Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Arizona schools

Arizona education funding debate heads to November ballot

Key Points:
  • Arizona voters may decide in November on increasing teacher pay
  • Senate measure requires 60 cents of every dollar spent on instruction
  • Arizona schools face a separate debate on renewing Proposition 123 funding

Arizona voters could decide in November if they want more of the money allocated for K-12 education to be spent on teacher pay.

On a party-line vote, the Senate has agreed to put a measure on the November ballot to require that 60% of every dollar spent by the bigger school districts in the state’s two most populous counties be allocated towards “direct instructional expenses,” a category which includes teacher salaries. 

What makes that 60% figure significant is that the Auditor General’s Office reported last month that, on average, just 52.1 cents of every dollar end up in what is classified as instruction — the lowest figure since the report’s inception two decades ago.

“This lets voters tell those districts, ‘No, no, no, we want our children to have a funded classroom. We want our children to get a well-paid teacher who is highly qualified to teach those kids,’ ” said Sen. Jake Hoffman, the Queen Creek Republican who is the sponsor of SCR 1032.

But Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan argued that what’s missing from the discussion is that there are not enough state dollars to both increase teacher pay and fund everything else that schools are required to do.

The Tucson Democrat pointed out that a judge earlier this year concluded that lawmakers are not meeting their constitutional obligation to fund things like building construction and repairs, as well as other expenses ranging from desks to computers. And he gave them until November to fix the problem.

“We have underfunded the school facilities needs of our district schools,” Sundareshan said. And that, she said, is forcing schools to use the dollars they do get — including for teacher salaries — for those other needs.

But she said that, rather than comply with the ruling and provide what the court has said is legally required, Republican legislative leaders have decided to file an appeal.

“So, yes, it is absolutely the Legislature and its Republican leaders that have chosen to underfund district schools,” Sundareshan said.

“Doing something like this that sets the arbitrary spending amounts will not solve the problem,” she said. “Funding the schools will.”

Hoffman claimed there is administrative “bloat.”

On one hand, the report from the Auditor General’s Office showed that, overall, Arizona schools spend a smaller percentage of each dollar on administration than the rest of the country.

What’s also true, however, is that while year-over-year classroom spending in Arizona is up 0.5%, administrative spending actually increased by 2.7%.

But this isn’t just about administrative costs which cover everything from superintendents and principals to the staff that handle clerical and purchasing services.

Sen. Lauren Kuby said what’s missing from the debate — and from the category of classroom spending that Hoffman wants to take to 60% — are things that are necessary for students to learn — and things that schools are legally required to provide. That includes counselors, audiologists and nurses.

And that formula, said the Tempe Democrat, also ignores the high costs of teaching students with special needs.

In fact, the auditor general’s report said that, while the overall number of students in public schools is declining, the number of students receiving special education services has increased, particularly for autism. And that, the report says, can cause an increase in the category of instructional support — something that doesn’t count toward that 60% goal for instruction.

The Senate vote is not the last word as the House has yet to act on a similar measure being pushed by Rep. Matt Gress.

There also are some differences between the plans.

Most notably, what the Senate approved would apply only to public schools in the state’s two largest counties — and only to school districts of at least 7,500 students within those counties.

That change came after Mark Barnes, representing the Rural Arizona School Coalition, told lawmakers that small, rural districts, with certain fixed expenses like fuel costs and insurance, would have trouble ever reaching that 60% goal.

Part of the debate — and impetus for state intervention — is where has the money gone.

In 2000, voters approved a 0.6-cent hike in the state sales tax to 5.6% with the express purpose of raising teacher salaries, performance pay, and funding classroom improvements. Originally supposed to last 20 years, that “classroom site fund” was extended in 2018 to run through 2041.

A separate measure approved by the Legislature in 2018 set up a system to raise teacher pay by 20% over a four-year period through 2021.

In both cases, Hoffman said, many districts found ways to use the extra funds to supplant what they already were paying the teachers, allowing the districts to divert the dollars for other priorities. That, he said, goes against what voters want.

“They want teachers who are actually compensated and given classroom supply budgets,” he said.

“They want teachers who are supported so that they can focus on delivering a world-class education,” Hoffman continued. “And what we’ve seen is districts have instead prioritized grant writers, they’ve prioritized district office staff, they have prioritized everything else, all of the bloat in the administrative side of education.”

Children shouldn’t have to worry about heart issues

When my daughter Addison was born, I thought the scariest moments would be the usual new mom worries. The first eight months of her life were filled with monitors, medical teams and more complicated words than any parent should ever have to learn. She was born with a congenital heart defect and has already survived two open heart surgeries. I remember holding her tiny hand in the hospital, wondering what her future would look like and praying she would have the chance to grow into the bright, joyful girl I knew she would be.

Nicole Blossey, volunteer with the American Heart Association’s Phoenix division, said families like hers need lawmakers to understand what it feels like to drop your child off at school and silently wonder if the campus is ready for a cardiac emergency.

Today, at nine years old, Addison is thriving. She swims every chance she gets, cheers with her friends and loves school. If you met her on the playground, you would never guess the challenges she has faced. She is happy, healthy and determined. But even with all her strength, I carry a fear that follows me into every school year. I worry about what would happen if her heart needed help and the adults around her were not prepared.

That fear is why I am speaking directly to Arizona lawmakers. Families like mine need you to understand what it feels like to drop your child off at school and silently wonder if the campus is ready for a cardiac emergency. This is not a rare concern. It is a real and urgent issue for parents across our state, with children who have diagnosed and undiagnosed heart conditions. 

Arizona needs to require every school to have a cardiac emergency response plan. We must provide all of our schools with the protection needed to keep our children safe. When cardiac emergencies happen, every second matters. Quick, coordinated action can be the difference between life saved and life lost.

 

Arizona schools already prepare for fire drills, lockdowns and severe weather. Yet too many do not have a cardiac emergency response plan in place. That means that in a moment of crisis, the very people responsible for protecting our children may not have clear steps to follow.

Imagine you are a teacher watching the playground during recess. A child suddenly collapses. You need to know instantly who calls 911, who starts CPR, who retrieves the automated external defibrillator and exactly where that AED is located. You need a plan that everyone has practiced. Without it, even the most caring and capable educators can be paralyzed by uncertainty.These plans save lives. Schools that have trained staff, accessible AEDs and clear procedures consistently see better outcomes when emergencies happen. Arizona families need reassurance that their children are protected no matter what part of the state they live in or which school they attend.

My daughter has fought too hard for us to leave her safety to chance. She is not the only student who needs this protection. There are kids with known heart conditions. There are student athletes who push themselves on the field every day. There are children with undiagnosed issues who might face a sudden emergency without warning. Every one of them deserves a school that is ready.

My daughter has fought too hard for us to leave her safety to chance. She is not the only student who needs this protection. There are kids with known heart conditions. There are student athletes who push themselves on the field every day. There are children with undiagnosed issues who might face a sudden emergency without warning. Every one of them deserves a school that is ready.

As a mom, I do everything I can for Addison. But when she walks into her classroom each morning, I am placing my trust in our schools and in the leaders who set the standards that keep kids safe.

Our elected officials have a responsibility to protect our children with simple, proven, lifesaving preparation.

I am asking you to act. I urge you to support SB1131 requiring every Arizona public school to adopt a cardiac emergency response plan.  Every child deserves the chance to come home. Please help make it possible. 

Nicole Blossey is a dedicated volunteer with the American Heart Association’s Phoenix division. 

It actually is as easy as 1-2-3

Danny Seiden

It’s often said that good policy is also good politics, and that’s especially true when it comes to education funding in Arizona.

Proposition 123, which distributes over $300 million annually to Arizona schools from the state’s Permanent Land Endowment Trust, is a prime example. Crafted by former Gov. Doug Ducey, referred to the ballot by Republicans and Democrats, and approved by voters in 2016, it successfully increased K-12 funding without raising taxes.

I was part of Ducey’s team when we developed this plan, and I can attest to the challenges we faced in convincing education stakeholders, the Legislature, and ultimately the public of its merits.

This 10-year policy expired in the summer of 2025, largely without notice. More than $300 million a year just slipped away into the night.

The state’s Land Trust is complex, which may help explain why Prop. 123 passed with only 51% of the vote in 2016. When Arizona became a state in 1912, the federal government granted millions of acres of land, with revenues intended to fund education. Over more than a century, the trust had grown significantly, but infrequent adjustments to the distribution rate meant the state wasn’t fully benefiting from its growth.

When Prop. 123 was first proposed, critics claimed the trust would be “raided” or “drained.” That didn’t happen. Schools received hundreds of millions more, and the trust itself has grown to record levels.

So why haven’t voters been asked to extend it?

There’s been lots of debate about modifying the policy. Some want a higher distribution rate; others want it lower. Some want school choice protections; others want guarantees tied to specific education line items. While these conversations are understandable, they’ve also resulted in paralysis.

In 2016, the slogan for Prop. 123 was: “It’s as easy as 1-2-3.” Today, it’s turned into something that feels more like an algebra equation that stretches across three white boards.

That’s not a winning strategy when voters have repeatedly rejected ballot issues that are overly complex.

The consequence of inaction is real. With Prop. 123 expired, the general fund has been forced to backfill the loss, leaving less funding for other priorities and less money returned to hardworking taxpayers.

Realistically, the earliest voters could decide on a new Prop. 123 is November 2026. By then, Arizona will have missed out on nearly $700 million in revenue from the Trust.

At the same time, Arizona’s budget has become less flexible in recent years. Recent tax and policy changes tied to the “Big Beautiful Bill” are expected to cost the state at least $350 million to align with federal standards.

In that context, the $300 million annually generated by Prop. 123 would be invaluable in protecting our budget and taxpayers.

Here’s a straightforward solution: keep it simple. The existing policy worked, and is now popular. Maintain the current distribution rate.

The charge for voters is an easy one: extend Prop. 123 and keep those dollars flowing to our schools.

Prop. 123 was good policy then, and it remains good policy now. If we want it to pass at the ballot box again, simplicity will be key.

Danny Seiden is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

State agency begins process to delete DEI language from English curriculum

Key Points: 
  • State board greenlights revisions to teaching, English language learner standards 
  • Department of Education to convene stakeholder committee to propose edits
  • Board members urge transparency, preservation of values in revision process

With the go-ahead from the State Board of Education, the Arizona Department of Education is leading the charge to cut any language that could fall under the federal government’s definition of diversity, equity and inclusion from teaching standards and framework for English language learners. 

An executive order from President Donald Trump and a subsequent warning from the U.S. Department of Education pushed states to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion in education or face the loss of federal funding.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne sought to get in line, and at a board meeting in October, associate superintendents asked to revise the Arizona Professional Teaching Standards and Structured English Immersion Endorsement Course Frameworks, claiming an alleged $866 million cut in federal funding. 

After the last board meeting left lingering questions, the department returned Dec. 8 with a more concrete plan to convene a stakeholder committee, with a charge to draft and present proposed revisions by next September. 

The department hopes to bring educators, administrators, course providers, higher education institutions, county superintendents and stakeholder groups into the fold to define DEI and implement any necessary changes. 

But board members expressed a desire to keep the spirit of diversity, equity and inclusion alive and instead retool any language vulnerable to federal scrutiny. And though satisfied with the department’s proposal, the board still wants to keep a close eye, making a plea for a transparent, open process and member access at meetings. 

“This should not be a good ol’ boys thing. This should be very transparent, extremely transparent,” Board member Jacqui Clay said. “We know that DEI is a very subjective thing, and I want to make sure that this state has put it on the table, pulled that Band-Aid off the wound — if there is one — and washed it out clearly.” 

The Arizona Department of Education first proposed opening the two sets of standards for revision in October, but, given some reservations, board members declined to dive in. 

For one, the U.S. Department of Education order requiring the elimination of any language deemed to be related to diversity, equity and inclusion is still tied up in the courts.

Beyond the pressure from the feds, members generally took issue with the department’s lack of a concrete plan for convening stakeholders and reaching consensus on necessary changes. 

In the interim, the department saw some backup from a slate of Republican lawmakers, while public education advocacy groups warned of unintended consequences for educators, students and curriculum if the revisions went too far.

In revisiting the issue at a board meeting on Dec. 8, Deputy Associate Superintendent Adela Santa Cruz began by outlining a plan to change the framework for educators teaching English language learners. 

Santa Cruz said the plan was to convene a group of at least 20 members, including three elementary level teachers, three middle and high school teachers, four school administrators, and two current Structured English Immersion course providers. 

She noted the plan to include representatives from the county superintendents, Arizona School Administrators Association, Arizona Rural School Association, the Arizona Education Association and parents.

The aim, too, is to bring in representation from all 15 counties, with the hope of having members ready to start working in February 2026. 

Through regular meetings, the department hopes the stakeholder groups can first define diversity, equity and inclusion and determine what language should be changed or removed. 

“It’s not our definition,” Santa Cruz said. 

The committee will update the State Board on its progress every other month, with a final draft slotted for September 2026. 

Clay, a State Board of Education member, warned against urgency in the revision process, advocating for open and robust conversation. 

“With that type of attitude that we have to get it done as quickly as possible, would that affect the culture of this committee? Would it be an underlying bullying that you have to do it my way? Would it be a place where people cannot have a robust conversation?” Clay said. “It takes a very skilled leader and facilitator to take a situation as serious as this right here, being very objective and bringing that to a conclusion.” 

Santa Cruz said she had never been accused of being a bully and did not intend to start now. 

“I can tell you that in my 45 years of experience in education and in working with English language learning exclusively, I’ve always sought to do what’s best for the student. I will continue to do that,” Santa Cruz said. 

Board member and Northern Arizona University President Jose Cruz Rivera pointed out the weight and tension of both the broader social and political landscape and the board’s fiduciary duty to ensure no loss of federal funding. 

Though, despite his prior reservations, he said he was satisfied with the responses from the department and “trustful that motivations behind this work will translate to the integrity of its implementation.” 

Member Jason Catanese also advocated for including former structured English immersion students in the conversation. 

“The words that become tarnished are still things that we value and things that are good for kids and things that improve instruction,” Karla Phillips-Krivickas said. “There’s got to be a balance between keeping the things we know are good for kids and the values that we have and the language that we use.” 

The board unanimously agreed to greenlight the revision process and followed a similar cadence in considering edits to the teaching standards. 

Associate Superintendent Sid Bailey said the department planned to take the same approach in convening stakeholders, first focusing on defining diversity, equity and inclusion and offering narrow revisions to comply with federal law. 

Bailey told the board the teaching standards working group would include elementary, middle, and high school teachers; school administrators; representatives from educator preparation programs, including members from state universities, community colleges and alternative programs; and parents. 

In finding members, Bailey said the department would consult county superintendents, Arizona School Administrators, the Arizona Rural School Association, the Arizona Education Association, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the Arizona Community College Coordinating Council and the Arizona Board of Regents. 

The department plans to gauge how the committee’s recommended changes affect educator evaluations, professional development, and educator preparation programs. 

Clay again asked for access and transparency, requesting that board members listen in on any meetings. 

Bailey said the department would consider the request, and whether the meetings will be open to the public remains an open question, too, according to a spokesperson. 

 The board unanimously agreed to open teaching standards up to revisions. 

Arizona schools face $866M funding risk over DEI training standards

Key Points:
  • Arizona schools chief Tom Horne wants to revise teacher training standards due to federal funding concerns
  • President Trump’s order requires states to remove “diversity, equity, and inclusion” references from programs receiving federal funds
  • Arizona’s teacher standards may need to be revised to comply with federal directives

Fearing a loss of federal dollars, a state schools chief, Tom Horne, wants the Board of Education to immediately begin revising the standards used to train teachers in Arizona.

Horne says an order issued by President Trump on the first day of his presidency requires states to scrub any references to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” from programs that receive federal funds. And he contends there are items in Arizona’s professional teaching standards that could run afoul of that edict.

More to the point, Horne says it places about $866 million in federal dollars at risk.

But education board members are not quite as anxious to rush into changing the rules.

At an Oct. 27 meeting, several said they had serious questions, including who would be on the committee Horne wants to appoint to review the existing rules to ferret out provisions the Trump administration might find offensive.

So board members put off a decision on crafting new rules until their December meeting. Horne, however, warned the delay could prove financially hazardous.

“I’m fearful that if we act too slowly we may get caught in a situation where we can’t get it done in time and we’re facing the ax from the federal government,” he said.

Less clear is whether there’s actually anything in the existing rules that would endanger federal dollars and what changes might be needed.

One possibility deals with current standards for learning environments.

Sid Bailey, an associate school superintendent, pointed out that one of these requires teachers to manage the environment “to actively and equitably engage learners by organizing, allocating, and coordinating the resources of time, space, and learner’s attention.” He told the board that it may be necessary to excise the words “and equitably” to comply with the presidential directive.

Then there’s a provision saying teachers should communicate in a way that demonstrates respect and responsiveness “to the cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives learners bring to the learning environment.”

All that verbiage, Bailey said, may have to go. And that, he said, is why the rule-making process must begin with a committee to scour this and all the rules.

“I’m not a prophet and can’t predict what we would come up with,” Bailey said. But he said that the rule-making process — and a study by a committee named by Horne’s department — would propose revising language “that’s no longer aligned with current federal directives.”

Arizona’s standards are not unique to the state.

The state board here adopted what is known as InTASC in 2011. That’s short for the Interstate Teachers Assignment and Support Consortium, which uses the standards to guide education and professional development for teachers across the country.

In essence, the idea is to ensure teachers have the knowledge and ability to help all students learn.

Bailey told board members that the 2011 revisions to InTASC — the ones adopted by the Arizona board — included key changes, including an emphasis on personalized learning, the integration of 21st-century skills, and “support for diverse student needs.”

He said he and other Department of Education employees have since met with the deans at the colleges of education at the three state universities.

“All university deans agreed that the teaching standards that they teach do not align with federal mandates and need adjustment,” Bailey said.

The only thing is, the universities also must align their standards for preparing new teachers with the rules of the state Board of Education. And the purpose of drafting new rules — what Horne wants — would be to ensure that Arizona’s teacher training rules align with federal rules to avoid losing federal dollars.

Not everyone on the board is convinced they need to rush to address that fear.

“I just want to make sure that we’re not a solution in search of a problem,” said Daniel Coor, president of Arizona Western College, who sits on the state Board of Education.

Bailey said that’s not the case.

“We’ve got evidence that our universities, two of them, have already been challenged by the federal government, that are concerned with their course curriculum,” he said.

And there’s more.

One is a “Dear Colleague” letter that went out in February to all state education agencies from Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights from the U.S. Department of Education, detailing how his office is interpreting the law to make it illegal to use race in making any decisions. And he said there are other “insidious” ways that DEI programs keep students from fully participating in school life.

“The (Education) Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this nation’s educational institutions,” Trainor wrote.

And then there is an April request from the feds that the state must certify it is not using DEI, with a reminder of financial penalties for failure to comply.

In an interview with Capitol Media Services, Horne said he agrees that some of the rules need to go — regardless of the possible loss of federal dollars.

Consider the one that says teachers should respect “cultural backgrounds and differing perspectives learners bring to the learning environment.” Horne called that unnecessary.

“They’re teaching academics,” he said. “And all kids, as individuals, can learn academics.”

The problem, Horne said, is how that guideline is interpreted and implemented.

“When they are culturally sensitive, they dumb down the requirements for the minority kids,” he said.

“Minority kids can learn just as well as other kids,” Horne continued. “And you don’t need to treat them differently.”

And what’s wrong with ensuring that teachers “actively and equitably engage learners”?

Horne acknowledged that, at one time, “equitable” was a positive word.

“It meant ‘fair,’ ” he said.

“Now, with the ‘woke’ philosophies, ‘equity’ no longer means ‘fair,’ it means ‘equal results by race,”’ Horne said. “And if you have equal results by race, you’re rewarding people for what race they belong to rather than what they’ve accomplished individually.”

Monday’s vote puts off the board’s decision until December on whether to start reviewing the rules — and not just the ones Bailey cited during the meeting.

Kathleen Wiebke, a public member of the board, said she understood Horne’s desire to move forward immediately. But she said she wasn’t ready to push ahead now.

“I do think there are a lot of questions,” Wiebke said. “And what I don’t want to do is start working on these standards and then have them changed again.”

Horne acknowledged he has no idea when the U.S. Department of Education will return and start demanding proof that all traces of DEI have been removed from regulations and policies.

Tribal schools lose federal Impact Aid amid government shutdown

Key Points: 
  • The government shutdown has included the pause of the Impact Aid Program 
  • Program fills the gap in tax funding for schools located on federal lands
  • Schools forced to pause certain spending initiatives to accommodate

As the government shutdown continues, federal money originally allocated for school districts on tribal lands has been paused, affecting several Arizona districts. 

Started in 1950, the Impact Aid Program compensates school districts located on federal land, such as Indigenous reservations and military bases, making up for their lack of property taxes. 

For the 2025 fiscal year, $1.625 billion was allocated for Impact Aid across the United States, according to a report from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools. 

According to an Impact Aid overview from the Department of Education, schools use impact aid for teacher salaries, special enrichment programs and additional payments for children with disabilities. 

The federal government officially shut down on the night of Sept. 30, due to contention surrounding the 2026 fiscal year budget. The last government shutdown began in 2018 and lasted 35 days from December into January. 

According to a statement released by the Impact Aid Grant System on Oct. 1, no Impact Aid payments will be made while the government is shutdown. Additionally, the IAGS’s staff will be unavailable and cannot be reached throughout the shutdown. After the government resumes and the 2026 budget is finalized, Impact Aid payments will be expedited, the statement said.

“The Impact Aid Program has been a lifeline for Arizona schools on military bases, tribal lands, and other areas that lose out on local tax revenue,” said Senator Mark Kelly, R-Ariz., in a press release from Sept. 30, the 75th anniversary of the program. “This program helps make sure those schools have the resources to hire teachers, keep class sizes down, and give every student a shot at success.” 

Brent Gish, the executive director of the National Indian Impacted Schools Association, said the Impact Aid program is forward funded, meaning the districts receive the money in the year it is appropriated. With that structure, if the money is cut short, schools may not have reserves to fall back on. 

“(Impacted schools) are many times forced to go out and take out loans in order to meet payroll or general operational kinds of activities,” Gish said. 

According to the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, Arizona schools receive the highest number of Impact Aid payments in the country, with their 2025 total payment being just over $215.7 million to 59 recipient school districts. 

Some of the schools that receive Impact Aid in Arizona are Chinle Unified School District and Kayenta Unified School District. 

Chinle Unified School District receives the largest amount of funding in Arizona, with Impact Aid making up about half of their yearly budget. According to Chinle Superintendent Quincy Natay, the pause in payments has become critical. 

“We’re not purchasing, we’re minimizing transactions and really evaluating what we can and can’t do with certain purchases,” Natay said. 

Natay said that in the coming weeks, he expects an Impact Aid payment of about $14 million, which is half of what the district typically receives in a fiscal year. 

“All of the Impact Aid district recipients rely heavily on those dollars,” Natay said. “It does make a difference in the quality of education that we provide here in Chinle and across all impacted districts.”

Despite the loss of a significant amount of money for Chinle Unified, Natay said they will continue to prioritize the students’ experience in the classroom, with the intention of the students never noticing the pause in funds. 

Lemual Adson, superintendent of the Kayenta School District, said they have already had to start planning how to budget due to the lack of Impact Aid payments. 

“We’re just being extra careful. We’re slowing down pretty much,” Adson said. “If it gets worse, then we’re gonna really stop procurement.”

Adson said about 40% of the district’s total funding comes from what they receive in Impact Aid. He said the school typically gets 50% of the yearly payment up front at the beginning of the year — about $7.5 million — and then receives the second half of the money in smaller installments. 

He said the district puts the money to “practically everything,” such as teacher salaries, teacher housing, maintenance costs and the school board budget. 

Kayenta uses a reserve fund for emergencies, which Adson said he expects should assist them throughout the government shutdown. If the shutdown lasts longer than expected — about one month — then Adson said they will have to cut costs more significantly and be critical of any money they do spend. 

Adson said, due to the news, he had to pause repairs on the district’s kitchen, in order to prioritize more pressing projects. 

“It’s going to be a high priority, high need expenditure,” Adson said. “We’re not going to do anything frivolous. We’re just going to make sure people get paid, kids are in school getting fed, teachers are paid.”

When it comes to communication from the federal government, Natay said it has been minimal, with the majority of the Impact Aid offices furloughed. 

Gish said he hopes the federal government can recognize its obligation to compensate for federal land, as it is losing tax revenue in a system put in place by the government itself. 

He anticipates that some Impact Aid schools from across the country may have to close their doors if the shutdown continues. 

“This needs to be resolved as quickly as possible so it doesn’t result in basically laying people off and canceling programs,” Gish said. 

Like Adson and Gish, Natay said he, too, fears that if the government shutdown surpasses the last shutdown of 35 days, his district may struggle to sustain its normal operations. 

“We rely heavily on those funds,” Natay said. “For my district, about half of our operating budget is from Impact Aid proceeds, and without them, we’re not able to do a lot of the day-to-day quality programs that we offer here at Chile Unified.”

Federal education funds unfrozen, but community ‘buckles up’ for more cuts

Key Points: 
  • Frozen federal education funds to be distributed by Oct. 3 
  • Federal bill could cut $3.5 billion in Title I funding for 2026
  • School staff prepare for possible impact on education programs

While frozen federal education funds are expected to reach Arizona by Oct. 1, those in the state’s education community are fearful that more public education cuts are coming. 

The federal government originally froze $6.8 billion in education funding – $132 million of it intended for Arizona – on July 1, under the guise that it wanted to analyze where the funds were going. 

On July 14, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and attorneys general from 23 other states filed a lawsuit against the federal government’s freeze, demanding the funds be distributed. 

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, said when school officials were told the money was frozen over the summer, teachers and school staff immediately began preparing for the worst.

Some teachers began looking for second jobs to compensate for their loss of salary. Others met to reallocate funds for their coming semesters, Garcia said. 

“It was a panicky month of school districts trying to figure out what they were going to do,” Garcia said. 

The suit ended with the federal government agreeing to release the remainder of the frozen funds between Oct. 1 and Oct. 3. 

The Arizona Department of Education faced minimal disruptions to grant funding due to the brevity of the pause, according to Doug Nick, a spokesperson for the department. 

“The department has already made available any amounts that were withheld,” Nick said in a statement to the Arizona Capitol Times. “The grants payments are being distributed on schedule.”

But Ricardo Hernandez, CFO of the Tucson Unified School District, said that communicating with the ADOE has still been difficult. 

“Sometimes, they don’t want to give us complete answers because they don’t want to contradict something that someone else up the ladder might have said or not said,” Hernandez said. “It’s been a very frustrating process so far.”

Despite winning the lawsuit against the Trump administration, there are still concerns in the education community that more federal funding could be withheld from educational programs. 

“The attorney general remains concerned about the illegal funding freezes engaged in by the Trump administration,” Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, said. “She will continue to hold the administration accountable for violations of the law.”

Garcia and Hernandez said Arizona’s schools are fearful of angering the federal government and getting more funding taken away over contentious political debates. For example, Garcia said staff were concerned they may be penalized for teaching history incorrectly or having a gender neutral bathroom. 

“There is a little bit more vigilance in our community, amongst our families, especially to just kind of be aware,” Hernandez said. 

The budget for the 2026 fiscal year is expected to be finalized at the beginning of October. Currently, the proposed budget from the House of Representatives includes a federal government plan to cut approximately $3.5 billion in funding for Title I schools in the coming fiscal year. 

“We felt some uneasiness with what happened in July,” Garcia said. “Now we’re waiting for the second part of the hurricane to hit us.”

According to Nick, the ADOE is expecting a $46 million cut in education funding from the federal government for the 2026 fiscal year. 

Due to Arizona’s large percentage of students who live below the poverty line, Garcia said the state has to rely heavily on federal grants and money. She expressed concern that funding cuts may make programs designed to support students from lower-income families unsustainable.

Garcia said additional academic support, math and English coaches, and class sizes are some areas that may suffer the most.

“Class sizes are going to be the biggest impact,” Garcia said. “Immediately, they’re going to ask teachers to have larger class sizes, and we already have some of the largest in the country.”

In case DOE faces a budget cut in the coming fiscal year, Hernandez said the Tucson Unified School District is prepared to reallocate funds away from the schools and put them toward district-wide programs to have more control over where the funds are going. 

While this strategy is intended to maximize the results from a tight budget, Hernandez said he was concerned the plan may impact students. 

“It would be to take a look at how we redistribute dollars towards initiatives that still support students, but are more efficiently put across the district,” Hernandez said. 

Hernandez said his district’s at risk family support services and early childhood education programs may suffer too.

“Like most school districts, we don’t have a way to make up $7 million that automatically goes out in a vacuum,” Hernandez said. 

Tyler Kowch, the communications manager for Save Our Schools Arizona, said some schools in Arizona offer food pantry programs for students, which may now go away as a result of incoming funding cuts. 

“If we see further cuts to Title I funding, I think we can see more school closures,” Kowch said. “We can see cuts in services for Title I students.”

According to a study from Common Sense Institute Arizona, over 20 public schools in Arizona have closed since January 2025. 

“These schools are going to be really devastated with further cuts we’ve already seen across the state,” Kowch said. “If we see further cuts to Title I funding, I think we can see more school closures.” 

Karla Phillips-Krivickas: Arizona’s champion of education

Karla Phillips-Krivickas has seen it all. And from all her roles — from legislative to executive policy staff, to the Department of Education, to national education nonprofits, to the State Board of Education and finally to Champions for Kids, an advocacy organization aimed at disability policy, Phillips-Krivickas ensures every person, every county is accounted for. 

Answers have been slightly edited for clarity. 

What brought you to public policy?  To education? 

I came here to get my masters in public administration. I hadn’t lived here long. I was not politically involved at all. I heard Lisa Graham Keegan speak. I’ll never forget. She used to talk about schools getting it done despite the odds. She literally lit a fire in me. I marched down to ASU and I asked about changing my major.

I realized education is the basis for everything. 

Where did you go from there? 

I grew from there. I got a job as the majority policy advisor at the House with Jim Weiers. And then I left for my dream job, which was to be an ASU’s lobbyist. 

I thought I’d stay there forever. I mean, I thought I was going to do a PHD, and my son would go with free tuition, that whole thing. Then God had other plans. I was only there for about a year, and then Gov. Napolitano left, Jan Brewer became governor overnight and I got a call and within 24 hours I was governor’s education policy director. It was an insane transition. 

What did you learn working in the executive branch? How did it differ from the Legislature? 

I underestimated the difference, and I learned a lot there. When you’re in the Legislature, the bill’s already moving through so many different committees and processes, and there’s always a series of checks and balances and constant review. 

I’ll never forget the first day we were doing bill signing, I literally was hyperventilating. You’re realizing that you are literally the last person to review this before it becomes a law. It’s the last stop in the little bill’s journey. 

Were there any differences distinct to education?

Almost all of the policy advisors on the ninth floor had agencies. The governor has very little impact on education. None of the agencies report to her. The regents don’t report to her, the Department of Education doesn’t report to her. There’s no education director on the department’s cabinet. It’s unique to Arizona, but it also made my role much different because I didn’t have that string to pull. 

It wasn’t like ‘thou shalt do this’ and they go do it. I don’t think many people outside of the weeds understand it. 

The government was not divided by party at that time, but what did you see as the divisions and difficulties in your role with the governor’s office? 

We talk about divided government, but the division that always fascinated me was the division between the legislature and the executive. That’s what I do so I’m kind of a geek that way, but people underestimate that. 

Not to sound hokey, but that’s what the framers of our Constitution intended with our branches of government. But sometimes you have to be in it to really get it. 

When you’re on the legislative side, you’re involved in that process every step of the way. But when you get to the governor’s office, it frustrates everybody, but the governor’s not going to weigh in, for lots of good reasons.

I was used to being in meetings, drafting amendments. Then it was, ‘Sorry guys, I’ll tell you when it gets here.’ 

How have you approached coalition and compromise in your roles? 

For me, it’s personal. I want to be known as fair, kind and professional. We’ll disagree, but you can work with me. And I’m so proud of all the friendships I’ve had with my Democrat friends. We disagree, but at the end of the day, we know we’re going to work together. And we might just grab a coffee or beer afterwards and laugh about it.

I think when you’re on staff, it’s a very different perspective than when you’re elected. There was Democrat staff I used to work with all the time that I loved, and we used to joke that if they just locked us in a room with some beer and pizza, we could solve these problems. We could compromise. When you’re elected it’s a lot harder to compromise. 

How did you approach advising lawmakers, or the governor, or any elected official? 

My approach with policymakers is — it’s not my agenda. They are elected. My job is to ensure that my elected officials are informed — they have access to both sides of the issue, all relevant information to consider, and everything they need to make an informed decision. 

Of course, nine times out of 10 they hire me for my opinion, and I’ll tell them. But I still feel very strongly that that’s the role of staff is to make sure that they know everything they need to know, policy and political wise, like if you do this, then this person is going to be mad. 

Next, you went to the Department of Education. What did you learn there? 

I was a special assistant to Superintendent Huppenthal. I was really hired for one specific reason: to shepherd our state’s No Child Left Behind program. 

The application — we had to cover standards, state assessments, teacher evaluations, data systems. The fun part of the job was the hardest: stakeholder meetings. We needed documentation to prove that we had conducted all these stakeholder meetings. It wasn’t perfunctory. I literally had to meet with the Secretary of Education and go through a list of meetings.

I visited all fifteen counties, collaborated with the county school superintendents, and arranged meetings. I also presented our waiver to nearly every corner of the state. It was so awesome. 

One of the speakers I worked for was Jake Flake. He was the greatest man I’ve ever known, besides my husband. He made me promise, the last thing he said to me before he died was that I would never forget rural Arizona. 

I’ll never forget driving through his district for that meeting, and all I could think about was how many times he, along with all those great legislators, had made countless hours-long drives back and forth to represent their people. 

What did you take away from your experience around the state? 

These are things that still drive me. We were in Yavapai County. It was the biggest one I had done. I’m nervous. I go through my spiel, and this woman raises her hand. She had this question — she said I have an email question. She said I don’t even know what emails to open from the department because I get so many. Remember, the No Child Left Behind waiver covered almost every topic in there. And that was when I really learned and still never forget that — we always think about these big districts, there are districts out there where the superintendent is also the principal, and is also the Title I director. They wear all those hats. That woman received so many emails from ADE because she wore all those hats. I think about that woman all the time when we’re crafting policy. You can’t assume every school district has a transitional director, a SPED director, and people who oversee these roles. There are districts out there where that one woman is also shoveling the snow, and driving the bus to the football games and everything else. 

When we’re writing laws and crafting policy, we have to remember — I call them the one man shows. 

How did your focus on special education policy come about? 

Meanwhile, on that journey, I gave birth to some great kids. My son with ADD, and my daughter with autism. And it just became so clear to me that nobody was advocating for our kids. 

What I try to tell people is that I’m not just trying to do special education. I want to make sure students with disabilities are included. No matter what the topic is, are we thinking about students with disabilities? 

Now, with your work on the State Board of Education, in the position of a policy maker, how has that shaped your approach to issues?  

What I’m learning is that even when you’re on the State Board of Education, which is a big deal and I’m blessed and honored to serve. It’s not that easy to make dramatic changes overnight. It’s hard to shift things. 

What do you want to accomplish before your term is up? 

I have my BHAG. My big hairy audacious goal. Before I leave, I want to at least tee up a conversation on teacher certification. Because right now we have special ed certification and general ed certification. I don’t think that model fits anybody, yeah, because most kids with disabilities are in regular classes. They’re not just in those special classes down the hall with those special teachers. So I’m in the process of researching and trying to figure out what we can do. I feel like we just continue to segregate. Oh, well, she’s special. I want to figure out how to tear down that wall. 

Now in your role with Arizona Champions, how do you hope to change people’s perspectives? 

Every child deserves high expectations. We can’t give up on any child. Every child has potential. We have to be more flexible on how kids learn, how they demonstrate learning. We have to stop thinking that there’s like this, I call it the mythical average kid. 

It’s really changing people’s perception, because those kids are in every classroom in America, including private schools quite frankly. There’s kids who are bored, frustrated, undiagnosed, underresourced in every classroom. When I’m looking at big policies at the state board, in my mind, that’s what I’m thinking of, is, who have we not identified? Who are we still missing? 

Schools welcome new law that restricts cell phone use

Key Points:
  • A new law requires school districts to create policies restricting the use of cell phones and social media
  • The law provides flexibility on how schools can implement their policies
  • Law intended to reduce distractions in class 

Many Arizona school districts have ushered in the school year with new or updated cell phone restrictions for students as officials prepare for a new law to take effect this fall.

The law calls for school districts and charter school governing boards to create policies that restrict the use of social media, cell phones and other devices during the school day. It will still allow students to use these devices and platforms for educational purposes or emergencies.

The measure was introduced by Rep. Beverly Pingerelli, R-Peoria, last legislative session as HB2484, and was signed into law by Gov. Katie Hobbs in April.

Some school districts had already implemented policies prior to the law’s passage while others had to develop more coherent restrictions to ensure schools were aligned with the new law. 

The Arizona School Boards Association provided policy guidance and other resources to help various governing boards implement the law and communicate with district personnel, parents and students, said Arizona School Boards Association spokeswoman Heidi Vega.

Some districts sought guidance on issues such as potentially dealing with pushback from parents and students, and developing disciplinary policies, Vega said.

Some educator advocacy groups expressed support for the new law, but wanted to make sure the measure allowed flexibility and local control for school districts, as opposed to an outright ban.

“There’s kind of an obvious issue that cell phones can be quite the distraction during the school day. However, they can also be tools,” said Paul Tighe, Arizona School Administrators executive director, who was previously superintendent of the Saddle Mountain Unified School District in Tonopah. “So it’s good to have flexibility and not have an outright … no phones allowed in schools from a state level. Some communities may have chosen that, and that’s fine, but there are instances where the technology can be used as an instructional tool during a lesson.”

A number of districts have implemented policies that vary by grade level, with high school students having more ability to use their phones throughout the day than those in the lower grades.

But students of all ages have to put the phone away when class starts.

“We want to limit the distraction that phones can cause in classrooms,” said John Carruth, superintendent of the Vail School District near Tucson.

Vail’s elementary and middle schools already enacted a policy that called for cell phones and other devices to be stowed in a student’s backpack during the school day, Carruth said.

There were also restrictions in Vail’s high schools, but the district integrated those practices to ensure consistency across all the campuses after the law was passed, he said.

High school students are required to keep their cell phones out of sight during class time but can use the devices during lunch and passing periods. The district also provides laptops for all high school students so there’s less of a need for students to rely on their devices during classroom instruction, he said.

“When the law came down, really what that did is … it just allowed us to provide some backing to that direction at the high school level,” he said. “And now it’s uniform that students are not to use their electronic device during class time.”

If a student refuses to comply, the school district uses a “progressive discipline” approach that can start with a warning and escalate to an in-school suspension, he said.

District officials have also considered the trends and effects of social media, and worked with students to develop better habits, he said.

“What we heard loud and clear from our high school folks is they do not want to be the cell phone police,” he said.

Other school districts have approved similar cell phone and device policies.

Mesa Public Schools’ guidelines also limit cell phone use for elementary and middle school students, who can only use their phones before and after school in campus common areas.

The district’s high school students can use phones before and after school, during lunch in designated areas and during passing periods unless an individual school has stricter policies. 

The Buckeye Union High School District has restrictions that are similar to Vail and Mesa’s guidelines for high school students.

The rise of cell phones and social media — and the accompanying distractions — have changed how teachers deliver lessons, said Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association.

The new state law is a useful tool that allows district teachers and staff to get on the “same page” in regards to focusing more on teaching and less on those distractions, Garcia said.

“It is a really good way of ensuring that we are all focused on instruction,” she said. “But cell phones have 100% altered the way that teaching is delivered in 2025.”

State superintendent commits to funding armed officers at schools

Key Points: 
  • Federal funding freeze jeopardizes school resource officer pay 
  • State superintendent vows to come up with funds in the interim 
  • Department keeps focus on number of armed officers on campus

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne committed to backing pay for armed officers on school campuses amid a freeze on federal dollars from the U.S. Department of Education.

It’s a small check to pick up, but the latest move aligns with the department’s ongoing goal to increase the number of school resource officers on school campuses and retain them there. 

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education froze upward of $124 million in grant funding in the state – including a pause on $25 million directed to Student Support and Academic Enrichment, or Title IV. 

Title IV funds encompass student services, professional development, educational resources and equipment, and select personnel salaries. 

As part of the eligible funds, local education agencies can use Title IV-A for school safety, which, among other safety measures, encompasses payment for school resource officers. 

About eight school resource officer positions around the state are funded entirely by Title IV funds, totaling around $70,000 in demand from the state school safety budget to cover the costs. 

The state’s School Safety Grant Program is valued at approximately $80 million, with 818 schools across 14 counties awarded funds. 

According to the department, there were 190 armed officers on campus when Horne took office, compared to 572 now.  

“I pushed very hard for schools to adopt police officers and to expand the program,” Horne said.  

As it stands now, the department gives preference to schools looking to hire a police officer and use leftover funds for counselors, Horne said. Between 2023 and 2025, the number of counselors and social workers in Arizona schools increased from 565 to 630. 

This legislative session, the department and lawmakers worked to expand the scope of the school safety grantees as well, though again with a focus on officers. 

House Bill 2074 (school safety; proposals; assessments; plans) sponsored by Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, includes school safety officers, or off-duty officers, and retired law enforcement officers as eligible grantees. 

It also creates training requirements, requires participating schools to prepare emergency response plans and school safety assessments, allows for alternative uses of funds for safety tools and infrastructure and exempts school blueprints and floorplans from the public record. 

Although the law now expands the grant, the question remains whether state funding will be maintained in the next session. 

“The program has grown, and we’re in the third year of a three year cycle,” Horne said. “So hopefully we do it next year, and we’re expecting more demand for police officers than we’ve had. We’re going to ask the Legislature to increase the amount of school safety money.”

And again, though a comparatively small draw from the department’s budget, there is still the question of whether the federal government plans to free up the funding for the eight or so school resource officers paid with federal funds. 

“School safety is not negotiable,” Horne said. “There is enough state money to make sure all these positions are funded, and no campus that already has an officer on site will lose that position.”

Arizona schools must choose between DEI or federal funding

Key points 
  • Schools face funding loss without compliance with federal guidance 
  • The State Department of Education says it will enforce the cuts
  • Shortened Covid fund deadlines result in additional monetary strain

The threat of federal funding loss for Arizona public schools becomes more salient by the day as the Arizona Department of Education probes for compliance with new federal interpretations of the law, and the U.S. Department of Education walks back extensions granted to schools to spend Covid relief funds.

The result is outstanding reimbursements and a fear of further lost funds, which could jeopardize about 7.6% of the state’s education funding, equaling about $767 million in grant awards in 2024. 

With new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on Covid deadlines, diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, and privacy law, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne maintains the department is within its rights to withhold federal funding in line with advisements from the federal government. 

Privacy.

Schools first got a warning over student privacy and parental rights. 

On March 28, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a letter to states alerting of alleged misapplications of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) by failing to disclose the entirety of a student’s mental and physical health, with a particular gesture toward pronouns and gender identity. 

“Attempts by school officials to separate children from their parents, convince children to feel unsafe at home, or burden children with the weight of keeping secrets from their loved ones is a direct affront to the family unit. When such conduct violates the law the Department will take swift action,” McMahon wrote. “This letter reminds educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance that they are obligated to abide by FERPA and PPRA if they expect federal funding to continue.”

Horne forwarded the memo to schools and asked for documentation showing compliance with federal privacy laws, echoing the threat of lost federal funds if they fail to comply. 

The U.S. Department of Education set an April 30 deadline to prove compliance. As it stands now, the Arizona Department of Education has received about 365 responses out of 658 attestations so far. 

Diversity, equity and inclusion.

On April 3, schools got another “reminder” of legal obligations under Title VI from the U.S. Department of Education, again warning schools of lost federal funds if they adopt any diversity, equity and inclusion programs or consider race in admissions, hiring, promotion and scholarships. 

In response, Horne sent out another round of letters and a form to attest to compliance with the federal department’s holding. The U.S. Department of Education set an April 24 deadline to return all attestation letters, and any districts or charters that fail to certify compliance will see a hold on federal funding. 

Then, on April 11, Horne went a step further and threatened Kyrene School District with a $1.5 million federal funding loss via press release because of an alleged adoption of DEI language in its “Staff Social Emotional Wellness Policy.” 

Erin Helm, executive director of communications and engagement for Kyrene School District, said the district had received no formal or informal notice of any funds being withheld and noted the policy at issue had not yet been formally adopted by the Governing Board, rather the board gave it preliminary first-read approval.

And though they haven’t adopted the policy at the center of the state department’s threat, they maintain the Staff Social Emotional Wellness policy, as well as the district’s existing DEI policy, to be legal.  

“All Kyrene policies, including policies around inclusion and social-emotional wellness, are in compliance with state and federal law, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” Superintendent Laura Toenjes said in a statement, “I encourage anyone with questions to read the language in Kyrene’s policies, some of it pulled directly from Title VI.” 

So far, the department has received 324 attestations out of 658 districts and charters, though Doug Nick, a department spokesman, noted that not all charters receive federal funds. 

A spokesperson for Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to say whether the Attorney General’s Office would consider legal action against the underlying U.S. Department of Education policy, or any future actions taken by the Arizona Department of Education to withhold federal funds.

Covid grants cut short.

But, the attorney general is involved in another area of looming federal funding loss. 

In a letter sent March 28, the federal department of education walked back an extension for schools to spend ESSER funds through March 2026 to March 28, 2025. 

“Extending deadlines for COVID-related grants, which are in fact taxpayer funds, years after the COVID pandemic ended is not consistent with the Department’s priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion,” McMahon wrote. 

Mayes, along with 15 other attorneys general, sued to restore access to the ESSER funding, citing one instance of already interrupted funding in Arizona. 

Cedar Unified School District, a district with one K-8 school, Jeddito Elementary, located on the Navajo Nation, stands to lose out on about $1 million set aside for bathroom renovations and virtual tutoring, with $486,749 awaiting reimbursement and $569,375 yet to be spent. 

The result of no reimbursement and a lack of funds has so far meant the loss of six staff members, including one teacher, three classroom aides, a school bus driver and a custodian, and the potential loss of additional teachers and staff if the prior granted extension on ESSER funds is not honored by the new administration. 

The school also had to cancel its online tutoring contract, which the superintendent claims has improved academic performance. The school is currently looking to finish up bathroom and infrastructure repair projects but cannot do so without funding. 

“DOE’s continued suspension or withholding of ESSER III Extended Liquidation funds may cause Cedar Unified to lay off more staff members, further delay necessary school infrastructure repair projects, and deprive students of much needed academic support services that will be difficult if not impossible to recover,” Superintendent and Principal at Cedar Unified School District Dean Slaga wrote in a declaration to the court. 

Beyond Cedar Unified, the Arizona Department of Education estimates that less than ten other local education agencies could be affected by the extension deadline change, which would cost around $3.6 million in total. 

In any case, Horne believes in the department’s ability to comply with federal orders, including refusing to disburse federal funds, if necessary. 

“The Arizona Department of Education has been responsible for distributing both federal and state education dollars to the schools for many decades and we must do so in accordance with the law,” Horne said in a prepared statement. 

“The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance that requires my department to certify that all public districts and charters that take federal money use those funds according to that guidance, and that cannot be ignored.”

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.