Curt Cardine, a veteran school administrator and researcher, has written frequently about Arizona Republicans’ efforts to privatize education.
Pathway Making Community Connections (MC2) Asset Management and Educational Consulting
Curtis J. Cardine MS Organizational Management, Leadership and Change
3873 E Cavalry Ct.
Gilbert, AZ 85297
603-209-0009 cjcardine@yahoo.com
Legislative Alert:
Recently the legislature requested the data on in-district “choices” and open enrollment data from districts other than the one that the child resides in.
The current way these placements from outside of your districts are “paid for” is that the child’s state dollars follow the child to their new district. This, of course, is not what it cost the receiving district to take on the out of district placement. This new “look” at how many parents take advantage of district choices is the prelude to an attempt to change how “choices” are funded.
I have been involved with the concept of school choice since my undergraduate days at University of Massachusetts at Salem. At that time I had the privilege of attending presentations by Dr. Ray Budd, the originator of the term, “Charter School” (UMass Amherst in 1973). Dr. Budd’s vision was locally controlled charters started by certified teachers with financial oversight by local school boards.
My district in NH was one of the ten school districts chosen to receive federal funding for five years for Public School Choice. At that time the federal government put up $180 M to fund “choice” of which $20 M went to school districts. The Department of Education managed this program for 5 years. The bias built into the first level of funding in 1999 was toward “Public privately owned, charter schools”.
Modifications of Dr. Budd’s vision by the charter industry and state legislatures have included:
• Private firms finances monitored by the school district, (California is an example)
• State Boards for Charter Schools or University oversight of finances and academic performance (Arizona Model)
In order to accommodate the ‘choice” of parents the first step in establishing “choice” was to create Open Enrollment. Arizona did this prior to initiating choice. The other first step was to declare the state to be a “Right to Work” state (first enacted in 1946 during the height of the effort by the federal government to fund other types of schools with federal funding).
As you know these steps preceded the establishment of privately owned charter schools in 1994. The antithesis of Dr. Budd’s model.
Through the efforts of “the Conservative Caucus” (state and national level) and ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council) and locally by the AZ Chamber of Commerce, The Goldwater Institute, and the Charter School Association charters, (followed by various scholarships, and now universal vouchers) have grown exponentially in this state.
Critical Analysis of this latest move by the “Conservative Caucus” and AZ Legislature
Why gather this data now?
This latest request for data on district choice is the next step in attempting to declare that district borders are not relevant. The data, which was recently shared in an AZ Administrator’s Association online presentation by Dr. Anabel, will show how many parents are choosing different schools than the one within their local schools’ boundaries and out of their district.
The “backpacks full of cash” theory of financing the myth of “choice” has always thought of local taxes as a method of funding ‘choice’. There has always been pushback to allowing this funding to “follow the child” whether it was to a charter or a private school.
It is the considered opinion of this researcher and experienced administrator that the next funding that the “choice” advocates will go after is through a state property tax replacing local and county taxes for education. This will be another blow for local control of education.
This new form of taxation for “all choices” needs to be fought from day one, i.e. before the legislature attempts to change things.
The lesson from the latest round of “universal vouchers” is indicative of the high cost to the state for this ‘choice” for people who were in private school already and paying, as they should, for their child’s education. The addition of home schooling to the voucher program and de-facto always in place at charter schools with online programs is creating an economic issue that this change in taxes will claim it is compensating for.
The state’s self-induced economic issue will be used to advocate for this change in taxation for “all choices”.
If you are receiving this notice it is because you have dealt with Pathway MC2 currently or in the recent past. Please feel free to share this with your colleagues.
Thank you for your time.
Curtis J. Cardine
Please feel free to contact me using the address and phone data in the header.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
With 45 years of experience in
both districts and charter sectors,
having served as a superintendent,
principal, adjunct faculty member,
company CEO and teacher, with
expertise in school law and school
finance, with over 1,200 hours of
post-graduate studies in the areas
of school law, school finances,
a Master’s in Organization and
Management, with post-graduate
work in leadership and change,
Curt Cardine had been unable
to stop the “choice theory”
or funding related to it.
Does he NOW have the
“Agency” to undo what occured
during his watch?
LikeLike
No, he does not have the power to stop the privatization train. Only governors and legislatures do.
LikeLike
The state Catholic Conferences could stop being leaders in the politics of school choice. I noticed that Curt didn’t mention them in his list.
In my comment below, I will provide info about the Executive Director of the AZ. Catholic Conference in regard to his ambitions and the ambitions of an organization with which he has links.
LikeLike
Having a state tax to fund education, rather than district-by-district, is a huge change. If it’s a state-wide property tax, it could equalize assessments, rather than low property taxes in property-rich districts and high property taxes in property-poor districts. If equity is the intent, this could be good.
The way Iowa did it (years ago when I was on a school board there) was to set a local effort amount that the state would top off. A property-rich district would need more local effort, while a property-poor district would need less. In some districts, the state’s contribution was 25%; in others, 75%. The goal, never attained, was to equalize per-pupil funding across the 300+ districts in the state. It did not, of course, account for the ability of Richfolk PTA to raise funds.
If lowering property taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is the goal, then the funding is likely to be based on sales tax and gambling revenue. And there would be some sort of “hold harmless” provision that allowed the Richfolk district to continue to receive more than a fair share.
It’s in the details. Either way, what’s lost is the ability of the local populace to decide its tax rate.
LikeLike
Florida generally taxes by counties which in theory should make them more equitably funded. The way Florida gets around equity is through its creation of separate and unequal schools under the privatization of education laws through charter and voucher schools. These schools allow them to divide students by race, class, religion and gender. Public funds can be used for schools that openly discriminate, and DeSantis is doing everything he can to neutralize local school boards and move major policy decisions up to the state.
LikeLike
How does taxing by county ensure equity?
The Florida state-mandated minimum teacher salary is the same for Monroe County (Key West) as for Gadsden County, a rural county on the Georgia line. This, despite the huge difference in cost of housing and other living expenses.
States must equalize the inequities inherent in a property-based tax system.
LikeLike
Seize all property and redistribute equitably.
LikeLike
In Florida, an entire county is a school district that generally contains a variety of socioeconomic levels, and communities receive funds in proportion to the number of enrolled students based on the county average. In the North districts tend to be smaller, and the school district depends on most of its tax revenue from the local community. Poor districts containing minority students often receive significantly less tax revenue than more affluent districts which makes school budgets less equitable.
LikeLike
Tepeyac Leadership Inc. identifies its vision at its website…”fidelity to the Magisteriam…civic leadership development (of lay Catholic professionals)…
influencing culture…supporting the mission of the Church and serving the common good.” FYI- “common good” has a unique definition to politicized right wing Catholics. It is Charles Koch’s economic and social Darwinist view. Tim Busch who is on the National Board of Tepeyac wrote about the way in which Charles Koch’s book aligns with Catholicism. Also, on the national board is, Monica Hannan of KFVR-TV Bismarck.
If blog readers check out the website, you will see the picture of the extremely eager participants.
At the Tepeyac site, there is a bio page for the Executive Director of the AZ. Catholic Conference. He is “involved with many high profile issues…successful expansion of school choice…”
Americans will benefit from learning Latin phrases and Catholic folklore since taxpayers have made Catholic organizations, the nation’s 3rd largest employer. And, conservative Catholic political influence has and will grow rapidly with the decisions of the right wing Catholic majority on SCOTUS. The miracle of Tepeyac was the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe which resulted in the conversion of Mexico and Central America to Catholicism.
Buckle up for pluto-theocracy.
LikeLike