Local opinion: Prop. 320 poses a threat to students

I’m a senior at Catalina Foothills High School. I’m a two-sport athlete and National Honor Society officer. I never thought I’d take time out of writing college supplements and essays, amidst studying for the ACT, to argue against a state proposition. Yet, I feel the need to share this because Proposition 320 poses an immediate threat to students like me.

On the surface, Prop. 320 claims to be about teacher salaries. The Goldwater Institute’s voter guide calls the measure the “Prioritize Teacher Pay Act,”; however, this can’t be further from the truth. Prop. 320 is at its core a trap. It’s a strict mandate that all school districts in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties, as well as districts with 7,500+ students, must place at least 60% of their operational funding into, as they vaguely define it, “Direct Instructional Expenses." This funding category is solely at the discretion of the Arizona Auditor General, meaning not only that communities lose the power to control what their schools spend money on, but also that one person can decide to change everything at any time.

In CFSD, “direct instructional expenses” make up 54.8% of the budget, around 5% short of the measure’s “goal.” Districts that fail to meet the 60% threshold would face significant cuts to their portion of Classroom Site Fund funding, the source that supplies over $14,000 of our teachers’ salaries on average. To avoid this penalty, supporters of the measure suggest that schools will simply pay for these essential — but no longer considered “direct” — services out of the remaining 40%, but they fail to recognize that this would require steep cuts.

Where should districts make these cuts? Health staff? School nurses help kids with medicine so we can go back to class, and they are always there to respond to medical events that teachers aren’t trained for. But this proposition doesn’t protect nurses. Is our health at school not a direct part of our education?

How about counselors? I have seen my counselor regularly for the last four years to help choose classes and apply to college. Counselors create student schedules and teach lessons about college and careers. They are an integral part of how a school functions. Why are they excluded from direct instruction?

How about security? This proposition may make it difficult to pay for sufficient adult supervision on campuses, new locks on doors, or repairs to gates and cameras. Is our safety in school not considered a direct instructional cost?

Another aspect that this proposition sees as non-direct is custodial staff. They keep our schools organized and clean amidst the chaos of a school day. Is the cleanliness of our campus not a direct instructional cost? Why not the water we drink, and the A/C we rely on?

Ultimately, this measure is a deflection from the legislature’s responsibility for the Arizona education funding crisis. Instead of adequately funding teacher salaries, they're passing the burden to school districts. This measure is strict and unforgiving and does not account for local district needs. These decisions should be made by the people who know their community best.

Districts and school boards are not the enemy in this case. I cannot speak for other Arizona students' experiences, but my district has done an excellent job with the limited state and federal funding it has been given. This measure provides no real advantage for teachers, or more importantly, students. If this legislation was truly intended to support education, it would never force districts to make harmful cuts to important personnel, programs, and facilities.

Unfortunately, even though this proposition would greatly impact me and my peers, I have no real voice in this matter because I will be 17 at the time of the election. But I do have a voice here, so now I urge you, the Arizona voters, to vote no on Prop. 320. The success of Arizona kids depends on adequate funding for the essential support systems and structures that we rely on. The Arizona Llegislature needs to fulfill its constitutional duty to fully fund education and not offload this responsibility to the school districts.