Hits, misses in education agenda

The most distorted discussion in Arizona politics has to be about Gov. Doug Ducey and K-12 education funding.

When Ducey was first elected governor, state revenues were still in the basement and the temporary 1% sales tax voters approved had expired.

During Ducey’s six years as governor, K-12 cuts adopted to cope with the recession have been almost entirely restored. And substantial increases above that mark have been approved.

Ducey’s budget proposal for next fiscal year, which begins this July, continues this trend. It includes around $560 million above what would be necessary to maintain real per-pupil funding.

Yet, this is how the governor’s budget was received by state school Superintendent Kathy Hoffman: “What our public schools are lacking is a sustained investment from our state . ... the governor’s budget should provide stability for schools by committing to increased, sustainable investments in Arizona’s public education system.”

Now, Arizona voters just approved Proposition 208, a surcharge on high income earners dedicated to education funding. Proponents, which included Hoffman, claimed that it was what would provide reliable and sustainable funding for schools. Remarkable how short the expiration date was on that claim.

In reality, Ducey’s track record on K-12 funding compares reasonably to that of Gov. Janet Napolitano, who brokered large increases in K-12 general fund appropriations above inflation and student growth. And that of Gov. Jane Hull, the principal mover behind Proposition 301, the six-tenths of 1% sales tax earmarked for education that voters approved and the Legislature, with Ducey’s support, extended.

Now, it is true that some of Ducey’s major efforts have been reactions to events. Proposition 123, which increased what schools receive from the state trust land, was created to settle a lawsuit. Ducey’s 20% teacher salary increase proposal followed a threatened strike.

But not all of them. The biggest recession cut was in something highly technical, a program called Additional Assistance. Only education policy geeks know what it is. There was no huge public clamor over it. But Ducey has made restoration a priority, and the last installment of it is in his budget proposal for next fiscal year.

Hoffman did make a point deserving consideration. One education program that has not been restored is state funding for all-day kindergarten. The state provides the cash for a half-day. State funding for all-day K was one of the things Napolitano had secured before the bottom fell out of state revenues. After she had departed, the Legislature cut it back to the half-day.

All-day kindergarten is still widely available. Parents want it, so schools figure out how to pay for the second half from other sources. However, since allday kindergarten is an expectation in today’s world, it makes sense to incorporate it into the state’s funding program, rather than requiring schools to scramble for dollars from other sources. And the state has the dough to restore the program.

This is not to argue that Ducey’s education funding ideas should be treated as immaculate conceptions. In particular, his program to help students recover ground lost during the COVID-19 pandemic needs a lot of work.

There has been a loss of enrollment during the pandemic, particularly in district schools. They have argued that they should receive the same funding even though they are serving fewer students.

Ducey has appropriately said no to that. Instead, he wants to redirect those dollars, around $390 million, to catchup instruction for COVID-19 deficiencies. He proposes a grant program directed principally to schools with large low-income student populations.

Now, catch-up instruction should be a high priority. But a generalized grant program won’t ensure that the money actually results in getting students caught up.

Literacy and numeracy are the keys to all other learning, and that is where the focus should be. Specific deficiencies for specific students can only be ascertained through assessments. The extra money should be used to overcome these specific deficiencies, as documented through an exit assessment.

An important item missing from Ducey’s agenda is a replacement for Proposition 123. The higher distribution from the state trust land expires in 2025. The distribution then reverts to 2.5%, far below investment returns. That would significantly shortchange schools.

Changing the distribution requires voter approval. Waiting until the last election before expiration, 2024, would be a mistake. That discussion should be taking place now, in preparation for going to the ballot in 2022.