10 key funding proposals that could change Arizona schools

Gov. Doug Ducey's Classrooms First Initiative Council recommends Arizona more equally fund district and charter schools, reward schools that perform well instead of pouring money into campuses that are failing and help parents better track how their child's school is spending money.

The council offered these and other recommendations Tuesday for overhauling the state's complex, 35-year-old public school funding formula.

The council will develop more detailed proposals by the end of the year, and work with Ducey and the Legislature on legislation when the next session starts in January.

Council co-chair Jim Swanson, president and CEO of construction company Kitchell Corp., said the council's focus has been Ducey's charge that "every child, regardless of where they live, has access to an excellent education."

But Andrew Morrill, president of the teacher organization the Arizona Education Association, said the recommendations appear to push district schools to become more like charter schools, and would likely give more money to charter schools.

"We're trying to take our district public schools and operate them as charter schools, closer and closer to continuously dissolving that line," he said. "We have forgotten the visa that charter schools rolled in on in Arizona: They were going to educate better, more cheaply, and they've lived up to neither promise."

Swanson said, "We're not trying to make charters districts or districts charters. We're trying to make a better process."

The funding systems for district and charter schools differ. For example, while charter schools get more state money, district schools can seek additional revenue from local taxpayers through bonds and overrides.

Some of the council's proposals did recommend additional school funding, while others appeared to reallocate existing money.

Swanson said he had informed Ducey, who is in Washington, D.C., for a meeting with Pope Francis at the White House, of the recommendations and Ducey sent a message stating he supports the work the group has done.

The group, which is relatively evenly split between members with district school connections and those with charter school connections, has spent three months analyzing the formula. The last group to overhaul the formula, 25 years ago, spent more than year working on it.

The council has relied heavily on advisers, most of whom lean strongly toward school-choice options.

Here are 10 key proposals the committee made:

Eliminate separate funding for higher functioning special-needs students such as those with dyslexia or a speech impairment. The funds currently dedicated to these students would be moved into the base funding level for all students.

Fund students with more serious special needs based on the costs determined in the most recent audit from 2007.

Fund the existing Extraordinary Special Needs Fund so schools can request emergency help serving high-cost students.

Create a website where parents can calculate how much their child generates in school funding.

Eliminate additional funding to districts for experienced teachers; possibly rolling that money into the base amount allocated per student.

Develop policies to better recruit and retain teachers.

Continue to rate schools on the A-F letter grade system currently being revised.

Provide additional funding to A-rated schools as well as B and C schools that have shown significant gains. Higher-performing schools with more low-income students would get more money than schools with fewer low-income students.

Reward A-rated schools with exemptions from some financial requirements, including annual audits and procurement regulations.

Require schools to provide financial data at the school level instead of just the district level.

In addition to these recommendations, the council laid out a number of areas it wants to continue discussing: the base-level funding each student gets; additional per-student funding for things such as grade level or rural schools; changing districts' ability to raise money using bonds and overrides; allowing the sale or lease of unused district land or buildings without voter approval; and streamlining teacher certification.