KJZZ’s Friday NewsCap revisits some of the biggest stories of the week from Arizona and beyond. In this special edition, we are focusing on one of the most important issues facing our state: education.
To talk about dueling citizen initiatives focused on school voucher reform, Prop 123’s impending renewal and efforts to control district schools’ spending, The Show sat down with Jaime Molera, lobbyist and former Arizona superintendent of public instruction; and former Democratic state lawmaker Judy Schwiebert, who spent 27 years in public schools in Arizona.
Conversation highlights
LAUREN GILGER: OK, so let’s begin this morning with teacher pay, a perennial issue in Arizona educational politics, right? And it’s coming to the fore again with a bill at the state Legislature that would force district schools to spend at least 60% of their budgets on teacher pay.
This sounds like an easy sell, right? Like everybody wants teachers to be paid more. That’s been a big part of the educational discussion in the state for a long time.
But Democrats in particular had objections to it. So tell us there first of all, Judy, what makes that argument for Democrats? Like, why not put more school, more money from districts into teachers’ pockets?
JUDY SCHWIEBERT: Absolutely. Democrats have been in the lead to try to increase teacher pay for — I can’t tell you how many years. When I was in the Legislature, that was my top priority.
And from personal experience, I can tell you that (Rep.) Matt Gress (R-Phoenix) likes to pretend that he cares about teacher salaries, but really every bill that he seems to put forward is actually kind of a wolf in sheep’s clothing to basically defund schools. That really means that they cannot raise teacher salaries.
So let’s talk for a second about that requirement that 60% of money be spent on classroom instruction. It’s important to know what that does not include. Classroom instruction, according to the auditor general, excludes all kinds of student support, instructional support, plant operations. Schools under this bill would be forced to cut staff roles like literacy coaches, which Gress likes to talk a lot about.
Literacy, that’s really important. Certainly we’re all concerned about that. Librarians, counselors, academic counselors, speech therapists, bus routes — all of those are things that parents, families want for their kids and that educators recognize as vital to student outcomes. Everybody at the school is important to making sure that students can succeed. And to pretend that administrators are taking all the money for themselves is just a flat out lie.
As a matter of fact, administrators in Arizona, administration in Arizona is only 11%. Whereas, for example, charter schools spend 22% of their revenue on administration. And we don’t know how much money is spent, of course, on private schools because we have no transparency there.
GILGER: Jaime, what do you make of this? Like, what about all those other things that don’t count under the classroom instructional expenditure column? Like counselors, school resource officers, social workers, things like that?
JAIME MOLERA: Well, that’s my problem with this legislation, but for different reasons than what Judy’s talking about.
My issue is it’s the right instinct, but the wrong approach. I think that there is a genuine desire. I do believe Matt Gress, who’s the chairman of the House Education Committee, I think he does have a strong desire to see more dollars focused on teacher pay.
But one of the things that I hope that they start to look at is academic performance and real academic achievement. My problem right now is that we are a mile wide and an inch deep in a lot of our public school systems. In our public schools, we want to do everything. And my concern is that you want to focus on the core academic areas, and you want to focus on things that really demonstrate performance.
So for instance, right now in Arizona — according to the national Education Assessment of Progress, with the NAEP scores — 36% of our third graders are at reading proficiency. A third of our kids are at reading proficiency. And if you look down to fourth and eighth grade, that drops down to a quarter, 25%.
So the focus is, in my opinion, it’s not just more money, more money. It’s really focused on how we’re using those dollars and what kind of things are we doing to make sure that there’s academic gains actually going on.
My problem is that a lot of the education organizations, when you talk about wanting to start to focus on that in real academic achievement, they come back and they say, “Well, no, you just want to say that teachers are doing bad.”
And I liken it to when you go to a doctor and you find out you have cancer, you want the doctor to tell you and what you’re gonna do to treat it and how they’re gonna diagnose it.
But right now, that kind of mentality is like, well, you want your doctor to tell you, “Oh, don’t worry about anything. Just feel good and you’ll be fine.”
GILGER: So Judy, where does the money kind of impact the education level in that way? Is it important to boost teacher pay but also have all of these other roles in your mind?
SCHWIEBERT: I think absolutely, we need to boost teacher pay. But also, it takes a village, it takes everybody on that campus to help make sure that students can succeed. Like I said, librarians, reading coaches, specialists, because there are a lot of kids who are coming in with really not able or not ready to learn because they haven’t had maybe a rich environment or reading environment at home.
And so teachers are doing everything they can, Schools are doing everything they can to bring kids up in those reading levels. But when you’ve got 30 or 40 kids in a classroom because you don’t have the funding in order to pay more teachers, or you can’t find more teachers because more and more teachers are fleeing the profession because of the way they’re treated by this Legislature with attack after attack after attack.
So I think it’s really important when you hear, “Well, we need more money,” to remember that we are 49th or at the bottom of the nation in per student funding. And we need to make sure that we are competitive with other states. A few years ago, Texas had billboards all over Arizona saying come to Texas because they had a great, robust teacher salary program. And a lot of teachers left.
GILGER: So let’s talk about that broader education funding picture here and transition to talk about the state budget and Prop. 123. This was of course, originally a voter-approved plan to use state trust land money to fund public schools.
Now it needs to be renewed. Gov. Katie Hobbs halted budget negotiations. Republicans refused to negotiate on Prop. 123 right now.
The clash here seems to be over how much money should be taken out of the state land trust to fund Prop. 123 — but also what else gets wrapped into it. Right, Jaime?
MOLERA: Well, that’s right. And one of the things that’s been frustrating, just me looking at the development of this public policy — or the lack of development of this public policy — has been that there’s been no real drive from this administration to build that kind of a coalition to make that argument why this is important and why we need to start putting pressure to get it done.
I’ve not heard a really concerted effort to make that happen. When you’ve seen prior governors going back to Gov. (Janet) Napolitano, who was a Democrat with a Republican Legislature, she really was aggressive in building business and community organizations around the priorities that she wanted to have happen. Gov. (Jan) Brewer did, Gov. (Doug) Ducey did when he originally put together 123.
We were part of that coalition. Greater Phoenix Leadership — which is a major business group in the state — underwrote it, was very actively engaged. But it really put a lot of pressure on the Legislature to get it done.
There’s been none of that, unfortunately. There’s been a lot of talk internally, but really I think in order to affect this kind of important public policy that has huge impact on the state budget and especially when right now they’re backfilling the money that Prop. 123 used to generate from the interest off the state trust lands.
They’re backfilling it with general fund dollars. But we also have these other priorities, like little things like water.
GILGER: A lot of other budget priorities.
MOLERA: And so that infrastructure needs — whether it’s transportation, water, whatever it might be — is at a critical juncture right now. And so we’re just not really framing this in a way that needs to be framed and utilizing a very viable structure. But I think the governor and this administration needs to be more aggressive in building that kind of community coalitions and support.
GILGER: Judy, what do you make of this argument over Prop. 123’s renewal and all the things that could be tied to it, including school choice initiatives and things like that?
SCHWIEBERT: Well, absolutely, we need to be focused on Prop. 123 and get that over the finish line. But from the outset, from the time Katie Hobbs took office, there have been the (Sen.) Jake Hoffmans (R-Queen Creek) and the Matt Gresses, who have just been sworn to make anything that she or any other Democrat wants to pass.
It’s just become more and more partisan in recent years at the Legislature and more and more difficult to just get even a moderate change. Basically Democratic bills don’t get heard at the Legislature. And Gov. Hobbs’ appointees — very qualified appointees to the Department of Housing or to any of her the positions that are in her cabinet — Jake Hoffman has blocked every single one of them.
So when you say she needs to do more to reach out, she is working her tail off trying to make progress for the people of Arizona but being blocked at every turn. And this Prop. 123 is just the latest thing that the extremists, the right wing extremists like Hoffman in the Legislature continue to block.
They need to stop, and we need to fund Prop. 123.
GILGER: Last 30 seconds here to you, Jaime. I mean, do you think this should be wrapped up in the budget? It’s going to end up in front of the voters anyway.
MOLERA: Well, I know this is shocking, but there’s politics that always happens at the state Legislature. I know that’s a big shock, but there’s always politics in the state budget. I’ve been around the state Legislature for 30 years, and this is nothing new.
I just think there needs to be an aggressive push. And why these coalitions are important, it really starts to get to the public engaged on these kinds of important issues. And I’ve been involved in a number of things where that happened, and we’re just not doing that right now, which is unfortunate.
GILGER: Let's get back into this by talking about the November ballot. There could be dueling citizen initiatives on your ballot in the fall, both aimed at ESA reforms. This empowerment scholarship school voucher program, one is backed by the teachers union, Save Our Schools Arizona, that would pretty aggressively curtail the ESA program, add a bunch of measures to just try to try to put accountability as well.
Another, though, is backed by ESA Parents, offers more moderate reforms. The big difference here, of course, is that there's no income cap on it in that one. The teachers union wants an income cap of about $150,000 a year. Could these two cancel each other out, Judy?
SCHWIEBERT: Well, first of all, I want to say that there is one real measure, citizen initiative, protect education, and there's one that is fake that was brought into Arizona by the Betsy DeVos' organization and out of state people who want to protect their program. The AEA and Save Our Schools initiative is designed to protect students.
That's why there are accountability measures, why there are measures to keep students safe in the program. Why we also want to make sure that we don't want to do away with the program. We want to make sure that it is working for students. And right now we're seeing huge amounts of abuse. We're seeing that people are not, you know, using the funds for responsible reasons, not all people, maybe just 20% of people, but that makes a huge difference.
That's tens of millions of dollars. So we want to make sure that children are getting educated wherever they choose, but that when they choose an ESA voucher, that that private school is held accountable.
GILGER: Jaime, what do you make of this? I mean, these two kind of competing initiatives here, both aimed at reform. Is the fact that there is an initiative coming from, you know, ESA parents or wherever, some kind of recognition that something needs to change?
MOLERA: Well, and I've said this, and I've said this on The Show, and I've said this in multiple locations, there is a need for ESA transparency and accountability. Anytime you take taxpayer dollars that goes into any kind of service that people use for their own betterment, I think there needs to be a transparency of how those dollars are being used and whether or not they're effective.
But I disagree with the notion that the AEA, the Arizona Education Association, which is essentially the teachers union, which is not so much the teachers union anymore because most of the membership is classified staff. I think it tends to be more about protecting what they believe needs to be done, which is more money for their organization and more money for their members.
And I just don't believe that they really care about ultimately these ESA reforms in order to make the system better. Because ultimately, let's be honest, this was the organization that has tried time and time again legally to knock this off and to try and get this eliminated. It went all the way to Supreme Court.
They sued the state when it was special education students utilizing these ESAs for different kinds of services that they wanted that repealed. So this notion that they want to improve it, I just, I don't buy it. And I think that this initiative that they're pushing lays the groundwork for them to have more leverage with the Legislature and the governor could utilize to get the kinds of things she wants in the budget and say, OK, we'll drop this, but we're going to go ahead and make sure the Legislature, you give us on the things that we want to have.
GILGER: Let me back you both up from the politics just for a second. I'll let you back into that, I promise. But what accountability reform measures do you each think would actually be effective here? Like, what do you think needs to happen?
MOLERA: Simple transparency. So how are the dollars being utilized and making sure if you have, let's say, parents that are foster parents, right. And a lot of foster parents have been able to obtain this for these kids. Well, are the kids utilizing these dollars and what school and how much is the tuition dollars going to that, to that particular program?
The other is on special education, if a child is diagnosed to be dyslexic and they get additional dollars because under this state law, they get additional dollars for that particular type of special education need. So is that money going for speech therapists or are they going for the things that might help that child with that dyslexia? Yeah, in order to read.
We don't really know that right now. And I think that's a problem. I think we should be able to have that kind of transparency to make sure we know that it's going to where it needs to be and it's also being utilized effectively.
GILGER: Judy.
SCHWIEBERT: And there's a billion dollars out of our Arizona budget going toward ESA vouchers that do have zero accountability. As Jaime mentioned, it's really fiscally irresponsible for a Republican Party that used to be all about fiscal responsibility. They've thrown that completely out the window. And I would argue that teachers at the AEA as well as Save Our Schools Arizona are the ones that have direct contact with students every day who are in classrooms with kids.
And they have the most at stake to make sure that those kids have the tools that they need to succeed. And we are seeing that this constant drain, this billion dollar drain, is preventing teachers and the school from doing what it is that they need to do to help students succeed. We are working, fighting every day to try to make sure that our students have the things that they need, the education they need, the skills that they need.
And I would argue that it' the out of state, Betsy DeVos, fake voucher citizen initiative that really is kind of looking out to protect their own dollars, to say, oh, no, we want people to be able to spend whatever they want to spend. We shouldn't have to have people be accountable. And public schools have so much accountability, from standards that they have to follow to school boards that oversee everything. The public has control over that.
MOLERA: Yeah, but the problem is that it presupposes that this is the school's money or the AEA's money. It's not their money, it's taxpayer money. And I think we need to say that a parent has that opportunity to put their child in an education environment that meets their needs, bottom line.
Now, should we have transparency on that? Of course. Should we have an ability to demonstrate what is effective or what isn't? Of course. But let's not confuse the matter by saying we're taking money away from something because we're not the taxpayers. And ultimately the parents whose child that money supports has that opportunity to select an environment that meets their needs.
And I think in Arizona, that's been a very powerful and good thing on multiple levels.
SCHWIEBERT: I would argue that there is tons of school choice in Arizona. Parents can choose any school in the state where they can send their student for an education. And that ...
MOLERA: And I've seen that fought tooth and nail at every level.
GILGER: Well, I mean, we've been a trailblazer in school choice. But let me, let me bring you both to ...
SCHWIEBERT: But it's really the school's choice because so many schools don't have to take a student with disabilities. In Arizona, public schools educate 91% of special education students.
MOLERA: Yeah.
GILGER: Let me end ,with a couple of minutes left here, I want to end with sort of an overarching look at, I guess, the point here, right.
Like, I remember doing an interview with someone about education policy not long ago, and she said something that really struck me and that I always think about when I'm doing interviews on education now, which is that we can't forget the, that there are hundreds of little souls in these schools and that's what we're really doing here.
What do you think? Like, where do you think, Jaime, the rubber hits the road, these policies issues, these funding issues, these debates about school choice. Where do you think it really comes down to affecting the education and those attainment levels you mentioned for our kids?
MOLERA: Well, that's the problem, is that we aren't really looking at what is effective and we really aren't looking at diagnosing what the problem is. And how do we, putting in the resources in order to make sure that academic achievement and academic progress happening in our state.
We put together legislation this last year. It was called the Sandbox for Education. It was a pilot program that would have allowed schools, school districts, public schools to come in, apply to this to the Department of Education and to the state board and say, we want to be allowed to innovate. We want to be out of these regulatory kind of confinements and give us the ability and we can demonstrate actual performance.
GILGER: Sure.
MOLERA: So a lot of the business groups came in and supported it. And you think that we were trying to pass a law for the Taliban because a lot of the education organizations say, no, no, no, no, don't do that, because we need these regulatory structures that a lot of times that they wanted to see happen continue. Now, it was on both the right and the left that I thought it was just unfortunate.
But that's what we need to start focusing on is actual academic achievement and stop worrying about the process like we talked about with the 60% going to teachers or 60% going to the classroom. Let's forget about the process and start talking about actual academic outcomes.
And if we start doing that, I think we'll be much better off. Our education community would be much better off.
GILGER: Last word to you here, Judy.
SCHWIEBERT: Thank you so much, Lauren, for bringing up that we're talking about little souls in the classrooms because that's what teachers and our Save our Schools colleagues see every day, that we have little souls in the classroom that deserve the investment and the time and the attention that their teachers can provide for them.
And yet we have a state Legislature that is chopping teachers off at the knees at every turn. Our schools and school districts are, are innovating, are working like crazy to make things work for our students. And unfortunately, we have a Legislature that at every turn demonizes teachers and our public schools. And that needs to stop.
-
University of Arizona graduates loudly voiced their disdain for artificial intelligence during their commencement address on Friday. -
FAFSA completion rates are going up across the country. Here in Arizona, by almost 20%. And they could get even higher. -
Warmer water in rivers and streams may have big consequences for those waterways, as well as the ecosystems around them. -
The Race Track Industry Program held its first classes at UA in 1974, supported by the American Quarter Horse Association. -
The Republican candidates for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction faced off in a primary election debate Thursday night.
