers a service to the community—a service to teach children the academic standards to prepare them for a future to be able to be confident and self-reliant adults. Schools need to stay in their lane if they are going to retain public trust.
Opportunities exist for children to develop personal relationships with counselors and without parental consent. In one such example, the district had an elementary school student who was struggling in math. She would ask to see the counselor during the math lesson. Her mother was never notified because they weren’t official counseling sessions. The mother eventually found out when she confronted the school about her daughter’s below average math performance. No one previously told her that her daughter was behind in math or that she was visiting with a counselor.
Counselors may also have informal visits with children who don’t want to go to lunch or recess with their classmates and decide to visit with a counselor instead. Perhaps a child opens up about personal struggles, then the option exists for that trusted authority figure to guide the child to complete a private Transgender Support Plan. How would the parents know?
There is no other program or plan in the district that is comparable in secrecy or purpose to the Transgender Support Plan. Specialized learning plans, after school clubs, field trips, photographs, all require parental consent. Yet, a student can be given a new identity, and no one will notify the parents?
The main legal justification for these guidelines right now stems from the 9th Circuit case Parents for Privacy v Barr. The court ruled against parental rights, ruled against freedom of religion, and ruled against privacy. I have spoken to attorneys who believe this ruling will be overturned. In the meantime, one of the best courses of action is to make sure our parents are informed. There is no legal argument against notifying parents about a child discussing “gender identity” or any other such topics at school. In fact, the law is on the side of the parents. I will continue this fight for parental rights and transparency.
Rachel Walden is a member of the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board. You can follow her on Twitter here.
