Policy Report RSS

Arizona Charter Schools: A Vision for the Next 20 Years

pheitzinger — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:10:44 +0000

With so many charter schools in operation, however, performance can vary from school to school. The variation has led researchers from Stanford and WestEd, along with the New York Times, to criticize Arizona charter schools.

But reports of a decline in Arizona charter school quality have been exaggerated. Key indicators suggest that charter schools remain a powerful tool for improving student achievement:

Both low-income Arizona charter school students and average charter school students outperform their traditional public school peers on a national assessment.

A higher percentage of charter schools earned A’s on their school report cards than did traditional schools in 2011 and 2012, the first two years of Arizona’s school report card system.

Charters represent a disproportionate number of the highest-performing public schools in Arizona.

Results such as these should encourage lawmakers to remove roadblocks that prevent charter schools from serving more students. For example, some districts have vacant or underused facilities that they refuse to make available to charter schools. Arizona School Facilities Board data show that in more than half of the traditional schools (54 percent) in the 10 largest Arizona school districts, at least 1 out of every 4 available seats is empty. Lawmakers should make sure vacant public school buildings are sold or leased to the highest bidder, charter school or otherwise.

Further, to prevent widespread stagnation among charter schools, lawmakers must be careful not to impose the same regulations on charters that they impose on traditional schools. These requirements create fewer choices for parents because charters will not be free to use innovative approaches to teaching and learning that are serving students so well today.

Arizona must hold charter schools accountable for student achievement and financial integrity. Charters that are consistently low performing or fail to meet certain achievement levels or manage finances properly can be closed. And with every charter school that is closed for academic reasons, the quality gap between charter schools and traditional schools will grow. Remaining charter schools will be more likely to perform at a higher level than similar traditional schools. Encouraging charters to innovate and serve students while holding them accountable for results will create an education environment that prepares students for success.

Read: "Arizona Charter Schools: A Vision for the Next 20 Years"

Over the past 20 years, Arizona teachers, parents, and community leaders have created more than 500 charter schools—independent, tuition-free public schools that operate with fewer regulations in exchange for higher levels of transparency. Some of these schools are among the highest-achieving schools in the nation, with their students routinely topping nationwide comparisons. Goldwater InstituteWednesday, May 22, 2013 (All day)Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageBetter Options for FamiliesCharter Schools Headline Best Schools in ArizonaEducation Reform Policy ReportYes GI-Policy Report258-draft3.pdfCharter, school, Arizona, regulation, education, report card, By TopicsJonathan Butcherfalse

States Can Fix the National Debt: Reforming Washington with the Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment

lcaldwell — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:08:09 +0000

Webmaster's note: Nick Dranias will present on Compact for America, Saturday April 26, in Orlando, Florida. For more information about that event, click here.

Executive Summary

America is at a crossroads. Unlike any prudent household, Washington simply refuses to balance its budget. Washington has become so addicted to borrowing money that the outstanding national debt exceeds $16.5 trillion. The national debt now exceeds 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, a figure not seen since World War II. The 2012 federal fiscal year operating deficit was approximately $1.1 trillion. For the fourth fiscal year running, Congress has failed to pass an annual federal budget under which to operate our country. It is now clear the solution to our national debt problem is unlikely to be found in Washington. To save the nation from bankruptcy, the American people, acting through the states, can intervene and save our future. The Compact for America gives us the vehicle to do that.

The Compact for America proposes that state legislatures use an interstate compact, which is a cooperative agreement among the states, to advance a Balanced Budget Amendment. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) requires a majority of state legislatures to approve any increase above an initial debt limit. Essentially, 26 state legislatures would be required to cosign on the federal government’s credit card. But unlike the status quo of national debt brinkmanship, the BBA is designed to force Washington to prepare a budget to make the case for more debt long before the midnight hour arrives. It requires the president to start designating spending cuts when spending exceeds 98 percent of the debt limit. If Congress disagrees with the cuts, it must then override those cuts within 30 days. By forcing both the executive and legislative branches to show their cards long in advance of hitting a constitutional debt limit, the BBA would ensure no game of “chicken” can hold the country’s credit rating hostage.

An interstate compact provides the vehicle for this reform because it vastly simplifies the otherwise burdensome process of states originating constitutional amendments under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Compact for America will cut the time and resources needed for successfully advancing this crucial reform by more than 60 percent. For the first time ever, the state origination of a powerful BBA will be feasible.

Read "States Can Fix the National Debt" here.

The Compact for America proposes that state legislatures use an interstate compact, which is a cooperative agreement among the states, to advance a Balanced Budget Amendment. 26 state legislatures would be required to cosign on the federal government’s credit card. But unlike the status quo of national debt brinkmanship, the BBA is designed to force Washington to prepare a budget to make the case for more debt long before the midnight hour arrives. It requires the president to start designating spending cuts when spending exceeds 98 percent of the debt limit. If Congress disagrees with the cuts, it must then override those cuts within 30 days. By forcing both the executive and legislative branches to show their cards long in advance of hitting a constitutional debt limit, the BBA would ensure no game of “chicken” can hold the country’s credit rating hostage.Goldwater InstituteTuesday, April 23, 2013 (All day)Goldwater InstituteImageStates Can Fix the National DebtReforming Washington with the Compact for AmericaGovernment Spending Constitutional Rights State Powers Policy ReportYes GI-Policy Report257-41913.pdfCompact for America, Balanced Budget Amendment, BBA, CFA, Article V, Constitutional Convention, DebtBy TopicsNick Draniasfalse

No More Rainy Days: How to Make State Revenue Estimates More Accurate

lcaldwell — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:08:10 +0000

In 2011, the Pew Center on the States published a study calling attention to the increasing inaccuracy of states’ revenue estimates. Looking at data from 1987 through 2009, one thing Pew shows seems obvious enough: During recessions, states tend to overestimate revenues and during periods of economic growth, states tend to underestimate revenues.

Revenue forecasts could have been more accurate in many states during the last recession, as demonstrated by some states where forecasts were relatively accurate. Part of the problem is politics. There is a bias toward higher spending, and higher revenue forecasts allow budgets to be higher as well. During the last recession there was a systematic tendency on the part of revenue estimators to assume revenues would rise from one year to the next, even in the face of evidence that the recession would be long and deep. But unrealistically high revenue estimates, usually politically influenced, allowed for higher budgeted spending than what could have prevailed otherwise. This means institutional structures need to be put in place to counteract political incentives.

As discussed in this paper, rigorous statistical evidence indicates that wise budgeting and estimating policies will lead to more accurate revenue forecasts. The analysis relies on two statistical regression analyses of National Association of State Business Officials data regarding revenue estimate errors and the institutional structures that surround budgeting and revenue estimates across the states. In addition, academic studies of the subject were considered and found to generally agree with the results of the analysis conducted for this paper. Academic studies pointed to a few other institutional areas for reform as well.

Suggested institutional reforms that would likely result in more accurate revenue estimates and more realistic budgeting on a real-time basis include: 1) spending limits, 2) the adoption of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices in budget documents, 3) multiple revenue estimates to include at least one prepared by an official independent of the budgeting process, 4) an independent system for aggregating the independent estimates into a single estimate with the budget bound to the estimate, 5) increased frequency of publicly released estimates, 6) budgeting practices that strictly prioritize programs, and 7) a requirement that state spending be balanced to actual revenues.

Read "No More Rainy Days: How to Make State Revenue Estimates More Accurate" here."

Revenue forecasts matter for planning and policy purposes. When revenues are underestimated, surpluses encourage government growth and swings in tax policy that might be ill-conceived. When revenues are overestimated, governments typically resort to financially damaging gimmicks, debt, and raids on reserves, just delaying the politically disruptive controversy that comes with prioritizing less spending. By not confronting reality, states can be led to impose otherwise unnecessary and ill-conceived tax increases.Goldwater InstituteTuesday, April 9, 2013 - 16:07Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageNo More Rainy DaysSeven Reforms to Make Revenue Forecasting More AccurateGovernment Spending Policy ReportYes GI-Policy Report256-BudgetSystems-final411.pdfGovernment spending, spending limit, state revenue, revenue forecasting, revenue, budgetBy TopicsByron Schlomachfalse

A Parent’s Guide to School Choice: Education Options for Arizona Families

rkramer — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:47:22 +0000

Unfortunately, many families simply don’t know how to take advantage of these opportunities. 87,000 Arizona children, or almost ten percent, are languishing in failing schools. It is clear that more needs to be done to increase the involvement of parents in choosing the best education option for their children.

One way to do that is to ensure that the Arizona Department of Education informs parents about the programs at their fingertips. The Goldwater Institute has released A Parent’s Guide to School Choice: Education Options for Arizona Families, which provides a comprehensive guide to Arizona families of all the school choice programs available to them, including other families’ experiences and how to apply.

A school choice catalog could be produced by the state at no additional cost to the general fund. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Arizona receives almost $350 million every year to help children succeed through services like tutoring and increasing parent engagement (the funding source is known as Title I). The department’s production of an annually mailed school choice catalog would qualify for this funding as an effort to increase parent engagement in children’s education.

School choice programs give every child the chance to succeed, and they save the state money. Informing parents that they have great school choice options is a no-brainer to help Arizona families.

The Goldwater Institute will continue to advocate for a state-mandated annual school choice catalog to inform families of the wide range of education options available.

Read "A Parent's Guide to School Choice: Education Options for Arizona Families" Below:

Download "A Parent’s Guide to School Choice: Education Options for Arizona Families"

From tax-credits to fund tuition scholarships to charter schools to the revolutionary education savings account program, Arizona is the national leader in school choice; the state has a broader range of school options than anywhere else in the country. Unfortunately, many families simply don’t know how to take advantage of these opportunities. 87,000 Arizona children, or almost ten percent, are languishing in failing schools. It is clear that more needs to be done to increase the involvement of parents in choosing the best education option for their children.Monday, March 11, 2013 (All day)ImageEducation Made EasySchool choice catalog helps Arizona families take advantage of education optionsEducation Reform Policy ReportYesschool, choice, catalog, jonathan, butcher, esa, education, empowerment, savings, scholarship, accountBy TopicsJonathan Butcherfalse

Airing Out the Smoke-filled Rooms: Bringing Transparency to Public Union Collective Bargaining

rkramer — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:25:25 +0000

Secret government union collective bargaining is the law in 11 states, specifically: Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. In Arizona, at least 2.5 million Arizonans—more than 40 percent of the state’s population—live in cities and towns that keep collective bargaining with government unions secret. The secrecy imposed on those negotiations is often so all-encompassing that towns like Avondale, Chandler, and Maricopa even expressly prohibit anyone from sharing records of negotiations with elected officials and the news media.

To help prevent union strong-arming that fleeces taxpayers, we should know precisely what public union officials are demanding and what government employers are offering in any collective negotiation about employment terms and conditions. Although union groups and their political allies have opposed collective bargaining transparency as “union busting,” it is difficult to see how shining a light on the bargaining table will “bust” unions unless they have something to hide. No principled policymaker could possibly argue that there is a public benefit to the secretive use of bare-knuckled political pressure and monopoly power by unions to extract above-market compensation. Requiring total transparency in collective bargaining is simply the right thing to do to ensure public accountability. Government employees, city managers, and elected officials work for the public; and the public is entitled to know what their employees are doing on their dime.

Read 'Airing Out the Smoke-filled Rooms: Bringing Transparency to Public Union Collective Bargaining'

When total secrecy in negotiations is combined with laws forcing government employers to engage in collective bargaining—often euphemistically called “meet and confer”—government unions are free to deploy maximum leverage in negotiations—consisting of political pressure and monopoly power—while hiding from any meaningful oversight. It is no wonder that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has most recently reported that state and local government employees make nearly 43 percent more per hour on average in total compensation than private sector workers. Even when controlling for similar occupations and skills, Arizona pays its employees average hourly total compensation that is nearly 20 percent more than what is paid to private sector workers.Goldwater InstituteThursday, January 17, 2013 (All day)Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageShining a LightBringing Transparency to Government Union Collective BargainingGovernment Accountability Policy ReportYes PR255 Collective Bargaining.pdfpublic, union, transparency, collective, bargaining, nick dranias, byron schlomach, steve slivinski, stephen slivinskiBy TopicsNick Dranias Byron Schlomach Stephen Slivinskifalse

Key Points on Health Insurance Exchanges

JGabriel — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:01:21 +0000

As policymakers in Arizona decide whether or not to establish health insurance exchange, they should keep several key points in mind.

The exchange will be Arizona-funded, not Arizona-run. The federal government will be in complete control of the exchange—from who can participate to what plans they can offer and prices they can charge. The federal legislation clearly states, “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services].” The only part Arizona will play is picking up the tab. While we don’t know exactly how much the exchange will cost, estimates show it will likely cost Arizona $60-70 million a year.

The exchange will facilitate huge fines on Arizona companies who do not offer insurance to every employee. There are 500 businesses in Arizona who will be subject to fines of at least $2,000 per employee per year if they don’t offer health insurance to every employee. Arizona should do nothing to help the federal government to make it more costly to do business in this state. If the state declines to set up an exchange, there is no authority in the law for the federal government to assess these fines on businesses.

The exchange will funnel millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies. The state should not facilitate taxpayer subsidies to private companies. As with the fines on businesses, there is no authority in the law for the federal government to offer the subsidies if a state declines to establish an exchange.

Exchanges violate the Health Care Freedom Act. The Health Care Freedom Act passed by voters in 2010 prevents the state government from doing anything to coerce participation in any health care system, either directly or indirectly through penalties, fines or taxation. By setting up an exchange,states trigger direct penalties against employers who do not provide government-sanctioned health insurance and indirect penalties against individuals who choose not to purchase government-sanctioned health insurance. Because of these penalties, setting up an exchange will violate the Health Care Freedom Act and the Goldwater Institute has pledged to file a lawsuit.

Exchanges will force taxpayers to share private medical information with the government. States that create exchanges will report to the IRS sensitive information about citizens’ health care choices, including when people seek, change or drop insurance coverage. The government will also have access to medical history information of any person who buys insurance through the exchange.

There’s no rush to create an exchange. This is one of the few times that Arizona shouldn’t be on the vanguard of a new policy. Arizona was the last state to join Medicaid and it worked well for us. We learned from other states’ mistakes and were able to create a relatively more efficient program. Arizona should follow that same pattern in this case. We have time to let other states experiment with exchanges, make mistakes, and then determine how best to move forward. The December 14, 2012 “deadline” is not a deadline at all—it’s simply the date by which states must notify the Obama administration if they want to receive a response by January 1, 2013 about whether or not they’ll have permission to run their own exchange. By waiting beyond December 14, Arizona does not give up its right to set up a state insurance exchange in the future, or even give up its ability to receive federal start-up money. The federal health care law makes clear that states may wait and decide to set up state insurance exchanges in future years. Federal start-up funds will be available to states until the end of 2014, no matter when they make a decision about an exchange.

There is no obligation to create an exchange. The federal law makes clear that states do not have to establish an exchange. Between the fines on businesses, subsidies to insurance companies, and costs that Arizona will incur, there just isn’t any reason to do it. This is costly federal mandate that Arizona has no obligation to fund. This is a federal law and the federal government should shoulder the cost of implementing it.

To download this document as a PDF, click here

As policymakers in Arizona decide whether or not to establish health insurance exchange, they should keep several key points in mind.Goldwater InstituteThursday, November 15, 2012 - 14:55Goldwater InstituteImageExchanging Our HealthWhy Governors Need to Say 'No' to Health Insurance ExchangesState Powers Policy ReportYes Health Insurance Exchanges.pdfObamacare, Health, Insurance, Exchanges, Brewer, Arizona, States, Governors, HIE, PPACA, ACABy TopicsChristina Sandefurfalse

Increasing Entrepreneurship is a Key to Lowering Poverty Rates

JGabriel — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:37:28 +0000

There is a strong connection between a state’s rate of entrepreneurship and declines in poverty. Statistical analysis of all 50 states indicates that states with a larger share of entrepreneurs had bigger declines in poverty. In fact, comparing states during the last economic boom—from 2001 to 2007—data show that for every 1 percentage point increase in the rate of entrepreneurship in a state, there is a 2 percent decline in the poverty rate.

To help reduce poverty, policymakers should focus on increasing the number of entrepreneurs in their state. Research shows that one of the most effective ways to increase entrepreneurship is by lowering tax burdens. In particular, this study shows that high tax burdens, measured as a percentage of personal income, drags down the growth rate of entrepreneurship in a state: for every 1 percentage point increase in the tax burden, there’s a corresponding 1 percentage point drop in the entrepreneurship rate. States without income taxes also have higher average rates of entrepreneurship than those with income taxes. The average number of sole proprietors as a percentage of employment in states without an income tax is 21.7. The rate for states with an income tax is 19.6.

Pulling out all the stops to increase the rate of entrepreneurship should be a top priority for policymakers. In a small state like Arizona the results can be dramatic. Increasing the rate of entrepreneurship from 16 to 20 percent would mean 100,000 more entrepreneurs are starting a business.

Read 'Increasing Entrepreneurship is a Key to Lowering Poverty Rates'

During the economic boom of the 2000s, poverty rates declined in many states. Yet some states were more effective at getting the poverty rate down than others. While there has been much analysis of why some states are more successful than others, what’s been missing is a discussion of the role of entrepreneurs in the process. This paper suggests that economic freedom and entrepreneurship are keys to escaping poverty for many.Goldwater InstituteTuesday, November 13, 2012 - 08:34Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageEntrepreneurs vs. PovertyIncreasing Entrepreneurship is a Key to Lowering Poverty RatesTax Reform Government Red Tape State Powers Business & Job Creation Policy ReportYes PR254 Increasing Entrepreneurship.pdfEntrepreneurship, Entrepreneur, Small Business, Economy, Arizona, Taxes, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Red TapeBy TopicsStephen Slivinskifalse

Education Savings Accounts: A Path to Give All Children an Effective Education and Prepare Them for Life

JGabriel — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:45:01 +0000

“If I had to do it again 10 times over, I would,” Yolanda says.

Cases like Yolanda’s have appeared all over the country, which is not surprising because choices in education vary widely from state to state. We will see more parents like Yolanda as long as parents are denied the right to find the best school for their child. Is it fair for some parents to be able to send their children to better schools because of their zip code?

The most innovative solution to provide all America’s children with better opportunities is education savings accounts. Enacted in Arizona in 2011 and expanded in 2012, the savings accounts are parent-controlled bank accounts in which the state deposits funds from the education funding formula. Parents use the accounts much like health savings accounts (HSAs) for medical services and can pay for a variety of expenses, such as tutoring, private school tuition, and online classes.

With developments in technology, families have more options than ever in K–12 education. This report outlines how education savings accounts give parents even more flexibility. Moreover, it offers a road map for other states as they design a similar policy.

Read "Education Savings Accounts: A Path to Give All Children an Effective Education and Prepare Them for Life"

All parents want an effective school for their child. But no parent should have to take the drastic steps that Yolanda Miranda took to give her children a chance at a good education: Yolanda went to jail and was charged with grand larceny for sending her children to better schools in their grandmother’s district instead of their assigned schools.Goldwater InstituteTuesday, October 30, 2012 - 10:00Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageEducation Reform Policy ReportYes PR253ESAsPathToAllChildren.pdfESA, empowerment savings account, arizona, school choice, education reform, vouchers, special needs, failing schools, parent triggerBy TopicsJonathan Butcherfalse

Lessons from Texas on Building an Economically Healthier Arizona

JGabriel — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:36:22 +0000

Arizona performs poorly because it taxes and regulates as if it were a state with natural advantages that can absorb bad public policy. In a comparison of several economic policy indexes between Arizona and its six neighbor states, Arizona outranks only California and New Mexico. These policy indexes include measures of economic freedom, business friendliness, tax systems and burdens, and cost of living. Texas ranks first in one measure, ranks second in two measures, and receives eight top-10 rankings.

Although many think oil and gas are the secret of Texas’s success, energy production is half the relative size of Texas’s economy now compared to what it was in the 1980s. The real secret is Texas’s policies. Those policies include no personal income tax, relatively low business taxes, a mostly simple tax structure that is fairly easy to enforce and comply with, gentle regulation that allows its natural advantages to be exploited, and private ownership of most of the state’s land.

Arizona has its advantages, including mineral wealth, balmy winters, stable geology, an outsized allocation from the Colorado River, and an advantageous state constitution that protects individual property rights and liberties. Arizona’s natural disadvantages are significant and very costly, though. They include lack of access to a water port, remoteness from the majority of Americans who live near and east of the Mississippi River, relatively limited labor and energy resources, and geological features that are visually stunning but topography that presents a surface transportation nightmare. Lawmakers need to take these issues into account when formulating policy and not add costs in a state that is already at some cost disadvantages.

The experience of Texas shows that Arizona can best exploit its comparative advantages with lean, unobtrusive government. The state should adopt Texas-style policies that (1) lower taxes and keep them low; (2) simplify the tax system, especially sales taxes and property taxes; (3) restructure the tax system to eliminate income taxes; (4) reduce business property taxes; (5) reduce regulations such as licensing, land use planning, and zoning; (6) sell state trusts, increasing the stock of private land; and (7) reduce the size of government and end state revenue sharing with local government.

>> Read Lessons from Texas on Building an Economically Healthier Arizona

During the recent recession, the experience of Texas provides a marked contrast to that of Arizona. Arizona’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell at more than double the rate in the nation while Texas’s GDP barely fell at all. Texas’s employment in 2011 was at an all-time high and even greater than in 2007; by contrast, Arizona’s total employment in 2011 was 10 percent below its peak. Although most of the nation has seen hard times like Arizona has since 2007, Arizona’s economic challenges did not begin with the Great Recession. In fact, Arizona’s inflation-adjusted per capita income has lagged the nation’s for decades and stands steady at around 87 percent of the national level. While Arizona’s per capita personal income growth was fifth lowest among the states, Texas’s was seventh highest despite a large influx of people without jobs.Goldwater InstituteWednesday, October 17, 2012 - 10:00Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageLessons from Texas7 Lone-Star Reforms for a Better Arizona EconomyTax Reform Policy ReportYes Policy Report 251 Lessons from Texas.pdfTexas, Arizona, economy, economics, jobs, growth, prosperity, taxes, unemployment, free market, libertarian, conservativeBy TopicsByron Schlomachfalse

The Myth of Education Cuts and Why Money Can't Buy an A+

JGabriel — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:09:43 +0000

Here are some key facts about education spending in Arizona:

1. When you add up all funding sources, Arizona now spends $9,233 per student, a 9 percent increase from 2000, after adjusting for inflation.

2. During the worst years of the recession, 2009-2011, operational per student spending only decreased 5 percent.

3. When you look back just a few years, from 2006 to 2011, per student spending increased by 10 percent, even accounting for the 5 percent dip during the recession. Federal data show that any cuts to operational dollars have been restored by funding increases.

4. This year alone, education spending in the state budget increased by $28 million dollars.

5. Between 2006 and 2011, 183 of 218 Arizona districts experienced an increase in total per student spending. Only 31 school districts saw a decline in total spending during that time period.

6. According to the state auditor general, these consistent funding increases have not led to more money being spent in the classroom. In 2011, Arizona districts only spent 54.7 percent of their funds on classroom expenses, “a record low since [the auditor’s office] began monitoring classroom dollars 11 years ago.”

Moreover, higher spending per student hasn’t bought students higher test scores. Arizona student achievement has been virtually unchanged for 20 years. Today, nearly 3 out of 4 fourth graders can’t read at grade level. And, although our scores still rank near the bottom on many indicators, Arizona students score as well as or better than students in some states where per student funding is double or almost triple what we spend. In short, there is not a direct relationship between money and achievement.

Voters should reject the latest attempt to raise the state sales tax to increase education funding, and Arizona lawmakers should commit the state to reforms that are proven to increase student achievement.

Read "The Myth of Education Cuts and Why Money Can’t Buy an A+"

A popular myth claims we severely underfund schools in Arizona. For years, teachers unions and other education interest groups have led a successful “crusade” in the media and the state capitol to spread this idea. “We have reduced education funding levels to the point where they’re really not sustainable for our students and our teachers,” says Ann-Eve Pedersen, who is leading a voter initiative to raise taxes to increase education funding.Goldwater InstituteThursday, October 11, 2012 - 13:04Goldwater Institute Policy ReportImageMoney Can't Buy an A+The Myth of Education CutsEducation Reform Policy ReportYes Policy Report 252 Education Funding.pdfQuality Education and Jobs Initiative, Arizona, Election, Prop 204, Proposition 204, Prop 100, Proposition 100, QEJ, Education, Finance, Budget, Funding, Schools, Ann-Eve Pederson, Diane Racitch, Randi Weingarten, NSBA, school choice, public schools, public educationBy TopicsJonathan Butcherfalse