Local opinion: What Prop. 320 could mean for Arizona school budgets

On the November 2026 ballot, voters will find Proposition 320. Proposition 320 will be officially titled, “Require Certain School Districts to Spend 60% of Operational Spending on Direct Instruction.” The old idiom, "The devil is in the details", was never truer in examining this proposition. Here are some details to consider before making your decision.

Under this proposition, “Direct Instruction” is narrowly defined as teachers, teachers’ aides, substitute teachers, instructional supplies, field trips, athletics, cocurricular activities, and tuition. The spending categories not included in the Prop 320 “Direct Instruction” definition include food services, transportation, plant operations, teacher training, special education services, and administration.

Proposition 320 does not provide additional funding for school districts. At a time when Arizona is ranked 49th nationally in public school funding rankings, it instead requires districts to reallocate already-limited resources. For example, if the district did not meet the 60% requirement, the district might have to cut a school nurse position (nurse and health aides are not considered “Direct Instruction” under Prop 320) and redirect those budgeted funds to one of the categories within the Prop 320 “Direct Instruction” definition.

If a Prop 320-like rule was in effect when I was superintendent, I would have been moved to the top of the Auditor General’s Naughty list. In my year prior to retirement, I already had found myself on this list following an Auditor General’s Performance Audit of the district. Josh Brodesky, a reporter at the time for the Arizona Daily Star, got wind of this “list” and wrote an article in 2012. Full disclosure, Josh contacted me unsolicited. Being on the “list” was not something you want to publicize with a press release. Josh’s headline was “Flowing Wells’ effectiveness isn’t highly efficient; so, what?” His first paragraph read, “The schools at Flowing Wells are too clean. The doors stay open too long. The teachers are trained too well. And apparently the students are learning too darn much.” Josh goes on in the article stating, “Those are the main findings of the state Auditor General’s office, which spent a year poking and prodding this small north-side district …” Further in his article, he expresses his position by writing, “A recent audit of Flowing Wells notes this small miracle, but it drones on and on about operation costs, utilities and efficiencies. The district’s students might be thriving, but the district has spent too much money keeping the lights on and the hallways clean.”

Prior to the article, I did argue and defend the district’s rationale for having operational costs that were higher than state averages. For example, student achievement is connected to the learning environment, which includes extra resources devoted to maintaining classrooms. Walt Disney knew if he wanted Disneyland to be the happiest place on earth, it needed to first be the cleanest place on earth. The district also budgeted for higher utility costs because after-school programming was a high priority in the Flowing Wells community. Prop 320 does not include either maintenance or utilities as direct instructional costs.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for tax dollar accountability and elevating the teaching profession. In a recent Arizona Department of Education study on teacher retention, which included responses from 2,000 teachers, workplace culture, respect, and community were identified as strong retention factors. In dissecting Prop 320 details, there is no alignment with these teacher retention factors and the intended Prop 320 outcomes.

Voting is a personal decision, and I hope this information on Proposition 320 helps to inform you.

I do wish there were another proposition on the ballot, let’s call it Prop 30. Prop 30 would require the state to fund public schools at a level that would move Arizona from near the bottom of the nation to 30th in per-pupil funding.