The Danger of Half Truths

With the release of an initial budget today, the mathematical manipulations and distortions begin. It actually began two weeks ago when Superintendent Tom Horne said the cuts would only be 2% and most districts were simply panicking by laying off so many teachers. He has since backed way off his original 2%, saying on Horizon the number could actually be closer to 6%. Then today we had folks e-mailing that charters are being cut significantly less than districts; and finally, there was the article from one legislator saying the cuts were only 1.3%. Unfortunately, all of these statements are true in one sense, but false in another, especially when considered at the individual district or charter school level.

Is there a district in Arizona receiving a net 1.3% cut in general fund revenue after the addition of Title 1 and IDEA stimulus money? There probably is. Unfortunately, general fund revenue is only one source of school funding. This same district most likely has a cut in prop 301 funding, casino gaming revenue, declining enrollment, excess utilities and increased health insurance costs that push it way past 1.3%. This is what is dangerous about Tom Horne's statement and the statement made by a state lawmaker earlier today.

What about Charter schools vs. District cuts? Special provisions have been made for districts with fewer than 600 students (they were exempted from cuts in the 2009 fix and it is being proposed that they only receive 50% of the cuts in 2010) At the same time, almost all charter schools are below 600 students because there are advantages in statute to being a "small school." Charter school cuts come in the form of a per pupil cut, rather than a percentage. The House budget proposes a charter school cut of $60 per pupil. This is in addition to the per pupil cut of $40 in January. When small district cuts and charter school cuts are compared side by side, and taking into account the 2009 cuts, then the reductions are very similar for both. However, as was done by a school board member today, if someone takes the cut being proposed for a large district and compares it to a small charter school, especially a district that has excess utilities, bonds and overrides, then there is a definite difference.

At the same time, it is not a completely accurate statement to say that charter schools receive less funding than districts. When talking about all charters and districts in aggregate, then it is true that districts receive more per pupil funding than charters. However, when looked at by individual district vs. the local charter school(s) in their community, then this is not always true. For example, there are rural school districts who do not have Career Ladder, Excess Utilities, Teacher Experience Index, bonds, overrides, etc. In a growing number of these communities, the charter schools actually receive more per pupil funding than the local district (as an aside, this is not true for most of Maricopa County).

Whenever you hear a comparative statistic, consider the source! People are focusing so much on the "half truths" of Arizona education funding that we completely miss the boat on comprehensive education finance reform and long-term planning. I hope that as ABEC lays out their plans this fall, that we are able to focus on what's best for all children, regardless of where their parents send them to school.