Proposal could place billions more into K-12 classrooms over next decade
On the same day the plaintiffs in the Cave Creek v. DeWit lawsuit declared an impasse in settlement discussions, Senate President Andy Biggs and Speaker of the House David Gowan announced a proposal to place additional money into classrooms across the state. Because there is a gag order, it is unknown if the proposal was part of the discussions or in response to declared impasse.
The Legislature’s proposal uses four revenue streams that would infuse as much as $5 billion in new money over the next 10 years.
“K-12 funding has been one of our highest priorities in the budget each year, and as we climb out of the recession and see growing revenues, we see the opportunity to provide additional money for our classrooms, while still keeping state finances balanced,” said Senate President Andy Biggs.
The funding plan would be done without raising taxes on Arizonans, according to Biggs and Gowan.
“In 2012 voters rejected a plan to raise taxes to fund education by an overwhelming margin. There clearly is no interest to increase taxes for this purpose. This proposal keeps faith with the voters by responsibly investing billions of dollars into Arizona’s classrooms without a tax hike,” said House Speaker David Gowan.
The new funding plan has four components: a commitment to continue a supplement to annual basic state aid which began in the last budget process, a new increase to annual basic state aid, a partial shift of money from the state’s First Things First program, and a plan to use increased earnings from the state trust land. In the first year alone, these four sources would bring $500 million in new money to the classroom and as much as $5 billion over the next decade.
“It is a proposal for $5 billion in new money over the next 10 years to K-12 education. A good education will make for a better future for all our children. Senator Sylvia Allen said, This proposal will help new money get into our classrooms and help increase teachers’ pay.”
Rep Mark Finchem on this proposal. “I remain concerned that there does not appear to be a clear plan on what the funds will be spent on, what the objective [what we’re solving for], what the measurement for successes is? Far too often government throws money at what they think is a problem, without a clear definition of what the problem is, what will solve it, and how we know we have solved. I still have not seen a clear definition of what we’re solving for, and until I know specifically what the money will be spent on I can’t support this.
If for example we’re working to solve for increasing teacher pay to improve recruitment and retention of good to great teachers, then I know what the objective is. I would need to see very tight controls that ensure the money makes it to teacher pay, if that is the objective. Then of course I would want to know what the measure of success is? I’m not willing to just send money to school districts that have already proven that they cannot or will not hold the line, or reduce administrative costs.”
The plaintiffs issued a statement that reads in part:
For years, inflation adjustments made in amounts that the Superior Court has held were inadequate. The plaintiffs have asked the courts to order additional funding now to make up for the years in which funding was inadequate. This “back pay” exceeds $1 billion. Long before the recent mediation process, the plaintiffs offered to drop their claim for back pay if the Legislature would reset the base level to what it would now be if the law had been consistently obeyed. The plaintiffs received no response to that proposal. The plaintiffs remain willing to settle on that basis if a settlement is achieved promptly.
The plaintiffs also remain open to any other proposal that would insure that school funding does not go backwards. That would require additional funding for schools of about $336 million per year in current dollars. For example, about $100 million of the additional funding that would be necessary to resolve this case could be sustainably supplied each year by trust land income. We believe the remaining necessary funds could be supplied in a number of ways, including a 0.4¢ increase in the sales tax.
In addition, state revenue is needed to generate the money necessary to solve this problem apart from negatively impacting other acute needs for funding.