Here is a quick look at where FY 2009 General Fund Revenues are derived, and how they are spent:
FY 2009 General Fund Revenue--Where It Comes From
Sales and Use Tax: $4,643.6
Individual Income Tax: $3,619.4
Corporate Income Tax: $871.2
Other: $133.7
TOTAL 1/$9,267.9
1/ Includes all legislative revenue changes, but does not include beginning balance or other one-time revenue adjustments.
The projected beginning balance is $1.0 million. Other one-time revenues adjustments equal $711.3 million.
FY 2009 Total General Fund Appropriations--Where It Goes
Education (K-12): $4,141.2
AHCCCS : $1,425.3
Universities: $1,080.4
Corrections: $947.5
Economic Security: $808.3
Health Services: $611.5
School Facilities Bd: $101.2
Other Agencies: $846.6
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET: $ 9,962.0
Data may be obtained through the JLBC website: http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/09app/apprpttoc.pdf
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
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.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Legislature Breaks Law
Robert Robb claims, in this recent column, that the Arizona Legislature is breaking the law by using a budget gimmick commonly called the "K-12 Rollover". Personally, I abhor the rollover. During my first or second session, we paid back the $191 Million Dollars owed to the school districts from a session prior to my election. I was proud that we accomplished this and never expected that this deceptive practice to be used again while the Republicans held the majority. Unfortunately I was wrong...dead wrong. Hats off to Mr. Robb for shedding some light on this practice.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Subway sandwich contest: Homeschoolers not wanted
"Subway, the sandwich restaurant, wants to hear your child's story – unless he or she is homeschooled."
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.
Subway's website promotion not only misspells "United" States, but offers the grand prize winner a "Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home."
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.
Subway's website promotion not only misspells "United" States, but offers the grand prize winner a "Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home."
Monday, May 19, 2008
'Newsweek' magazine ranks Ariz. school #1 in country
"'Newsweek' magazine ranked Basis Tucson High School number one among America's public high schools. Four Valley schools, including Pinnacle and North Canyon, also made it on the list of the top 1,300 schools. "
Kudos to all of the administration, teachers, staff, students, and parents employed or involved in these schools! Bravo for a job well done!!!
Kudos to all of the administration, teachers, staff, students, and parents employed or involved in these schools! Bravo for a job well done!!!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Arizona Rates an "A"
From the desk of Harriette Johnson, Media Relations Manager hjohnson@heartland.org
Choice and Education: Arizona Rates an AA new state-by-state analysis reveals how willing states are to give
(Chicago, Illinois - April 28, 2008) Parents hoping to wrest control of their children's futures away from education bureaucrats and politicians should consider moving to Arizona, a new "report card" from The Heartland Institute suggests. They should avoid Montana or Washington State.
Choice & Education Across the States ranks state efforts to increase accountability and improve student achievement with four kinds of school choice: vouchers, charters, tax credits, and public school choice.
"School choice programs give parents the power to decide where their children are schooled," notes author Michael Van Winkle. "School choice is accountability. When parents have the power to remove their children from a school that is failing them, without financial penalty, they and their children are better served."
With 23 being the highest possible score on Van Winkle's evaluation, the median score totaled just five points. Arizona and Florida achieved scores of 15 and 14, respectively--grades of A in Van Winkle's curved grading system--while Washington and Montana scored just one point each.
Arizona offers parents strong voucher, charter school, and scholarship tax-credit programs. Florida offers similar benefits, but short of Arizona's commitment. All of the other top-ranking states--Wisconsin, Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, and Georgia--offer vouchers and charters, but none offers scholarship tax credits as well.
The lowest-ranking states offer only public school choice, generally in the form of magnet schools or open enrollment across school districts. Of the eight lowest-ranking states--Montana, Washington, Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia--only Oklahoma offers any form of choice other than public school choice. Oklahoma has a charter school program.
Trevor Martin, vice president of government affairs for The Heartland Institute, explained the report card "aims to provide a roadmap for state legislators seeking to improve student achievement through school choice."
"Many states are experimenting with choice as a way to provide a quality public education," Van Winkle added. "A few states, like Arizona and Florida, are innovating at an impressive pace, willing to try new and better ways to educate children. Other states are not keeping pace and seem committed to preserving the largely choice-free status quo."
Editors: Michael Van Winkle was The Heartland Institute's legislative specialist for education policy at the time this report was written. He has since been named vice president for the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance. Robert Holland, Heartland's senior fellow for education policy, is available for comment on this study. To communicate with him, contact Harriette Johnson, Heartland's media relations manager, at 312/377-4000 or by email at hjohnson@heartland.org.
The Heartland Institute is a 24-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Nothing in this news release or the report it describes is intended to influence the passage of pending legislation.
Choice and Education: Arizona Rates an A
parents control of their children's educations
(Chicago, Illinois - April 28, 2008) Parents hoping to wrest control of their children's futures away from education bureaucrats and politicians should consider moving to Arizona, a new "report card" from The Heartland Institute suggests. They should avoid Montana or Washington State.
Choice & Education Across the States ranks state efforts to increase accountability and improve student achievement with four kinds of school choice: vouchers, charters, tax credits, and public school choice.
"School choice programs give parents the power to decide where their children are schooled," notes author Michael Van Winkle. "School choice is accountability. When parents have the power to remove their children from a school that is failing them, without financial penalty, they and their children are better served."
With 23 being the highest possible score on Van Winkle's evaluation, the median score totaled just five points. Arizona and Florida achieved scores of 15 and 14, respectively--grades of A in Van Winkle's curved grading system--while Washington and Montana scored just one point each.
Arizona offers parents strong voucher, charter school, and scholarship tax-credit programs. Florida offers similar benefits, but short of Arizona's commitment. All of the other top-ranking states--Wisconsin, Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, and Georgia--offer vouchers and charters, but none offers scholarship tax credits as well.
The lowest-ranking states offer only public school choice, generally in the form of magnet schools or open enrollment across school districts. Of the eight lowest-ranking states--Montana, Washington, Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia--only Oklahoma offers any form of choice other than public school choice. Oklahoma has a charter school program.
Trevor Martin, vice president of government affairs for The Heartland Institute, explained the report card "aims to provide a roadmap for state legislators seeking to improve student achievement through school choice."
"Many states are experimenting with choice as a way to provide a quality public education," Van Winkle added. "A few states, like Arizona and Florida, are innovating at an impressive pace, willing to try new and better ways to educate children. Other states are not keeping pace and seem committed to preserving the largely choice-free status quo."
Editors: Michael Van Winkle was The Heartland Institute's legislative specialist for education policy at the time this report was written. He has since been named vice president for the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance. Robert Holland, Heartland's senior fellow for education policy, is available for comment on this study. To communicate with him, contact Harriette Johnson, Heartland's media relations manager, at 312/377-4000 or by email at hjohnson@heartland.org.
The Heartland Institute is a 24-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Nothing in this news release or the report it describes is intended to influence the passage of pending legislation.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
An Education Report Card
Many of the most respected free-market organizations publish education "report cards." For instance, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has just released its annual Report Card on American Education, which I hope you have the chance to review. The Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation also just released its 2007-2008 ABCs of School Choice, a valuable reference tool, analyzing laws in place in each state.
By clicking the following link, you will find The Heartland Institute's contribution to the fight for our children's future. What makes Heartland's 2008 Choice & Education Across the States unique is its "survey" approach to school choice. Using sources like those mentioned above, the report synthesizes a ranking of states' school choice programs, taking into account charter schools, public school choice, tax credits, tax-funded scholarships, and voucher programs in order to give the broadest ranking of school choice programs available.
Inside you will learn:
I encourage you to discuss education policy with your colleagues, family and friends. If you are a parent, talk with your children about the experience they have at school.
No doubt this peer-reviewed report will raise some controversy. Mr. Martin welcomes your comments, suggestions, and requests for additional research, commentary, or testimony -- feel free to call him at 312/377-4000 or send him email, tmartin@heartland.org.
By clicking the following link, you will find The Heartland Institute's contribution to the fight for our children's future. What makes Heartland's 2008 Choice & Education Across the States unique is its "survey" approach to school choice. Using sources like those mentioned above, the report synthesizes a ranking of states' school choice programs, taking into account charter schools, public school choice, tax credits, tax-funded scholarships, and voucher programs in order to give the broadest ranking of school choice programs available.
Inside you will learn:
The most promising alternative to top-down efforts to create accountability in education is school choice, and there is ample evidence school choice works;
School choice is politically viable: in poll after poll, respondents agree by wide margins; and
Florida ranks second-best, Washington state ranks second-worst;flip to pages 8-9 to find out the winners and losers, and where Arizona ranks.
I encourage you to discuss education policy with your colleagues, family and friends. If you are a parent, talk with your children about the experience they have at school.
No doubt this peer-reviewed report will raise some controversy. Mr. Martin welcomes your comments, suggestions, and requests for additional research, commentary, or testimony -- feel free to call him at 312/377-4000 or send him email, tmartin@heartland.org.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Education Bills on Third Read
Today, there are a number of key education bills up for third read.
HB 2085 (scholarships; section 504 plan pupils)
This bill would expand the special education voucher to Section 504 plan students.
HB 2286 (school district boards; training)
This bill would require prospective school district governing board members to complete six hours of training.
HB 2560 (school districts; compliance; withholding monies)
This bill would allow up to 10% to be withheld from a district if it is deemed not in compliance with 15-341 (mandatory board duties), Chapter 5 (employment issues), and Chapter 7 (curriculum)
HB 2567 (school distrct boards; family members)
This bill would prospectively prohibit family members and married persons to serve on the same school district governing board if it is a three-member board.
HB 2085 (scholarships; section 504 plan pupils)
This bill would expand the special education voucher to Section 504 plan students.
HB 2286 (school district boards; training)
This bill would require prospective school district governing board members to complete six hours of training.
HB 2560 (school districts; compliance; withholding monies)
This bill would allow up to 10% to be withheld from a district if it is deemed not in compliance with 15-341 (mandatory board duties), Chapter 5 (employment issues), and Chapter 7 (curriculum)
HB 2567 (school distrct boards; family members)
This bill would prospectively prohibit family members and married persons to serve on the same school district governing board if it is a three-member board.
Interesting Idea...What Say You?
Group to offer nation's 10 worst teachers $10,000 to quite their careers! Why stop with teachers? Lets expand the program...any suggestions? I'm sure you have a few. Don't play shy now.
Friday, February 29, 2008
AZ Auditor General's Report on Classroom Dollar Spending
The Arizona Office of the Auditor General recently released a report on the percentage of dollar spent on classroom costs. You can look up specific school districts and see how they compare to the national average. There is also information how many schools are in the district, the number of students in said district and the district's ranking within the 239 state school districts.
Comparative information includes the student/teacher ratio, the average teacher's salary, and a teacher's average years experience.
Interesting reading from the report:
Comparative information includes the student/teacher ratio, the average teacher's salary, and a teacher's average years experience.
Interesting reading from the report:
- In fiscal year 2007, Arizona’s state-wide percentage of dollars spent in the classroom decreased for the third consecutive year to 57.9 percent and remains more than 3 percentage points below the national average. More than half of the school districts’ classroom dollar percentages declined in 2007, but the biggest impact on the state average came from declines in the very large districts. With the infusion over the past several years of significant state-provided resources largely directed to the classroom, the State’s classroom dollar percentage could have been higher, but districts appear to be using these monies to supplant other monies, a violation of A.R.S. §15-977.
- Compared with the national average, Arizona districts spent a larger portion of their current dollars on student support services, plant operation and maintenance, and food service. However, on a positive note, Arizona districts spent much less on administration.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Things That Make Your Blood Boil...
Read this article about the Peach Springs School District and tell me that your blood doesn't boil first over the mismanagement, then over the fact that this gentleman still has a job.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Walker takes ELL program concerns to McLain, Groe
Last week I met with Page Unified School District superintendent Jim Walker, in addition to Superintendent Maurice Flores and Assistant Superintendent Betsy Parker from the Kingman Unified School District to listen to their concerns regarding the English Language Learner program and the costs to implement the program in their schools.
Last year the Legislature passed a bill (the Governor did not sign the bill but did allow it to go into law) that created an ELL task force, giving them instruction to create 4 ELL teaching models allowing school districts to choose the model to best fit each district in order to preserve local control. The bill also allowed the districts to design their own model and submit it for approval if preferred. Apparently the task force has designed only one model to date and this is not working. Wonder of all wonders. I appreciate the superintendents making the trip to Phoenix, coming forward and bringing this problem to my attention.
This next week I will be meeting with the House Majority Education Analyst, in addition to members of the Education Committee and representatives from the Department of Education in order to gather additional information on this issue and attempt to find out why the ELL task force did not comply with the instruction from the state legislature.
Last year the Legislature passed a bill (the Governor did not sign the bill but did allow it to go into law) that created an ELL task force, giving them instruction to create 4 ELL teaching models allowing school districts to choose the model to best fit each district in order to preserve local control. The bill also allowed the districts to design their own model and submit it for approval if preferred. Apparently the task force has designed only one model to date and this is not working. Wonder of all wonders. I appreciate the superintendents making the trip to Phoenix, coming forward and bringing this problem to my attention.
This next week I will be meeting with the House Majority Education Analyst, in addition to members of the Education Committee and representatives from the Department of Education in order to gather additional information on this issue and attempt to find out why the ELL task force did not comply with the instruction from the state legislature.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
New Auditor General Report on Colorado City School District
While in PHX last week I recieved a copy of a letter dated July 31, 2007 sent to Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction, from Debra Davenport, AZ Auditor General regarding the latest financial status of the Colorado City Unified School District No.14. The letter accompanied a report issued by the Auditor General's office on July, 26, 2007. (By clicking on the title of this post you can access the report on the Auditor General's website.)
Recommendations of the Auditor General's office include the following:
Recommendations of the Auditor General's office include the following:
- The District should improve its financial condition.
- The District should maintain conflict of interest files.
- The District should improve controls over purchasing and expenditures.
- The District should maintain accurate capital assests and stewardship lists.
- The District's controls over cash receipts and bank acconts should be strenghtened.
- The District should maintain acurate student attendance records.
- The District's financial information should be accurately maintained and reported.
These recommendations are based on the following concerns:
- The District's auditors expressed substantial doubt about the District's ability to continue its operations.
- The District did not document conflicts of intrest for employees.
- The District did not always follow competitive purchasing requirements, and therefore, could not ensure it received the best value for the public monies it spent. (CCUD received over $5.1 Million of taxpayer dollars in fiscal year 2006.)
- The District did not maintain complete complete and accurate capital assets and stewardship lists, and did not always identify items as district property to protect them from loss or theft.
- Poor cash controls left district and student monies susceptible to loss, theft, or misuse.
- The District did not always record partial-day attendance correctly, and as a result, may not have received the proper amount of funding.
- The District did not ensure the accuracy of its cash balances since its records were not reconciled to the County Treasurer's records.
Now, all of this sounds serious, and, well, it is but I have confidence in Peter Davis. Mr Davis, a CPA and owner of Simons Consulting in Phoenix is the receiver hired in December 2005. Davis was charged with bringing the district back into compliance of guidelines prescribed by Arizona law. Mr. Davis is a man of action. Sweeping changes followed his hiring as cell phones, credit cards, and even vehicles were taken away from district staff. He brought new staff aboard, too. I have met Mr. Davis during his many visits to the Capitol and we have spoken at length about the situation he faces so when I saw this report I gave him a call. Davis assures me that all issues mentioned in the Auditor General's report are being recitfied and his response to the report will be forthcoming, probably sometime next week. Look for a paraphrased version of it here.
Friday, June 23, 2006
All Aboard!
All Aboard!
Democrats boarding the school choice train
by Clint Bolick
June 23, 2006
The Arizona legislature’s 2006 session set a record for school choice legislation by enacting four new or expanded programs allowing disadvantaged children to attend private schools. Even more remarkable: The programs were enacted with a Democratic governor.
School choice has experienced unprecedented legislative success over the past two years for a few underlying reasons. First and foremost, the school choice movement is acting smarter. Advocates are pursuing small programs addressing specific problems that are difficult for politicians to oppose.
Another factor inducing a more tolerant attitude toward school choice among Democrats is that they are running out of viable alternatives. The U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three million children are attending schools that have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.
For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.
Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.
Clint Bolick is president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice and a Goldwater Institute senior fellow. A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
Democrats boarding the school choice train
by Clint Bolick
June 23, 2006
The Arizona legislature’s 2006 session set a record for school choice legislation by enacting four new or expanded programs allowing disadvantaged children to attend private schools. Even more remarkable: The programs were enacted with a Democratic governor.
School choice has experienced unprecedented legislative success over the past two years for a few underlying reasons. First and foremost, the school choice movement is acting smarter. Advocates are pursuing small programs addressing specific problems that are difficult for politicians to oppose.
Another factor inducing a more tolerant attitude toward school choice among Democrats is that they are running out of viable alternatives. The U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three million children are attending schools that have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.
For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.
Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.
Clint Bolick is president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice and a Goldwater Institute senior fellow. A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Colorado City School District Reform
Cost cuts begin in Colo. City
School district staff also slashed by state
Pat Kossan
Arizona Republic
January 24, 2006
Arizona cut Colorado City School District's administrative staff in half, canceled its 52 credit cards and sold nine of its 18 vehicles, according to a report made Monday to the state Board of Education.
Despite the cost-cutting moves, two Utah educators visited the troubled district's classes and found education programs passing most state and federal requirements.
The staff cuts and disposal of property are part of a state takeover triggered in December when the board found the district had "grossly mismanaged" its money. The 378-student district sits in a remote community on the Arizona-Utah line that is home to several polygamist religious sects.
State-appointed receiver Peter Davis, owner of Phoenix-based Simon Consulting, also cut the district's 35 cellphones down to seven and closed a 60,000-square-foot office building, where only 10 staff members were working. That should save about $70,000 a year in utility bills. Davis also whittled down 27 non-classroom employees to about 14, which is expected to save about $450,000 by the end of next school year.
The district's airplane will be auctioned next month.
Eventually, Davis wants to raise the $17,000 starting salary for teachers, but now the district needs every penny. It has an operating budget of about $2.2 million but owes the state $360,000 for budget overruns, has a bond debt of $1.2 million, and owes $1.3 million to the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, which has been helping it cover checks.
School district staff also slashed by state
Pat Kossan
Arizona Republic
January 24, 2006
Arizona cut Colorado City School District's administrative staff in half, canceled its 52 credit cards and sold nine of its 18 vehicles, according to a report made Monday to the state Board of Education.
Despite the cost-cutting moves, two Utah educators visited the troubled district's classes and found education programs passing most state and federal requirements.
The staff cuts and disposal of property are part of a state takeover triggered in December when the board found the district had "grossly mismanaged" its money. The 378-student district sits in a remote community on the Arizona-Utah line that is home to several polygamist religious sects.
State-appointed receiver Peter Davis, owner of Phoenix-based Simon Consulting, also cut the district's 35 cellphones down to seven and closed a 60,000-square-foot office building, where only 10 staff members were working. That should save about $70,000 a year in utility bills. Davis also whittled down 27 non-classroom employees to about 14, which is expected to save about $450,000 by the end of next school year.
The district's airplane will be auctioned next month.
Eventually, Davis wants to raise the $17,000 starting salary for teachers, but now the district needs every penny. It has an operating budget of about $2.2 million but owes the state $360,000 for budget overruns, has a bond debt of $1.2 million, and owes $1.3 million to the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, which has been helping it cover checks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
