In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Arizona
  • Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and David Martinez

legislative cuts and the brevity that affects arizona’s education

The past decade has seen Arizona continually place at or near the bottom in K-12 per pupil expenditure. The U.S. Census Bureaus Public Education Finances: 2013 report showed that Arizona has heavily relied on local revenue to bolster school funding. Currently revenue from local sources accounts for $3,985,395 while state revenue sources stand at $2,934,165 in FY 2013. The report shows that Arizona has also continued to receive more federal money, receiving $1,178,356 in FY 2013.1 Students in Arizona are receiving 69% of the national per pupil funding average, $11,770, averaging only $8,132 per student again placing the state per pupil funding at 49th overall.2

Arizona’s most recent 52nd regular legislative session pass budget cuts, rollovers, and the expansion of non-traditional public educational agencies, greatly impacting the type of education and services available to students in public schools across the state. For example, the states legislature passed House Bill 2683/Senate Bill 1476 budget reconciliation bills for education that cut $113,457,200 of district additional assistance (DAA), approximately $135 per student loss, and an overall $352.4 million cut to Basic Student Aid (BSA) that would be apportioned to school districts for FY 2016 as DAA, reducing DAA funding by 83%.3 In prior years DAA funding was allocated through soft capital allocation (SCA), classroom materials and supplies, and the capital outlay revenue limit (CORL), capital funding. When Arizona legislature first introduced DAA funding it originally claimed there would be an increase in overall funding yet two years after its introduction this has not been the case.

In the last decade there has been a litany of lawsuits and litigation attempting to provide students with increased funding (i.e., Roosevelt v. Bishop, 1994; Horne v. Flores 2009) that have questioned Arizona’s adequate funding of public [End Page 202] schools. Currently, the Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. DeWit and the State of Arizona et. al. (2014) case stemming from previous litigation, Cave Creek Unified School District v. Martin (2010), over inflationary funding increases the state has yet to comply with from Proposition 301. Proposition 301 passed by voters in 2000 is a 20-year .6 cent sales tax measure that funds education and includes statutory changes, including an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) to the revenue control limit funding received by school districts. The legislature stopped funding the base support level part of the COLA in FY 11 leading to Cave Creek Unified School District v. Martin (2010). Some $1.3B of back revenue, that Arizona is obligated to pay, is unresolved and stakeholders at all levels are left to continue daily operations without the proper inflationary funding increases. The current budget that passed did not address this need in any significant manner. The K-12 inflation funding for FY16 is estimated at $80 million with an additional $74 million appropriated for inflation but not added to the ongoing K-12 baseline funding. This is alarming since $931 million of the K-12 appropriation for 2015–2016 is set for payment in 2016–2017. Currently the state is allowing itself to revise statute and continually pay in arrears.

The legislature did pass HB2683/SB1476 that will increase the school district Transportation Support Level (TSL) per route mile formula by 1.6% and increase in the Base Level Amount (BSA) for FY 2016 by 1.6% from $3,373.11 to $3,426.74 per student, this increases the actual base amount by only $53.63 per student. This funding increase also addresses less than 50% of the approximately $135 per student loss from DAA funds. Further, recent legislative action repurposed $24 million in maintenance and operation funding (M&O) for school facilities board (SFB) funding. School Facilities Board funds are generated through the Arizona general fund and are allocated for new school facilities, building renewal and emergency school deficiencies. M&O funds on the other hand are voter approved budget increases usually allocated for ongoing, non-capital expenses, such as employee salaries and benefits...

pdf

Share