fbpx

Arizona gives ‘low income’ assorted meanings

Low income can mean many things in the eyes of Arizona’s government.

A family of four can bring in more than $60,000 annually to be considered low income for the state’s recently expanded voucher program, allowing them to access more funds to attend private school.

For a corporate tax credit for private school tuition designed to help poor kids, low income equates to more than $80,000 annually for that same family.

But to be considered low income for various other state programs, like ones that allow the poor to buy food or basic necessities like toilet paper, the line is much lower, meaning fewer people qualify for help.

The definitions of low income effectively exclude people who may need help from some programs while providing a wider net for others. What’s more, these definitions drive debate on whether they reflect state government’s priorities by allowing more access to programs they prefer over others.

And the varying definitions were on full display this year, as the Arizona Legislature debated one bill to expand school vouchers that widely construed the idea of low income, while a measure aimed at upping the lifetime limit for cash assistance put more requirements in the way of the state’s poorest families.

Liz Schott, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Liz Schott

Liz Schott, a fellow at progressive think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said it makes sense for various programs to have different cutoffs for eligibility because they have different objectives. Cash assistance benefits are supposed to help the neediest, so they have a low barrier for income, she said. Programs that provide child care or health care assistance have higher barriers because they’re costly for many families, even those who are working steadily, she said.

As people move up the economic ladder, they may no longer be eligible for one program but still need assistance in other areas with higher income limits, she said.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 17 percent of Arizonans fell below the federal poverty level, or $24,600 annually for a family of four, in 2015.

Low income generally equates to under $50,000 for a family of four for a host of programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is cash assistance to needy families; the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state’s Medicaid program; KidsCare, public health insurance for children; child care subsidies and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is food stamps.

Dana Naimark, director of Children's Action Alliance, speaks at a press conference calling for increased public school funding on April 13. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Dana Naimark, director of Children’s Action Alliance, speaks at a press conference calling for increased public school funding on April 13. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Arizona doesn’t have a philosophy behind all the differences in eligibility for various government programs, said Dana Naimark, director of advocacy group Children’s Action Alliance. Differences may stem from the time the program was implemented or politics or available funding, she said.

Naimark also said part of the issue of differing definitions evolves from how work has changed over time, and that wages haven’t kept up with inflation. While some programs were aimed at non-working folks initially, they now include people who are working but whose checks don’t cover their needs, she said.

Naimark highlighted the school tuition organization, or STO, corporate tax credit for low-income students.

The program gives money – in the form of scholarships for private schools raised through the tax credit – to kids whose families make roughly $80,000 annually (for a family of four).

The program “sticks out like a sore thumb” among assistance programs, and it was never intended or designed to actually help poor kids, Naimark said.

“To call something low income and have it be the level it is with STOs, I would call that subterfuge,” Naimark said.

The recent Empowerment Scholarship Account, or school voucher, expansion defined low-income students as those whose family income falls below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. While the expanded program is available to all students, regardless of income, only low-income students can get 100 percent of the money that would have been spent at a public school to attend a private school. Non-low-income students get 90 percent.

Lesko
Lesko

Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, who sponsored the voucher expansion legislation, said the 250 percent number came from negotiations that allowed the bill to pass. The low-income designation was important to Gov. Doug Ducey and some lawmakers, so interested parties looked at different parts of statutes to arrive at 250 percent, she said.

“It seemed reasonable and strong public policy to give additional resources to families whose income was 250 percent or less of the federal poverty guidelines. That means for a family of four they are making about $60,000. We wanted to be as inclusive as possible while still targeting the additional support,” Lesko said in an email.

But the idea of inclusivity when setting standards for what constitutes low income doesn’t extend to all programs.

The federal government sets the income limits for some assistance programs, like SNAP, while others allow the states to have flexibility in administering the program, including determining eligibility.

For instance, in order to qualify for Arizona’s TANF program a household’s countable income must be less than $278 for a family of three, though there are wide variations in how income is calculated based on family size, household composition and expenses.

The state has repeatedly lowered the time limit for TANF, at one point becoming the strictest in the nation, allowing only 12 months of cash assistance benefits over a person’s lifetime.

This year, Ducey pushed for restoration of the TANF time limit to 24 months, but the bill contained several strings that Democrats said made things even harder for poor people.

Meanwhile, another policy pushed by Ducey will let people who make less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level get free professional licenses, allowing them to work as nurses or massage therapists or architects, among others.

Ducey spokesman Patrick Ptak said there’s not really a consideration of personal or political preferences for certain programs over others, like ESAs over food stamps, when setting a guideline for income. Ducey is focused on giving people a “hand-up,” not a handout in order to help them out of poverty, Ptak said.

Ptak said there’s no universal metric or definition of low income. The federal poverty level, Ptak said, is a commonly used standard, but many people above that level still need assistance.

For ESAs in particular, the low-income definition still allowed the state to be fiscally conservative and doesn’t cost the general fund money, Ptak said.

“The bottom line is that we want to help as many people as possible who need it within our budget constraints,” Ptak said.

Samuel Richard, director of Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition, says the state needs more money for education and mental health programs, not more prison beds, at a press conference on June 9. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Samuel Richard, director of Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition, says the state needs more money for education and mental health programs, not more prison beds, at a press conference on June 9. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

But, according to Sam Richard, executive director of the Protecting Arizona’s Family Coalition, which advocates for programs that help the poor, the varying standards certainly depict policy priorities and preferences.

“This is a clear choice between winners and losers that policymakers are making,” Richard said. “They want to make it easier for folks to be able to send their kids to alternatives to their neighborhood public school and make it difficult for people to access programs like SNAP and AHCCCS.”

The policy ideas driving vouchers and STOs also relate to the ballot box, Richard said, where people who support private and charter schools tend to vote more than those who need help from social programs.

The Legislature and governor’s support for school choice measures and tax cuts for corporations tend to favor “white, wealthy, suburban families,” and setting a higher level for low-income definitions for those programs helps boost participation in those programs, Richard said.

“We’re making an explicit choice that those are the people we want to support rather than communities on the periphery of society,” Richard said.

defining-pov-web

Note: This story previously used an outdated income guideline for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. A household’s countable income must be less than $278 for a family of three to qualify. 

Both sides of voucher war prepare for battles after vote

Stacks of voters' signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacks of voters’ signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8, 2018, after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Opponents of Proposition 305 may soon cry victory over its defeat, but the fight over school choice and Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts will not end in November.

The American Federation for Children is officially a “no” on Prop. 305 despite the group’s pro-school choice stance, and Americans for Prosperity won’t be organizing support for the ballot measure.

A no vote will mean the Republican-controlled Legislature’s 2017 expansion of the ESA program will not stand, while a yes vote means it will.

But the group responsible for sending the ESA expansion to the ballot, Save Our Schools Arizona, is not taking the vote for granted, nor preparing to wind down after November.

SOS Arizona spokeswoman Dawn Penich-Thacker said the dwindling support for Prop. 305 does not signal a change of heart by pro-voucher groups. Rather it tells her that they are willing to take a loss this time and try again during the 2019 legislative session.

So she wants to send a message in the November 6 general election – that even Arizona, a school choice pioneer, will reject the expansion of school vouchers.

“We don’t just want Prop. 305 to lose. We want it to go down in flames,” she said.

Arizona’s empowerment scholarship account program pays parents or guardians 90 percent of the money that would have gone to a student’s public school. The money can be spent on private school tuition, tutoring and home-school curriculum. The program began in 2011 for only special needs students and has grown to allow an array of students, such as ones from failing schools and children whose parents are in the military.

The Legislature in 2017 expanded the program to allow for all Arizona students to be eligible, but capped the program’s enrollment at about 30,000 by the 2022-2023 school year.  

The fate of Prop. 305 may be mere speculation at this point, but that isn’t stopping advocates and opponents from contemplating what should come next.

Penich-Thacker said SOS Arizona has discussed ideas for an education funding mechanism that could rally bipartisan support.

That mechanism would have to ensure the funding it generates is not then drained by programs like ESAs, though.

“Coming up with a great education funding mechanism is all fine and well,” she said. “But if we’re going to be poking holes in that bucket and draining it right out through unregulated ESAs and STOs, what’s it for?”

She said SOS Arizona has also had preliminary conversations about possibly running or supporting a bill to address accountability and what they see as other shortcomings of the ESA program.

But Penich-Thacker knows they’re not the only ones likely preparing for another shot.

“This is one battle that they’re willing to lose because they’ll be back in January with a different bill number but with the same goal of unregulated, universal ESA voucher expansion,” she said.

There is hope for a compromise, but she’s not so sure if the pro-voucher crowd is on the same page.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he does not see the point of declaring a position on Prop. 305.

He said there will always be a robust conversation around school choice at the Legislature, and ESAs are part of that no matter what happens with Prop. 305.

He has expressed trepidation over the expansion as written before, particularly because the law and it’s cap of 30,000 students would be protected under the Voter Protection Act. But he can see both sides of the dilemma for school choice advocates like himself.

In the future, he said more consideration could be given to specific carve outs for certain student populations or which enrollment cap may be more “legitimate.”

Candidates for top education office have concerns about charter schools

Kathy Hoffman and Frank Riggs
Kathy Hoffman and Frank Riggs

Charter schools, insufficient public school funding and Proposition 305 were some of the topics in the first debate in the race for state superintendent of public instruction.

Republican Frank Riggs and Democrat Kathy Hoffman met at the forum hosted by the Arizona Association of School Business Officials on September 12.

Here is some of what they had to say.

The candidates’ responses have been edited for length. You can view the entirety of AASBO’s September 12 meeting here

Attorney General Mark Brnovich is now asking lawmakers to hold charter schools more accountable for how they spend their money. Should the Auditor General’ Office be authorized to take a more active role in looking into charter school expenditures?

Hoffman: I see charter schools as another school community that we need to make sure is being run well, that children’s needs are being met, that teachers’ needs are being met. And I’ve seen cases when there have been issues with this. … I look forward to continuing to learn more about what we can do to improve this. And I do think that charter schools need to be held accountable, especially when there’s a lot of money at stake. … And I do believe that it is the auditor’s responsibility to do that. That all circles back to fiscal responsibility. … I think that we need to look at it more globally and make sure that all of our students have what they need. But I do believe that charter schools have a place here in Arizona.

Riggs: No charter school should be chartered, no charter school charter should be extended unless there are a majority of disinterested individuals on that charter holding governing board. I’m talking about independent members on the governing board who are not related in any fashion, family, business or otherwise, with the founder and operator of the charter school. Number two, all of those individuals need to go through formal training in nonprofit and charter school governance, including their legal and fiduciary responsibilities. They must acknowledge in writing those responsibilities, including their duty to very carefully examine any related party transaction. And I intend to push for the state board of charter schools to implement that policy on day one, and if they don’t, I’ll be up at the Legislature.

Special education students require specialized programs and services as mandated by state and federal law. What should the state be doing to make sure the required services are provided and that funding is available to do so?

Riggs: The federally mandated share is inadequate. … It’s like so many federal programs where the cost-burden shifts over time to state and local education agencies, so what’s a federal law then becomes an underfunded federal mandate. … I just had a meeting with the new superintendent of Mesa Unified School District, Dr. Conley… and she told me something that stunned me, I mean stopped me dead in my tracks. She said, “I just want you to know, Frank, we’re preparing for the children of opioid-addicted parents who will be entering into our schools.” … We’re going to have to redouble what we’re doing for these students and for special ed across the board.

Hoffman: These are our most vulnerable and marginalized children in our schools, and they absolutely need highly trained teachers and providers with that special education training. Last year, actually the year before, the Legislature passed a law that said that any certified teacher can provide special education services. This was very alarming to me because the special education teachers and providers go through extensive education and training. It’s also an issue of attracting teachers to the profession. … If we want to be attracting highly qualified, passionate teachers to the profession, we need to treat them with the respect that they deserve and make sure that they have competitive pay.

Arizona leads the nation when it comes to providing students educational options other than traditional school districts. Should the state continue to expand programs like charter schools, empowerment scholarship accounts and private school tax credits?

Hoffman: We should not be expanding the ESAs and vouchers because our schools are so severely underfunded… and to take funds out of our public schools to fund private school tuitions – private schools only make up about 3 percent of Arizona schools. We need to make sure that all of our students, all of our public schools have the funding they need to be successful. And I know that on average these vouchers are about $5,000, but a private school tuition is on average about $15,000. So it doesn’t cover the tuition for a low-income family. It serves people who can already afford a private school tuition. It doesn’t provide more options in a neighborhood where there are no options available. … We need to solve our public school funding crisis before we take more funds out.

Riggs: I think parents have a fundamental right and responsibility to choose and direct their child’s education. … But with respect to Prop. 305, as a longtime school choice advocate, I’m a no on Prop. 305. … And I’m very concerned about the origin of the scholarship tuition tax credit program, and without calling out any particular legislators, I’m just going to say this: We absolutely have to have tight financial conflict-of-interest laws in our state that simply say that… if you, a family member, a business contact or associate stand to derive a financial benefit, you cannot author, you cannot sponsor, you cannot debate, you cannot vote on that legislation. And if you refuse to disclose your conflict of interest and recuse yourself, you would be subject to sanctions by the legislative body or legal action.

Douglas: Legislature shortchanges school voucher program

Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas in her office on Dec. 12, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas in her office on Dec. 12, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Outgoing Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas accused Arizona lawmakers of routinely underfunding the Department of Education’s effort to oversee the state’s voucher program, leaving millions of dollars earmarked for administrative costs untouched.

State law dictates how much money is set aside to cover the costs of administering Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, a taxpayer funded program that pays for private and religious school tuition, tutoring and home schooling for certain students.

But it’s the Legislature that has the authority over whether that money is actually spent.

In all but two years since the voucher program was launched in 2011, lawmakers have allowed the Department of Education to spend less than half of what’s prescribed by law, according to a memo sent by Douglas to legislative leaders and Gov. Doug Ducey.

Douglas, a Republican who lost her bid for re-election, has presided over ESAs amid news reports of rampant mismanagement and misuse of the now $75 million-plus voucher program.

In one of her final acts as superintendent, Douglas called out the Republican-controlled Legislature for handcuffing her staff’s ability to properly manage the voucher program and hold parents accountable for how scholarships are spent — efforts that could stamp out the very fraud that’s been reported.

“As the duly elected official responsible for the oversight of this program, I refuse to let this disparity be ignored as the efforts of my ESA staff to improve both service to parents and oversight of taxpayer dollars are scrutinized,” Douglas wrote to top Republican lawmakers on December 13.

Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, said she’s perplexed that the department consistently gets shortchanged amid budget negotiations. Year after year, education officials have told lawmakers they’re understaffed, she said.

“Given what we’ve heard, it has concerned me greatly that there wasn’t more oversight, particularly when you turn around and criticize the department for a lack of oversight,” Brophy McGee said. “I’ve always understood it to be a staffing shortage issue. We already know there are problems with the database. So it has always seemed to me that is something we must shore up so that this relatively new program can show that it’s accountable to the taxpayers who fund it.”

The issue predates Douglas’ time in office. Even under John Huppenthal, a Republican who served as superintendent when lawmakers approved ESAs, the Legislature held back funding from the department.

Meanwhile, dollars earmarked for administrative costs go unspent, and are left to accumulate.

“I would just hate to think in any way, shape or form that it was politics or special interest groups,” Douglas told Arizona Capitol Times on December 20. “But it’s almost hard to not think they’re not playing a role. And to what end?”

Douglas suspects the endgame is the privatization of ESA administration, removing the program from the department’s oversight entirely. Associate Superintendent Charles Tack, who oversees the ESA program at the department, added that ESA advocates don’t trust the department to manage the program according to their vision.

Those advocates had the ear of like-minded legislators, he said.

“They were not convinced that giving our department more money would be beneficial to the program,” he said. “To me, that’s extraordinarily counter-intuitive.”

Even when legislators voted to pass a bill expanding the program in 2017 – an effort that ultimately died with the failure of Proposition 305 in November – Douglas alleges they have been unwilling to ensure the Department of Education can keep up with growth.

State law dictates that 5 percent of the total funding for empowerment scholarship accounts are earmarked for the Department of Education and the state Treasurer’s Office to cover the costs of administering the program.

Of that, 1 percent is earmarked for the treasury, while the remaining 4 percent is dedicated for the Department of Education.

But state law also states those dollars are subject to legislative appropriation. And since the inception of empowerment scholarship accounts in 2011, the Legislature has authorized only a fraction of what’s earmarked for administrative costs.

For example, roughly $3.8 million is earmarked for ESA administrative costs in fiscal year 2019. That’s 5 percent of the estimated $75.9 million in funding for ESAs.

State law requires 1 percent of those funds to be transferred to the Treasurer’s Office. The remaining 4 percent, roughly $3 million, is set aside for the Department of Education.

The budget approved by lawmakers in May only authorized the Education Department to spend $1.25 million on administrative costs.

Even the Treasurer’s Office got shortchanged. Instead of the $760,000 prescribed by state law, the Legislature only authorized $304,400 for the treasury to spend on administering ESAs.

Douglas previously called attention to the lack of administrative funds made available to her department after an auditor general’s report excoriated her office for its handling of the ESA program.

Her latest memo to top legislative Republicans and Ducey blasted the audit for failing to mention that her office is woefully underfunded. If the audit is meant to help lawmakers understand how administration of ESAs can be improved, “it is, in my opinion, completely injudicious to minimize the fact that the department has not been given spending authority for anywhere near the full 4 percent of administrative funding,” she wrote on December 13.

The Legislature has continued to provide inadequate funding even as enrollment in the ESA program grew year over year, she said.

“I have struggled with this the whole time because clearly it is, for lack of a better term, a pet project of the Republican side of the Legislature, for school choice fans,” Douglas told the Capitol Times. “You would think, as a pet project, they would want it to be absolutely as successful as possible, yet to underfund the administration of it, undermines it.”

In January, the ESA program will no longer be Douglas’ responsibility. She lost her re-election bid in the August primary to Republican challenger Frank Riggs, and Riggs went on to lose to the incoming superintendent, Democrat Kathy Hoffman.

Education panelists spar over school choice

While school choice has sparked a divisive debate in Arizona, panelists at the Arizona Capitol Times Morning Scoop on the topic Tuesday seemed to find common ground on one point: The state system for school funding could be due for a reboot.

Stacey Morley (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacey Morley (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Stacey Morley, government affairs director at Stand for Children, said the funding formula was not created with today’s problems in mind, leaving the state to add things to a system that was never designed to handle those needs. That has led to a system that is not equitable in Morley’s view.

She pointed to the “unintended consequences of choice,” namely that when district schools lose students to charter or private schools, they also lose funding with no certain way to make up the gap in their budgets.

School districts, she argued, do not have the benefit of knowing they’ll definitely welcome a certain number of students, making planning ahead more difficult than it may be at a charter school that accepts a set number of students.

While the Morning Scoop debate was more tame than may have been expected, the panelists – and sometimes members of the audience – did find occasion to exchange terse words.

Kristi Sandvik (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Kristi Sandvik (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Buckeye Elementary School District Superintendent Kristi Sandvik said the market in Arizona is “saturated with choice,” creating inefficiencies in an outdated system, and that taxpayers deserve to know whether they’re getting a return on investment.

A for Arizona Executive Director Lisa Graham Keegan interrupted.

“The saturated market of choice created the best academic performance this state has ever seen,” Keegan said. “To say it hasn’t had an academic affect, to say that Arizona has not gone from the bottom third of academic performers to about average … that’s just dishonest.”

Keegan won some of the crowd’s approval with that remark but drew ire with what came next.

Lisa Graham Keegan (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Lisa Graham Keegan (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

According to focus groups, she said, parents don’t even know whether their children are in district, charter or private schools.

“They know they’re in a school and one that works for their child,” she said to the disapproval of hecklers.

Despite some of the negative feedback she and her fellow pro-voucher panelist Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, received – largely from members of the audience dressed in Save Our Schools Arizona T-shirts or the group’s trademark red – Keegan said school choice is not about us versus them.

Rather, she said, it’s about everyone against the failure of students.

In that regard, Keegan said expanding school choice has achieved its goal of improving schools by introducing other options.

Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Lesko, sponsor of SB1431 to expand the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program, said it’s just common sense.

“If there’s competition out there, and parents are allowed to move their child out of a district school and into a charter school or a private school and online school, [district schools are] going to up their game,” she said.

Lesko also cited 31 unnamed “empirical studies” on the effects of school choice, saying 29 showed district schools do improve when they face competition; the other two, she said, demonstrated no change either way.

Sandvik didn’t see the same success, even in her own district, describing her view of Arizona’s educational future as “catastrophic” if changes are not made.

Instead of helping families, Sandvik said the system has pit parents against each other.

Parents with gifted children are asking for the same money parents of students with disabilities plead for, and in the end, she said no one wins.

As for Sandvik’s wish for more fiscal transparency from charter schools, the panelists were in agreement that such a thing could only be a positive. But how it materializes is yet to be seen.

According to a Grand Canyon Institute report released Sunday, 77 percent of Arizona’s charter schools use taxpayer dollars on related-party transactions, such as contracting services from a member of the charter’s board and hiring teachers from an employment service owned by a charter holder’s relative.

Save Our Schools Arizona supporters sit in the audience of the Arizona Capitol Times Morning Scoop on school choice on Sept. 19. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Save Our Schools Arizona supporters sit in the audience of the Arizona Capitol Times Morning Scoop on school choice on Sept. 19. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Lesko declined to comment on specifics in the report and possible solutions, but said she believes in transparency and accountability across the board in education.

To meet that need, she said she added fiscal and academic accountability measures to SB 1431, including a required ESA open checkbook on expenditures and an ESA review counsel.

“Unfortunately, all of those new accountability and transparencies have been put on hold because of the referendum, and so we’ll see what happens,” Lesko said, jabbing back at the hecklers who were giving her what she called “the evil eye” throughout the morning.

Group hopes to stop school voucher expansion before it takes effect

Dawn Penich-Thacker of Save Our Schools Arizona announces a campaign to repeal the recent expansion of the state's school voucher system on May 8, 2017, at the Arizona Capitol. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Dawn Penich-Thacker of Save Our Schools Arizona announces a campaign to repeal the recent expansion of the state’s school voucher system on May 8, 2017, at the Arizona Capitol. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

When Arizona students return to school in August, a new law could make the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts available to all 1.1 million of them. Unless a grassroots group of opponents has its way.

Save Our Schools Arizona has until August 1 to collect the more than 75,000 signatures needed to put S1431 on the 2018 ballot and halt its implementation in the meantime. If the group fails, the expansion will take effect Aug. 9.

Enrollment under the expansion is capped at roughly 5,500 new students per year, which translates to approximately 30,000 spots by 2022.

The group claims there are not enough safeguards on the law and that it would siphon much-needed funds from public schools to serve students who may not need the financial help.

“Arizona’s public school system is already one of the worst funded… It’s the least invested in in the entire country,” said Save Our Schools Arizona spokeswoman Dawn Penich-Thacker. “We should not be funding and finding programs that take away even more from these starving schools that serve 95 percent of our kids.”

But the law’s supporters say the expansion would give power back to parents and put private schools within reach for kids who could not otherwise afford them.

“It’s just about putting one more option on the table,” said Kim Martinez, the spokeswoman for the American Federation for Children.

S1431 would expand Arizona’s school voucher program, called the Empowerment Scholarship Account, which redirects the money that would be spent on a child’s public school into an account the family can draw on to pay for a private or religious school.

The accounts were created in 2011 for students with disabilities and have gradually been expanded to include children on reservations, military kids, those who are wards of the state and those in failing schools, among other categories.

The state is not yet accepting applications for the expanded program, but interested families can get on a list to be notified by the Arizona Department of Education when the application is available.

Arizona has been a leader in private school voucher programs, but other states have followed suit. Indiana has one of the nation’s largest school choice programs, the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program, in which eligibility is determined by income, so that low-income students benefit.

Critics note that there is no such limit on applications under the new Arizona program, where rolling applications are determined on a first-come, first-served basis, according to state education officials.

“If it was true that they wanted to help low-income families, they would’ve put an income cap,” Penich-Thacker said, arguing that the vouchers have only helped affluent families.

Martinez dismisses the suggestion that ESA takes money from the public school system, arguing that the money never belonged to the schools in the first place. Because the state allocates funding per student, not per school, she said, parents should be able to decide where that money is spent.

To Chris Perea, a teacher at Gateway Academy in Phoenix, the current ESA program has been life-saving for his students. He said most of them would not otherwise be able to afford to go to the school that specializes in children with Asperger’s syndrome and high-functioning autism.

“Our students start to blossom within weeks of getting to our school. Our students begin to love life again,” said Perea, a former public school teacher.

He said that nearly 80 percent of Gateway students are able to attend the school thanks to the ESA program.

“It’s allowing these students access to what’s best for them. It allows the parents to put them in schools that can specialize to meet the needs of their students,” he said.

Not all teachers are fans of expanding private school vouchers.

Christina Marsh, the 2016 Arizona Educational Foundation Teacher of the Year, said vouchers siphons off money from the general fund to subsidize more affluent students’ education, and that places more vulnerable populations at a disadvantage.

“I’m mad and I’m sad. It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Marsh, who plans to run for the state Senate in 2018. “We do have the money. We are just not spending it where it needs to be spent, and the voucher program is just one more example of that.”

High rate of Indian students denied school vouchers

Jar for coinsThe Arizona Department of Education and a school choice advocacy group place blame on each other for the dismal acceptance rate among Indian children who apply for school vouchers.

Students living within the boundaries of Indian reservations are eligible for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or vouchers, which allow qualified students to use public money to attend a private or parochial school, yet a high percentage have been denied in the last two school years.

According to data from the Arizona Department of Education, 99 of 233 applications for students living on reservations, or about 43 percent, were denied for the 2017-2018 school year. Of those, 58 students were rejected because they had not attended a public school for the first 100 days of the prior school year.

Another 24 applications were denied because they simply were not complete; 11 were missing a birth certificate or signatures; two students were not eligible to attend kindergarten when they applied; two did not reside within the reservation boundaries; and two more did not provide proof of residency.

In an email to the Arizona Capitol Times, ADE spokesman Stefan Swiat said the department tries to “get the best information possible in [parents’] hands” to understand eligibility requirements before they apply for their children.

In particular, he pointed to the high number of students denied for not meeting a public school enrollment requirement.

The department’s website does lay out specific requirements for different groups of qualified students. For students on reservations, the requirements include attendance at a state district or charter school for the first 100 days of the prior school year. Alternatively, those students could have received scholarships from a School Tuition Organization, or STO.

“It’s unfortunate for the students and the parents that such a high percentage of denials are being issued for an eligibility requirement that is clearly outlined in the application,” Swiat said.

The assumption being that some families may have been wrongly informed or even misled about their eligibility.

Advocates who have worked with families on reservations reject that notion.

Kim Martinez
Kim Martinez

Kim Martinez, spokeswoman for the American Federation for Children, said the state Department of Education should have a special set of procedures when working with tribal families lest they slip through the cracks. The American Federation for Children has been a staunch supporter of the expansion of ESAs and school choice in Arizona.

Martinez said the department’s ESA office has incorrectly denied families or issued denials based on small errors that could have been corrected. Rather, families may just give up.

“They cannot take a systemic approach with these families,” she said. “After receiving a denial letter, that understandably causes the tribal parent to give up and stop pursuing an ESA.”

A similar trend is developing among the applications for the 2018-2019 school year.

Not all of those applications have been processed yet, but the department did provide tallies for those that have.

As of August 7, a determination had not been made for 130 of 213 applications received for students living on reservations. Of those that were resolved, 55 were approved, and 24 were denied – that’s a denial rate of about 30 percent.

The remaining four applications were simply closed. According to ADE’s parent handbook, an account may be closed upon request, because an application for renewal was not received on time, because a student exited the program upon turning 18 or completing the 12th grade, or because the student was removed from the ESA program.

Swiat did not immediately return requests for an update on the applications that have been processed.

Livingston accuses Blanc of doctoring referendum petitions, calls for resignation

Rep. Isela Blanc (D-Tempe)
Rep. Isela Blanc (D-Tempe)

A Republican lawmaker said Democratic Rep. Isela Blanc should fully comply with any investigation into allegations she or others doctored petitions to help get a referendum of school voucher expansion on the ballot, and if she’s found in the wrong, resign from office.

But it’s unclear if anyone, be it the Attorney General’s Office or the House Ethics Committee, is going to investigate those allegations.

A spokesman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich said their office is evaluating whether those allegations, brought by an attorney for the pro-voucher group American Federation for Children, are significant enough to merit charges of a felony violation of state law. And Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, chairman of the House Ethics Committee, has not yet determined if he’ll proceed with an ethics investigation requested by Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria.

Despite the lack of a pending investigation or charges against Blanc, a first-term Tempe Democrat, Livingston said it’s not too soon to jump to the conclusion that Blanc either committed a crime, or is aware of someone with the campaign to refer a bill expanding access to school vouchers to the ballot who committed a crime.

Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria)
Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria)

In his complaint, filed against Blanc on August 30, Livingston cited allegations brought forward by Timothy La Sota, an attorney for the AFC, as evidence that a petition sheet Blanc was photographed with was improperly circulated in violation of state law. In his complaint, he also echoed questions from La Sota as to whether she falsified that petition sheet, leading Livingston to declare that Blanc “has unequivocally engaged in disorderly conduct” in violation of House rules.

Livingston said he’s confident the attorney general can suss out the truth, and that Blanc should be prepared to leave office depending on the outcome.

“Either she’s going to help us prosecute, help the attorney general prosecute who did it if it was not her. If it was her, she should resign. And if she doesn’t, she’ll get expelled. I just think it’s easy,” Livingston said.

House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios
House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios (D-Phoenix) (Photo by Rachel Leingang/Arizona Capitol Times)

House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix, said Livingston’s accusations against a fellow lawmaker are premature, and she questioned the motives behind his filing of an ethics complaint.

“I can’t help but wonder how much of this has to do with sheer frustration by the Republicans at the highly successful grassroots effort to overturn their beloved ESA bill. And that’s just a question, but that is a question that immediately came to mind when I found out the basis of the ethics filing,” Rios said.

As for Livingston’s claims of Blanc’s guilt, “he appears to be putting himself as judge and jury on this issue. And the reality is, there’s a process that needs to play out,” she said.

Blanc has not returned several calls for comment.

La Sota has questioned the validity of at least four petitions sheets, including one circulated by Blanc, and questioned if someone from the SOS Arizona campaign systematically corrected petition sheets in violation of state law.

“It is hard to believe that someone who was given responsibility for handling the petition sheets did not go through and ‘fix’ legally insufficient petitions sheets on a systematic basis,” La Sota wrote in an email.

Livingston files ethics complaint against Blanc over alleged petition doctoring

Rep. Isela Blanc (D-Tempe)
Rep. Isela Blanc (D-Tempe)

A Republican lawmaker wants Democratic Rep. Isela Blanc investigated by the House Ethics Committee, citing allegations that petition sheets she gathered to block an expansion of school vouchers were doctored.

Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, filed an ethics complaint against Blanc on Wednesday, alleging that she engaged in disorderly behavior. That behavior is tied to his belief that the Tempe Democrat knowingly broke state law by improperly filling out a petition sheet as part of the referendum against SB1431, the legislation that gives all Arizona students, albeit enrollment numbers are capped, access to state money for attending private or parochial schools.

There is evidence that a petition sheet Blanc was photographed with was improperly circulated in violation of state law, Livingston wrote in his complaint, as well as serious questions as to whether she falsified that petition sheet, leading Livingston to declare that Blanc “has unequivocally engaged in disorderly conduct” in violation of House rules.

To make that claim, Livingston is effectively accusing Blanc of criminal conduct.

State law makes it clear that those who “knowingly” violate statutes detailing the signature gathering process are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In his complaint, Livingston encourages the chamber’s Ethics Committee chairman, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, to investigate Blanc by making a connection between committing a criminal offense and disorderly behavior as defined by House rules.

Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria)
Rep. David Livingston (R-Peoria)

“While a violation of the House Rules is deemed disorderly conduct, so, too, should be engaging in any activity punishable as a criminal offense,” Livingston wrote.

As of now, the allegations against Blanc are just allegations. Livingston’s complaint cites a report in the Yellow Sheet Report, the Arizona Capitol Times’ sister publication, regarding a letter sent to the Attorney General’s Office and Secretary of State’s Office alleging that some petition sheets gathered by Save Our Schools Arizona, which is spearheading the referendum campaign against voucher expansion,  were doctored.

Attorney Timothy La Sota, who sent the letter on behalf of the pro-voucher group American Federation for Children, also sent photos collected from SOS Arizona social media accounts that show Blanc posing with petition sheets La Sota argued were improperly filled out. He said that signature gatherers doctored some petitions by checking a box indicating whether they were paid circulators or volunteers only after they circulated the petitions, not before, as required by state law.

Christine Marsh
Christine Marsh

La Sota said at the time he doesn’t know for sure who was involved, but Blanc, as well as Christine Marsh, a Democrat running for the Senate in Legislative District 28, were included in photos La Sota submitted as evidence.

Those photos showed Blanc and Marsh holding filled-out petitions that do not yet have the boxes checked. When the petitions were submitted to the secretary of state, the boxes had since been checked, La Sota said.

“All I know is that the law says you have to check the box before circulating, and they didn’t,” La Sota said earlier this month. “And then after the signatures were gathered, someone came along and checked the box.”

Marsh has called those allegations “frivolous” and “ridiculous,” while Blanc has yet to respond to them. She did not immediately return a call for comment on Thursday.

Assuming Blanc broke state law, Livingston wrote that “it is of criminal importance that (Farnsworth) investigate this matter further. The integrity of our elected leaders is a standard we must strive to vigorously uphold, and Arizona’s constituents deserve answers.”

Farnsworth said Thursday he hasn’t seen the complaint yet, but “we’ll take it seriously.”

Matthew Simon: School choice should be for all students

Matthew Simon stands beside photos of his former students in Arkansas. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Matthew Simon stands beside photos of his former students in Arkansas. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Matthew Simon’s path to his current position as the Goldwater Institute’s new director of education policy may be surprising.

After graduating from Arizona State University, he joined Teach for America, a nonprofit organization that sends teachers into low-income areas, and he taught in the Earle School District in rural Arkansas. He said the organization is often pegged as “a bunch of liberal, young kids,” but it made him more steadfast in his beliefs in school choice and liberty.

Cap Times Q&ADid you take anything from that particular experience that you would pass on to Arizona teachers?

I didn’t have a projector in my room. I didn’t even have a computer for a teacher in my room. I had textbooks that were ten years old. And I think we sometimes let those limitations stop us from doing what we need to do. There are a million ways to teach a lesson, and as long as you have high expectations for your students and that comes out in your lesson and you’re moving forward, those things don’t stop you.

Why didn’t you keep teaching?

Deciding whether or not to stay in the classroom was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made. It’s not one that’s made lightly for anybody. I loved my school and my community, but the school culture and the administration and the leadership just wasn’t something I wanted to continue with. … And I think that’s something we lose sight of. All of my friends are still teaching, and they’re teaching in schools that serve low-income students and students where an achievement gap is present, but there’s a great leader. And if there had been a great leader at my school, maybe that decision might have been different for me.

Now that you’re here in this position, what are your priorities going to be?

As has been the long-standing tradition, promoting, expanding and protecting school choice and parents’ rights to choose the best education for their children, hands down, is pivotal. I think it’s something that is ingrained in our culture in Arizona and it’s something we’ve led on.

Connected with all that is continuing to look at other education policies, like the school finance system. Making sure students, regardless of which educational choice they make, are all receiving the same financing. … It’s important when we look at school districts, which are essentially taxing jurisdictions, that we also look at taxpayer equity.

There’s been a butting of heads with folks like yourself and advocates of a more traditional public school model. That’s manifested into things like a mass “sick-out” that led to the closure of nine schools in the West Valley one Wednesday. What do you think of those actions?

When I think about what happened at Pendergast Elementary School District, I think about my students. The fact that a choice was made for students just hasn’t been covered at all by the media. …I know the blood, sweat and tears that goes into it. I would love to see dollars that are flowing through the public education system get further into the classroom and into teachers’ pockets.

What’s concerning for me… is losing sight of the students who are supposed to be at the center of it. We talk about dollars or institutions or types of educational models, but we forget that students are at the heart of it. I don’t care where a student goes. I want them to have the best opportunities. I think about all the kids I taught – would I prevent them (from making a choice), just so they had to be at Earle (School District in Arkansas) to receive an education? No. I’m picturing all of their faces right now, and I want them to go wherever works best for them to succeed at the highest level.

When nine schools are closed… students were the ones hurt that day.

Do you think teachers have good reason to be frustrated?

I think they should be frustrated, but I don’t think they should be frustrated at the Arizona Legislature and policymakers. We have a very decentralized education system where locally elected school boards and independent charter schools make finance decisions. … When we talk about holding elected officials accountable, there are over 240 boards of elected officials that don’t tend to be held as accountable as other elected officials even though they manage those billions of dollars.

The state Supreme Court is allowing Proposition 305 to go to the November ballot. Was that the right decision?

I’m not an attorney, so I won’t opine on the legal questions. But it was disappointing, and I think that was because of the decision on when a law went into effect and who had standing. The actual merits of the case weren’t actually discussed, and that’s disappointing. And, obviously, I’m disappointed because I view what the Legislature did very positively. When I think about all the kids who don’t have an opportunity, another choice to get themselves out of a bad situation or when we talk about climbing out of poverty or inequality–that opportunity was taken away from them.

What would you like to see legislators do with that legislation now? Would you be comfortable with compromising on a replacement bill?

I would love to see the Legislature act to make sure students have an opportunity. If the SOS Arizona folks could come to the ground on making sure more kids have access to opportunities, then that would be extremely surprising and satisfying. But I hope there would be a common ground where students still got the opportunity to exercise a choice.

What about your own educational background? District school? Private? Charter?

I was born and raised in Tucson, Marana Unified School District. Myself, my brother, my ten cousins all went through the same school district. We were lucky to have such amazing schools in our neighborhood, which not every kid has. … Not everybody gets from it what I did. That’s why I want more choices, so everybody, regardless of where they live, can do that.

Prop. 305 defeat doesn’t end fight over voucher expansion

Stacks of voters' signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacks of voters’ signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8, 2018, after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

More than 1 million voters rejected lawmakers’ attempt to allow every public school student in Arizona to attend private or parochial schools on taxpayer dollars – but the fight isn’t over.

Dawn Penich-Thacker, the spokeswoman for the group responsible for sending the expansion to the ballot, announced Proposition 305’s downfall to cheers.

She said the result seemed unlikely nearly two years ago when the Legislature passed then-Sen. Debbie Lesko’s Senate Bill 1431 and a new group dubbed Save Our Schools Arizona promised a referendum.

And she had a message for lawmakers, new and old.

“Tonight’s rejection of vouchers is a mandate: Supporting and investing in public education is your priority,” she said.

Penich-Thacker said the reason Prop. 305 failed was because of the state of public education funding. She said the pro-voucher crowd has to take a step back and deal with that issue before trying to return with another attempt at voucher expansion.

“This is actually not a voucher issue,” she said. “This is a public education issue.”

As long as funding remains where it is, she said there is no voucher conversation to be had.

Arizona’s voucher program, known as Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or ESAs, pays parents or guardians 90 percent of the money that would have gone to a student’s public school. The money can be spent on private school tuition, tutoring and home-school curriculum. The program began in 2011 for only special needs students and has grown to allow an array of students, such as ones from failing schools and children whose parents are in the military.

Save Our Schools Arizona has said the program takes money out of public schools without any accountability.

If the pro-voucher side wants to talk about making alterations to the existing program, she said they need to want to get bugs out of the current system first. She said many voters’ problem was not with vouchers but with a program now plagued with fraud and misuse. Recent headlines have spotlighted hundreds of thousands in ESA funds being used not on educational choice but on personal spending sprees.

And it’s not as if public education funding is not already a priority.

The issue was at the top of politicians’ minds even before thousands of teachers and support staff went on strike and marched on the Capitol.

Penich-Thacker said pro-voucher lawmakers have always told her they care about public schools and only wanted to offer vouchers as another option.

“We’re all grownups. We’re all familiar with the idea that you have to prioritize things,” she said. “So, if they are telling the truth and they do support the choice of public education, then that’s the priority conversation.”

But some on the side of ESAs have doubled down on their support for voucher expansion.

The American Federation for Children ultimately opted to stand against Prop. 305, fearing that the state’s Voter Protection Act would have locked the law in place, including an enrollment cap of 30,000 students.

But spokeswoman Kim Martinez said the ESA program will not be sidelined.

“It’s short-sighted to put funding concerns above children whose learning requirements have to be met today,” Martinez said in an email. “The recent campaign of misinformation, confusing Arizonans on ESAs, was a disservice.”

She pointed out the expansion may have failed but students will still have access to the program. She said 250,000 students will be eligible to apply next year under current eligibility categories.

Other voucher proponents stood by Prop. 305 and appear undeterred by its failure or promises that SOS Arizona isn’t going away now that they’ve won.

The day after the election, the Goldwater Institute declared its intentions to continue the fight, emphasizing that Prop. 305 would have expanded the availability of vouchers to all students.

“Arizona has been a national leader on the path to greater school choice for families,” Goldwater President and CEO Victor Riches said in a press release. “The Goldwater Institute will continue the fight to give students and their families a greater say in their education in Arizona and across the country.”

Public education advocates bemoan school money still not enough

Education issues captured much of the attention this legislative session, but public school advocates say they’re disappointed with the outcome.

It’s hard to argue the budget doesn’t focus on education when much of the new spending focuses on K-12 or university education initiatives. The fiscal year 2018 budget adds $163 million above inflation funding to schools.

Of the new K-12 funding, the biggest chunk, $38 million, went toward a performance pay program that critics say rewards wealthy schools that are already doing well. And, while Gov. Doug Ducey suggested a 0.4 percent pay increase for teachers for the next five years, the final budget included a 1 percent pay raise this fiscal year, followed by a promised 1 percent pay raise next year.

But for public education advocates, the spending wasn’t enough to alter the state’s school systems in any big way, and the money wasn’t prioritized in the right way.

Timothy Ogle
Timothy Ogle

“We missed a great opportunity to really help the teacher crisis,” said Timothy Ogle, director of the Arizona School Boards Association.

A 2 percent raise over two years won’t do enough to keep teachers in the classroom, critics say, which will continue an ongoing teacher shortage that left thousands of kids without a full-time teacher this year.

The low teacher-pay increase accompanied an expansion of the state’s voucher system that allows kids to use public money to attend private schools and a bill that dismantled the teacher certification system.

As a whole, Arizona Education Association President Joe Thomas said, the Legislature and governor favored private education and the wealthy instead of addressing the teacher shortage. The Legislature didn’t markedly improve the situation for teachers, but instead instituted multiple “trial balloons” for new, untested programs like performance pay, Thomas said.

“It was a swing and a miss entirely,” he said.

Ducey said he takes the criticisms from public education proponents to heart and agrees the state still isn’t doing enough to fund schools.

“If you looked at a word cloud of my State of the States or inaugurals or even my town hall visits around the state, you would see that I’m spending an overwhelming majority of my time on K-12 education,” Ducey said. “So I agree with them — they need more and we need more and I intend to provide more.”

But Ducey called the teacher certification overhaul the most underrated bill he signed this year and said it will allow “people with a lot of talent and experience” to come into Arizona classrooms and impart their wisdom to kids, despite their lack of formal teacher training.

School choice remains a priority for the Ducey administration as well, indicated in Ducey’s push for a universal voucher system that goes further than any other state in the nation. Enrollment in the program is capped for a few years, but public school advocates say it’s the first step toward upending public education. There’s already a referendum underway to repeal the expansion.

Ducey said parents know what’s best for their kids and should be able to decide if that means a neighborhood school or a private school.

“I want to be able to provide a public education to our public, and I think our agenda’s done that as good as anyone in the country,” he said.

The ongoing drumbeat for more money for public schools and teacher pay irked some lawmakers throughout the long, slow legislative session.

Sen. Sylvia Allen
Sen. Sylvia Allen

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, took to the pages of The Arizona Republic, asking “when is it ever enough?” She highlighted the state spends more than half of its entire budget on education. And, she said, voters have said in the past they don’t want to increase taxes, so it’s unclear where they expect the state to get money to fund schools while addressing other needs like crumbling infrastructure and public safety.

“I understand as legislators we’re an easy target, but also please realize that we work hard every day to improve education in Arizona,” Allen wrote.

Others said the blame for low teacher pay fell on local school boards, who could have used money from last year’s Proposition 123 to give raises.

Joe Thomas, president of the Arizona Education Association, speaks at a press conference calling for increased public school funding on April 13. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Joe Thomas, president of the Arizona Education Association, speaks at a press conference calling for increased public school funding on April 13. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Thomas called the comments uninformed and disrespectful of teachers, and said lawmakers were taking no responsibility for their role in funding schools.

“They’ve dropped the ball on this for a decade, that’s why they keep hearing it,” Thomas said.

Still, what adequately funding schools looks like is an open question, Ogle said. But it’s clear to many that the idea doesn’t rest in gimmicks or ballot propositions and should instead fall on lawmakers to find a “dedicated, sustainable revenue stream” to support public education, Ogle said.

State high court says vote on voucher expansion can proceed

Stacks of voters' signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacks of voters’ signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8, 2018, after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The Arizona Supreme Court today cleared the way for voters to have their say on the expansion of school vouchers in November.  

The justices affirmed Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney’s January ruling that state law at the time Proposition 305 was filed did not allow individuals to challenge petition drives.

The Legislature repealed an individual’s right to challenge initiatives and referenda in 2015. That provision was reinstated last year, but took effect on Aug. 9 – the day after Save Our Schools Arizona submitted more than 90,000 valid petition signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.

“We’re just really happy to get that distraction out of the way,” said SOS Arizona spokeswoman Dawn Penich-Thacker. “We’ve known all along that this was the only reasonable result, so we’re ready to put it behind and start being able to focus 100 percent on educating voters about why Prop. 305 harms our schools.”

The only thing that could keep the issue off the ballot now is if lawmakers who support vouchers make any sort of change in the law. That would void the petitions since the bill they referred to the ballot would no longer exist.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard said the Legislature has three options: repeal the voucher expansion law, which he said was “exceedingly unlikely,” repeal and replace, or let it go to the ballot.

“I think it’s one of the latter two issues many of us are going to be discussing,” he told the Arizona Capitol Times.

Personally, Mesnard said, “We’re perfectly willing to have the discussion with the voters at the ballot. We would certainly do that.”

Supporters of the voucher expansion signed into law last year also questioned what they called irregularities in the signature gathering process.

Those claims included that entire petitions should be tossed because notaries’ signatures did not exactly match their stamps and that circulators made false claims about the expansion law to convince people to oppose it.

However, advocates’ concerns were ultimately of no consequence because their challenge was not valid at the time.

Penich-Thacker said that “the timing couldn’t be more productive for us” as tension continues to build among public school teachers.

As the court’s ruling came down, teachers from across the state rallied at the Capitol, inspired by the successful strike efforts of their counterparts in West Virginia. Nine schools in the Pendergast Elementary School District shut down for the day because of teachers calling out sick to participate, the first mass exodus of teachers in Arizona this year.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services and Ben Giles contributed to this report.

Teachers swarm Capitol, demand 20 percent pay hike

Thousands of teachers, students and public education advocates rallied at the Arizona Capitol on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Thousands of teachers, students and public education advocates rallied at the Arizona Capitol on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Save Our Schools Arizona is not only gearing up for a possible referendum on whatever lawmakers may replace existing voucher expansion legislation with but also for a potential initiative to address public education funding shortfalls.

SOS Arizona spokeswoman Dawn Penich-Thacker told the Arizona Capitol Times that the anti-voucher group responsible for sending Proposition 305 to the ballot is calling on volunteers to commit now to carrying petitions this summer for a referendum or initiative “or whatever we come up with.”

She said the extension of the education sales tax under Proposition 301 was “fine” but wouldn’t put anything substantial forward. Now, SOS Arizona and its allies are considering a new initiative to meet demands made by Arizona Educators United, a recent addition to the grassroots movement around public school funding and teacher pay.

Public education advocates rally at the Arizona Capitol on March, 28, 2018, to demand higher teacher pay, among other improvements to public school funding. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Public education advocates rally at the Arizona Capitol on March, 28, 2018, to demand higher teacher pay, among other improvements to public school funding. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Arizona Educators United organizer Noah Karvelis laid out those demands Wednesday evening as thousands of teachers, students, public education advocates and elected representatives clad in red gathered at the Capitol. Many carried signs, such as one that read, “I had to borrow money to make this sign,” and wore “I don’t want to strike, but I will” stickers.

Karvelis called for a 20 percent pay hike for teachers, competitive pay for all education employees, a permanent salary structure including annual raises, the restoration per-pupil funding to 2008 levels and no new tax cuts until per pupil funding reaches the national average.

“If you won’t do your job, we will,” Penich-Thacker said, referring to legislators.

On the table are options like additional taxes, closing corporate tax loopholes and a litany of other options, though nothing specific is set in stone; Prop. 305 may still go to the November ballot, after all, if legislators opt not to alter the voucher expansion legislation passed last session.

And what they ultimately choose to do will be based on Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature’s response to the demands of educators.

Teacher Susan Suchoki protests at the Arizona Capitol on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Teacher Susan Suchoki protests at the Arizona Capitol on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Penich-Thacker said the thousands who showed up at the Capitol – some of whom could be seen making the walk from Downtown Phoenix – were a testament to how serious the situation in Arizona is.

“For a lot of legislators, I think this just boils down to numbers on a spreadsheet or pages in the budget, but this shows that people feel this in their day to day lives,” she said.

Susan Suchoki has been teaching for decades, but she said she’ll still have student loans to pay off when she retires.

And she wondered if Ducey was really paying attention to her and her colleagues.

“I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t know how to read,” she said.” Maybe his teacher was underpaid and in a bad mood that day.”

Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction, was wandering among the sea of red protesters, listening to his peers in the education community.

Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction, smiles as thousands of public education advocates circling the Capitol courtyard on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction, smiles as thousands of public education advocates circling the Capitol courtyard on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Coleman played a central role in seeing that Prop. 301 was extended just last week, though he says Ducey did not get enough credit for his part in it.

That was a necessary first step, Coleman said, but he hoped there would be more to come.

“I teach in a small district that’s really struggling to stay afloat, to keep our teachers,” he said as he watched protesters circle the Capitol courtyard. “It’s a little bit personal with me. I’ve been there. I know how they feel.”

The Breakdown, Episode 11: Where do we even begin?

 

In this Aug. 25, 2014 file photo, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery speaks during a news conference in Phoenix. Hundreds of immigrants who have been denied bail under a strict Arizona law will now have the opportunity to be released after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014 in the closely watched case. The high court kept intact a lower-court ruling from three weeks ago that struck down the law, which was passed in 2006 amid a series of immigration crackdowns in Arizona over the past decade. Montgomery and Sehriff Joe Arpaio defended the law before the courts.(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)
In this Aug. 25, 2014 file photo, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery speaks during a news conference in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)

Last week, the Capitol was abuzz with everything from talk of criminal justice reform to how to fund Arizona’s public education system – and that’s just the beginning.

Improving Arizona criminal justice system has required stakeholders from all sides to come together in an effort to find common ground, but that process is far from over. Advocates point to county prosecutors as the greatest obstacle still standing in the way.

And even as legislators play an important role in that saga, public school teachers and their supporters continue to demand action for the state’s schools. Proposition 301 was extended for two decades, and the state Supreme Court cleared the way for voters to decide the fate of ESA expansion. Still, public school advocates aren’t celebrating just yet – they worry the Legislature will tinker with those measures.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes.

Music in this episode included “Little Idea,” “Creative Minds” and “Energy” by Bensound.

The Breakdown, Episode 17: That’s a wrap


 

Striking teachers silently cheer using their hands to follow decorum on not clapping or verbally reacting from the Senate gallery while senators meet in Senate chambers on April 30, 2018. (AP Photo/Bob Christie)
Striking teachers silently cheer using their hands to follow decorum on not clapping or verbally reacting from the Senate gallery while senators meet in Senate chambers on April 30, 2018. (AP Photo/Bob Christie)

Another session is in the books, but not without a fuss – or two.

Crowds of Red for Ed demonstrators watched as legislators in both chambers debated and eventually passed the budget, sometime providing their own input on the education bill in particular.

And the drama may not be over yet.

Decisions made by Gov. Doug Ducey and lawmakers from both parties are sure to come up on the campaign trail, and there’s whispers of another special session being called, this time on the governor’s school safety proposals.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes.

Music in this episode included “Little Idea,” “Creative Minds” and “Energy” by Bensound.

The Breakdown: Just roll with it

 

From left, House Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez, House Speaker Rusty Bowers, Senate President Karen Fann and Senate Minority Leader David Bradley await the governor at the historic Capitol building on Jan. 31, 2019. PHOTO BY KATIE CAMPBELL/ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES
From left, House Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez, House Speaker Rusty Bowers, Senate President Karen Fann and Senate Minority Leader David Bradley await the governor at the historic Capitol building on Jan. 31, 2019.
PHOTO BY KATIE CAMPBELL/ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES

With no clear resolution ahead in the battle between the governor and Republican legislators, budget talks could take a turn toward empowering the minority party.

Republicans aren’t holding back on some of their top priorities, though. Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are back again, and the debate is every bit as fiery as you’d expect.

And we’ll have an update on where talks around protections for vulnerable adults are at this point in the legislative session.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes and Stitcher.

Music in this episode included “Creative Minds,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

The Breakdown: Last laugh

 

Gov. Doug Ducey showed up Thursday for this Independence Day event wearing sneakers made by the company whose conduct he had criticized just the day before. (Twitter/Coconino County Democratic Party)
Gov. Doug Ducey showed up Thursday for this Independence Day event wearing sneakers made by the company whose conduct he had criticized just the day before. (Twitter/Coconino County Democratic Party)

Arizona kicked off the holiday weekend with a fight with Nike that put the governor in the national spotlight. Was that the intent all along, and what might that signal for Gov. Doug Ducey’s future plans?

The state Department of Education narrowly avoided its own controversy  as it reversed a stance of step-parents of children applying for school vouchers.

And times always seem to be tough for the Corporation Commission. We’ll have an update on the latest from the utility regulators and APS.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes and Stitcher.

 

Music in this episode included “Creative Minds,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

Voucher expansion ballot measure prompts questions on voter protection

Stacks of voters' signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacks of voters’ signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

What is now Proposition 305 will not only put the fate of school voucher expansion into the hands of Arizonans, but is also likely to set precedent on how the Voter Protection Act applies to referenda.

The argument is sure to be made that whatever voters decide in the 2018 general election–approval or rejection–is protected, and any result may be less than ideal for those who want to see the expansion proceed.

Let the speculation begin.

Roopali Desai, an attorney representing expansion opponents Save Our Schools Arizona, said the question of voter protection is really a discussion about the power of the people in relation to the Legislature.

“This conversation is interesting because there is the legal component – what does the Constitution mean and require with respect to referenda – but there is also another question: From a common-sense perspective, how does this come about procedurally?” she said.

A court will ultimately have to settle this debate, but getting to that point is complicated, she said. That comes later.

The Voter Protection Act is currently interpreted in the context of initiatives, Desai said, because those measures are more common relative to referenda, but also because the state Constitution is far more clear with regard to initiatives.

While the Constitution indicates initiatives are voter-protected if approved, it is not so clear-cut on referenda, said attorney Jim Barton, a former Arizona assistant attorney general who now specializes in areas of political and government relations law.

“It says that if citizens decide a referendum, it’s voter-protected,” Barton said. “The trick is we don’t know if that means only referenda referred by the Legislature or if it means a citizen referendum as well.”

Additionally, what the Voter Protection Act means for a “no” vote is not entirely clear.

To simply say a referendum “decided” by the voters suggests to Barton that a vote in the negative would be afforded the same protections as a “yes.”

And that raised yet another question in Barton’s mind: How far would the “no” go?

If Arizonans say no to the expansion of the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts as proposed in Senate Bill1431 and a slightly different bill is brought up in a subsequent session of the Legislature, would that legislation also be nullified because of the referendum?

Barton said he didn’t know.

No one seems to know for sure.

Whichever side wins will almost certainly make the argument the Voter Protection Act applies, but the argument seems stronger for a “yes” vote from the perspective of Kory Langhofer, an attorney who represents Americans For Prosperity, a group funded by the pro-voucher Koch Brothers.

Contrary to Desai, Langhofer said an argument for a “no” vote would be weaker, but a success at the ballot for the pro-voucher crowd does not come without its caveats.

Barton said if the expansion becomes protected, so too would the cap of 30,000 students included in SB1431. Arizona has roughly 1 million public school students.

In order to amend a voter-protected measure, legislators must pass an amendment with a three-fourths supermajority and whatever change they make must further the intent of the voters.

If the cap becomes protected, an effort to either repeal or expand it would arguably have to meet those requirements or face a legal challenge.

“If your point is that the VPA would increase risk for proponents,” Langhofer said, “Yes, I think that’s correct.”

He’s not worried, though – that would be “an overstatement” – because he said he still believes the referendum will not ultimately make the ballot.

Langhofer and attorney Timothy La Sota have filed a lawsuit alleging numerous violations, including a variety of handwriting irregularities, the use of ditto marks in address fields, incomplete or inconsistent dates, failure to properly register paid circulators and reference to the nonexistent “fifty-third session of the Legislature.”

Technically, the legislation in question, SB1431, was approved during the first regular session of the 53rd Legislature. Mistakenly referring to the session constitutes a violation under strict compliance, according to the suit, and so the error should render all petitions invalid.

Langhofer said the question of how the Voter Protection Act applies could stretch the legal fight on school vouchers into 2019, well after next year’s election, further muddling the debate.

And that, too, could be problematic for the pro-voucher side.

“This issue could be used to sow confusion,” he said. “When things get complicated like this, people tend to vote ‘no.’”

And that’s exactly what Desai expects.

But then we’re back to the procedural logistics of ensuring voter protection.

If the voters vote “no” as SOS Arizona is asking them to do and the law is overturned, a challenge based on the Voter Protection Act would be likely if the Legislature later tried to enact it in substantially the same way, Desai said. For example, she would expect a challenge if the legislation was raised again with a different cap.

She said the argument would be made that “you can’t undo the vote of the people by going back after an election and simply reenacting the same law.”

But the pro-voucher legislators could preempt a bad day at the ballot by repealing the law before the voters ever have their say.

Langhofer said he is not aware of any discussions regarding that option.

Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, who sponsored SB1431 said she has not decided on whether repeal – or any road ahead – would be an option.

“It’s way too early,” she said. “I’m waiting to see what happens on the legal front.”

But the repeal option is being discussed around the Capitol, and Barton, a former assistant attorney general, said it’s been done before, though under very different circumstances.

Barton pointed out how HB2305 in 2013, “an omnibus bill” composed of several controversial elections measures approved in the final hours of the 2013 legislative session, was repealed after it was put to the ballot. But Barton added that was a “giant” bill that was revisited in pieces and never put back in place in its entirety, again leaving the question of what an attempt at a small change to an ESA expansion bill might yield legally.

And Barton said it could do political damage to those who try.

“That would seem to essentially eliminate the right of the citizens to refer things,” he said.  “It just seems wrong that you would take away all of that effort by a vote of the Legislature when this is supposed to be a check on the Legislature’s power.

“And it would be nice if the Legislature was somewhat responsive to the will of the citizens. Pollyanna, I know.”

Voucher vote creates dilemma for school-choice supporters

Stacks of voters' signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office on Aug. 8 after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Stacks of voters’ signatures were delivered to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 8, 2018, after Save Our Schools Arizona collected more than 110,000 signatures in three months. If it survives legal challenges, the referendum will appear on the 2018 general election ballot as Proposition 305. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

If voters approve the voucher expansion law in November, many believe those changes would be locked in under the Voter Protection Act.

That means modifying the statute in the future would be incredibly difficult, and that is where the problem lies for the school-choice crowd.

And that’s also why the opposing sides in the debate over the expansion of school vouchers in Arizona may have found an unexpected common ground in Proposition 305 – that its passage at the ballot box may not be the best way forward for school-choice advocates and critics alike.

Indeed, the prospect of locking that law in place has been enough to give even the staunchest supporters of Empower Scholarship Accounts pause.

Kim Martinez
Kim Martinez

“If Prop. 305 passes, it could hinder our ability to make crucial improvements to the ESA program,” said Kim Martinez, a spokeswoman for the pro-voucher American Federation for Children.

“It is entirely possible that a ‘no’ vote might give more children the opportunity to use an ESA than a ‘yes’ vote.”

Arizona has had vouchers since 2011, when they were originally earmarked for children with special needs. Lawmakers have step-by-step expanded eligibility to include foster children, reservation residents and students attending D or F schools.

A “yes” on Prop. 305 would keep SB1431, the expansion of ESAs, in place as approved by the Legislature in 2017.

SB1431 sought to expand eligibility to all public school students to use public money to attend private or religious schools, and would increase the cap on enrollment to 30,000 students by the 2022-2023 school year.

Arizona has roughly 1 million public school students, and school choice advocates want to make each one eligible to receive a voucher.

But if the cap of 30,000 students becomes voter-protected, expanding it in the future will be a challenge.

Whether the Voter Protection Act applies to a citizen-initiated referendum on laws has long been the subject of debate. Many say whether the outcome on Prop. 305 is “yes” or “no” makes the law voter-protected and will likely be a question for the courts to hash out.

To amend a voter-protected program, legislators must pass an amendment with a three-fourths vote and whatever change they make must further the intent of the original measure.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (Photo by Katie Campbell/ Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (Photo by Katie Campbell/ Arizona Capitol Times)

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said lawmakers rarely pass legislation intending it to be “the end all, be all final product.” And if he and many of his colleagues could go back, they would likely make a few tweaks to SB1431, knowing now that it could soon be set in stone.

Though he voted for the bill in 2017, Mesnard said he’s among Republicans and school-choice advocates who are undecided on how he’ll vote on Prop. 305 because its success at the ballot box might mean voter protection.

“On the one hand, I’d like it to pass because I supported the policy,” he said. “But on the other hand, being unable to navigate moving forward would be very frustrating.”

Despite his dilemma on Prop. 305, Mesnard supports the expansion of school choice.

Save Our Schools Arizona, the grassroots group responsible for Prop. 305, recognizes that ESA advocates have not actually changed their minds about the broader issue.

Save Our Schools Arizona spokeswoman Dawn Penich-Thacker joined thousands of public education advocates who rallied at the Capitol on March 28, 2018. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Dawn Penich-Thacker (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

“This is just one milestone in what I think everyone has to realize is a long battle,” Dawn Penich-Thacker, spokeswoman for Save Our Schools Arizona, said.

Whatever happens with Prop. 305, she said she’s certain Republicans will return as early as next session to launch a new expansion effort.

“If it can’t happen through Prop 305, no big deal,” she said. “They’ll introduce a bill next year