Education
AEA Fights Good Policy Yet Again
November 23 2009 16:02
The Arizona Education Association (AEA), Arizona’s largest teacher’s union filed a special action lawsuit in the Arizona Supreme Court against the State Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer for changes to education policy in the 3rd Special Session.
The reasons for the policy changes are numerous and an improvement upon previous policy. The AEA’s actions to file suit has made their self-interest blatantly obvious.
Here are a few questions to help determine where you stand:
- Do you want the best teachers in the classroom?
- Should a teacher be given a contract based on performance?
- Should underperforming teachers be let go?
- Do you want to stop the forced teacher layoffs due to an arbitrary contract signing date?
If you answered ‘no’ to any of these questions, you agree with the AEA.
If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, you’re looking after the best interests of students and teachers.
The policy change allows school districts to retain and reward teachers based on their performance rather than the current procedure of basing promotion and retention solely on years served on the job.
Those who voted for this provision did so for numerous reasons:
- They want the best teachers in the classroom
- They believe a school district's decision to employ or re-employ a teacher should be based on a quality assessment of the teacher and how well they are teaching students.
- Like most jobs, years-of-service is a positive indicator of experience, but it should not be the only indicator of quality. Communication, effectiveness, enthusiasm, work ethic, knowledge, and student progress are all factors that should come into play when employment or promotion decisions are made.
- Parents, and yes, even teachers have told legislators for years that good teachers should be rewarded, while underperforming teachers should be let go.
The new policy allows school districts flexibility in setting timetables for entering teacher contracts. Teachers are one of the few employees, even among State employees, that have guaranteed employment contracts for a set period of time.
Last year when school districts were uncertain about how much money they would have, school districts were forced to lay off many more teachers than they needed to simply because the teacher union wanted the contracts signed by May 15th. For more info on this, click on this link.
If the districts would have been allowed to postpone the contract signing date, only a few teachers would have been laid off and the fear and anxiety caused by massive layoffs would have been avoided.
Arizona school districts issued reduction-in-force notices to about 7,000 teachers on April 15, 2009. By June those same school districts were rehiring those teachers because the school district was not given the flexibility to postpone contract-signing time.
Last, the new policy stops the practice of paying teachers for days that they were using for union activity.
Parents and taxpayers want their money used to teach students, not to lobby for a particular cause. Instead teachers were given extra paid days off in addition to their vacation and sick days to support union activities.
The new law does not prohibit individual employees of school districts from taking compensated leave time for any personal purpose, any professional purpose or any other lawful purpose. Like any other job, if a teacher desires to participate in union activities, they are free to use vacation days. Why should a teacher receive extra vacation days on the taxpayers’ dime to lobby for union activities?
One has to wonder what the AEA, the teacher’s union who claims their main purpose is “to advance the cause of public education” would fight against and now litigate against such good policy…
The reasons for the policy changes are numerous and an improvement upon previous policy. The AEA’s actions to file suit has made their self-interest blatantly obvious.
Here are a few questions to help determine where you stand:
- Do you want the best teachers in the classroom?
- Should a teacher be given a contract based on performance?
- Should underperforming teachers be let go?
- Do you want to stop the forced teacher layoffs due to an arbitrary contract signing date?
If you answered ‘no’ to any of these questions, you agree with the AEA.
If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, you’re looking after the best interests of students and teachers.
The policy change allows school districts to retain and reward teachers based on their performance rather than the current procedure of basing promotion and retention solely on years served on the job.
Those who voted for this provision did so for numerous reasons:
- They want the best teachers in the classroom
- They believe a school district's decision to employ or re-employ a teacher should be based on a quality assessment of the teacher and how well they are teaching students.
- Like most jobs, years-of-service is a positive indicator of experience, but it should not be the only indicator of quality. Communication, effectiveness, enthusiasm, work ethic, knowledge, and student progress are all factors that should come into play when employment or promotion decisions are made.
- Parents, and yes, even teachers have told legislators for years that good teachers should be rewarded, while underperforming teachers should be let go.
The new policy allows school districts flexibility in setting timetables for entering teacher contracts. Teachers are one of the few employees, even among State employees, that have guaranteed employment contracts for a set period of time.
Last year when school districts were uncertain about how much money they would have, school districts were forced to lay off many more teachers than they needed to simply because the teacher union wanted the contracts signed by May 15th. For more info on this, click on this link.
If the districts would have been allowed to postpone the contract signing date, only a few teachers would have been laid off and the fear and anxiety caused by massive layoffs would have been avoided.
Arizona school districts issued reduction-in-force notices to about 7,000 teachers on April 15, 2009. By June those same school districts were rehiring those teachers because the school district was not given the flexibility to postpone contract-signing time.
Last, the new policy stops the practice of paying teachers for days that they were using for union activity.
Parents and taxpayers want their money used to teach students, not to lobby for a particular cause. Instead teachers were given extra paid days off in addition to their vacation and sick days to support union activities.
The new law does not prohibit individual employees of school districts from taking compensated leave time for any personal purpose, any professional purpose or any other lawful purpose. Like any other job, if a teacher desires to participate in union activities, they are free to use vacation days. Why should a teacher receive extra vacation days on the taxpayers’ dime to lobby for union activities?
One has to wonder what the AEA, the teacher’s union who claims their main purpose is “to advance the cause of public education” would fight against and now litigate against such good policy…
Speaker Adams Forms Official Private School Tuition Tax Credit Review Committee
September 18 2009 08:52
Yesterday Speaker Kirk Adams announced the formation of the Private School Tuition Tax Credit Review Committee, tasked with reviewing and assessing the individual tax credit program for private schools.
“Tuition tax credits are very important to Arizonans, and they merit a formal House committee review process,” Speaker Adams said. “This committee will review the impact of these tax credits and make recommendations for their future use,” he added.
The committee has been formed to ensure the application, administration and approval process for tax credits includes accountability measures for private student tuition organizations.
Speaker Adams assigned Rep. Rick Murphy as the Chair of the Committee. He also appointed Representatives Andy Biggs, Debbie Lesko, Jack Brown and Tom Chabin. The first meeting of the Private School Tuition Tax Credit Review Committee will be announced shortly.
“The tuition tax credit program has provided educational opportunities to many students and options to many parents,” Rep. Rick Murphy (R-Peoria) said. “It is important the process for providing tax credits work the way it was intended.”
The committee will produce a report on the tax credit issue by December 15, 2009, which would include any necessary legislation for the 2010 legislative session.
House Majority Plan Succeeds
July 16 2009 10:22
Last February, House Leadership put forward the House Majority Plan. All points of the plan passed successfully.
Each bill has a link with more information on the legislation and includes:
- Redefinition of partial birth abortion and increased the penalty from a class 6 to a class 5 felony
- Repeal of the sunset of the corporate income tax credit to student tuition organizations
- Enactment of a policy for public/private partnerships to build transportation infrastructure
- Expansion of the individual income tax credit for contributions to qualifying charitable organizations to include nonprofit organizations that provide services to chronically ill or physically disabled children, which was fixed in Special Session
- Suspension of any rule making that would impose increased monetary or regulatory costs for one year (vetoed by Governor)
- Re-establishment of the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee
- Permanent repeal of the state property tax, which would have prevented the largest property tax in Arizona’s history (vetoed by Governor)
- Establishment of a study committee on Arizona’s position and participation in the Western Climate Initiative
All legislation that was not vetoed goes into effect on September 30 unless otherwise noted.
Each bill has a link with more information on the legislation and includes:
- Redefinition of partial birth abortion and increased the penalty from a class 6 to a class 5 felony
- Repeal of the sunset of the corporate income tax credit to student tuition organizations
- Enactment of a policy for public/private partnerships to build transportation infrastructure
- Expansion of the individual income tax credit for contributions to qualifying charitable organizations to include nonprofit organizations that provide services to chronically ill or physically disabled children, which was fixed in Special Session
- Suspension of any rule making that would impose increased monetary or regulatory costs for one year (vetoed by Governor)
- Re-establishment of the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee
- Permanent repeal of the state property tax, which would have prevented the largest property tax in Arizona’s history (vetoed by Governor)
- Establishment of a study committee on Arizona’s position and participation in the Western Climate Initiative
All legislation that was not vetoed goes into effect on September 30 unless otherwise noted.
Joint Statement on Special Session
July 06 2009 18:43
House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle have agreed to immediately address the Governor’s veto of more than $3.2 billion in education funding and violation of federal stimulus funding requirements.
With bipartisan support, we introduced and passed legislation today to ensure school districts and charter schools can proceed with adopting their budgets and put the state back in compliance with requirements to receive federal stimulus funds. The bills passed unanimously out of both chambers and are on their way to the Governor.
The four bills to address the issues above are described below:
With bipartisan support, we introduced and passed legislation today to ensure school districts and charter schools can proceed with adopting their budgets and put the state back in compliance with requirements to receive federal stimulus funds. The bills passed unanimously out of both chambers and are on their way to the Governor.
The four bills to address the issues above are described below:
- Appropriates basic state aid to school districts and charter schools at the FY09 level of funding following the spending adjustments passed during first special session in January 2009, plus the full 2 percent inflator.
- Allows school districts to budget for career ladders and desegregation at fiscal year 2009 levels until October 1, 2009, prohibits excess utilities budgeting, and reduces spending for soft capital by $175 million. Additionally, funding is eliminated for a second year of kindergarten for children with birthdates after September 1, 2009, grandfathering current kindergarten pupils.
- Ensures county contributions to AHCCCS and distributions of Medicaid stimulus monies are consistent with the requirements of the federal stimulus legislation. This language, which was part of one of the BRBs vetoed by the executive, ensures that Arizona receives more than $1.7 billion in federal stimulus monies for Medicaid.
- Limits legislator pay during the special session to those days when the legislature convenes and attendance is recorded.
When Words Lose Their Meaning...
June 25 2009 13:56
In a recent article by Daniel Scarpinato, a reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, he noted that many elected officials are using the word “decimating” in the same sentence with education.
Governor Brewer accuses the Republican led legislature of “decimating” education in their budget proposal, meanwhile the Democrats accuse Governor Brewer of “decimating” education in her budget plan.
He went on to explain in his article, “The GOP plan, which has the largest of the K-12 cuts, reduces state aid to K-12 by 5.2 percent out of the more than $4 billion the state provides to K-12. When other funds that K-12 receives are factored in, it amounts to a 2.2 percent cut.”
As Scarpinato pointed out, the total reduction to K-12 in the Legislative budget is about two percent, or conversely, education is funded at 98 percent of what it was funded in fiscal year 2009...either way, one can hardly say the reductions decimate education.
This Legislature contends the budget process was difficult, with only bad and worse options, yet this body has done everything within its power to keep education cuts to a minimum. Given the size of the $3 billion plus state deficit, a 2.2 percent reduction to education is not a “decimation.”
Governor Brewer accuses the Republican led legislature of “decimating” education in their budget proposal, meanwhile the Democrats accuse Governor Brewer of “decimating” education in her budget plan.
He went on to explain in his article, “The GOP plan, which has the largest of the K-12 cuts, reduces state aid to K-12 by 5.2 percent out of the more than $4 billion the state provides to K-12. When other funds that K-12 receives are factored in, it amounts to a 2.2 percent cut.”
As Scarpinato pointed out, the total reduction to K-12 in the Legislative budget is about two percent, or conversely, education is funded at 98 percent of what it was funded in fiscal year 2009...either way, one can hardly say the reductions decimate education.
This Legislature contends the budget process was difficult, with only bad and worse options, yet this body has done everything within its power to keep education cuts to a minimum. Given the size of the $3 billion plus state deficit, a 2.2 percent reduction to education is not a “decimation.”
House Statement - "U.S. Supreme Court Renders Decision in Flores Today"
June 25 2009 10:35
Today’s decision is a tremendous development for all Arizonans. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that it is incumbent upon federal courts to adopt a flexible approach that respects both federalism and the separation of powers. After almost two decades of litigation, this direction is a breath of fresh air. Arizona’s public policy assisting ELL students belongs with elected representatives, not in the courts.
There is great reason to be excited about the future. Recent test results have proven that Structured English Immersion works and is the best way to teach our youngsters a command of the English language. Today’s decision will help move past gridlock in the court room, to success in the classroom. That’s good news for students and good news for Arizona. Now we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with it and teach these children English.
Please see our previous post for a link to the Court’s opinion.
There is great reason to be excited about the future. Recent test results have proven that Structured English Immersion works and is the best way to teach our youngsters a command of the English language. Today’s decision will help move past gridlock in the court room, to success in the classroom. That’s good news for students and good news for Arizona. Now we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with it and teach these children English.
Please see our previous post for a link to the Court’s opinion.
Legislature Prevails in U.S. Supreme Court ELL Case
June 25 2009 08:24
Speaker Adams, President Burns and Superintendent Horne prevailed by a 5-4 decision in the United States Supreme Court ELL case.
You can view the Court’s opinion here - Horne v. Flores (PDF)
You can view the Court’s opinion here - Horne v. Flores (PDF)
Pink Slipped Teachers Re-hired
June 11 2009 11:38
The teacher’s union and the Democrats owe public school teachers an apology.
The teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) actively opposed a bill (HB2630) that sought to give school districts more time before notifying teachers about renewal of their contracts for the upcoming school year. The plan was to change the teacher notification period from April 15th to June 15th to allow districts to gain a better understanding of their budgets for the coming school year.
However, the AEA and Democrats severely exaggerated the size of the GOP education cuts, saying Republicans sought to pass the bill to hide huge budget reductions to education. The GOP has been vindicated as the teachers who received reduction-in-force notices in April are now being rehired by their respective school districts.
A recent article in The Arizona Republic, “Valley district recall teachers laid off in April” details the school districts rehiring teachers.
Examples of teachers being rehired include:
John Wright from the Arizona Education Association in particular needs to apologize to teachers for instilling fear and spreading inaccurate information. Wright claimed cuts to education would be over $990 million to K-12 alone.
The recent Majority budget passed by the Legislature consisted of $220 million in cuts to education, or approximately 2 percent of their overall budget. And as the Majority assumed, the federal government has approved $832 million of stimulus funds to be applied towards education in Arizona.
Instead of working with the school districts and this body, the AEA and the Democrats opted to work against school teachers and the students of Arizona.
The teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) actively opposed a bill (HB2630) that sought to give school districts more time before notifying teachers about renewal of their contracts for the upcoming school year. The plan was to change the teacher notification period from April 15th to June 15th to allow districts to gain a better understanding of their budgets for the coming school year.
However, the AEA and Democrats severely exaggerated the size of the GOP education cuts, saying Republicans sought to pass the bill to hide huge budget reductions to education. The GOP has been vindicated as the teachers who received reduction-in-force notices in April are now being rehired by their respective school districts.
A recent article in The Arizona Republic, “Valley district recall teachers laid off in April” details the school districts rehiring teachers.
Examples of teachers being rehired include:
- Gilbert Public Schools has rehired 130 of 267 teachers who received pink slip notifications in April.
- Peoria Unified School District is recalling 188 of the more than 300 teachers previously laid off.
- Dysart Unified School District has recalled 104 of 209 laid-off teachers.
- Scottsdale Unified School District said last month that it could fill 129.5 of the 221 positions cut in April.
- Deer Valley Unified School District has recalled 71 of 105 teachers.
John Wright from the Arizona Education Association in particular needs to apologize to teachers for instilling fear and spreading inaccurate information. Wright claimed cuts to education would be over $990 million to K-12 alone.
The recent Majority budget passed by the Legislature consisted of $220 million in cuts to education, or approximately 2 percent of their overall budget. And as the Majority assumed, the federal government has approved $832 million of stimulus funds to be applied towards education in Arizona.
Instead of working with the school districts and this body, the AEA and the Democrats opted to work against school teachers and the students of Arizona.
Legislative Budget Complies With Stimulus Funding Requirements
June 08 2009 16:45
The Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) has responded to a concern by the Arizona Board of Regents that the Arizona legislature passed a budget that would prevent the acceptance of federal stimulus dollars.
The following is the JLBC’s response…
“We understand that the universities are contending that the Legislative budget proposal would place the state out of compliance with the requirements to receive Federal Stabilization Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Universities’ concerns seemed to be centered on the auxiliary fund transfers and the payment deferrals.
The intent of the Legislative proposal is to draw down all available Federal Stabilization Fund dollars. We are unaware of any provision of the legislation being out of compliance with federal statutory requirements or with subsequent United States Department of Education (USDOE) guidance...”
To read more, please click on this link: ABOR Letter 6-8-09 (PDF)
The following is the JLBC’s response…
“We understand that the universities are contending that the Legislative budget proposal would place the state out of compliance with the requirements to receive Federal Stabilization Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Universities’ concerns seemed to be centered on the auxiliary fund transfers and the payment deferrals.
The intent of the Legislative proposal is to draw down all available Federal Stabilization Fund dollars. We are unaware of any provision of the legislation being out of compliance with federal statutory requirements or with subsequent United States Department of Education (USDOE) guidance...”
To read more, please click on this link: ABOR Letter 6-8-09 (PDF)
Republicans Protect Students, Provide Choice
May 27 2009 17:02
The Arizona House and Senate Republicans voted today to send HB2001 up to Governor Brewer, which will allow disabled and foster children to continue attending the private school of their parent’s choice.
Democrats however, voted “no”.
HB2001 saves the state money, allows parents to choose which school best serves the needs of their students, and allows the state to redirect more money for public education.
How could anyone who says they support education vote against such a good piece of legislation?
“I proudly vote ‘no’,” Rep. Sinema said.
“I’m a proud ‘no’ on this bill,” Rep. Ableser said.
“We support the million plus students who are in public education. And so I am proud to vote ‘no’ on this bill…,” Rep. Lujan said.
Yet even if Democratic amendments would have passed (and there were many), Democrats are on record saying they still wouldn’t have supported the bill.
Since legislation goes into affect 90 days after session, Republicans worked with Governor Brewer, bringing this bill to Special Session when it did to allow students to continue going to the school of their choice and not disrupt their upcoming school year.
“By delaying the bill you compromise the ability of those students to continue at those schools who are serving them well and condemn them to the schools who are not serving them well,” Rep. Murphy said.
Democrats however, voted “no”.
HB2001 saves the state money, allows parents to choose which school best serves the needs of their students, and allows the state to redirect more money for public education.
How could anyone who says they support education vote against such a good piece of legislation?
“I proudly vote ‘no’,” Rep. Sinema said.
“I’m a proud ‘no’ on this bill,” Rep. Ableser said.
“We support the million plus students who are in public education. And so I am proud to vote ‘no’ on this bill…,” Rep. Lujan said.
Yet even if Democratic amendments would have passed (and there were many), Democrats are on record saying they still wouldn’t have supported the bill.
Since legislation goes into affect 90 days after session, Republicans worked with Governor Brewer, bringing this bill to Special Session when it did to allow students to continue going to the school of their choice and not disrupt their upcoming school year.
“By delaying the bill you compromise the ability of those students to continue at those schools who are serving them well and condemn them to the schools who are not serving them well,” Rep. Murphy said.
School Choice Saves AZ Money
May 26 2009 17:40
Democrats act as if there’s no $3.3 billion dollar budget deficit, as if they have no responsibility for the current fiscal crisis the state faces, nor that the current bill they criticize (HB 2001) actually saves the state money.
The most recent Democratic press release criticizes Republicans for budget cuts in the FY09 budget fix, yet without these cuts, Arizona would face an even higher deficit than the current one.
Democrats act irresponsibly in their pseudo budget proposal and their criticism of Republican proposals, yet like the Obama budget plan, would only indebt current and future Arizonans to more permanent spending and debt.
Democratic leadership has given us growth in state government at an unprecedented level. We’ve seen an increase in spending of $3.7 billion dollars in the last five years alone!
In another act of irresponsibility, Democrats attack contributions to School Tuition Organizations saying it costs the state more money when in reality it actually saves the state money. Arizona could definitely use any savings wherever we can find it in the midst of a historic budget deficit.
The Institute for Justice reports the corporate tax credit scholarships will save the State of Arizona an estimated $57.2 million over the life of the program, or an average of $11.4 million annually. This means the state could educate many more students at a private school than what the state would have spent had they remained in the public school system.
Additionally, the bill gives current students the ability to stay in the schools they currently attend, and parents with limited options will now have enhanced options in sending their child to a school that best fits their child’s educational needs.
Democrats have instead decided to take a vulnerable population and use them as political pawns to attack Republicans for a budget crisis due largely to the last several Democratic budgets that obligated the state to permanent spending the state could never afford.
Not only should we be finding ways to save the state money as in the case of HB 2001, but we should also look to find ways to enact good policy, another benefit of HB 2001.
Unfortunately this program is capped at $5 million when there are approximately 120,000 students who could potentially qualify for and benefit from this program.
The most recent Democratic press release criticizes Republicans for budget cuts in the FY09 budget fix, yet without these cuts, Arizona would face an even higher deficit than the current one.
Democrats act irresponsibly in their pseudo budget proposal and their criticism of Republican proposals, yet like the Obama budget plan, would only indebt current and future Arizonans to more permanent spending and debt.
Democratic leadership has given us growth in state government at an unprecedented level. We’ve seen an increase in spending of $3.7 billion dollars in the last five years alone!
In another act of irresponsibility, Democrats attack contributions to School Tuition Organizations saying it costs the state more money when in reality it actually saves the state money. Arizona could definitely use any savings wherever we can find it in the midst of a historic budget deficit.
The Institute for Justice reports the corporate tax credit scholarships will save the State of Arizona an estimated $57.2 million over the life of the program, or an average of $11.4 million annually. This means the state could educate many more students at a private school than what the state would have spent had they remained in the public school system.
Additionally, the bill gives current students the ability to stay in the schools they currently attend, and parents with limited options will now have enhanced options in sending their child to a school that best fits their child’s educational needs.
Democrats have instead decided to take a vulnerable population and use them as political pawns to attack Republicans for a budget crisis due largely to the last several Democratic budgets that obligated the state to permanent spending the state could never afford.
Not only should we be finding ways to save the state money as in the case of HB 2001, but we should also look to find ways to enact good policy, another benefit of HB 2001.
Unfortunately this program is capped at $5 million when there are approximately 120,000 students who could potentially qualify for and benefit from this program.
Legislature Aids Disabled & Foster Kids
May 21 2009 13:29
Governor Brewer has convened a Special Session of the Legislature today to enact new state income tax credits for disabled and foster students since the Arizona Supreme Court ruled vouchers unconstitutional.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. This Special Session is designed to correct that.
Critics of the Special Session have said the Legislature needs to focus on overall funding for education and not concern itself with this specific population.
The Legislature is able to multitask and can do both budget and policy issues simultaneously.
Critics of the Special Session also say tax credit programs take away money from the public schools. What they fail to mention is the state will pay LESS since the tax credit they give to the parent or foster parent is less than what the state would have to spend in per pupil spending.
Meanwhile the Democratic budget proposal is not only $1 billion short of a balanced budget, but it would also increase taxes by almost $1 billion and ultimately hurt those same disabled and foster children they claim to support.
Critics’ view of a “humane and forward-looking budget” includes increasing permanent spending and harming every single Arizonan by obligating us to debt we cannot afford now or in the future.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is quoted as saying “nobody knows better than parents what’s best for their children, and that’s especially true for a child’s educational needs.”
He’s talking about school choice and he’s right. This is why the Legislature seeks to allow these parents to continue sending their children to the schools that best meet the child’s needs.
As reported by the Arizona Republic, Andrea Weck is the mother of a 6-year-old daughter with autism and used one of Arizona's voucher programs to send her child to a small, private Tempe academy. Weck said her daughter wasn't thriving in a public school setting.
"The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. This Special Session is designed to correct that.
Critics of the Special Session have said the Legislature needs to focus on overall funding for education and not concern itself with this specific population.
The Legislature is able to multitask and can do both budget and policy issues simultaneously.
Critics of the Special Session also say tax credit programs take away money from the public schools. What they fail to mention is the state will pay LESS since the tax credit they give to the parent or foster parent is less than what the state would have to spend in per pupil spending.
Meanwhile the Democratic budget proposal is not only $1 billion short of a balanced budget, but it would also increase taxes by almost $1 billion and ultimately hurt those same disabled and foster children they claim to support.
Critics’ view of a “humane and forward-looking budget” includes increasing permanent spending and harming every single Arizonan by obligating us to debt we cannot afford now or in the future.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is quoted as saying “nobody knows better than parents what’s best for their children, and that’s especially true for a child’s educational needs.”
He’s talking about school choice and he’s right. This is why the Legislature seeks to allow these parents to continue sending their children to the schools that best meet the child’s needs.
As reported by the Arizona Republic, Andrea Weck is the mother of a 6-year-old daughter with autism and used one of Arizona's voucher programs to send her child to a small, private Tempe academy. Weck said her daughter wasn't thriving in a public school setting.
"The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said
Critics Refuse To Help Disabled/Foster Kids
May 19 2009 17:16
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that school vouchers are unconstitutional for appropriating public money for private or religious schools.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. It’s never a good idea to rip a student out of a school they’re already attending.
This is why the Legislature and the Governor are working together to develop a solution in a possible Special Session.
The voucher program saves the state money since the tax credit covers up to 90 percent of the tuition, while the parent covers the difference in cost. Without this tax credit, the state would have to pay 100 percent of the per pupil spending at a public school.
The savings from the voucher program can go to help offset other education spending. Critics of school vouchers have said the Legislature is kowtowing to “corporate interests.”
Those critics need to explain how allowing disabled and foster children to go to the school of their choice is a bad thing. They also need to explain how lowering state expenditures in this historic deficit is a bad thing too.
The voucher discussion is about kids, parents and educational choices. Critics will find something to condemn with the voucher program for the sake of political mileage. This time the causalities are disabled and foster kids.
Without the state’s voucher program, 473 disabled and foster children will be pulled from the private schools they currently attend and be placed in public schools. It’s never a good idea to rip a student out of a school they’re already attending.
This is why the Legislature and the Governor are working together to develop a solution in a possible Special Session.
The voucher program saves the state money since the tax credit covers up to 90 percent of the tuition, while the parent covers the difference in cost. Without this tax credit, the state would have to pay 100 percent of the per pupil spending at a public school.
The savings from the voucher program can go to help offset other education spending. Critics of school vouchers have said the Legislature is kowtowing to “corporate interests.”
Those critics need to explain how allowing disabled and foster children to go to the school of their choice is a bad thing. They also need to explain how lowering state expenditures in this historic deficit is a bad thing too.
The voucher discussion is about kids, parents and educational choices. Critics will find something to condemn with the voucher program for the sake of political mileage. This time the causalities are disabled and foster kids.
House Awaits Action On Student Religious Liberties Bill
May 18 2009 08:36
The Student Religious Liberties Act (HB2357) prohibits a public educational institution from discriminating against students or parents on the basis of their religious viewpoint or expression.
Rep. Rich Crandall sponsored the bill due to Deborah Chambers, a seventh grade charter school student who had a picture of Jesus dying on the cross. A fellow student complained and the principal told her she couldn’t bring the folder to school any more.
The bill passed the House 37 to 23 on May 6 and is awaiting action at the Senate. Since the Senate is only hearing budget related bills, it’s unknown when this legislation will get a hearing.
If HB2357 passes, students will be able to pray or participate in religious activities in public schools in the same manner students can engage in non-religious activities.
Students will also be allowed to wear clothing, jewelry or other apparel displaying religious messages to the same extent students can display non-religious apparel.
If this bill passes out of the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor, it will be known as, “The Students’ Religious Liberties Act.”
photo by Cronkite News Service
Rep. Rich Crandall sponsored the bill due to Deborah Chambers, a seventh grade charter school student who had a picture of Jesus dying on the cross. A fellow student complained and the principal told her she couldn’t bring the folder to school any more.
The bill passed the House 37 to 23 on May 6 and is awaiting action at the Senate. Since the Senate is only hearing budget related bills, it’s unknown when this legislation will get a hearing.
If HB2357 passes, students will be able to pray or participate in religious activities in public schools in the same manner students can engage in non-religious activities.
Students will also be allowed to wear clothing, jewelry or other apparel displaying religious messages to the same extent students can display non-religious apparel.
If this bill passes out of the Senate and is signed into law by the Governor, it will be known as, “The Students’ Religious Liberties Act.”
photo by Cronkite News Service
Speaker & President Discuss Excess Cash Balances/Budget On Horizon
May 14 2009 14:06
As reported yesterday, Democrats have voted once again to harm education by voting “no” on two bills that will allow school districts to utilize excess school cash balances.
House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns explain this issue with Horizon Host Ted Simons. They also discuss the overall state budget.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns explain this issue with Horizon Host Ted Simons. They also discuss the overall state budget.
Click on this link or click on the picture below to go to the Horizon website to view the video in it’s entirety.
Democrats Harm Education Once Again
May 13 2009 16:33
Democrats have voted once again to harm education by voting “no” on two bills that will allow school districts to utilize excess school cash balances.
With this legislation, school districts will be allowed to spend dollars they are otherwise not legally allowed to spend on school operations during one of the most severe deficits in the state’s history.
HB2028 and HB2029 avoid sweeping these excess cash balances into the General Fund to be used for state general operating purposes.
These bills also avoid additional cuts to K-12 spending in FY09.
So instead of harming education, it helps education by allowing districts to use their funds the districts currently have no legal authority to utilize.
Not only does it protect school funding but it also helps the State solve our deficit in 2010 so budget cuts will not have to be any deeper towards Education.
In an effort to score political points, Democrats have chosen to continue their false narrative of Republicans balancing the state budget on the backs of children and teachers.
This is simply untrue.
These bills attempt to address the larger than anticipated FY09 deficit that has grown to $650M since February 2009.
“Every month, revenues decline further. It’s just in the last few days we’ve discovered a decline in revenue from April of $200 million dollars. It is irresponsible if we do not act quickly and decisively to fix this problem. There has been much talk about the budget process. I’ve received bills from the minority leadership that still does not solve the $650 million dollar deficit problem,” Speaker Kirk Adams said.
With this legislation, school districts will be allowed to spend dollars they are otherwise not legally allowed to spend on school operations during one of the most severe deficits in the state’s history.
HB2028 and HB2029 avoid sweeping these excess cash balances into the General Fund to be used for state general operating purposes.
These bills also avoid additional cuts to K-12 spending in FY09.
So instead of harming education, it helps education by allowing districts to use their funds the districts currently have no legal authority to utilize.
Not only does it protect school funding but it also helps the State solve our deficit in 2010 so budget cuts will not have to be any deeper towards Education.
In an effort to score political points, Democrats have chosen to continue their false narrative of Republicans balancing the state budget on the backs of children and teachers.
This is simply untrue.
These bills attempt to address the larger than anticipated FY09 deficit that has grown to $650M since February 2009.
“Every month, revenues decline further. It’s just in the last few days we’ve discovered a decline in revenue from April of $200 million dollars. It is irresponsible if we do not act quickly and decisively to fix this problem. There has been much talk about the budget process. I’ve received bills from the minority leadership that still does not solve the $650 million dollar deficit problem,” Speaker Kirk Adams said.
First Things First Brief
May 12 2009 16:06
The Speaker and President have filed a brief asking the Arizona Supreme Court to find that the First Things First initiative (Proposition 203 from 2006) is constitutionally defective.
The brief argues the proposition has an inadequate revenue source and a negative impact upon the State’s General Fund.
You can view the brief here - EARLY CHILDHOOD BRIEF (PDF)
In 2004, Arizona voters amended the State Constitution to respond to problems with initiatives that created ongoing funding obligations where the State is obligated to spend money for initiatives without an adequate funding stream.
Because of these problems, the voters enacted Article 9 Section 23, the constitutional Revenue Source Rule, which creates special protection for the State’s General Fund.
As a result, initiatives are now required by the State Constitution to identify a revenue source for current and future costs and it cannot have an impact on the General Fund.
So far, the First Things First initiative has had an approximately $50 million negative impact upon the State General Fund.
In November 2006 Arizona voters approved Proposition 203 that established the First Things First Initiative. The Fund consists of revenues generated by an 88 cents tax on every pack of cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes went from $1.18 per pack to $1.98 per pack.
The brief says “The Revenue Source rule requires that programs prescribed through the ballot measures must be funded from a new revenue source that meets the entire needs of the programs, both at inception and in the future. And, the funding source cannot cause a reduction in State general fund revenues. Proposition 203 failed to meet both of these requirements, because the tobacco tax it imposed caused an immediate reduction in State general fund revenues. Also the funding source cannot meet the future needs of the Board’s programs.”
The brief argues the proposition has an inadequate revenue source and a negative impact upon the State’s General Fund.
You can view the brief here - EARLY CHILDHOOD BRIEF (PDF)
In 2004, Arizona voters amended the State Constitution to respond to problems with initiatives that created ongoing funding obligations where the State is obligated to spend money for initiatives without an adequate funding stream.
Because of these problems, the voters enacted Article 9 Section 23, the constitutional Revenue Source Rule, which creates special protection for the State’s General Fund.
As a result, initiatives are now required by the State Constitution to identify a revenue source for current and future costs and it cannot have an impact on the General Fund.
So far, the First Things First initiative has had an approximately $50 million negative impact upon the State General Fund.
In November 2006 Arizona voters approved Proposition 203 that established the First Things First Initiative. The Fund consists of revenues generated by an 88 cents tax on every pack of cigarettes. A pack of cigarettes went from $1.18 per pack to $1.98 per pack.
The brief says “The Revenue Source rule requires that programs prescribed through the ballot measures must be funded from a new revenue source that meets the entire needs of the programs, both at inception and in the future. And, the funding source cannot cause a reduction in State general fund revenues. Proposition 203 failed to meet both of these requirements, because the tobacco tax it imposed caused an immediate reduction in State general fund revenues. Also the funding source cannot meet the future needs of the Board’s programs.”
School Districts Suffering From Poor Economy Too
May 06 2009 14:35
The teacher’s union would love you all to believe the Legislature is to blame for the funding problems within the state’s school districts. That, however, simply isn’t true! The poor economy actually is the culprit – not the Legislature.
Several issues impacting the state’s educational system have nothing to do with legislative action like declining enrollment, declining Proposition 301 revenues and a loss of gaming funds.
Setting the record straight is important; and although it is true the Legislature made reductions to the state’s K-12 education budget, the fiscal year 2009 Special Session DID NOT decimate public education as critics would have you believe.
In fact, the K-12 budget was reduced by $133 million, but even after that reduction, the funding levels for education in ’09 were still $61 million more than they were in FY08.
Lawmakers have tough budget decisions ahead, but they will do everything within their power to keep education cuts as low a possible as they work to balance the budget.
Several issues impacting the state’s educational system have nothing to do with legislative action like declining enrollment, declining Proposition 301 revenues and a loss of gaming funds.
- Declining enrollment is having a huge impact to school districts because fewer students means fewer dollars for districts; and with funding at $9,700 per pupil, depending on how badly enrollment numbers are off, the district may be losing out on significant funding. Not the Legislature’s fault.
- Declining Proposition 301 revenues has hurt districts too because this funding is tied to the state’s tax revenue. Unfortunately, Arizona’s state tax revenues are down 21.5 percent from where they were last year – making fewer dollars available for education.
- Declining gaming revenues are off because people just aren’t gambling as much in this poor economy. Districts receive a portion of gaming revenues for dropout prevention programs, school readiness and reading programs.
Setting the record straight is important; and although it is true the Legislature made reductions to the state’s K-12 education budget, the fiscal year 2009 Special Session DID NOT decimate public education as critics would have you believe.
In fact, the K-12 budget was reduced by $133 million, but even after that reduction, the funding levels for education in ’09 were still $61 million more than they were in FY08.
Lawmakers have tough budget decisions ahead, but they will do everything within their power to keep education cuts as low a possible as they work to balance the budget.
Parental Involvement & Student Achievement
April 30 2009 14:12
Many sources have recently said Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending. For sake of argument, say this is true. Say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending…what exactly does this mean?
The goal of education should never consist of how much money we spend on education, but what comes out - student achievement. Yes, funding is extremely critical but so is parental involvement and teacher discipline.
Critics have held an obsessive, tunnel-vision focus on per pupil spending to the detriment of student achievement.
Yet higher student achievement does not necessarily correspond with more money.
Let’s take Utah and Washington D.C. as a practical example.
Utah spends roughly $7,215 per pupil in overall expenditures whereas Washington D.C. spends roughly $17,600 per pupil. Yet Utah continuously scores well above Washington D.C. in student achievement. So money, although necessary, is not sufficient.
Arizona spends roughly 42 percent of the ENTIRE state budget on education. In fact, six state agencies comprise over 91 percent of our state budget.
And despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Most people value quality education and most people believe that a highly qualified workforce is critical for the emerging economy. This is not disputed.
These same critics who say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending assume that student achievement in Arizona is extremely poor and thus the ONLY way to increase student achievement is to increase per pupil spending.
The literature suggests that parental involvement remains the number one indicator of student achievement.
Higher student achievement directly corresponds to higher parental involvement.
Although we cannot legislate parental involvement perhaps we can reduce taxes and allow parents to keep more of their own money thus giving them the opportunity to spend more time with their children.
The goal of education should never consist of how much money we spend on education, but what comes out - student achievement. Yes, funding is extremely critical but so is parental involvement and teacher discipline.
Critics have held an obsessive, tunnel-vision focus on per pupil spending to the detriment of student achievement.
Yet higher student achievement does not necessarily correspond with more money.
Let’s take Utah and Washington D.C. as a practical example.
Utah spends roughly $7,215 per pupil in overall expenditures whereas Washington D.C. spends roughly $17,600 per pupil. Yet Utah continuously scores well above Washington D.C. in student achievement. So money, although necessary, is not sufficient.
Arizona spends roughly 42 percent of the ENTIRE state budget on education. In fact, six state agencies comprise over 91 percent of our state budget.
And despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Most people value quality education and most people believe that a highly qualified workforce is critical for the emerging economy. This is not disputed.
These same critics who say Arizona is near the bottom in per pupil spending assume that student achievement in Arizona is extremely poor and thus the ONLY way to increase student achievement is to increase per pupil spending.
The literature suggests that parental involvement remains the number one indicator of student achievement.
Higher student achievement directly corresponds to higher parental involvement.
Although we cannot legislate parental involvement perhaps we can reduce taxes and allow parents to keep more of their own money thus giving them the opportunity to spend more time with their children.
Appropriations Chairmen Discuss Budget
April 23 2009 10:48
Appropriations Chairman John Kavanagh and Russell Pearce discuss the State budget deficit, a tax increase and education with Channel 12’s Mark Curtis.
Key quotes include:
Key quotes include:
Representative John Kavanagh - “Year after year she [Governor Napolitano] oversaw double digit increases in state spending in years of single revenue growth. And when it became apparent that the economy was tanking last year, rather than cut back then, she created overly optimistic projections of future revenue and she continued to go into fund sweeps…”
Senator Russell Pearce - “We voted in mass against the Democratic budget.”
Representative John Kavanagh - “A tax increase will give us revenue but at the cost of massive job losses.”
Education Receives More Money Than What's Reported
April 15 2009 08:27
Despite the $133 Million in Fiscal Year 2009 budget correction reductions in K – 12, education still received $61 Million more than their Fiscal Year 2008 budget.
Dems would rather have teachers protesting than in the classroom
April 13 2009 15:46
Numerous school districts are laying off teachers at an unprecedented rate.
It could have been avoided.
Democrats decided to support the teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) instead of supporting teachers.
Here’s what Democratic Representative Tom Chabin had to say on his refusal to support school districts in having more time to deal with the state’s fiscal crisis:
“The hesitancy really revolves around putting a face on a decision that we make. The truth is, the truth is, that if we give notice to teachers on April 15th and their families, and the schools, and the children they teach, we will see who is affected by our decisions. They will be here and it will put more pressure on us to develop a budget in education sooner. Now that’s honest.”
Honest indeed.
Democrats would rather have teachers protesting at the Capitol than teaching in the classroom.
It could have been avoided.
Democrats decided to support the teacher’s union (Arizona Education Association) instead of supporting teachers.
Here’s what Democratic Representative Tom Chabin had to say on his refusal to support school districts in having more time to deal with the state’s fiscal crisis:
“The hesitancy really revolves around putting a face on a decision that we make. The truth is, the truth is, that if we give notice to teachers on April 15th and their families, and the schools, and the children they teach, we will see who is affected by our decisions. They will be here and it will put more pressure on us to develop a budget in education sooner. Now that’s honest.”
Honest indeed.
Democrats would rather have teachers protesting at the Capitol than teaching in the classroom.
SCOTUS to hear AZ ELL case next Monday
April 13 2009 13:00
Next Monday morning, April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and President of the Senate v. Flores. The issue involves the interference of the federal courts with the authority of the Arizona legislature to establish education policy for English Language Learners.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
The Court will decide whether the judgement put in place in 2000 should be modified or ended given significant developments in the intervening years.
Developments include: Prop 203 (2001), the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, and HB2064 (2006).
Here are the Speaker’s legal filings with the Supreme Court:
1. Petition for writ of certiori brief (PDF)
2. Petitioner's Opening Brief (PDF)
3. Petitioner's Reply Brief (PDF)
For more resources on this case, click here.
Additionally, from the Arizona Republic, read Robert Robb’s most recent column on ELL issues.
Teacher Layoffs Could've Been Avoided
April 08 2009 10:37
The following links consist of a few headlines regarding teacher layoffs.
These layoffs could have been avoided if Democrats had voted with Republicans to give school districts more time to make teachers aware of their employment status.
State law requires notices go out by April 15.
The following news stories are more than likely just the beginning of Reduction-in-force (RIF) notices...
Gilbert School District votes to cut 400 teachers
TUSD Board approves layoffs for 605 workers, mostly teachers
Chino Valley sends out 227 RIF letters to employees
Peoria School District approves layoff of 300 teachers
Deer Valley Unified School District laying off 121 Employees
Dysart Unified School District to recommend elimination of 175 jobs
Queen Creek School Board approves cutting 35 teachers
34 teachers leaving Kingman Unified School District
Mayer School Board RIFs 8 employees
Mesa school jobs in ‘confusing’ limbo
Torren Eilhelmsen, a Desert Ridge High School student recently wrote a letter to the Gilbert Public Schools Governing Board. The student’s experience is not unlike many of her counterparts in schools all across Arizona.
Eilhelmsen wrote, “I am very involved with student leadership. Specifically, I am part of the Principal's Advisory Council that helps deal with different issues at the school. This morning, April 6, 2009, students walked into class knowing something wasn't right. Then, when the bell rang, distraught first-year teachers gave their students the news that they very likely would not have a job with Gilbert Public School District next year. This announcement was made to them on Friday, April 3, 2009, after school. This announcement comes after Dr. Allison told the parents of the Parent Superintendent Council, that he and the governing board would do everything in their power not to cut teachers and increase class sizes. We all trusted that was what was to happen. Now, they have said that first year teachers may not get to teach with Gilbert Public Schools next year. This would raise the class size at Desert Ridge to approximately double the size of this year's classes. Now I ask you, are we supposed to still trust you when you tell us something? I find it hard to believe that there would be logic in that in the least amount. There are other things that can and should be cut long before it comes to teachers.”
These layoffs could have been avoided if Democrats had voted with Republicans to give school districts more time to make teachers aware of their employment status.
State law requires notices go out by April 15.
The following news stories are more than likely just the beginning of Reduction-in-force (RIF) notices...
Gilbert School District votes to cut 400 teachers
TUSD Board approves layoffs for 605 workers, mostly teachers
Chino Valley sends out 227 RIF letters to employees
Peoria School District approves layoff of 300 teachers
Deer Valley Unified School District laying off 121 Employees
Dysart Unified School District to recommend elimination of 175 jobs
Queen Creek School Board approves cutting 35 teachers
34 teachers leaving Kingman Unified School District
Mayer School Board RIFs 8 employees
Mesa school jobs in ‘confusing’ limbo
Torren Eilhelmsen, a Desert Ridge High School student recently wrote a letter to the Gilbert Public Schools Governing Board. The student’s experience is not unlike many of her counterparts in schools all across Arizona.
Eilhelmsen wrote, “I am very involved with student leadership. Specifically, I am part of the Principal's Advisory Council that helps deal with different issues at the school. This morning, April 6, 2009, students walked into class knowing something wasn't right. Then, when the bell rang, distraught first-year teachers gave their students the news that they very likely would not have a job with Gilbert Public School District next year. This announcement was made to them on Friday, April 3, 2009, after school. This announcement comes after Dr. Allison told the parents of the Parent Superintendent Council, that he and the governing board would do everything in their power not to cut teachers and increase class sizes. We all trusted that was what was to happen. Now, they have said that first year teachers may not get to teach with Gilbert Public Schools next year. This would raise the class size at Desert Ridge to approximately double the size of this year's classes. Now I ask you, are we supposed to still trust you when you tell us something? I find it hard to believe that there would be logic in that in the least amount. There are other things that can and should be cut long before it comes to teachers.”
Democrats Side With Union Against Teachers
April 07 2009 16:10
By Andy Tobin
House Majority Whip
Instead of doing what’s right for teachers and students, the teachers union (Arizona Education Association) has decided politics are more important. This same teacher’s union colluded with the House Democrats to make sure school districts do not have the ability to have more time to notify teachers about whether or not they will be retained for the following school year.
The Democrats voted party line against HB2630 with the exception of one Democrat. This bill would have given school districts the time they needed to make teachers aware of their employment status and not frighten or lose good teachers because of unnecessary contract termination letters.
In March the Legislature attempted to pass HB2630, which would have extended the statutory teacher notification deadline for all Arizona school districts. The Republicans attempted, at the request of the Arizona School Boards Association, to give an emergency extension so school districts could finalize their budgets without frightening or losing good teachers with contract termination letters that were based on worst-case scenarios.
Unfortunately, the Arizona Education Association went against the school districts and convinced all but one of the House Democrats to vote ‘no’ on HB2630. Rep. Rae Waters voted with the Republicans on this issue. In addition to the 35 Republicans, five Democrats needed to vote ‘yes’ to pass the emergency measure. Instead, the Arizona Education Association and the Democrats decided to play political games with teachers’ livelihoods and killed the emergency measure.
- Click here to see Highlights of the HB2630 Debate
If you are truly concerned about the situation Arizona teachers are in, I suggest you contact your Democratic legislators and ask them why they voted to send layoff notices to teachers that may still have jobs.
You can find their contact information at this link.
House Majority Whip
Instead of doing what’s right for teachers and students, the teachers union (Arizona Education Association) has decided politics are more important. This same teacher’s union colluded with the House Democrats to make sure school districts do not have the ability to have more time to notify teachers about whether or not they will be retained for the following school year.
The Democrats voted party line against HB2630 with the exception of one Democrat. This bill would have given school districts the time they needed to make teachers aware of their employment status and not frighten or lose good teachers because of unnecessary contract termination letters.
In March the Legislature attempted to pass HB2630, which would have extended the statutory teacher notification deadline for all Arizona school districts. The Republicans attempted, at the request of the Arizona School Boards Association, to give an emergency extension so school districts could finalize their budgets without frightening or losing good teachers with contract termination letters that were based on worst-case scenarios.
Unfortunately, the Arizona Education Association went against the school districts and convinced all but one of the House Democrats to vote ‘no’ on HB2630. Rep. Rae Waters voted with the Republicans on this issue. In addition to the 35 Republicans, five Democrats needed to vote ‘yes’ to pass the emergency measure. Instead, the Arizona Education Association and the Democrats decided to play political games with teachers’ livelihoods and killed the emergency measure.
- Click here to see Highlights of the HB2630 Debate
If you are truly concerned about the situation Arizona teachers are in, I suggest you contact your Democratic legislators and ask them why they voted to send layoff notices to teachers that may still have jobs.
You can find their contact information at this link.