by Jonathan Eberle | Apr 12, 2025 | Education, News
By Jonathan Eberle |
A bill designed to direct more tax revenue toward Arizona’s K-12 classrooms has been vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs, prompting criticism from Republican lawmakers who say the measure would have strengthened public education funding.
SB 1050, sponsored by Senator Vince Leach (R-LD17), sought to amend the Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) program by prohibiting the abatement of school district-designated tax revenues. Under current law, cities and towns can lease government-owned property to private developers with reduced tax obligations, an incentive intended to promote commercial development.
The bill would have excluded school-related tax revenues from such incentives, allowing those funds to flow directly to local school districts instead of being waived under development agreements.
“This was a missed opportunity by the Governor,” said Leach. “She says she supports education funding, but her veto suggests otherwise.”
In her veto letter, Governor Hobbs explained that SB 1050 could “stunt Arizona’s economic development” by weakening a tool used by local governments to attract private investment. The GPLET program, though controversial, has been credited with revitalizing parts of urban Arizona by lowering upfront development costs in exchange for long-term gains.
Arizona schools continue to face funding pressures despite recent increases to the state’s education budget. Republican lawmakers have often pushed for reallocating existing tax revenues, while Democrats have generally sought new funding sources or changes to the state’s tax structure.
SB 1050 passed both legislative chambers before being vetoed, signaling at least some bipartisan concern about the balance between development incentives and education funding.
Senator Leach and other supporters of the bill may pursue similar legislation in future sessions or attempt a veto override, although success would require significant bipartisan support. Meanwhile, the broader debate over how to equitably fund Arizona’s public schools is likely to continue.
“This is about priorities,” Leach said. “We should be making sure our tax dollars are going to classrooms, not corporate subsidies.”
The Governor’s office has not indicated whether alternative proposals to increase school funding through tax reforms are in the works.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jan 31, 2025 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
School funding is a hot topic at the Arizona Legislature as the 57th Regular Session prepares to launch into its second month.
Arizona lawmakers and the Governor’s Office are wrestling over the looming expiration date for Proposition 123, which has helped fund the state’s K-12 schools since it was established under the previous Ducey administration.
One legislator in particular, Senator J.D. Mesnard, noted this deadline in the weekly newsletter published by Arizona Senate Republicans, saying, “With a new session comes a new opportunity to work on bills that may not have reached the finish line in the year prior. As such, I’m again working on a Proposition 123 extension plan to send to the ballot. This measure was first approved by voters in 2016. It allows a larger percentage from the state land trust to be distributed to our K-12 schools. Prop. 123 is set to expire this summer. With this in mind, Republicans backfilled the money allocated each year to K-12 schools within the last state budget, nearly $300 million, so there are no disruptions to this funding stream.”
Mesnard added, “The new Prop. 123 I’m proposing would be additional dollars on top of what we backfilled. My colleagues and I would like this money to go directly to teacher pay raises, with a goal of each educator receiving an additional $4,000 annually. I will keep you posted on the progress of Proposition 123 as well as other commonsense legislation that will hopefully receive the Governor’s signature.”
In Governor Katie Hobbs’ recent State of the State address, she touched on the vital importance of Prop 123, saying, “We must address the impending expiration of Prop 123, which provides critical funding for public schools and teachers. Renewing it is essential. If we fail to act, we are throwing away an opportunity to fund teacher pay raises and give Arizona’s children the opportunity they deserve – all without raising taxes on a single Arizonan. When Prop 123 originally passed, it was a bipartisan success and proved that Republicans and Democrats could come together and do the right thing for our students, teachers, and parents. So let’s put our kids first again and provide the certainty they and our schools need. Let’s address the Aggregate Expenditure Limit to make sure schools stay open. Let’s pass a Prop 123 extension to fund our schools without raising taxes.”
Following the Governor’s speech to both chambers of the Arizona Legislature, Senate President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope offered one of the Republican responses to her proposal. He said, “We will take action to equip our K-12 schools with quality educators at the front of every classroom by using a Proposition 123 renewal to increase teacher pay above the national average.”
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has also weighed in on the Prop 123 debate. Earlier this month, he posted, “We must renew Prop 123 and increase the income from the land trust, which is overflowing with money, to increase teacher salaries.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jan 6, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
What accounts for the differences in academic achievement between inner-city poverty area schools and high-income public schools? We‘ve all heard of the dreadful schools in cities like Chicago and Baltimore with no children in the entire school able to achieve even baseline levels of competence in math or verbal skills and many other schools with a third at most achieving at grade level.
Many would assume funding is the major determinant, but the facts don’t back that up. American public schools have traditionally been funded by local property taxes, which provide a clear advantage to the wealthy. But that was then. Today, education funding is complex, with federal funding for special programs, equalization formulas, and other inputs making it difficult for even experts to determine the bottom line.
A recent study from the Urban Institute confirmed other research showing that “when considering federal, state and local funding,” all states but three “allocate more per student funding to poor kids than to non-poor kids.” Moreover, researchers from Harvard and Stanford found that each extra $1,000 per pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of 1/10 of one percent of a standard deviation. In other words, more spending and more learning are essentially unrelated.
If more spending did produce more achievement, we would be morally obligated to provide it. As it is, we must look for other reasons to explain the achievement gap, examining how well the allocated funds are used. Education researcher Jay Greene observes that “wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefits for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”
Effective schools, whenever possible, prioritize the learning interests of students, eschewing the fads and misconceptions that plague the public school establishment. When a Stanford education professor helpfully developed an “equity-based” curriculum proposal, gullible California educators issued guidance against students taking algebra courses before high school.
After decades of the promotion of “context-based” reading instruction, it became obvious that the old-fashioned phonics instruction produced better readers. The Columbia University center that pushed context-based instruction was finally closed in 2023.
The devastating COVID closures demanded by the teachers’ unions disproportionately affected low-income public school students. The closures lasted longer and caused more learning loss for poor students than for those in private schools and more upscale districts.
The different, more “lenient” treatment afforded to low-income kids is evident also in the cellphone bans proliferating in the schools. Educators are suddenly realizing, after 20 years or so, that daily staring at a small screen bearing social media messages is not healthy for the developing brain.
According to advisories from the Surgeon General, UNESCO, and others, adolescent cell phone usage impairs academic achievement by distracting students’ attention from classroom instruction. Chronic cell phone overuse is also isolating and interferes with normal social development. Widespread cell phone use is associated with higher rates of teenage depression and suicide.
Eight states and many school districts have imposed cell phone bans, and others, including Arizona, are considering legislation. But there are objections. Parents feel the need to “keep in touch” with their children. Phones are also needed to locate friends in the lunchroom (yes, really). More seriously, parents worry about not having contact in a school shooting, even though the chances of any student encountering even one during their entire school life is vanishingly small.
The bigger problem is that legislative cell phone bans are typically so loose and riddled with exceptions that they are practically useless. California, with great fanfare from Governor Gavin Newsom, passed a bill that only required schools to “adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smart phones by July 2026.” Any school with even an insignificant modification in cell phone usage would be legally in compliance, and enforcement would be a snap. Helicopter parents would still be in business. Florida’s ban is limited to classroom time only.
Private schools and high-end public schools pushed ahead with their own rules, which typically are more comprehensive and tightly written. Strict, uniform restrictions are easier for both teachers and students to understand. Meanwhile, poor students once again are saddled with misdirected compassion and low expectations.
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.
by Terri Jo Neff | Aug 18, 2021 | Education, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Starting this Friday, low-income families with K-12 students will be able to apply online for up to $7,000 in immediate relief to support educational opportunities which will close the achievement gap and better equip underserved students.
Gov. Doug Ducey announced Tuesday an initial $10 million investment for Arizona’s COVID-19 Educational Recovery Benefit program. The funding – on a first come, first serve basis – will provide choice for families facing financial and educational barriers due to unnecessary closures and school mandates which do not comply with state law.
“Our COVID-19 Educational Recovery Benefit will empower parents to exercise their choice when it comes to their child’s education and COVID-19 mitigation strategies,” Ducey said. “It will also give families in need the opportunity to access educational resources like tutoring, child care, transportation and other needs.”
According to the governor’s office, Ducey has been working for weeks to create an additional program to provide more education options for families.
Eligible families can have a total household income up to 350 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In addition, applicants must demonstrate the student’s current school is isolating, quarantining, or subjecting children to physical in-school COVID-19 constraints such as mask mandates or preferential treatment of vaccinated students.
“We know that historically disadvantaged communities bear the brunt of excessive and overbearing measures, and we want to ensure these students are protected,” Ducey said.
The COVID-19 Educational Recovery Benefit program has the full support of Senate President Karen Fann and House Speaker Rusty Bowers.
“Educators, families and state leaders are working hard to get students back on track, and the Educational Recovery Benefit program will make sure kids have every opportunity to grow and thrive,” said Fann.
Bowers noted the desire to keep children “safe, healthy, and achieving” during the pandemic, adding that with the new program, “we can do it all at the same time.”
Grant applications can be submitted starting Friday. Additional information is available at https://arizonatogether.org/educationalrecoverybenefit/
by Terri Jo Neff | Jun 27, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
When the State House voted Friday to pass HB2898, the K-12 Education budget bill, it marked the end of a grueling process that resulted in passage of a $12.8 billion budget package for Fiscal Year 2022.
A key provision of HB2898 is the establishment of new academic standards for K-12 students in the area of civics. There was also funding for a number of special programs for students and a variety of new rules for school board and school districts.
But much of the debate about the bill centered on whether more money should have been allocated.
Rep. Aaron Lieberman (D-LD28) acknowledged HB2898 includes “a lot of money,” but he argued it was not enough. Lieberman noted 2,000 classrooms across the state do not have assigned, permanent teachers, something he said could be remedied by spending one-fourth of the state’s $2 billion surplus.
“It’s clear now more than ever we need every dollar,” Lieberman said in voting against the bill.
However, Rep. Bret Roberts (R-LD11) questioned why more focus is not on the decisions of school boards who spend the billions of dollars provided each year through federal funding and from the legislature.
“Why are we not asking the school boards why they’re not giving the money that the legislature sends to the school boards to the teachers?” he asked on the floor. “Why are we not holding the school boards responsible for the money that we send them to give to the teachers? When are the teachers going to hold the school boards responsible?”
Rep. Walt Blackman (R-LD6) expressed similar frustration, noting that many of the chamber’s 24 Democrats who were present Friday complained the funding in HB2898 was too low. So they simply voted against the bill.
Blackman acknowledged K-12 funding in the bill “may not be enough” but said those representatives who vote green -yes- are demonstrating they “support education by action.” Which is why he was disturbed to see so many red -no- votes.
Democrats may give myriad reasons for what is wrong in HB2898 or what could be done differently, he said, “but if we are really dedicated to teaching our children K-12, and that is a non-partisan issue, then why do we have red votes?”
“This can’t be an issue where we are upset and we take our marbles and we go home because we don’t have enough marbles to play,” Blackman said, adding that all of the votes should be green because “nothing is perfect.”
The House K-12 Education bill will now be transmitted to the Senate, which last week passed its own education bill. There is now one significant difference between the bills which will need to be reconciled.
That difference involves a major expansion of the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) which is currently available to about 250,000 students. The Senate’s budget bill added two eligibility criteria which would make ESAs an option to 700,000 students, including children from Title 1 schools where at least 40 percent of the families are considered low-income.
However, three Republicans in the House voted against an amendment which would have included the ESA expansion in HB2898. The amendment died without those votes and the three Republicans also voted against a later attempt to insert the failed amendment into the main bill just prior to final voting.
Sen. Paul Boyer (R-LD20) is a teacher and a major supporter of ESA legislation. He took to Twitter after the House vote to express his disappointment with the ESA decision.
“Meanwhile, minority students are 6 to 12 months behind their white counterparts. This defeat of ESAs for Title I students makes sure those same students never leave the school that’s failing them,” Boyer tweeted.
