Arizona Teachers and Students Celebrate Historic Funding Win

Source:

 Phoenix, AZ – August 13, 2025: Today, Judge Dewain Fox ruled that Arizona’s funding for the capital needs of Arizona’s public schools is unconstitutional and must be reformed.

In a thorough, 114-page Order, the court explained, “After carefully and thoroughly reviewing the record . . . the Court concludes that the current public-school capital finance system does not meet the constitutional minimum standards established by the Arizona Supreme Court.”

The school districts and education associations who brought this case issued the following joint statement.

Today’s decision declaring Arizona’s public school financing system unconstitutional is a historic victory for Arizona’s public-school students, as well as their teachers and staff. It will change the future for millions of students and their families. Our state’s constitution requires the legislature to fund our public schools. It’s time for our legislature to fulfill its constitutional obligation to fund public schools in every corner of Arizona so that all students, whether or not they live in a wealthy area, can receive a quality public education.

Danny Adelman, the Executive Director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, explained, “We presented mountains of evidence proving that the current system fails to provide even the most basic resources needed for a quality education. The state is failing to adequately or equitably fund our public schools. This is not only wrong, it’s unconstitutional.”

“This is an incredible victory,” said John Bullock of Osborn Maledon, who served as co-counsel with the Center for Law in the Public Interest. “Our clients have devoted their lives to educating students. But the State has set up a system that results in vast disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Whether schools can afford to have decent facilities should not depend on the amount of property wealth in the district. Unfortunately, due to a lack of state funding, that is exactly the system we have today.”

The case, Glendale Elementary School District et al. v. Arizona, was filed in 2017 by four Arizona public school districts (Glendale Elementary, Crane Elementary, Chino Valley Unified, and Elfrida Elementary), and the Arizona School Boards Association, the Arizona Education Association, and the Arizona School Administrators. They sued the State of Arizona for failing to uphold the legislature’s constitutional obligation to provide a “general and uniform” system of public education.

In the 1990s, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down the then-existing funding system as unconstitutional and established specific tests that any funding system must meet. The school plaintiffs in this case proved that the current system violates every part of those tests.

Latest Grades on School Funding

Tennessee has been at or near the forefront of education reformers' thirty-year crusade to come up with a cheap and easily-measured scheme to gauge education productivity.  In 1992, Tennessee formalized its chosen "accountability" strategy by writing into state statute Bill Sanders' value-added algorithms, which the wizened tobacco-chewing agricultural statistician had sold to the State as a "good and cheap" way to convince taxpayers that schools, teachers, and students were being held accountable for the millions of pennies that state politicians were demanding for K-12 education.  

The incredible story of value-added modeling (VAM), first researched by Dr. Denise Wilburn, was a core part of The Mismeasure of Education, our historical survey of American educational malpractice in the 20th Century. 

In being focused solely on educational improvements that required the State to do nothing whatsoever about the vast structural inequity and inequalities that influence educational opportunity or lack thereof, Tennessee became the darling of the U.S. Dept. of Education when it came time to try out the latest miseducative reform thought disorder for bribing and extorting better school performance as measured by racist and classist standardized tests.  

As a result, Tennessee has come to depend upon a continuing stream of federal grants to keep the state's school doors open.  It is this diseased kind of symbiosis that led Sen. Marsha Blackburn to step forward and offer a new home for the U. S. Department of Education in Tennessee, if Republicans can finagle a way to dismantle federal departments and move them out of DC.

For the past few years, the Education Law Center in Newark, NJ has published research on state levels of education funding fairness.  Having done next to nothing over the past 30 years to establish state accountability for school finance, Tennessee, which has a student poverty rate of 19 percent, remains near the bottom in school funding.  

Below are two snapshots that illustrate the vast differences among states.  I highly recommend reading MAKING THE GRADE 2019: HOW FAIR IS SCHOOL FUNDING IN YOUR STATE?

See p. 4 for everything between "A" and "F."

School Funding Matters

Once again The Education Law Center and Bruce Baker shine a spotlight on what matters. NATIONAL REPORT CARD SHINES NEW LIGHT ON WHY FAIR SCHOOL FUNDING MATTERS Last month, Education Law Center released the 4th edition of the National Report Card, "Is School Funding Fair?" The picture is bleak: the vast majority of states are not funding public schools adequately or equitably; the fiscal retrenching connected with the Great Recession has not been reversed; and at-risk students are not being provided with the resources they need to succeed. Bottom line: disinvestment in public education continues in most states, along with the unequal distribution of funding, depriving American schoolchildren of the resources they deserve and must have to succeed in school. But one bright spot is the growing interest in learning more about the underfunding of our nation's public schools and how the lack of resources is a significant obstacle to improving student outcomes. This year's National Report Card resonated with journalists, editorial writers, commentators and radio hosts across the country. A broad array ofnational, state and local media reported on how particular states ranked on the Report Card and how states compared to their neighbors and to states across the country. Media outlets also found the national trends in public education finance presented in the Report Card important and compelling news for their audiences. Coverage of the Report Card included "Inequitable School Funding Called the Sleeper Civil Rights Issue of Our Time" (Washington Post), "Nation's Disinvestment in Public Schools Crippling Poor Students, Report Finds" (Education Week), "This is Where School Funding is the Least 'Fair,' According to New Reports" (Huffington Post) and "Few States Set Aside More Funds for High-Poverty Schools, Report Says" (McClatchyDC). These and other stories focused on the many states that still do not adequately fund their public schools and that provide less funding to schools with high concentrations of poor and needy students. State and local media hewed closer to home: "Report: Pa. Gets a 'D' for School Funding Distribution" (Philadelphia Daily News), "Colorado School Finances Get Failing Grade"(Journal-Advocate) and "Post-Recession, School Funding Continues to Suffer Greatly Along with Students, Teachers" (Kansas City Star). Several editorial pages weighed in, including the Charlotte Observer with "NC's Flunking Grade" and the Columbian in Washington State with "In Our View: 21st Century Education - Providing One for All Washington Students Should be Lawmakers Top Goal." Public radio stations and education bloggers, including Diane Ravitch, also featured the report and its findings. News outlets didn't simply share the school funding information made available in the Report Card. They helped inform the public about what "fair" school funding means and that it includes both an adequate funding level and the distribution of funding based on student and school need. This reporting helped shine a light on the growing number of poor children being educated in the nation's public schools, and the urgent need to provide those children with additional funding to overcome their challenges. "We are gratified by the attention paid to the National Report Card," said David Sciarra, Education Law Center Executive Director and report co-author. "The message is spreading that school funding matters. States are recovering from the Great Recession, but in many cases families are not, and their children come to school needing additional supports. The states that provide those supports - from preschool to sufficient staff and services - see improved student outcomes." "The Report Card provides valuable information, but the key is what we as a nation do with that information," Mr. Sciarra added. "Will we provide our children with the opportunity to succeed in school and in life, or will we continue to shortchange them?" Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card is coauthored by Bruce Baker of the Rutgers Graduate School of Education; David Sciarra, Executive Director of Education Law Center (ELC); and Danielle Farrie, Research Director for ELC. Please visitwww.schoolfundingfairness.org to download the report and to explore the findings withinteractive data tools. Education Law Center Press Contact: Sharon Krengel Policy and Outreach Director skrengel@edlawcenter.org 973-624-1815, x 24         www.edlawcenter.org | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2015 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved. To unsubscribe from future mailings click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon Krengel

Policy & Outreach Director

Education Law Center

60 Park Place, Suite 300

Newark, NJ 07102

973-624-1815, x24

973-624-7339 (fax)

skrengel@edlawcenter.org

www.edlawcenter.org

A Parent's Call to Action Against Charter School Plans in Gloucester

This letter is written by a parent who was a member of the original planning group for the proposed charter school in Gloucester. From the Gloucester Daily Times:

To the editor:

I am writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed Gloucester charter school.

I am a Gloucester resident and the parent of an eighth-grader at O'Maley Middle School. My son and I have lived in Gloucester since 1997. I have worked in Gloucester as the director of a family support and education center for over 13 years and have served as a volunteer in many capacities, including eight years with the Gloucester School Connection, a grassroots nonprofit that has been awarding student and teacher inspired grants for innovation since 1985.

I was also a member of the original planning group for the charter school application and attended meetings for several months.

Once I realized how the school would be funded at the expense of the rest of Gloucester's student body, however, I could no longer participate because it is not in the best interests of our community as a whole.

Since my son began first grade in 2001, the Gloucester Public Schools have lost 50 teachers. Gloucester elementary and middle-schoolers have not had the support of librarians for more than three years despite the district's strong emphasis on literacy goals. Class sizes have increased across the board from elementary to high school with some specialist classes at the middle school reaching 30-plus students.

Although entering high school next year, my son has not been exposed to world languages because of the cuts, unlike his peers in Manchester or Rockport. To his great dismay, he experiences 80 percent less physical education than the students who preceded him. Our high school is out of compliance for special education class sizes, physical education and its library collection.

In general, per-pupil spending on materials and equipment has been cut by 33 percent. There are more examples of our fiscal crisis and its implications on our students. Every one of them is a reason not to support the charter school application.

Some proponents of the charter school have made public comments that the school district can save money elsewhere and there will not be a negative fiscal effect on the students. Some claim opponents of the charter school are simply afraid of change and innovation. Both claims are simply untrue.

My son and his peers have already suffered enough. I believe it is unethical and undemocratic to divert any funds from the Gloucester Public Schools to support the charter school initiative of a handful of people who are not all Gloucester residents and are not representative of the community as a whole. The antiquated state Chapter 70 formula already shortchanges the working class majority of Gloucester residents because of limited pockets of property wealth such as large summer estates that skew the funding formula.

The rising costs of health insurance, utilities, and uncompromising fixed costs have already weighed heavily on what we can provide for our students as a school district. We have experienced significant losses since 2001. There is an unfair disparity already between Gloucester per-pupil spending compared to our neighbors Manchester and Rockport. We have a tremendous community spirit of truly grassroots efforts that residents have undertaken in collaboration with the school district to continue to support academic achievement and access to sports for all of Gloucester's kids despite our painful fiscal reality. These are all solid reasons why you should not support the charter application.

The timing couldn't be worse: the national recession and probable state budget cuts in the coming months. The supposed gain of 240 students should not be provided on the backs of more than 3,200 students who have suffered more than their fair share of inadequate financial investment.

We are a small city. Gloucester barely reaches the mandatory state level of 30,000 residents before a charter must be regional. Of the four communities of Cape Ann, Gloucester is the least able to support this initiative. As America's oldest seaport, Gloucester has a long history of understanding interdependence and advancement for the common good. The charter school application does not reflect this spirit, despite its claims to celebrate the arts and maritime history of Gloucester.

If you cannot attend the public hearing on Dec. 11, from 4 to 6 p.m. at Fuller School, please send letters to ask the state to reject the charter school application by Jan. 5, to: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Charter School Office, 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, or by e-mail to charterschools@doe.mass.edu.

The charter school applicants ask us to envision a school "where students, teachers, and parents work together on projects that enhance the quality of life in our community."

That particular vision is already alive and well in every school in our district thanks to dedicated teachers, committed parents, caring volunteers, and inquisitive children. You don't create that vision by piloting your own lifeboat while the rest of the crew is left treading water in your wake.

STACY RANDELL
Haven Terrace, Glouceste

Underfunded Urban Schools on the Brink of Financial Collapse

From the Connecticut Post:

. . . . Warning that education in Connecticut's cities faces impending disaster, the chief of the Bristol school system is calling on state lawmakers to suspend standardized testing, shorten the school year and authorize teacher furloughs.

Even with those emergency actions, Bristol --along with many other urban school systems across the state --will be short millions of dollars, and could be forced into layoffs and program cutbacks for the next two years, Superintendent Philip Streifer said Wednesday.

"The public needs to understand the scope of this problem. I'm not going to stand by while public education is decimated," he said. "I'm one voice, but I'm shouting."

Streifer's warning came a day after state budget analysts reaffirmed that Connecticut is on track to a staggering $6 billion budget deficit for the next two years. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has called for $284 million in state education spending next year, a measure that could knock out 6 to 12 percent of education cost-sharing aid to municipalities. That would slice into revenues for suburbs and rural towns, but would most severely hit cities, which rely on state money to pay for half or more of their school costs. . . .

Tearing at the Inadequate Spending Pie in NJ

From Our Children/Our Schools:

A campaign to support high quality education for all New Jersey children
OC/OS Calls for Accountability, Not Posturing, on School Spending

The Our Children, Our Schools campaign supports strong, transparent fiscal accountability for school spending for all districts. OC/OS opposes political posturing about "waste" when it is only used to justify reductions in needed spending for school children. Recent reporting by the Star Ledger and recent statements by some New Jersey legislators appear to fall into this category.

The headline on the Star Ledger’s May 11 front page story, "Audits Find Waste in Abbott Spending: 29% of expenditures found not ‘reasonable’," is not supported by the facts in the story itself or by the recently released audits of Abbott districts (and, significantly, only Abbott districts).

According to the Star Ledger report, auditors hired by the NJ Department of Education examined purchase orders for $290 million out of the total $4 billion that Abbott districts spend. That means they looked closely at about 7% of all Abbott spending. The auditors labeled $83 million of the spending that was reviewed "discretionary" or "inconclusive." It was the Star Ledger, not the auditors, that labeled this spending "waste," "unnecessary" or "not reasonable." It was also the Star Ledger, not the auditors, who projected from this limited review of spending in the Abbott districts that 29% of all spending in those districts was "unnecessary, excessive or lacking documentation."

OC/OS supports full and open examination of all public spending, including the items flagged by the DOE’s auditors. But it is outrageous to declare 29% of spending in the state’s neediest school districts "unnecessary" without public examination of the standards being applied and how they are being applied. Money that is misspent or misused needs to be redirected to student needs, not labeled as "waste" and taken away. Sensationalizing or misrepresenting the problem of "waste" encourages political attacks and harmful budget cuts on our most vulnerable schools and students. It does nothing to improve oversight of school spending.

Many of the items questioned by the audits appear to be legitimate expenses. For example, the Trenton audit cited missing documentation for a $1.2 million payment to a Puerto Rican Community Day Care center. The center houses part of the district’s pre-school program. While inadequate documentation is a problem that needs correction, it does not make the expenditure "wasteful" or "unnecessary." Similarly, the Trenton audit challenged a $25,803 payment for dues to the New Jersey School Boards Association. State law requires districts to belong to the association.

Other items were categorized as "inconclusive" or "discretionary" because the auditors decided the price paid was too high, or the items were deemed not an educational necessity. Examples include:

$106 for a floral arrangement for a Trenton high school graduation ceremony
$596 for a software packaged titled "Final Cut" for Burlington’s Audio Visual Department
$504 to rent an ice skating rink for an outing for 144 Plainfield students
$1,383 for a field trip to send 13 Bridgeton students to compete in a national Double Dutch Competition
Bridgeton Superintendent Victor Gilson spoke for many in Abbott districts when he challenged the claim that field trips and modest items like T-shirts for school clubs and flowers for graduation were examples of "waste."

"Tell the parents of the double-dutch kids that it's a waste," Gilson told The Atlantic City Press. "We have a major gang issue in Bridgeton, Millville and Vineland. And luckily, we don't have it in the schools. And we don't have it in the schools because we have students engaged in meaningful, active activities. I'd rather kids be in double-dutch than out in gangs in the evening."

Gilson also noted that auditors labeled some items "inconclusive" because they lacked paperwork that wasn't required when the purchases were made. "They went back over two years and held the district accountable for abiding by rules that weren't in place at the time the transaction occurred," Gilson told The Atlantic City Press. "Since that time, the district has followed the rules, but you can't expect someone to follow a bookkeeping rule that wasn't in place."

The misrepresentation of district spending practices reinforces the impression that the audits are being used for political purposes to support elimination of the Abbott remedies, which are once again before the NJ Supreme Court. OC/OS especially thought the timing, front-page position and misleading headlines on the Star Ledger report seemed calculated to do maximum political damage to Abbott districts, coming, as it did, one week after the Education Law Center filed a response to the State’s request that the Court eliminate all Abbott mandates.

The misleading report provided ammunition for Abbott opponents in the NJ legislature. Republican Assemblyman David Rible, R-Monmouth, issued a press release declaring, "While it has never been demonstrated that the spending in these districts actually results in a better education for students, it has clearly been demonstrated that it results in poor spending decisions and rampant waste and abuse of tax dollars."

Such claims are demonstrably false. After many years of Court battles and decades of separate and unequal school funding, the Abbott rulings brought funding equity to over 300,000 poor urban school children for only the past ten years. During that time, more than 40,000, 3- and 4-year olds have been enrolled in high quality pre-K programs, test score gaps between urban and suburban 4th graders have been significantly reduced, and New Jersey has maintained one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country, including some of the highest rates for African American and Hispanic students, despite persistent gaps among groups and communities. Much remains to be done, but these are significant accomplishments that would be seriously undermined by elimination of the Abbott mandates.

One reason OC/OS opposed the new School Funding and Reform Act is precisely because the SFRA reduces accountability for the use of state school aid. It fails to ensure that such aid is directed to proven programs or to support special needs students.

The fundamental problem in our state’s school funding system is that ALL NJ schools receive too little support from state and federal sources. That’s why NJ’s local property taxes are too high, and why urban and suburban school districts are pitted against each other in competition for an inadequate pool of funds.

The new School Funding and Reform Act reinforces these problems instead of solving them. SFRA’s funding formulas are tied to state budget pressures, not to the needs of schoolchildren. It makes schools less accountable for the funds they receive, and removes requirements that aid be used for specific programs and to support students with special needs.

OC/OS calls for improved oversight and public examination of all school spending and for better evaluation of school programs by both the DOE and districts to make sure the educational needs of all New Jersey’s children are being met.

For more information, please contact Sharon Krengel at (973) 624-1815, x 24.

Prepared: May 15, 2008