GROE NOTE: I recently received the endorsement of the Lake Havasu Republican Assembly after successfully answering the following questions. I am tremendously proud to have the Republican Assembly endorsement. When I get a bit of time, in the next day or so, I will print my answers to their pointed questions.
1. What in your opinion is the purpose of government?
2. Please name top issues you are most concerned about.
3. Explain your stand on the Second Amendment.
4. In your opinion, what is the role of gaming in Arizona?
5. Do you have any environmental concerns and what are they?
6. Are there any areas of spending that should be increased?
7. Name at least 3 things you hope to accomplish by running for your particular office.
8. Would you co-sponsor a bill to outlaw abortion? Will you vote to outlaw abortion?
9. Would you support government benefits to unmarried but cohabitating individuals…?
10. What would you say is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic?
11. Explain your views on current immigration policies; what if any changes would you make?
12. Do you favor the participation of the United States in international government?
13. Do you think we need federal help for our crime problems in Arizona?
14. What % of land in AZ should belong to the federal government? the state? private hands?
15. What is the role of state government in protecting private property?
16. Where do you think we need to increase state welfare?
17. What is your opinion of tax breaks for big businesses over small businesses?
18. What is the role of government in lower education, i.e. kindergarten through 12th grade?
19. What is your stand on the Governor’s plan to increase tax dollars to help state education costs? Do you feel the necessity to change the method of funding education in Arizona?
20. How would you improve the state highway system?
21. Do you favor a Balanced Budget Amendment?
22. How would you interpret the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights?
23. Do you favor a Constitutional Convention?
24. What is the role of the state in providing language learning of non-English-speaking students?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Easy Ways to Stay Informed
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is an fiscally conservative organization that sends out email updates during the Arizona Legislative Session discussing the pros & cons of proposed legislation. I am almost always in agreement with their position. If you click on the red circled envelope at the bottom right corner of their website, you can sign up for their email updates.
Americans For Prosperity or, as the Arizona Chapter is known, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, is also a great source of information during the legislative session. Tom Jenney, the ATF’s president, sends out email updates on budget issues & legislative proposals that effect the taxpayer. Some of his emails serve as “action alerts” so that you can organize a group of like-minded folks to call or email legislators.
The Goldwater Institute sends emails almost daily during session about all types of legislative proposals, weighing in on both fiscal & social proposals. They also rate legislators each year & compile a scorecard, much like Americans for Prosperity/Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.
Americans For Prosperity or, as the Arizona Chapter is known, Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, is also a great source of information during the legislative session. Tom Jenney, the ATF’s president, sends out email updates on budget issues & legislative proposals that effect the taxpayer. Some of his emails serve as “action alerts” so that you can organize a group of like-minded folks to call or email legislators.
The Goldwater Institute sends emails almost daily during session about all types of legislative proposals, weighing in on both fiscal & social proposals. They also rate legislators each year & compile a scorecard, much like Americans for Prosperity/Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.
Groe Named Top Champion of the Taxpayer
Groe Note: WOW!!!! After catching your breath and regaining your balance, make sure you check out the complete scorecard. You might be quite surprised at the scores of some fellow republicans.
Arizona’s FY 2008-2009 state budget, which is more than a billion dollars over budget, produced sharp divisions in legislators’ scores on the 24th annual “Friend of the Taxpayer” Legislative Scorecard, sponsored by the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), formerly the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. Legislators voting against the budget bills scored an average of 82 percent, while legislators voting in favor scored an average of 10 percent.
The top award stayed in Lake Havasu City, with Rep. Trish Groe narrowly beating out Sen. Ron Gould, who earned the top spot the last three years in a row. Joining Groe and Gould in the category “Hero of the Taxpayer” were Gilbert Reps. Andy Biggs and Eddie Farnsworth, scoring 90 percent or higher.
To view the complete Scorecard, visit http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/2008azlegislativescorecard.pdf.
With their combined high scores, Mohave County legislators Groe, Gould, and McLain made Legislative District 3 the highest-scoring district in the state. In second place was LD 22 (Gilbert), and in third place was LD 9 (Glendale/Peoria/Sun City). The average Republican legislator scored 70 percent (Friend of the Taxpayer), while the average Democratic legislator scored 9 percent (Hero of Big Government). Last year’s Party averages were 65 percent and 32 percent, respectively.
Widening the divide in scores were the failure of the Governor and legislative majorities to prevent a possible $300 million increase in property taxes next year, advance school choice legislation, allow for private enterprise to provide for Arizona’s transportation infrastructure, or enact budget reforms that would help to rein in runaway spending.
For AFP-AZ, the brightest spot in the 2008 Legislative Session was the passage of transparency legislation that will allow Arizona taxpayers to go online and view all state expenditures made to all vendors. AFP-AZ hopes the 2009 Session will extend transparency to the county and city levels.
For the second year in a row, Rep. Steve Farley (R-Tucson) was at the bottom of the scorecard, this time with a score of 3 percent. Farley, who received last year’s Empty Wallet Award, secured his spot at the bottom by casting the lone vote against the transparency legislation.
Contact: Tom Jenney, (602) 478-0146, or Phil Kerpen (202) 349-5796
Arizona’s FY 2008-2009 state budget, which is more than a billion dollars over budget, produced sharp divisions in legislators’ scores on the 24th annual “Friend of the Taxpayer” Legislative Scorecard, sponsored by the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), formerly the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. Legislators voting against the budget bills scored an average of 82 percent, while legislators voting in favor scored an average of 10 percent.
The top award stayed in Lake Havasu City, with Rep. Trish Groe narrowly beating out Sen. Ron Gould, who earned the top spot the last three years in a row. Joining Groe and Gould in the category “Hero of the Taxpayer” were Gilbert Reps. Andy Biggs and Eddie Farnsworth, scoring 90 percent or higher.
To view the complete Scorecard, visit http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/filemanager/files/az/2008azlegislativescorecard.pdf.
With their combined high scores, Mohave County legislators Groe, Gould, and McLain made Legislative District 3 the highest-scoring district in the state. In second place was LD 22 (Gilbert), and in third place was LD 9 (Glendale/Peoria/Sun City). The average Republican legislator scored 70 percent (Friend of the Taxpayer), while the average Democratic legislator scored 9 percent (Hero of Big Government). Last year’s Party averages were 65 percent and 32 percent, respectively.
Widening the divide in scores were the failure of the Governor and legislative majorities to prevent a possible $300 million increase in property taxes next year, advance school choice legislation, allow for private enterprise to provide for Arizona’s transportation infrastructure, or enact budget reforms that would help to rein in runaway spending.
For AFP-AZ, the brightest spot in the 2008 Legislative Session was the passage of transparency legislation that will allow Arizona taxpayers to go online and view all state expenditures made to all vendors. AFP-AZ hopes the 2009 Session will extend transparency to the county and city levels.
For the second year in a row, Rep. Steve Farley (R-Tucson) was at the bottom of the scorecard, this time with a score of 3 percent. Farley, who received last year’s Empty Wallet Award, secured his spot at the bottom by casting the lone vote against the transparency legislation.
Contact: Tom Jenney, (602) 478-0146, or Phil Kerpen (202) 349-5796
Monday, August 18, 2008
State Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Today, once again, I committed to the taxpayers of Legislative District 3 and to all of the people of this state that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes by signing the State Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
A complete list of signers of the pledge can be found on the following link:
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/july/071508ot-stateincumbentslist.pdf
Senator Gould's name appears on the list. One notable name missing? That of my seatmate...CURIOUS.
A complete list of signers of the pledge can be found on the following link:
http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/july/071508ot-stateincumbentslist.pdf
Senator Gould's name appears on the list. One notable name missing? That of my seatmate...CURIOUS.
Quick Facts on Education
Have you ever wondered how much of the state’s general fund budget they believe goes to education?
The reality is that the Legislature appropriates over 50% of the state’s general fund monies for education!
The Legislature appropriated 41% of general fund dollars to K-12 education ($4.3 billion) and 11% ($1.1 billion) to universities. [1]
(Caveat: Federal funds are outside the Legislature’s control. Educational programs and many, many other state programs receive federal funds (like welfare programs). When you add together all legislatively appropriated state general fund dollars and all other funds such as federal funds, then the state spends 21% of all funds for K-12 education and 12% on universities. Either way, K-12 education is the top funded item in Arizona.)
**To clarify the data presented, the average per pupil funding quoted includes all funding (maintenance and operations and capital) from all sources (federal, state and local), and represents a statewide average. Although I do not have the district by district breakdown for all funding sources and expenditures in front of me, I do have district reported data for FY 2007 for maintenance and operations spending, and this includes teachers' and teachers' aides' salaries and benefits, instructional supplies, instructional aids (textbooks, software, etc.) and activities. This constitutes classroom dollars, and excludes administration, food service, support services (counselors, librarians, etc), transportation and building operation and maintenance (this is non-classroom). Again, this is self-reported data from the school districts for FY 2007. As you know, an average is calculated by taking the total expenditures and dividing that by the number of students. An average does not represent an exact amount, and some districts will always be above the average and some below and there are many reasons for this average.
The statewide average for the classroom dollars in FY 2007 was $4,277 (again, this number does not include the items listed above) and total dollars was $7,382 (the discrepancy can be accounted for in lots of ways as some items are not accounted for in different comparisons, ie. this number may not include all sources of revenue, but looks at expenditures while the original number quoted is revenue per student from all sources). For Bullhead City Elementary, the classroom dollars average per pupil was $3,728 (total was $6,218) and for Lake Havasu City Unified the average was $4,040 (total was $6,598). There is no single reason why these districts are at these amounts, as the complexity of school funding and expenditures prevents an analysis of generalized data. Additionally, some school districts levy local taxes while others do not, thus raising the averages over those that do not levy locally. For Bullhead City Elementary, some of this difference may be in the average teacher years of experience (5.8 years) versus the state average (8.1 years) which can affect the average teacher salary ($38,700 versus state average of $43,833) and classroom dollars.
These districts would need to do a detailed analysis of their revenues and expenditures in order to determine if they are maximizing their available dollars.
As for school building renewal monies, these amounts have been cut in the past due to the failure of school districts to use the funds that they had been provided, and the federal courts have upheld that this failure to use these monies, along with failing to provide proof that these funds are necessary, have allowed the Governor and the Legislature to cut these funds.
The reality is that the Legislature appropriates over 50% of the state’s general fund monies for education!
The Legislature appropriated 41% of general fund dollars to K-12 education ($4.3 billion) and 11% ($1.1 billion) to universities. [1]
(Caveat: Federal funds are outside the Legislature’s control. Educational programs and many, many other state programs receive federal funds (like welfare programs). When you add together all legislatively appropriated state general fund dollars and all other funds such as federal funds, then the state spends 21% of all funds for K-12 education and 12% on universities. Either way, K-12 education is the top funded item in Arizona.)
**To clarify the data presented, the average per pupil funding quoted includes all funding (maintenance and operations and capital) from all sources (federal, state and local), and represents a statewide average. Although I do not have the district by district breakdown for all funding sources and expenditures in front of me, I do have district reported data for FY 2007 for maintenance and operations spending, and this includes teachers' and teachers' aides' salaries and benefits, instructional supplies, instructional aids (textbooks, software, etc.) and activities. This constitutes classroom dollars, and excludes administration, food service, support services (counselors, librarians, etc), transportation and building operation and maintenance (this is non-classroom). Again, this is self-reported data from the school districts for FY 2007. As you know, an average is calculated by taking the total expenditures and dividing that by the number of students. An average does not represent an exact amount, and some districts will always be above the average and some below and there are many reasons for this average.
The statewide average for the classroom dollars in FY 2007 was $4,277 (again, this number does not include the items listed above) and total dollars was $7,382 (the discrepancy can be accounted for in lots of ways as some items are not accounted for in different comparisons, ie. this number may not include all sources of revenue, but looks at expenditures while the original number quoted is revenue per student from all sources). For Bullhead City Elementary, the classroom dollars average per pupil was $3,728 (total was $6,218) and for Lake Havasu City Unified the average was $4,040 (total was $6,598). There is no single reason why these districts are at these amounts, as the complexity of school funding and expenditures prevents an analysis of generalized data. Additionally, some school districts levy local taxes while others do not, thus raising the averages over those that do not levy locally. For Bullhead City Elementary, some of this difference may be in the average teacher years of experience (5.8 years) versus the state average (8.1 years) which can affect the average teacher salary ($38,700 versus state average of $43,833) and classroom dollars.
These districts would need to do a detailed analysis of their revenues and expenditures in order to determine if they are maximizing their available dollars.
As for school building renewal monies, these amounts have been cut in the past due to the failure of school districts to use the funds that they had been provided, and the federal courts have upheld that this failure to use these monies, along with failing to provide proof that these funds are necessary, have allowed the Governor and the Legislature to cut these funds.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Superintendent Horne on the AIMS Test
NOTE: As I am attempting to answer the 474+ emails in my legislative inbox, I came across this letter from Tom Horne, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction. The letter is dated July, 9, 2008 ~ about a week or so after session ended.
OPEN LETTER TO STATE LEGISLATORS REGARDING THE AIMS TEST
I. The AIMS Test is Our Only Mechanism for Holding Schools Accountable.
In a poll required and financed by the state legislature, the public was asked “Do you favor or oppose using statewide tests to determine how schools are performing?” Sixty-six percent favored, 30 percent opposed, and 4 percent had no opinion. Carolyn Warner[1] had CUES, Diane Bishop* dumped that and started ASAP, Lisa Graham Keegan* dumped that and started AIMS. When you keep dumping what you have and start something new, there are enormous start up costs each time, there is no opportunity for stability and continuous improvement, and teachers take nothing seriously because they know it will soon be replaced. We have now had AIMS for 12 years, and have the opportunity for continuous improvement.
AIMS is the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards. To understand AIMS, one must understand the standards movement throughout the country.
II. The Standards Movement.
The quality of public education in the United States began sinking in the 1960s, and the downward trend accelerated. One of the great qualities of a representative republic is its capacity for self correction. The public noticed how little high school graduates knew, and demanded a change. That change was the standards movement.
Standards are developed by teachers brought together from around the state, and ultimately approved by the State Board. They set out in detail what every student should know and be able to do in a given subject at a given grade level. You can review the performance objectives for any grade in any subject at our website www.azed.gov, click on “Standards.” Teachers are now teaching the academic standards to their students.
Every question on the AIMS test is a measurement of a performance objective. This is what makes AIMS unique. AIMS is the only test where you know the students have been taught the subject of the test questions, because the teachers have agreed to teach the standards, and every question is a measurement of a standard. That is why AIMS is the only test that can fairly hold schools, teachers, and students accountable.
AIMS is no longer a secret test. You can take a sample AIMS test by going to www.azed.gov “AIMS – Take the Test.”
III. Was the AIMS Test “Dumbed Down?”
Some people charged that the AIMS has lost value because it has been “dumbed down.” But last year there were 3,000 students whose teachers had given them passing grades, and who had the credits to graduate, but who could not pass the AIMS test after five tries. The same people who claim that AIMS has lost value because it has been dumbed down, often support the decision of the governor to sign a bill that permitted these same students to graduate with “augmentation” using the subjective grades that they received from teachers. You can’t have it both ways. If the AIMS test is too easy, or was dumbed down, then the governor should not have signed a bill permitting graduation by the students who could not pass an objective test, based on subjective grades given by teachers.
The difficulty of the test has not been changed since 2005. In 2005, the AIMS tests had to be revised because for the first time we had standards for every grade level, and needed new AIMS tests to assess these new standards. That is the only change since the test started in 1996, except high school math in 2001.
The method used to determine the cut scores (the percentage of right answers needed to pass) had to follow certain standards, as required by the federal government. The determinations were initially made by task forces of teachers drawn from all over the state, who decided what level of difficulty constituted “proficient.” This then had to be approved by the State Board.
The level of difficulty for grades three through seven did not change significantly. Eighth grade math had always had a much higher failure rate than all other grades, (including high school) and its failure rate was brought into line with the other grade levels. In high school math, I thought the recommendation of the teachers reduced the level of difficulty too much and recommended to the State Board that a higher level be applied. The vote was eight to one against me. The other eight board members wanted to follow the process that had been set up with the teachers, and I can understand their position. I still believe I was right. But understand that if the Board voted as I recommended, the number of students with the credits to graduate who could not graduate because they did not pass the AIMS test would have been higher than 6,000. Here again, no one can consistently criticize the Board’s decision, yet support the governor’s decision to allow students to graduate who had not passed the AIMS test.
The only way I could have seen to it that the level of difficulty was higher in the recommendation that went to the State Board would have been to limit the task force to a group of elite teachers, rather than the diverse group that we did use. I believe that would have been wrong.
IV. Is AIMS a “Bad” Test?
Some people have been quoted as saying that AIMS is a “bad” test. There is absolutely no basis for their saying that, and it is a totally false statement. Although Arizona teachers write the questions, the psychometrics are validated by one of the largest two companies in the country in that field. Knowing that we could be sued over students not graduating, as many other states have been, we have had a national advisory board of the very top national leaders in psychometrics approve every step that we take. Under No Child Left Behind, the federal government must approve the standards-based test (in our case AIMS) that every state must have. Arizona was one of the first ten states approved out of 50 states. The Fordham Foundation is the principal institution for ranking standards. Arizona standards ranked 7th out of 49 states. Arizona ranks first out of 50 states in the category “curricular content, standards-based reform, and school choice.”
V. AIMS Rewards Not Only Proficiency, But Also Excellence.
To be a highly performing or excelling school, the school must have not only a given percentage of students proficient, but also a given percentage of students as exceeding proficiency. Students who exceed on all three AIMS tests, and meet certain other academic requirements, receive a full tuition scholarship at our state universities. 3,800 students now receive this benefit, and I believe their families are appreciative.
VI. 2:00 A.M. Legislation Is Not Good Public Policy.
At approximately 2:00 A.M. the night that the Senate passed its budget, a provision was added regarding the AIMS test. It called for a task force to study switching from AIMS to something new called AAAT. It would combine current AIMS questions with the ACT college entrance test, as is now done in Michigan. It prohibited the State Board from entering into any contracts for the AIMS test for more than one year.
Representative Crandall, a member of the governor’s P-20 Council, has bragged to the media that he got the Senate to add this provision to the budget at about 2:00 A.M. He has bragged further that he had previously met with education stakeholder groups about this provision, but carefully kept it secret from the Department of Education, because he feels that I am an obstructionist. I am not a committee chair, and I do not have the power to obstruct anything. I only have the power to give you information, because the Department of Education has detailed information that can be valuable to you in making decisions about education. His purpose was to keep you ignorant of the information that I could have provided you, and that you could have considered before making a decision. This is not good public policy making.
Here is what I could have told you had I been given the opportunity.
First, there was no need to restrict the State Board from entering into a contract for more than one year for AIMS. Even if you were to decide to adopt the AAAT test, the fastest that it could be implemented would be 2012 (see Exhibit A, showing the time line).
Second, we are in the fifth year of our current five-year contract for the AIMS test. We were ready to send out bids for a new five-year contract. When the bid can only be for one year, the costs become prohibitively high. Asking vendors to submit a bid every year means the vendor will have to charge much more to recoup the costs of developing and managing the test.
Third, Arizona’s cost for all of its statewide tests (both AIMS and TerraNova) is about $11 per student. Michigan, the state that the 2:00 A.M. provision seeks to copy, anticipates its cost next year at $115 per student – TEN TIMES AS MUCH. (See Exhibit B, document received from the Michigan Department of Education.)
Fourth, Michigan made a presentation to the Council of Chief State School Officers regarding this combining of the statewide test with the ACT. Exhibit C is a copy of one of the pages from the Michigan PowerPoint. It states:
Sticker Shock
· Lobbying claims
· ACT-based NCLB test will be less expensive
· Better aligned to Michigan standards
· Take less time to administer
· Reality
· More than triple the cost
· Requires significant augmentation
· Takes significantly more time to administer
I do not deny that there can be benefits from combining the statewide test with the ACT. I believe that reasonable people can differ about it, and I am certainly willing to study it with an open mind. But making a policy decision like this, which ties the Board’s hands to a one-year contract and thereby makes Arizona’s cost skyrocket, at 2:00 A.M. so that legislators can be kept ignorant of any input from the Department of Education, is not good public policy making.
Tom Horne Superintendent Tom Horne Arizona Department of Education 1535 W. Jefferson Street, Bin #2 Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-5460 (602) 542-5440 Email: tom.horne@azed.gov
[1] For the more youthful readers: these are former state school superintendents.
OPEN LETTER TO STATE LEGISLATORS REGARDING THE AIMS TEST
I. The AIMS Test is Our Only Mechanism for Holding Schools Accountable.
In a poll required and financed by the state legislature, the public was asked “Do you favor or oppose using statewide tests to determine how schools are performing?” Sixty-six percent favored, 30 percent opposed, and 4 percent had no opinion. Carolyn Warner[1] had CUES, Diane Bishop* dumped that and started ASAP, Lisa Graham Keegan* dumped that and started AIMS. When you keep dumping what you have and start something new, there are enormous start up costs each time, there is no opportunity for stability and continuous improvement, and teachers take nothing seriously because they know it will soon be replaced. We have now had AIMS for 12 years, and have the opportunity for continuous improvement.
AIMS is the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards. To understand AIMS, one must understand the standards movement throughout the country.
II. The Standards Movement.
The quality of public education in the United States began sinking in the 1960s, and the downward trend accelerated. One of the great qualities of a representative republic is its capacity for self correction. The public noticed how little high school graduates knew, and demanded a change. That change was the standards movement.
Standards are developed by teachers brought together from around the state, and ultimately approved by the State Board. They set out in detail what every student should know and be able to do in a given subject at a given grade level. You can review the performance objectives for any grade in any subject at our website www.azed.gov, click on “Standards.” Teachers are now teaching the academic standards to their students.
Every question on the AIMS test is a measurement of a performance objective. This is what makes AIMS unique. AIMS is the only test where you know the students have been taught the subject of the test questions, because the teachers have agreed to teach the standards, and every question is a measurement of a standard. That is why AIMS is the only test that can fairly hold schools, teachers, and students accountable.
AIMS is no longer a secret test. You can take a sample AIMS test by going to www.azed.gov “AIMS – Take the Test.”
III. Was the AIMS Test “Dumbed Down?”
Some people charged that the AIMS has lost value because it has been “dumbed down.” But last year there were 3,000 students whose teachers had given them passing grades, and who had the credits to graduate, but who could not pass the AIMS test after five tries. The same people who claim that AIMS has lost value because it has been dumbed down, often support the decision of the governor to sign a bill that permitted these same students to graduate with “augmentation” using the subjective grades that they received from teachers. You can’t have it both ways. If the AIMS test is too easy, or was dumbed down, then the governor should not have signed a bill permitting graduation by the students who could not pass an objective test, based on subjective grades given by teachers.
The difficulty of the test has not been changed since 2005. In 2005, the AIMS tests had to be revised because for the first time we had standards for every grade level, and needed new AIMS tests to assess these new standards. That is the only change since the test started in 1996, except high school math in 2001.
The method used to determine the cut scores (the percentage of right answers needed to pass) had to follow certain standards, as required by the federal government. The determinations were initially made by task forces of teachers drawn from all over the state, who decided what level of difficulty constituted “proficient.” This then had to be approved by the State Board.
The level of difficulty for grades three through seven did not change significantly. Eighth grade math had always had a much higher failure rate than all other grades, (including high school) and its failure rate was brought into line with the other grade levels. In high school math, I thought the recommendation of the teachers reduced the level of difficulty too much and recommended to the State Board that a higher level be applied. The vote was eight to one against me. The other eight board members wanted to follow the process that had been set up with the teachers, and I can understand their position. I still believe I was right. But understand that if the Board voted as I recommended, the number of students with the credits to graduate who could not graduate because they did not pass the AIMS test would have been higher than 6,000. Here again, no one can consistently criticize the Board’s decision, yet support the governor’s decision to allow students to graduate who had not passed the AIMS test.
The only way I could have seen to it that the level of difficulty was higher in the recommendation that went to the State Board would have been to limit the task force to a group of elite teachers, rather than the diverse group that we did use. I believe that would have been wrong.
IV. Is AIMS a “Bad” Test?
Some people have been quoted as saying that AIMS is a “bad” test. There is absolutely no basis for their saying that, and it is a totally false statement. Although Arizona teachers write the questions, the psychometrics are validated by one of the largest two companies in the country in that field. Knowing that we could be sued over students not graduating, as many other states have been, we have had a national advisory board of the very top national leaders in psychometrics approve every step that we take. Under No Child Left Behind, the federal government must approve the standards-based test (in our case AIMS) that every state must have. Arizona was one of the first ten states approved out of 50 states. The Fordham Foundation is the principal institution for ranking standards. Arizona standards ranked 7th out of 49 states. Arizona ranks first out of 50 states in the category “curricular content, standards-based reform, and school choice.”
V. AIMS Rewards Not Only Proficiency, But Also Excellence.
To be a highly performing or excelling school, the school must have not only a given percentage of students proficient, but also a given percentage of students as exceeding proficiency. Students who exceed on all three AIMS tests, and meet certain other academic requirements, receive a full tuition scholarship at our state universities. 3,800 students now receive this benefit, and I believe their families are appreciative.
VI. 2:00 A.M. Legislation Is Not Good Public Policy.
At approximately 2:00 A.M. the night that the Senate passed its budget, a provision was added regarding the AIMS test. It called for a task force to study switching from AIMS to something new called AAAT. It would combine current AIMS questions with the ACT college entrance test, as is now done in Michigan. It prohibited the State Board from entering into any contracts for the AIMS test for more than one year.
Representative Crandall, a member of the governor’s P-20 Council, has bragged to the media that he got the Senate to add this provision to the budget at about 2:00 A.M. He has bragged further that he had previously met with education stakeholder groups about this provision, but carefully kept it secret from the Department of Education, because he feels that I am an obstructionist. I am not a committee chair, and I do not have the power to obstruct anything. I only have the power to give you information, because the Department of Education has detailed information that can be valuable to you in making decisions about education. His purpose was to keep you ignorant of the information that I could have provided you, and that you could have considered before making a decision. This is not good public policy making.
Here is what I could have told you had I been given the opportunity.
First, there was no need to restrict the State Board from entering into a contract for more than one year for AIMS. Even if you were to decide to adopt the AAAT test, the fastest that it could be implemented would be 2012 (see Exhibit A, showing the time line).
Second, we are in the fifth year of our current five-year contract for the AIMS test. We were ready to send out bids for a new five-year contract. When the bid can only be for one year, the costs become prohibitively high. Asking vendors to submit a bid every year means the vendor will have to charge much more to recoup the costs of developing and managing the test.
Third, Arizona’s cost for all of its statewide tests (both AIMS and TerraNova) is about $11 per student. Michigan, the state that the 2:00 A.M. provision seeks to copy, anticipates its cost next year at $115 per student – TEN TIMES AS MUCH. (See Exhibit B, document received from the Michigan Department of Education.)
Fourth, Michigan made a presentation to the Council of Chief State School Officers regarding this combining of the statewide test with the ACT. Exhibit C is a copy of one of the pages from the Michigan PowerPoint. It states:
Sticker Shock
· Lobbying claims
· ACT-based NCLB test will be less expensive
· Better aligned to Michigan standards
· Take less time to administer
· Reality
· More than triple the cost
· Requires significant augmentation
· Takes significantly more time to administer
I do not deny that there can be benefits from combining the statewide test with the ACT. I believe that reasonable people can differ about it, and I am certainly willing to study it with an open mind. But making a policy decision like this, which ties the Board’s hands to a one-year contract and thereby makes Arizona’s cost skyrocket, at 2:00 A.M. so that legislators can be kept ignorant of any input from the Department of Education, is not good public policy making.
Tom Horne Superintendent Tom Horne Arizona Department of Education 1535 W. Jefferson Street, Bin #2 Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-5460 (602) 542-5440 Email: tom.horne@azed.gov
[1] For the more youthful readers: these are former state school superintendents.
Medical Malpractice Legislation
I want to give you some background of our malpractice statutes in Arizona.
According to A.R.S. Section 12-542, there is a two year statute of limitation for medical malpractice cases. Defendants are proportionally liable for damages in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, unless the defendant acted in concert with another person (A.R.S. Section 12-2506). Also, the Constitution prohibits any limits on damages (Article 2, Section 31).
Sen. Allen has run legislation for several years that would have established statutory elements of proof for medical malpractice cases related to emergency health care professionals or hospitals. The bills have either been vetoed by the Governor, died in the process or used as vehicle bills somewhere in the process. Inevitably, the bill always dies.
In 2005, the Legislature added Laws 2005, Chapter 183, Section 1 (now A.R.S. Section 12-2604), which outlined the requirements of medical expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. On June 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals, Division 1 held A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) was unconstitutional because the statute "cannot be harmonized" with A.R.S. Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, which was established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Rule 702 relates to testimony by experts and the court felt that A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) precluded witnesses that were otherwise qualified under Rule 702 from testifying in a malpractice case unless that witness met the additional criteria established in A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A).
Additionally, in 2007 Senator Leff sponsored SB 1505 which would have prohibited the admission of scientific opinion testimony in an action for person injury, death or damage to property unless the court determined that the expert's opinion is reliable and useful, based on the consideration of criteria that were outlined in the bill. The bill died in the Senate when it was Third Read. It is my understanding that the bill had similar issues as those of A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A). Some felt that the bill was unconstitutional and that it was really a separation of powers issue. It was mentioned that by establishing certain criteria, some testimony would be excluded.
Attached are the relevant statutes, sections of the Constitution, bill summaries.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/00542.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02604.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02506.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/31.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/summary/h.sb1351_04-17-06_asengrossedandaspassedhouse.doc.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summary/h.sb1036_04-20-05_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/summary/s.1505ced_caucus-floor.doc.htm
According to A.R.S. Section 12-542, there is a two year statute of limitation for medical malpractice cases. Defendants are proportionally liable for damages in direct proportion to their percentage of fault, unless the defendant acted in concert with another person (A.R.S. Section 12-2506). Also, the Constitution prohibits any limits on damages (Article 2, Section 31).
Sen. Allen has run legislation for several years that would have established statutory elements of proof for medical malpractice cases related to emergency health care professionals or hospitals. The bills have either been vetoed by the Governor, died in the process or used as vehicle bills somewhere in the process. Inevitably, the bill always dies.
In 2005, the Legislature added Laws 2005, Chapter 183, Section 1 (now A.R.S. Section 12-2604), which outlined the requirements of medical expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. On June 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals, Division 1 held A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) was unconstitutional because the statute "cannot be harmonized" with A.R.S. Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, which was established by the Arizona Supreme Court. Rule 702 relates to testimony by experts and the court felt that A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A) precluded witnesses that were otherwise qualified under Rule 702 from testifying in a malpractice case unless that witness met the additional criteria established in A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A).
Additionally, in 2007 Senator Leff sponsored SB 1505 which would have prohibited the admission of scientific opinion testimony in an action for person injury, death or damage to property unless the court determined that the expert's opinion is reliable and useful, based on the consideration of criteria that were outlined in the bill. The bill died in the Senate when it was Third Read. It is my understanding that the bill had similar issues as those of A.R.S. Section 12-2604(A). Some felt that the bill was unconstitutional and that it was really a separation of powers issue. It was mentioned that by establishing certain criteria, some testimony would be excluded.
Attached are the relevant statutes, sections of the Constitution, bill summaries.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/00542.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02604.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/ars/12/02506.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/31.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/2r/summary/h.sb1351_04-17-06_asengrossedandaspassedhouse.doc.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/47leg/1r/summary/h.sb1036_04-20-05_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.aspinDoc=/legtext/48leg/1r/summary/s.1505ced_caucus-floor.doc.htm
Immigration = Global Warming
New findings from the Center for Immigration Studies:
The findings of a new study indicate that future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country.
Perhaps this is the argument we need to use with "certain folks".
The findings of a new study indicate that future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country.
Perhaps this is the argument we need to use with "certain folks".
Wind Turbine Syndrome
This is an excerpt of testimony from a physician-scientist appearing before New York State Legislature's Energy Committee:
Three doctors that I know of are studying the Wind Turbine Syndrome: myself, one in England, and one in Australia. We note the same sets of symptoms. The symptoms start when local turbines go into operation and resolve when the turbines are off or when the person is out of the area. The symptoms include:
1) Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening.
2) Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity.
3) Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
4) Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
5) Problems with concentration and learning.
6) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
Her research says wind turbines should never be built closer than two miles from homes. . . .
Your thoughts?
Three doctors that I know of are studying the Wind Turbine Syndrome: myself, one in England, and one in Australia. We note the same sets of symptoms. The symptoms start when local turbines go into operation and resolve when the turbines are off or when the person is out of the area. The symptoms include:
1) Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening.
2) Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity.
3) Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
4) Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
5) Problems with concentration and learning.
6) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
Her research says wind turbines should never be built closer than two miles from homes. . . .
Your thoughts?
Disheartening, Frustrating, and Unbelievable
Chandler police have arrested this man who was caught shoplifting shrimp and octopus by stuffing them down his pants. Ugghhh! REALLY? DISGUSTING!When the police asked him for identification, he gave them a false name. When he did produce ID, police were able to ascertain that the man had one outstanding misdemeanor warrant and two outstanding felony warrants. The shoplifter, who was caught wearing a false beard and mustache, has several aliases.
An illegal immigrant, the man has already been deported once! HEY FEDS! LISTEN UP! CLOSE THE @#%^&*^# BORDER!
Fraternal Order of Police Endorsement
Today I received a letter from Bryan Soller, the President of the Arizona State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. He was writing to inform me that they have endorsed my candidacy for the state legislature.
Endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police signifies that the FOP, Arizona's largest police organization, believes that I support Arizona's law enforcement officers and their mission.
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers in Arizona, with more than 6500 members state-wide. The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police represents the interest of professional law enforcement officers. Many of the benefits and rights afforded to Arizona Law Enforcement are the results of efforts by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Thanks, Mr. Soller! I proudly accept the endorsement of the FOP!
Endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police signifies that the FOP, Arizona's largest police organization, believes that I support Arizona's law enforcement officers and their mission.
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers in Arizona, with more than 6500 members state-wide. The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police represents the interest of professional law enforcement officers. Many of the benefits and rights afforded to Arizona Law Enforcement are the results of efforts by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Thanks, Mr. Soller! I proudly accept the endorsement of the FOP!
Quick Facts on K-12 Education
Hey folks...I just recieved an email from majority staff at the Arizona House of Representatives that included some interesting facts and I thought that I would pass them along. As usual, I welcome your input or comments on these numbers.
Per pupil K-12 education funding from all sources has increased from $5,721 per pupil in FY 1998 to almost $9,400 in FY 2007. This per pupil amount reflects an increase of funding equal to approximately 64%. Over this same timeframe, average daily membership pupil counts for K-12 education have increased from 770,013 to an estimated 1,030,811, reflecting a pupil count increase of approximately 34%. Sources of estimated FY 2007 funding:
State Funding FY 2007 estimated
Basic State Aid (BSA) $3,505,087,300
Additional State Aid $323,961,600
Other Formula Programs $35,915,200
Non-Formula Programs $91,226,300
ADE Administration $11,164,700
BSA--Permanent State School Fund $45,220,700
SFB--New School Facilities $250,000,000
SFB--Building Renewal $86,283,500
Proposition 301--Classroom Site Fund $440,190,800
Proposition 301--Other $102,780,500
Subtotal $4,891,830,600
County and Local (formula and non-formula) $3,530,596,100
Federal $1,261,734,506
Total $9,684,161,206
Per pupil K-12 education funding from all sources has increased from $5,721 per pupil in FY 1998 to almost $9,400 in FY 2007. This per pupil amount reflects an increase of funding equal to approximately 64%. Over this same timeframe, average daily membership pupil counts for K-12 education have increased from 770,013 to an estimated 1,030,811, reflecting a pupil count increase of approximately 34%. Sources of estimated FY 2007 funding:
State Funding FY 2007 estimated
Basic State Aid (BSA) $3,505,087,300
Additional State Aid $323,961,600
Other Formula Programs $35,915,200
Non-Formula Programs $91,226,300
ADE Administration $11,164,700
BSA--Permanent State School Fund $45,220,700
SFB--New School Facilities $250,000,000
SFB--Building Renewal $86,283,500
Proposition 301--Classroom Site Fund $440,190,800
Proposition 301--Other $102,780,500
Subtotal $4,891,830,600
County and Local (formula and non-formula) $3,530,596,100
Federal $1,261,734,506
Total $9,684,161,206
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Gov Backs Tax Hike
From the Arizona Free Enterprise Club:
Napolitano Backs Two Tax Hikes as Arizona Economy Struggles ~
Sales tax increase would add $1.2 billion and property taxes another $250 million
annually in new tax burden.
Phoenix, AZ – Steve Voeller, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, today warned
Arizonans to brace for a heavy tax burden in 2010. Against the backdrop of a slowing economy,
a $1.5 billion deficit next year, and billions more in total state debt, Gov. Napolitano is
supporting two major tax increases.
This year the governor vetoed a bill that would have prevented a statewide property tax
increase from coming back on the books in 2009. Without further action, a property tax cut that
passed in 2006 will return next year at a cost of $250 million a year.
In her veto message, Napolitano said that making the tax cut permanent would “be the
height of fiscal irresponsibility.” Soon thereafter, the governor signed a budget into law that
added $2 billion in new debt, including $1 billion in university construction that is financed by a
planned expansion of the Arizona lottery.
The governor is also the lead proponent of a new statewide sales tax increase for various
transportation projects, grants to non-profit organizations, and wildlife habitat preservation (the
TIME initiative). This tax would add $1.2 billion annually to the Arizona tax burden beginning
in 2010. The new state sales tax rate would be 6.6 percent (a 17.8 percent increase) and would
give Arizona the fifth-highest sales tax rate in the country.
“Arizona’s economy just had one of the worst quarters in recent history and an
unemployment rate jump not seen since 1991,” Voeller said. “The last thing we need now is
a tax increase.”
According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Arizona personal income grew by
3.8 percent in the first quarter, the slowest growth rate since October 2003. On an annualized
basis, Arizona personal income growth ranked 42nd in the nation.
“You can’t tax your way to prosperity,” Voeller said. “What our economy needs now
is a freeze on all tax increases and a serious dose of spending restraint.”
Napolitano Backs Two Tax Hikes as Arizona Economy Struggles ~
Sales tax increase would add $1.2 billion and property taxes another $250 million
annually in new tax burden.
Phoenix, AZ – Steve Voeller, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, today warned
Arizonans to brace for a heavy tax burden in 2010. Against the backdrop of a slowing economy,
a $1.5 billion deficit next year, and billions more in total state debt, Gov. Napolitano is
supporting two major tax increases.
This year the governor vetoed a bill that would have prevented a statewide property tax
increase from coming back on the books in 2009. Without further action, a property tax cut that
passed in 2006 will return next year at a cost of $250 million a year.
In her veto message, Napolitano said that making the tax cut permanent would “be the
height of fiscal irresponsibility.” Soon thereafter, the governor signed a budget into law that
added $2 billion in new debt, including $1 billion in university construction that is financed by a
planned expansion of the Arizona lottery.
The governor is also the lead proponent of a new statewide sales tax increase for various
transportation projects, grants to non-profit organizations, and wildlife habitat preservation (the
TIME initiative). This tax would add $1.2 billion annually to the Arizona tax burden beginning
in 2010. The new state sales tax rate would be 6.6 percent (a 17.8 percent increase) and would
give Arizona the fifth-highest sales tax rate in the country.
“Arizona’s economy just had one of the worst quarters in recent history and an
unemployment rate jump not seen since 1991,” Voeller said. “The last thing we need now is
a tax increase.”
According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, Arizona personal income grew by
3.8 percent in the first quarter, the slowest growth rate since October 2003. On an annualized
basis, Arizona personal income growth ranked 42nd in the nation.
“You can’t tax your way to prosperity,” Voeller said. “What our economy needs now
is a freeze on all tax increases and a serious dose of spending restraint.”
Thursday, July 31, 2008
District III Endorsements
Martin Swanty
Al & Alice Gray
Mike & Kathie Schuler
Dori Meadows
Gerald Winsko
Ann Howe
Lori Dee Doefler
Catching Up ~ Fun in Flagstaff
Hello from Flagstaff! Wow, is it gorgeous here...and quite a bit cooler!
Frank, my parents, and I packed our campers and headed to Flagstaff on Tuesday evening as I was the guest speaker at the Grand Canyon State Electrical Co-Op Association's annual summer conference luncheon yesterday. We are camping at a local KOA, enjoying the change in scenery...the guys especially are relishing the respite from pounding campaign signs.
After my speech we visited the Museum of Northern Arizona where we learned much about the geology, anthropology, fine art, and biology of Arizona. There was also a dinosaur exhibit as well as a fascinating exhibit honoring Native American Code Talkers. Today we are driving out to Sunset Crater, the youngest volcano on the Colorado Plateau.
I have been awarded two more endorsements:
Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Technology Council
Ciao for now!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
AZ Right to Life Endorsements
I am excited to learn that I once again, received an endorsement from Arizona Right to Life. Click the title of this post for the complete list of endorsements for most state-wide offices.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
NRA Endorsement
Returning home from Bullhead City, I rushed out to check the mail. (As much as I use email predominately for communication, nothing compares to recieving good old-fashion snail mail, in my opinion.) I was ecstatic when I read the printing on a small-sized bright orange postcard. One side of the postcard exclaimed "ELECTION ALERT". The flip side held the held this message:VOTE FREEDOM FIRST IN THE SEPTEMBER 2 PRIMARY ELECTION!
Dear Arizona NRA Member,
Tuesday, September 2 is a Primary Election Day. Your National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (www.NRAPVF.org) has endorsed Trish Groe and Nancy McClain for re-election in State House District 3.
The postcard mentions that I am an "A" rated lawmaker, that I have been a strong advocate for the Second Amendment, and have helped pass numerous bills critically important to Arizona gun owners. I am also credited for co-sponsoring HB 2629, which would have clarified defensive display of a firearm, and HB 2630, which would have made carrying a concealed weapon a petty offense instead of a misdemeanor.
If you are a registered voter, you are eligible to participate in this election! Be sure to spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners to re-elect Trish Groe!
Sincerely, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, http://www.nrail.org/
On the Road with Team Groe
Yesterday Team Groe, comprised of my husband Frank, my wonderful parents and myself, headed out to Bullhead City for the last of the sign installation. As we drove towards our destination, the heavens opened up and the rain fell. HARD. Thankfully, Team Groe is a very dedicated bunch and we pressed on towards the goal ~ an empty truck bed. (We could not stop at our eventual destination, the Sam's Club with the truck loaded up with signs; there would be no room for the important purchases of STUFF we NEED.)
* A very special thanks to a Team Groe member not featured in these photos ~ my mother, the faithful (and talented) photographer!
* A very special thanks to a Team Groe member not featured in these photos ~ my mother, the faithful (and talented) photographer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
