Archives for category: Arizona

Arizona has a Charter Law that ignores nepotism, conflict of interest, Profiteering, frauds, scams, etc.

Now Governor Doug Ducey is in a tight race with educator David Garcia, and Ducey wants to “reform” the charter law! And I have a bridge to sell you if you are that gullible.

Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic says that this is hilarious. PS: I love Laurie Roberts and Craig HARRIS of the Arizona Republic, who regularly expose charter corruption (he exposes it, she ridicules it).

She writes, to begin:

“A month ago, Gov. Doug Ducey said he wasn’t concerned that the head of Primavera charter school – which puts just 11 percent of its state funding into instruction — scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that runs the online operation.

“I’m not concerned about the CEO,” Ducey told The Republic’s Craig Harris. “That is of very little interest. I’m concerned about the child and the parent and what the child is equipped to do after 12 years of education.”

“Today, Ducey and other Republicans have seen the light and the light is a freight train of public outrage racing right at them as they seek re-election.

“As a result, Ducey is now backing a set of charter school reforms proposed by state Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, who like Ducey is facing a fight to get back to the state Capitol next year.

“While I’m certainly happy to see that Ducey and his Republican colleagues at long last might be willing to plug gaping loopholes that have allowed some charter operators to plunder public money, I have to ask the same question I asked when they suddenly saw the need to prioritize public schools as teachers took to the streets this spring:

“Where’ve you been?”…

“Virtually every year, we hear an outrageous story about a charter school operator who has fundamentally failed the smell test, either by shorting kids or lining their pockets – or both.

“Virtually every year, Democrats in the Legislature propose reforms to fix laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or public accountability.

“And virtually, every year Republicans ignore all evidence of a problem while joining hands and chanting “school choice, school choice, school choice.” This, to the delight of their dark money pals who shovel campaign money their way.

“Indeed, it is a choice to focus only on charter school successes — and there certainly are some — while ignoring problems rampant in the charter school industry.

“Just last fall, the centrist Grand Canyon Institute released the results of a three-year study that found up to up to 77 percent of charter school holders are using public funds on “potentially questionable financial transactions” — often paying themselves or their various relatives to provide goods and services to their charter schools under a price they get to set, courtesy of no-bid contracts.

“The study found that charter school executives earn on average 50 percent more than their school district counterparts while teachers earn 20 percent less. That classroom spending and academic performance are both lower in charters than in district schools.

“Rather than taking a serious look at those findings, our leaders and the charter school industry labeled the Grand Canyon Institute as “anti charter” and did … nothing.”

Arizona is hurtling back a century or more. The state superintendent of education has invited an anti-evolutionist to review the state science standards.

The writer for the Arizona Republic, Laurie Roberts, is quick to spot frauds and quacks in the Ed industry:

“Here is a bit of instruction from a guy Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped to help review Arizona’s standards on how to teach evolution in science class:

“The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

“Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem,” Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times’ Joseph Flaherty.

“Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona’s soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution.

“Kezele is a biology teacher at Arizona Christian University. He also is president of the Arizona Origin Science Association and, as Flaherty puts it, “a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation.”

“Douglas has been working for awhile now to bring a little Sunday school into science class. This spring she took a red pen to the proposed new science standards, striking or qualifying the word “evolution” wherever it occurred.

This, after calling for creationism to be taught along with evolution during a candidate forum last November.

“Should the theory of intelligent design be taught along with the theory of evolution? Absolutely,” Douglas said at the time. “I had a discussion with my staff, because we’re currently working on science standards, to make sure this issue was addressed in the standards we’re working on…”

“Kezele told Flaherty that there is enough scientific evidence to back up the biblical account of creation. He says students should be exposed to that evidence. For example, scientific stuff about the human appendix and the Earth’s magnetic field.

“I’m not saying to put the Bible into the classroom, although the real science will confirm the Bible,” Kezele told Flaherty. “Students can draw their own conclusions when they see what the real science actually shows.”

“Because, hey, Barney floating around on Noah’s Ark.

“Kezele told Flaherty that all land animals – humans and dinosaurs alike — were created on the Sixth Day.

“And there was light and the light was, well, a little dim for science class, if you ask me.”

According to Politico Morning Education, the pro-voucher forces are throwing in the towel before the November referendum on Prop 305.

Prop 305 would overturn a law passed last year to offer unlimited vouchers.

Parents and educators gathered over 100,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. The Koch brothers sent in their legal team to try to knock it off the ballot but failed.

The voucher forces anticipate defeat so they are quitting ahead of the vote. They surely have polled and the numbers look bad for vouchers.

Vouchers have been overwhelmingly defeated in every state referendum.

Politico writes:

SCHOOL CHOICE GROUP TAKES SURPRISE STANCE IN ARIZONA: The prominent school choice group once chaired by DeVos is on the same side as public school advocates on a key ballot question in the state this fall.

— The American Federation for Children has decided it supports a “no” vote on a ballot question that lets voters decide if they want to keep a law passed last year that expands eligibility for a school choice-friendly program in the state.

— The decision places AFC in the unusual position of being aligned with public school supporters who had opposed the law. Previously, AFC was among the school choice-friendly groups that pushed for its passage.

— The AFC’s reasoning is complicated, but ultimately it argues that more children could be eligible for the program moving forward if an older law remains on the books.

This is a world-class scandal. And it is all legal!

Arizona’s State Representative Eddie Farnsworth sold his for-profit charter chain to a non-profit for about $30 Million and will reap millions in profits, then get a management fee to continue to operate them.

“Yet another millionaire is made, thanks to the latest in charter school scheming.

“This time, it’s state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who has figured out a way to sell his charter school business – the one built with taxpayer funds – and make millions on the deal and then likely get himself hired to continue running the operation.

“Which now converts to a non-profit and thus will no longer have to pay property or income taxes.

“Sweet plan. Sickeningly so, when you consider that Farnsworth is making his millions off of tax money intended to be used to educate Arizona children.

“Other charter schools are getting rich

“Farnsworth is just the latest operator to use charter schools as his own personal ATM – one that shoots out public funds.

“The Republic’s Craig Harris has spent all year reporting on operators who are getting rich – or at least, making a tidy pile of cash – off publicly funded charter schools, aided by laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or accountability.

“There’s the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s No. 2 guy, using his position to throw business to a company he co-owns with his wife by giving her the names of students looking for a charter school. She scores a bounty for every student (and the tax dollars that go with that student) she delivers to certain charter schools.

“There’s BASIS Charters Schools founders Michael and Olga Block, who scored $10 million in fees to manage the charter chain of schools last year.

“There’s American Leadership Academy’s founder Glenn Way, who scored at least $18.4 million profit by getting no-bid contracts to build charter schools thanks largely paid for with public money.

“Then there’s Primavera online school, where most of the public funding has gone not to educate students but to elevate the company’s investment portfolio. Damian Creamer, the school’s founder and CEO, last year scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that now runs Primavera, according an audit filed with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Taxpayers pay twice for the same schools

“Now comes Farnsworth with his Benjamin Franklin Charter School scheme, approved Monday by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Under the arrangement, Farnsworth is selling his for-profit four-school operation to a non-profit run by a trio of handpicked pals who will now select someone to run the schools. Farnsworth has applied for the job.

“According to state records, Farnsworth will score at least $11.8 million in profit from the deal. He’ll also keep nearly $3.8 million in “shareholder equity” accumulated over the years since starting the suburban charter school chain in 1995. But Farnsworth declined to disclose the total profit he will make on the deal.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” he told the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“And you wonder why Farnsworth has fought efforts to require better oversight and reform of Arizona’s charter schools?

“The Republic’s Harris reports that when the sale closes, taxpayers will have paid twice for the same schools – once to essentially pay the mortgage on the Farnsworth-owned buildings and now to assume more debt in order to buy the buildings.

“And – by the way – it’s all legal

“The most outrageous part of this outrageous story is that what Farnsworth is doing is apparently legal.”

Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic reported on Farnsworth’s meeting with the state charter board (which includes other charter operators):

“[Farnsworth] told them he was requesting the change in organization to strengthen the finances of the roughly 3,000-student school chain. Farnsworth said the new structure will allow Benjamin Franklin to avoid property taxes and to qualify for federal education funds.

“The Legislature gives charter operators up to $2,000 more per student in state education funding than traditional district schools. That’s because charters cannot access local property taxes for building debt.

“Farnsworth acknowledged he would make a profit on the deal.

“Board member Erik Twist, who runs the Great Hearts charter schools, tried to press Farnsworth on how much he stands to gain. But Chairwoman Kathy Senseman interrupted him and changed the direction of the discussion.

“Farnsworth told the board that if he had wanted to make money, he merely could have sold the schools and cashed out.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” Farnsworth said.

“The transfer plan calls for the new non-profit operator to hire a contractor to manage the schools, an arrangement similar to other charter chains like Basis and American Leadership Academy.

“Records submitted to the Charter Board appeared to show Farnsworth had already been hired to manage the schools, but he said the document was a “draft” intended to give board members an understanding of the management contract.

“That’s what happens at Basis schools, many of which rank atop U.S. News & World Report’s “best schools” lists. A private contracting arrangement has paid about $10 million in “management fees” to a private firm run by Basis founders Olga and Michael Block.

“Farnsworth told the board, however, that he had submitted an application for the contract to the company’s new three-member board, all of whom he recruited and are his friends.

“Rebecca McHood, a Gilbert resident who attended the meeting, called the board vote “crazy.”

“They just gave a charter to a non-profit, but they didn’t vet them,” said McHood, a charter school critic whose relatives attended Farnsworth’s schools. “Here we are paying for his private property with our tax dollars, and then he can sell them.”

“State to pay twice for campuses

“Farnsworth built his school chain over more than two decades ago and became its sole owner in 2017, when he used $2.2 million of Benjamin Franklin funds to buy out his partners, Sharon Clark and Roy L. Perkins Jr., records show.

“That deal also made him sole owner of LBE Investments, a Gilbert company that owns the four campuses and leases them to Benjamin Franklin. Both companies are headquartered at 690 E. Warner Road in Gilbert.

“Once the planned sale to the new non-profit business closes later this year, taxpayers will have paid for the same schools twice. That’s because Benjamin Franklin, for years, has used education funding from the Legislature to make lease payments to LBE Investments, records show.

“(A 2017 audit showed Benjamin Franklin paid $4.9 million a year in lease payments, and that the remaining lease balance for three elementary schools and one high school was $53.9 million.)

“Farnsworth told the Charter Board that an appraisal of the schools is underway, and they will be sold at fair-market value.

“Documents submitted to the Charter Board indicate the plan is to borrow $65.7 million through the Arizona Industrial Development to purchase the schools. A sale for the projected loan amount would result in an $11.8 million profit for Farnsworth by retiring the outstanding lease balance.”

Why do Arizona taxpayers acquiesce to this blatant Profiteering with money intended to educate children?

<

It is useful to read Jan Resseger on anything but especially her summary of Dale Russakoff’s fine article about the Dark Money that robbed the schoolchildren of Arizona. (In case the Russakoff article is behind a pay wall.)

Resseger describes what happened as “cannibalizing” the schools.

This was no accident. What happened to Arizona was a deliberate effort by the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and the DeVos’ American Federation for Prosperity to execute a plan:

1. Reduce income taxes to zero
2. Defund public education
3. Shift school funding to charter schools and vouchers

She writes:

“What has driven political leaders in Arizona to collapse the state education budget, cut taxes, and expand school privatization? Russakoff explains: “In 2016, the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law issued a report called “Secret Spending in the States,” finding that dark-money political contributions in Arizona increased from about $600,000 in 2010 to more than $10.3 million million in 2014, the year Ducey was elected governor… In his 2014 gubernatorial campaign, Ducey ran on a pledge to cut taxes every year and drive income tax rates in Arizona ‘as close to zero as possible.’ That year, six dark-money groups spent almost $3.5 million supporting him or attacking his opponents… In 2017, the Koch brothers’ political advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity, named the Arizona voucher-expansion bill its No. 1 education-reform priority in the country. The American Federation for Children, another bundler of anonymous contributions, funded by the family of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and focused on expanding school choice through charter schools, vouchers and private school scholarships, made it their top priority in the state… For weeks after leaders of Save Our Schools delivered their petitions to the secretary of state, a phalanx of activists from Americans for Prosperity and the American Federation for Children submitted multiple daily objections to individual signatures…. When the state nonetheless certified more than enough signatures as valid, lawyers representing the Koch network filed legal challenges that went all the way to the State Supreme Court but ultimately failed.”

“Russakoff quotes Kelly Berg, a 20-year high school math teacher from Mesa and lifelong Republican, describing her sudden realization last May—as she sat through an all-night deliberation of the State Legislature—of the enormous barrier she and her colleagues face: “We were told to sit down when we stood in agreement…. We were told to remain quiet when applauding when a teacher, who was in tears, was pleading for support for our classes and our students… We were disrespected. We were mocked. We were listened to, but not heard. That’s what radicalized me… As the kids would say, ‘I’m woke.’ ”

“Please do read Dale Russakoff’s fine article. She connects all the pieces of this story—school funding—the role of taxes for buying public services—the impact of tax cuts—the role of far-right money buying politics—the ideology of privatization—and the cost to state budgets and to local school districts when a state undertakes to run a system of private tuition neo-vouchers along with a system of charter schools along with the state’s public school districts all out of one fixed pot of money.

“As Russakoff narrates Arizona’s story, she is also providing an account of what has been happening in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Indiana.”

When you meet progressives who favor charter schools but not vouchers, send them a copy of Dale Russakoff’s article, or Jan Resseger’s summary, so they understand that they have been duped by the billionaires who are behind the curtain. Charters are part of the Dark Money plan to destroy public education.

The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.

Here is its latest report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3

State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers

Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.

Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.

The study’s findings also include that:

The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.

On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.

In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.

In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.

Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.

“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”

George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.

“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”

What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?

Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.

ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.

Click here to read the full report.

*Methodology:

First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.

Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.

Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.

If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.

Governor Doug Ducey added two new members to the Arizona Supreme Court to ensure that the court would strike down an effort to raise the state income tax off the ballot in November. Last week, the court dutifully complied.

This was a slap in the face to the #RedForEd movement, which campaigned for increased funding. It raises the stakes in the Governor’s Race this November, when Ducey will face the Democratic nominee, educator David Garcia.

“The measure, recently titled Proposition 207, was expected to bring in $690 million in additional funding for Arizona public district and charter schools.

“Supporters had framed Prop. 207 as a way to fully restore the more than $1 billion in cuts to education funding since the recession.

“Prop. 207 would have raised income-tax rates by 3.46 percentage points to 8 percent on individuals who earn more than $250,000 or households that earn more than $500,000. It also would have raised individual rates by 4.46 percentage points to 9 percent for individuals who earn more than $500,000 and households that earn more than $1 million.”

The increase in taxes was opposed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and a group deceptively called “Arizonans for Great Schools and a Strong Economy.” Yeah, great schools with bare bones funding.

The opponents claimed that the referendum misstated the tax increase. Instead of saying that taxes would go up “by 4.46 percentage points to 9 percent,” they wanted the referendum to characterize the increase in the worst possible light:

“The complaint alleged the petitions were misleading because they referred to the proposed tax-rate increase as a “percent” increase and not the more accurate “percentage point” increase. According to the complaint, the tax rate would have seen a 76 and 98 percent increase and not a 3.46 and 4.46 percent increase.”

Supporters of the tax increase had collected 270,000 signatures.

“Supporters of Prop. 207 immediately placed blame for the measure’s defeat on Ducey, who is running for re-election.

“David Garcia, the Democratic nominee for governor, on Wednesday said Ducey had “stacked” the state’s highest court, leading it to shoot down Prop. 207.

“Ducey has appointed three of the seven judges who sit on the court’s bench. The governor also signed legislation in 2016 that expanded the court from five justices to seven.

“The stakes for the race for governor in Arizona just changed utterly and irrevocably,” Garcia said. “We must elect pro-public education candidates up and down the ballot to prevent this kind of corruption in the future. I’m proud to stand with our educators, parents and kids.”

“The Ducey campaign did not immediately comment on Wednesday’s court ruling. A spokesman for Ducey said Wednesday evening that the governor was still reviewing the five-paragraph ruling.”

Obviously, Governor Ducey reads slowly. He is still digesting the five paragraph ruling.

Jan Resseger has an excellent analysis of the slapdown of the AZ funding measure, which was supposed to be the means for Ducey to keep his promise to raise teachers’ salaries 20% by 2020.

She writes:

“In May, after Arizona teachers walked out of school and flooded the capitol, the legislature passed a budget to give the teachers the first installment in what Governor Doug Ducey promises will be a 20 percent pay raise by 2020. Wanting to ensure there will be a second installment of that promised raise, however, and worrying about catastrophic cuts in state expenditures on other necessities at their schools, organized teachers gathered thousands more signatures than were required to put an Invest in Ed initiative on the November ballot to raise taxes on families making over $250,000 annually, with the money designated for public education.

“The teachers secured the signatures before the deadline, but the Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit to block the referendum—alleging that the ballot language was not clear enough. A trial court okayed the ballot language, and on August 16, an appeals court affirmed that the initiative could go forward. However, last week, siding with the Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Supreme Court yanked the referendum off the ballot.

“Here are some facts to explain why the tax increase was so desperately needed in Arizona, and why the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to block the initiative is such a serious matter.

“The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Michael Leachman describes Arizona’s desperate revenue shortage, the product of years of tax cuts: “At least 12 states have cut ‘general’ or ‘formula’ (school) funding—the primary form of state support for elementary and secondary schools—by 7 percent or more per student since 2008…. Seven of these states have also cut income taxes over the decade, making it particularly hard for them to raise revenue needed for their schools.” Arizona is one of the seven.

“In a recent report, ‘A Decade of Neglect’,: the American Federation of Teachers describes what the tax cuts have meant for Arizona’s schools: “In the years following the Great Recession, the Arizona Legislature cut funding for K-12 schools by $4.6 billion…. For 2015-16, Arizona ranked 49th among the states and the District of Columbia for per-pupil funding. Spending was down 12.7 percent compared with 2007-2008, and only two other states saw a larger decline in per-pupil spending between 2008 and 2016. The state ranks 46th for teacher salaries… After a 15 percent decline in the student-teacher ratio, Arizona ranks 50th among the states… Arizona also ranks near the bottom for support for higher education. For FY 2017, spending was 55 percent below pre-recession levels, and the state ranked last for spending on higher education. No other state showed a larger decline in post-recession support for higher education. Arizona’s failure to fund education is the result of what has been described as an ‘ideological aversion to taxes.’”

Arizona’s teachers trusted Ducey to keep his promise. He won’t. If he is re-elected, he will forget he ever promised to raise salaries.

Supporters of education had hoped to get a referendum on the ballot to raise taxes on high earners to generate a guaranteed revenue stream of funding for the schools.

But the Arizona Supreme Court kicked the measure off the ballot.


PHOENIX — Arizonans will not get a chance to decide whether to hike taxes on the rich to generate more money for education.

In a brief order Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court said petition signers were not informed that the measure would do more than increase the tax rate on those earning more than $250,000 a year. It also would eliminate the indexing of income tax brackets to account for inflation.

Chief Justice Scott Bales, writing for the court, said a majority concluded that omission “creates a significant danger of confusion or unfairness.”

The ruling is a significant setback for the education community, and not just because it means there will not be a dedicated revenue stream for public education. There were hopes that having this measure on the ballot, coupled with a referendum already on the ballot over expansion of vouchers, would bring out voters who also would support candidates willing to put more money into public schools.

There was no immediate comment from supporters of the Invest in Ed initiative, including the Arizona Education Association.

Wednesday’s ruling is a victory for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry which led and financed the legal fight to block a public vote.

Organization president Glenn Hamer argued that hiking income taxes on the wealthiest Arizonans “would just create a drag on the state’s overall economy.” And he said that if the state targets the rich, many would just choose to move elsewhere.

That question is now academic.

There is no dispute that the main provision of the measure would have imposed an 8 percent state income tax on earnings of more than $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples. That compares with the current 4.54 percent rate.

And there would be a 9 percent tax rate on anything over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for married couples filing jointly.

Proponents estimated that the additional revenues would generate about $690 million a year for public education.

Arizona is an amazing state. Taxpayers don’t care how their money is spent. You could collect it and burn it and they wouldn’t care.

That’s the impression you would get if you read this story about Primavera Charter School.

The online high school is a failure but the CEO is getting a bonus of $8.8 million.

“By most academic measures, Primavera online charter school is a failure.”

“Its student-to-teacher ratio is 215-to-1 — 12 times the state average — allowing little or no individualized attention.

“On recently released state standardized tests, less than a quarter of its students passed math and about a third passed English, both below the state average.

“And 49 percent of Primavera students end up dropping out, 10 times the state average.

“But by another measure, Primavera is an unmitigated success: making money.

“Beginning in 2012, the school began shifting large shares of its annual $30-plus million allotment of state funding away from instruction and into stocks, bonds, mortgage-backed securities and real estate.

“That year, 70 percent, or $22.4 million, of its state funding went into its growing investment portfolio — instead of efforts to raise test scores, reduce class sizes, or address an exploding dropout rate that is now the state’s third-highest.”

That’s in line with the usual formula for online charter schools. They fail but they are profitable. State legislatures authorize them despite their consistent record of failure. Usually they do so because a key politician or two received a campaign contribution of a few thousand dollars. Think ECOT in Ohio, which paid off important pols to the tune of a million a year, assuring a return of hundreds of millions every year.

Do taxpayers care? It’s their money.

The #RedForEd movement in Arizona succeeded in getting an initiative on the Arizona ballot to tax the highest income people to pay for education. Arizona is one of the lowest-spending states in the nation for education.

A judge has slapped down efforts by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to block people from voting whether to hike income taxes on the rich to generate $690 million a year for education.

In an extensive ruling Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Smith acknowledged that, strictly speaking, hiking the top income tax rate from 4.54 percent to 8 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year actually increases the tax rate on those earnings by 76 percent. Similarly, taking the tax rate for earnings above $500,000 for individuals to 9 percent is a 98 percent increase over the current rate.

But Smith said that did not make it inherently misleading for organizers of the Invest in Ed initiative to describe the tax hikes as 3.46 percent and 4.46 percent, the absolute difference between the current rate and the proposed new ones.

It is true, Smith said, that technically speaking, the 100-word description of the key provisions of the measure, required by state law, should probably have said it was raising the tax rate by 3.46 and 4.46 “percentage points,” respectively.

“While that likely would be more precise, the existing summaries are not fatally misleading without that verbiage,” the judge wrote, meaning the use of the smaller numbers is not enough to block a vote.

Attorneys for the chamber had argued the use of 3.46 and 4.46 percent was misleading, causing some people to sign the petition to put the issue on the November ballot who would have balked at a measure described as hiking tax rates by 76 and 98 percent, even just for the rich.

Smith conceded that initiative organizers crafted the description “undoubtedly … to appeal to potential voters.” But he said that does not make it inaccurate or misleading.

Anyway, the judge pointed out that the full text of the initiative — including the current and proposed tax rates — were attached to the petitions, so those who might have been confused could check for themselves before signing.