Should AZ districts be required to spend more on classroom instruction?

But a representative of groups that oppose the measure contends that's not guaranteed and that approval of the ballot measure would hurt overall education.

In a debate Thursday, Chris Thomas, who is in charge of education policy for the Goldwater Institute, said the measure on the November ballot would force most schools to spend at least 60 cents of every dollar on what are described as "direct educational expenses.'' Those expenses include teachers, aides, general instructional supplies and field trips and athletics, he said.

On average, Arizona schools spend 52.1 cents of each dollar on instructional expenses. That's the lowest figure in the two decades the state's Auditor General's Office has been measuring it.

Thomas said approval of Prop. 320 would mean districts would be forced to get to the 60-cent figure or face loss of some state aid. More to the point, he said they will have to spend less on everything else.

But Jimmy Arwood, representing Arizonans for Quality Education, said that ignores what's in that "everything else'' category.

Arwood, whose organization lobbies on education issues, said this isn't just about administrative costs. And Thomas acknowledged that the auditor general has concluded that Arizona schools, on average, spend less on administration than the national average.

What it does include, Arwood said in debating Thomas, is the cost of other professionals who help students, ranging from speech pathologists to counselors and nurses. Then there are the costs for everything from food services and utilities to the diesel fuel to run the buses.

"If that bus isn't picking them up, those kids aren't going to school,'' Arwood said. And the state provides aid to schools based on the number of kids in class.

And there's something else.

If the proposition passes, any affected district that is below the 60-cent figure would face financial penalties in the form of reduced state aid.

That's true, Thomas said. But he said the penalty wouldn't apply to districts making adequate progress toward reaching the goal, meaning boosting funding by a half cent a year for "direct educational expenses."

As examples, Glendale Union High School District, which recorded spending at 57.1 cents, would have six years to comply. And Tucson Unified School District, currently at 48.5 cents, would be given 26 years before a penalty would kick in.

But not all schools would be required to meet the 60-cent figure.

As written and approved for the ballot by Republican state lawmakers, Prop. 320 would apply to all schools in Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties, regardless of size. But in the other 12 counties, only districts with more than 7,500 students would need to meet the new standard.

Thomas speculated that was done because legislators believed that districts in urban areas would have more opportunities to save money, such as by compressing bus routes.

He had no answer, though, for why some tiny districts in the three largest counties, like Red Rock Elementary School District in Pinal County and Continental Elementary School District in Pima County, also would be required to comply.

At the heart of the debate over Prop. 320 is the question of why schools aren't spending more on what the state considers instruction.

"Schools are maybe trying to do more than what they need to do,'' Thomas said. "They're not centered on the teaching and learning happening in the classroom.''

That is a mistake, he said. "The most important thing is to have a quality teacher in a classroom,'' Thomas said. "And you get quality teachers by paying them.''

Arwood doesn't disagree with that premise. But he said it ignores another factor.

"When we fund our schools 25% less than the national average per pupil, that's going to lead to less resources for kids to be successful,'' Arwood said.

Data from the National Education Association puts per-student funding in Arizona at $11,987. That compares with the national average of $17,873. More state aid, Arwood said, would bring up teacher salaries.

Thomas, however, said the current funding formula does not preclude the state — and in this case, voters — from deciding that schools should devote 60 cents of every dollar they do get for instruction.

Nothing in Prop. 320 spells out higher pay for teachers. But he said requiring schools to spend 60% on instruction — and not other things — pretty much makes that inevitable.

"Just do the math,'' Thomas said. "Teachers will get more money.''

Arwood, however, said focusing on teacher salaries and direct instructional expenses ignores that public schools are doing more for students — albeit in areas that don't fit into that 60-cent category. Consider, he said, special education.

Prop. 320 would include the salaries of special ed teachers. But other expenses would not qualify towards hitting the  60-cent goal.

"It's speech language pathologists, it's audiologists,'' Arwood said.

"When you talk to a parent, they're not going to tell you that those things are simply administration,'' he said. "Those are resources that help kids get through the day, help them learn, and help them grow.''

In fact, the most recent auditor general's report said that while the overall number of students in public schools is declining, the number of students receiving special education services has increased, particularly for autism. The report says that can cause an increase in the category of instructional support — which doesn't count toward the 60-cent goal for instruction — because it includes counselors, audiologists, speech pathologists, nurses and social workers.

Thomas said he doesn't disagree that those other professionals are needed. But he said that there are plenty of ways to fund those priorities from the other 40 cents in the budget.

Thomas said he doesn't disagree. But he said that there are plenty of ways to fund those priorities from the other 40 cents per dollar in the budget.

"What this does is it encourages districts to scrutinize non-instructional spending and to look for those efficiencies in the other areas to devote more to the classroom,'' Thomas said. "Right now, there is not that prioritization going on. And this law will require that prioritization.''

One area is "plant maintenance,'' which includes everything from utilities, building maintenance, custodial services and groundskeeping, to security. Overall, schools in Arizona spend about $1,535 a year per student on such services, about 12% of all costs.

"We have some school districts that are not operating efficiently in terms of the number of buildings they have,'' Thomas said. "They're underutilized. Sometimes they're unused completely.''

Consider, he said, that Chandler Unified School District has more students than Tucson Unified School District.

"And, yet, Chandler has 40 schools, and TUSD has 80 schools,'' Thomas said. He said that means TUSD is operating schools at less than capacity while fixed costs, such as cooling, remain the same.

The answer, said Thomas, is closing the schools and even selling off the buildings.

Arwood said it's not that simple.

"When you're looking at issues of school closures, those are very difficult decisions for communities,'' Arwood said, resulting in some of the most packed school board meetings as residents object. Still, he said, districts are moving in that direction and closing schools with declining enrollment.

"But they have to do it in a way that's responsible, responsible for the parents and, especially, the kids,'' he said.

Arwood said there's another factor that has to be considered in why, year after year, schools are spending less of their budget in classrooms.

"School safety is something 20 years ago we didn't spend nearly as much as we do today,'' he said. "And so you're looking at a lot of these other costs that parents are asking for, that students want in their classroom.''

The half-hour debate Thursday night in Scottsdale between Thomas and Arwood was sponsored by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.