Archives for category: Arizona

Audrey Beardsley, a professor at Arizona State University, recently visited parents, educators, students, and state leaders in New Mexico. There she learned that the state had adopted gag orders for teachers, forbidding them from discussing or expressing an opinion about the state tests (PARCC).

 

She writes:

 

 

Under the “leadership” of Hanna Skandera — former Florida Deputy Commissioner of Education under former Governor Jeb Bush and head of the New Mexico Public Education Department — teachers throughout the state are being silenced.

 

New Mexico now requires teachers to sign a contractual document that they are not to “diminish the significance or importance of the tests” (see, for example, slide 7 here) or they could lose their jobs. Teachers are not to speak negatively about the tests or say anything negatively about these tests in their classrooms or in public; if they do they could be found in violation of their contracts. At my main presentation in New Mexico, a few teachers even approached me after “in secret” whispering their concerns in fear of being “found out.” Rumor also has it that Hanna Skandera has requested the names and license numbers of any teachers who have helped or encouraged students to protest the state’s “new” PARCC test(s), as well.

 

One New Mexico teacher asked whether “this is a quelling of free speech and professional communication?” I believe it most certainly is a Constitutional violation. I am also shocked to now find out that something quite similar is occurring in my state of Arizona.

 

Needless to say, neither of our states (or many states typically in the sunbelt for that matter) are short on bad ideas, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous, especially as this silencing of the educators seems to be yet another bad idea that is actually trending?

 

As per a recent article in our local paper – The Arizona Republic – Arizona “legislators want to gag school officials” in an amendment to Senate Bill 1172 that will prohibit “an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district’s or charter school’s behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.”

 

The charge is also that this is a retaliatory move by AZ legislators, in response to a series of recent protests in response to serious budget cuts several weeks ago. “Perhaps [this is] to keep [educators] from talking about how the legislature has shortchanged Arizona’s school kids by hundreds of millions of dollars since the recession, and how the legislature is still making it nearly impossible for many districts to take care of even [schools’] most basic needs.”

 

In addition, is this even Constitutional? An Arizona Schools Boards Association (ASBA) spokesperson is cited as responding, saying “SB 1172 raises grave constitutional concerns. It may violate school and district officials free speech rights and almost certainly chills protected speech by school officials and the parents and community members that interact with them. It will freeze the flow of information to the public that seeks to ascertain the impact of pending legislation on their schools and children’s education.”

 

Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? Why are teachers singled out for a speech ban? As Beardsley asks, “Is this even Constitutional?” I would add, is this America?

Peter Greene read an opinion piece defending Common Core in a major newspaper in Arizona. With a bit of googling, he discovered that the writer–Rebecca Hipps– lives in Washington, D.C., and works for an organization that sells Common Core teaching materials. What surprised him even more was that with the author’s concern for the state of public education, she said nothing about the punishing budget cuts that have decimated its schools (as well as higher education, which Governor Doug Ducey seems to want to get rid of along with public schools). Greene calls his post “Razing Arizona,” which is a clever pun on the name of a popular movie called “Raising Arizona,” by the Coen brothers.

 

He writes:

 

Arizona has cut public ed spending steadily since the late oughts, and they rank 50th in college per-student spending. It’s a wonder that Hipps did not bring this up, as it would seem that Arizona is a poster child for spending bottom dollar on education and getting bottom dollar results.

 

Greene points out that legislators are responding to public criticism by making it illegal for educators to engage in public discussion or debates:

 

At least Hipps is able to speak out at all. Arizona’s teachers, superintendents, principals and school board members have spoke up about the slash and burn methods of their state leaders, and the state leader response has been to float a law that will require them to shut up.

Arizona lawmakers have attached an amendment to Senate Bill 1172. It prohibits “an employee of a school district or charter school, acting on the district’s or charter school’s behalf, from distributing electronic materials to influence the outcome of an election or to advocate support for or opposition to pending or proposed legislation.”

 

On the one hand, it’s a good idea that Mrs. O’Teacher not give her class an hour of self-directed worksheets while she stuffs envelopes for the new ballot initiative. On the other hand, there’s that whole First Amendment thing. And the law is so broadly worded that I imagine a citizen asking a school district employee, “I’m really worried about the new proposed law cutting all money to public schools. Will that hurt our programs here,” and said school employee must reply, by law, “I cannot share any information about that with you.” Other critics of the bill fear that it would even prohibit any discussion of educational programs that directly affect children with those children’s parents.

 

And while I’m not concerned, exactly, I am curious– would this law also prohibit charter schools from advertising?

 

The law is clearly one more attempt to push educators out of the political world. No more informational letters to parents and voters. No more taking a public stand against assaults on school funding by the governor and legislators. Presumably no teacher or administrator in Arizona could write a response to Hipps’ op-ed– at least not with any indication that they were writing their response from the perspective of a public educator.

 

In their wisdom, legislators have decided that the biggest problem of public schools is not the lack of funding, but the surplus of discussion of their funding. Best to shut up the educators.

 

 

Apparently Governor Doug Ducey and the Arizona legislature think that the state will prosper with fewer educated people.

 

According to Politico.com:

 

ANGER IN ARIZONA: Gov. Doug Ducey and Arizona’s Republican-led legislature shocked many this weekend by passing a “values-based budget” that slashes higher education funding by 13 percent – $99 million – and completely pulls state support for community colleges in the process. The unrest isn’t letting up, according to local reports [http://bit.ly/1b2JlWz ], with Arizona Board of Regents Chairman Mark Killian exploring a possible lawsuit against the legislature during the board’s Wednesday meeting. He points to a state constitutional provision stating that a college education must be “as nearly free as possible.”

 

– Ducey argues that “with a $600 million line item, the universities are one of the largest recipients of state funding.” That’s despite a 48 percent per-student funding cut for public colleges since 2008 – the largest nationwide – and average tuition increase of nearly $4,500, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Killian acknowledges that such a lawsuit may be a longshot. Meanwhile, the Phoenix New Times reports [http://bit.ly/1D71pKZ ], Arizona State University President Michael Crow says he’ll try to figure out a way to deal with the cuts while still keeping in-state tuition flat next year, as promised. “The ramifications for the state’s economy will take years to play out because it is our colleges and universities that produce Arizona’s strongest asset: educated young men and women trained to play leading roles in a rapidly changing world,” Crow said.

Politico.com reports a wonderful story from Arizona, where public education is underfunded and embattled as a result of years of budget cuts and yet another round of deep cuts:

“Nearly 50 Phoenix-based Teach for America members and alumni are asking TFA to return a $500,000 budget set-aside. They say public schools – which will see a net loss of about $100 million under the new budget – need the money more than TFA does. ‘There is a massive contradiction that exists when an organization that claims to work for the education of all children is part of a process that robs Peter to pay Paul,’ the group said. However, the organization’s Phoenix arm already said it intends to accept the state funds.”

More from the New Times: http://bit.ly/1Msto7t.

Gene V. Glass is one of our most distinguished education researchers. Fortunately for the rest of us, he blogs from time to time about the lunacy of our era of education “reform.”

 

 

In this post, he explains what he calls “management by pinheads.” Quite simply, it is the effort to improve education by setting numerical goals. Such a strategy invites data manipulation, gaming the system, and cheating. He notes that Beverly Hall recently died of breast cancer. She had an illustrious career, but it all came crashing down because of a massive cheating scandal in Atlanta, where she was superintendent. She prided herself on being a “Dara driven decision-maker,” but it was this approach that created a climate where subordinates–administrators and teachers–cheated to produce the data she wanted.

 

 

Now Glass notes that the Scottsdale, Arizona, school board has set a menu of numerical targets for its superintendent. It is an invitation to game the system, he says. Campbell’s Law rules.

Gene V. Glass, distinguished professor emeritus at Arizona State University, made a stunning discovery: the President of the State Board of Education is CEO of a charter school, which pays him and his family handsomely. The state of Arizona does not care about conflicts of interest, especially where charter schools are involved.

 

He writes:

 

A few years back, Arizonans saw the Chairperson of the State Charter School Board award a charter to a non-profit foundation (which was really K12 Inc., the online school provider), then be hired by the foundation to head the Arizona Virtual Academy, and then be hired by K12 Inc. as a vice-president for something-or-other. She continues to occupy the latter two posts.

 
Arizona simply doesn’t recognize things called conflicts of interest. I could list dozens concerning public education. A staff member the Board of Regents once told me that in Arizona if you declare your connections, then you can no longer be accused of having a conflict of interest. Perhaps this qualifies as some minimal level of ethical behavior.

 

A new flagrant conflict of interest has just become apparent to me. A man named Greg Miller is president of the Arizona State Board of Education. There is also a man named Greg Miller who is CEO of Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. Matching up photos of the Board president and the charter CEO leaves no doubt that these two individuals are one in the same Greg Miller. Mr. Miller, a civil engineer for 25 years, founded Challenge Charter School in the late 1990s and for a while served as principal. His current title is CEO. Mrs. Pam Miller, his wife, once served on a school board; the Challenge Charter Schools website lists no current duties for Mrs. Miller. But daughter Wendy Miller was appointed Principal of Challenge Charter School the same year in which she earned her MBA.

 

Glass posts the IRS form 990 for the charter school. Remember, the head of the Miller family is the president of the Arizona State Board of Education.

 

Greg Miller, the CEO of a school “system” with about 650 students, is being compensated to the tune of $145,000 annually. His wife receives the same salary, though her duties are never enumerated at the website and her position is only described as “Executive Director/Vice-PR,” whatever Vice-PR is. The Miller’s daughter Wendy, who has degrees in Public Administration and Business, receives a salary of more than $120,000 for acting as Principal/Secretary. Basically, the Miller family, while working assiduously 60 hours a week each as reported on their IRS form, is taking about $425,000 a year out of the coffers for salary.

 

Glass observes:

 

 

Crony capitalism, conflicts of interest, charter schools lining the pockets of amateur entrepreneurs, “quasi-private” schools being operated at public expense, an increasingly segregated state school system … it’s just education reform Arizona style.

 

 

[P.S. Please do not confuse this family with one of my favorite movies, “We Are the Millers,” which is hilarious, involves criminal activity, and does not involve conflicts of interest.]

 

 

 

 

 

Gene V. Glass, distinguisher researcher of education at Arizona State University, brings us up to the date with the drama in Arizona over privatization and the Common Core, with surprising enemies and allies taking sides:

 

 

Professor Glass writes:

 

 

It all started when Doug Ducey won the governor’s race last November. Duce, who cut his political teeth as a student at Arizona State University editing the campus newspaper, made his millions in the ice cream business (Cold Stone Creamery). Immediately upon taking office he instituted a hiring freeze and promised to increase school choice. That same mid-term election saw a virtual unknown Republican school board member, Diane Douglas, defeat ASU Education professor David Garcia for the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Douglas vowed to dump Common Core on grounds of its being federal intrusion into a state responsibility, but policy had nothing to do with her victory; if you had an R behind your name in the mid-term election, you won.

 

Two days ago, Douglas fired two of her top administrators — Executive Director and Asst. Executive Director — at the Department who were carry-overs from the previous Superintendent. It’s not hard to imagine why; they were far down the road of installing the Common Core in Arizona schools. Yesterday, the whole business erupted in a public fight between Ducey and Douglas over whether the latter has the authority to fire people in her department. After a prayer breakfast Thursday morning, the Governor was barely out the door before he gave reporters an insincere piece of his mind: “[I’m] sorry she chose to go down that path.”Douglas shot back: Ducey, she said, is establishing a “shadow faction of charter school operators and former state superintendents [referring to Lisa Graham Keegan who supported Douglas’s opponent in the election] who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools.”

 

Score +1 for Douglas for speaking the truth. The Arizona Senate has moved forward quickly in this session to support the privatization of K-12 education. The Senate education committee has already approved bills that would 1) award vouchers (at 90% state per pupil expenditure) to any student whose application has been turned down to open enroll in a public school or a charter school within 25 miles of their home, and 2) award a voucher to any student on an Indian reservation. Clearly the Republicans are flexing their muscles after the November victory; such radical pro-voucher legislating has never before made it into law in Arizona. Perhaps this is the year.

 

 

Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
National Education Policy Center
University of Colorado Boulder
_________________________

Julie Erfle enrolled her oldest son in the BASIS Charter School in Arizona. She went to a parent night and was impressed. Basis is ranked by U.S. New & World Report as one of the best high schools in the U.S. “Teachers with degrees from Harvard and Yale and Stanford, with PhD’s and real-world experience. A curriculum that entails AP coursework as early as 7th grade, and the ability to finish high school with every AP class completed by 11th grade. Wow. What’s not to love?” Her son is happy at the school and doing well. She has no complaint about the school but she knows it is not a model for public education.

 

On her blog, Erfle revealed the “secret” of BASIS and other very high-performing charter schools.

 

In a nutshell, the BASIS expectations and requirements are so high that the students who can’t meet them leave.

 

She writes:

 

Governor Ducey wants to “fund the wait lists” at schools such as BASIS. He’s fond of using the school as the poster child for reform. But those wait lists are a mirage.

 

It’s true that hundreds of students are turned away from BASIS and other top-rated charter schools in 5th and 6th grade. But it’s also true that the turnover rate at these charter schools is astronomical, with hundreds of students opting out of the schools after a short period of time, and schools graduating as few as 20-30 students.

 

Many of the critics will say it’s because BASIS filters out undesirable students, such as those with learning or attention differences, while keeping the “cream of the crop.” And they’re correct.

 

The curriculum at BASIS isn’t advanced. It’s highly advanced, as in 2 or 3 years ahead of most schools, similar to the curriculum for highly gifted students. Remember when I said AP classes start in 7th grade? That’s not normal. And it’s not something that just any student can handle.

 

Starting in 6th grade, students take midterms and finals, and the final is a significant portion of the student’s overall class grade. It’s high-stakes testing at its highest. If a student fails even one class (with a small exception for some math classes), that student must retake the entire grade.

 

The vast majority of students, when faced with retaking an entire grade or moving on to a different school, will move on. So will the vast majority of students who struggle with such an advanced load and who find themselves spending 4-5 hours on homework every night. And the same with many students who are involved in extracurricular activities such as club sports, which requires time for evening practices and weekend tournaments.

 

This is why BASIS schools start out with hundreds of students and long waiting lists in 5th and 6th grade but end up graduating only a handful of students. And when a school graduates 25 students who have made it through every advanced, AP course available, one would hope these students would have sky-high test scores.

 

Maybe it is a good idea to give public funding to a school like BASIS, that is so rigorous that few of those who enroll will ever graduate. After all, there are high schools for unusually smart students, like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant High School in New York City, where students who want to attend must first pass an examination. But no one pretends that every school should be just like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant. It is well known that they are highly selective. Their students get high scores because they are selective schools. As Julie writes, BASIS is not for everyone, and it is not a model for public education.

 

As she writes:

 

BASIS schools start out with hundreds of students and long waiting lists in 5th and 6th grade but end up graduating only a handful of students. And when a school graduates 25 students who have made it through every advanced, AP course available, one would hope these students would have sky-high test scores.

 

It’s easy to understand why BASIS makes the list as one of the top high schools in the nation. But to compare a class of 25 students to one with hundreds of students from every background and with every learning challenge imaginable at a school in an economically challenged neighborhood doesn’t really seem like a fair comparison, does it?

 

Of course not. And yet that is what our politicians routinely do.

 

 

 

 

Ed Berger, an experienced educator who lives in Arizona, writes that the corrupt politics of the state are hurting children and public education. Berger has worked in education in Arizona since 1991, and during that time he has met many dedicated, hard-working teachers, doing their best to educate children with inadequate resources.

 

What have I experienced? Great things at all levels Pre-K-University! Dedicated teachers and administrators constantly working to improve our schools; dedicated human beings fighting for children and quality education. They are pitted against an economic system that has created pockets of poverty which damage children and their potential for learning, and political ideologues who want to destroy or profit financially from public education.
I am witnessing first-hand the calculated destruction of Arizona public schools and the professional educators who serve our children.

 

Arizona is a ‘right-to-work state.’ No worker’s rights means no organized opposition to the politicians who control the State. As with other public employees, educators have no power to confront and expose abuses and those who damage our schools and children.

 

Arizona is a ‘one-party-rules state.’ One powerful political party controls what happens to our children and our community schools. That party is closely aligned with the religious right. Those groups gets access to the education tax dollars citizens pay. With tax dollars, they inject religious bias into the curriculum in the schools they run. Politicians in Arizona have effectively broken down the barriers between church and state.

 

How do they do it? Too many make profits from the education tax dollars citizens pay for our children. They do this by privatizing schools, bypassing safeguards, and taking over or eliminating elected school boards that stand in their way. They exempt, stop, modify, or eliminate accountability. They stop full audits and the release of specific information about what these profit-driven schools do to, or for children. They maintain a chokehold on information.

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been diverted from public education–which enrolls 85% of the state’s children– to private bank accounts. The children are cheated.

 

Berger writes that:

 

In Arizona, under the cloud provided by the Legislature, hundreds of millions of dollars are not accounted for. As a result of legislation, well over 600 charter schools have been created since the mid-90s. There are over 450 of these partial schools active now. Whole industries including banks and finance systems, school management services, and curriculum businesses have risen to get a ‘free’ piece of the public education pie. Public tax dollars are being diverted into private ventures. All of these services come out of the tax dollars that citizens are led to believe educate children.

 

Services already provided by law in our public district schools are being duplicated at great cost to taxpayers. In Arizona, ‘schools- of-choice’ spend valuable resources on rent and purchases of buildings. This results in public funding used to buy, build, or lease space. It often pays the property mortgages for private corporations and crooked individuals who will end up owning the buildings. What a great deal for kids. Right?

 
Besides siphoning off teaching money for buildings, kids are not getting the comprehensive curriculum and services that our district schools must provide. Partial schools cheat children by not exposing them to at least 10 disciplines taught by certified and vetted professionals.

 

He adds:

 

Arizona is a state controlled by ALEC (Alliance Of Legislative Executive Councils). Much of the Alliance’s agenda comes from the teachings of the radical right-wing John Birch Society, the legacy the Koch Brothers continue to force on America. The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the Arizona political machine advocate the destruction of public education in America, the end of workers’ rights and worker organizations, and the right to access public tax dollars for their own profit. They call it “privatizing.”

 

More often than not, legislators allow ALEC teams to write the legislation they will introduce and vote in. This process subverts the democratic process of representative government. It is in fact, corporation representation.

 

The public schools are starved of the resources they need to educate the children. The ALEC-controlled legislature is trying to destroy public education.

 

This is political corruption of the worst kind, the kind that hurts children and undermines the future of the state.

Twenty five years ago, when charters were a brand-new idea, advocates said they would cost less and get better results than public schools. Now, however, charter schools are suing for equal funding. The Arizona appellate court just ruled that the state is not obliged to provide equal funding to charter schools and public schools.

The Education Law Center reports:

AZ COURT RULES STATE CAN FUND CHARTER SCHOOLS LOWER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

At the beginning of the charter school experiment, charter school advocates touted their ability to provide a superior education at a lower cost than traditional public schools. Now, we are seeing the charter lobby abandon that claim and turn to the courts to demand equal funding for charter schools. In Texas, charter school advocates recently lost their claim for equal funding. In New York, charter school advocates have sued for equal facilities funding. In a ruling that may have wide ramifications, last week an Arizona appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the differential funding systems for public and charter schools do not violate Arizona’s constitution.

In Craven v. Huppenthal, parents of children in Arizona charter schools sued the state, claiming that Arizona’s school funding scheme was unconstitutional because it caused “gross disparities between charter public schools and other public schools.” The lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and defendant-intervenors the Arizona School Boards Association and Creighton Elementary School District No. 14. The plaintiff-parents appealed.

The appellate court first noted that charter schools are free from many of the regulations governing public schools. For example, Arizona charters are exempt from statutes governing teacher hiring, firing and management. Arizona charter schools may limit enrollment to a certain age group or grade levels. Their curriculum may emphasize a certain philosophy, style or subject area. The court also pointed out that charter schools are funded differently than public schools as well. Unlike public schools, charters receive additional state funding, and may accept grants and donations to supplement their funding. Charter schools owned by non-profits may receive funds obtained through certain facility bonds. Charter schools are also entitled to stimulus funds for start-up and certain facility costs.

The plaintiffs contended that the different funding schemes of charters and public schools violated both the general and uniform education clause of Arizona’s constitution and its equal protection clause. The court, affirming the lower court’s decision, rejected both claims.

Prior rulings of Arizona’s Supreme Court interpreted the general and uniform clause to require that the state provide a public school system that is adequate. The plaintiff-parents in this case admitted that their children were receiving an adequate education at the charter schools. In fact, parents testified that the charter schools had “quality academics” and an “exceptional education.” Thus, the court concluded that the state did not violate the general and uniform clause.

The court also rejected the equal protection claim, noting with approval the reasoning of a New Jersey appellate court, in J.D. ex rel. Scipio-Derrick v. Davy, 2 A.3d 387, 397-98 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010), in a similar equal protection case brought by charter school parents. In that case, the New Jersey court pointed out that children’s attendance at a charter school is purely voluntary. They could withdraw at any time and enroll in their local public school; the school they claimed was funded adequately. Consequently, the court ruled that “the voluntariness of the program vitiates any asserted deprivation of a right to receive an education at a school that is fully funded to the same extent as other Newark public schools,” because the children in the charter school have the “unabridged option” to attend their district public school. The Arizona court applied this reasoning to this case, ruling that since the charter school students can at any time attend their district public school, they are not being treated differently than other students.

In a footnote, the Arizona court noted that the plaintiffs conceded that charter and public schools are not similarly situated, but claimed that those distinctions are irrelevant because the plaintiffs were attempting to focus on the treatment of the children in the charter schools. However, the court pointed out that it was the schools that received the different funding, not the students. Because the students themselves were free to attend their district public schools, their equal protection rights were not violated.

This ruling makes clear that the very nature of charters, as voluntary alternatives to public schools and free from some of the regulations constraining public schools, permits the state to treat charters differently than public schools in matters of funding. The reasoning of the Arizona court can and may very well be applied in future cases as we see charter school advocates across the country appealing to courts to force states to fund them on par with public schools.

Education Justice Press Contact:
Wendy Lecker, Esq.
Senior Attorney, Education Law Center
email: wlecker@edlawcenter.org
voice: (203) 329-8041
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org

Copyright © 2014 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved.

Education Justice Initiative | c/o 60 Park Place, Suite 300 | Newark | NJ | 07102