Wise word from Slade Mead, soon to be Superintendent of Schools in AZ!

[lonestarnot]

(If the spacing or paragraphs are incorrect it pasted funny - not Slade's fault)

Slade Mead for Superintendent of Public Instruction

www.slademead.com

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Dear


Arizona public schools are facing yet another assault.

An out-of-state group innocently called First Class Education is pushing on Arizona citizens a deceptive initiative called
"First Class Education for Arizona". At first blush, the initiative sounds reasonable. It calls for a minimum of 65% of a school
district's budget to be spent directly in the classroom. However, upon closer investigation, one realizes that the initiative's narrow
definition of "in the classroom" excludes many vital and necessary school functions. The local Arizona chapter filed papers with
the Secretary of State October 19 to put this counter-productive initiative on the ballot.
The group has hired paid signature collectors to start the process. each signature is a step in the wrong direction.
I have received phone calls from people saying that the
Republicans claim I am supporting the 65% initiative. Needless
to say, this is pure disinformation. I oppose this initiative now as I did a year ago when the Speaker of the House and President
of the Senate offered the measure as a referendum in the state legislature.
Although on the surface it may sound good, under the surface, it is poor public policy. Forcing Arizona traditional public schools to adhere to this deceptive measure would not be in the best interest of Arizona's public education system (charters are exempt from this regulation). The initiative would force all Arizona traditional public schools to spend $.65 of every dollar exclusively on in-classroom expenses - like teacher salaries and supplies.
While, without a doubt, those are important expenditures, districts must also pay for a myriad of other costs just as essential to the basic functionality of our schools. This initiative is sold as a simplistic solution to Arizona's education problems, but it ignores that we must provide for so many other things our children need, like food services, transportation, counselors, librarians, professional development and health aids.

First Class Education for Arizona would place an especially difficult and unreasonable standard on Arizona's rural schools. By their very nature, rural schools must spend more money than urban schools on vital out-of-classroom expenses such as transportation. A school's in-classroom expenditures become moot if the district does not have enough money to transport students from their homes to the classroom.

The initiative also punishes school districts who seek outside funding from grants to help ends meet. Grants for non-classroom expenditures - like professional development programs that allow teachers to improve the quality of their instruction - would increase the total spending of a district, making it even more difficult for districts to reach the 65% in-classroom requirement simply for trying to locate more funding for their needs.

The Kyrene Elementary School District, on whose board I served, spends 65.9% percent of its maintenance and operations budget on in-classroom expenses, without including grants. However, when combined with the money Kyrene receives from Safe Schools, state, and federal grants, which are used for needs like professional development and teacher recruitment, the percentage drops to 61%. In order to comply with the 65% rule, Kyrene would have to move approximately $3.9 million away from things like food service, transportation and professional development. We should not punish already successful districts by forcing them to adhere to an arbitrary benchmark for
where their funds should go. We must allow districts to allocate their funds for themselves. Each district faces different situations, different communities and different challenges. We must allow them to tailor their funding to meet their unique needs and not force them to comply with arbitrary, generalized rules.

Supporters of this initiative argue that too much of Arizona's limited
education budget goes to administrative costs rather than into the
classroom. Ironically, the facts do not support that assertion. Arizona
only spends 9.5% of its total budget on administrative costs compared with
an average of 10.9% across the country, according to the Arizona Office of
the Auditor General. That means Arizona spends 14% less on administrative
costs than the national average, and Kyrene, a district that does not meet
the 65% requirement and still has great success educating students, only
spends 7.6% of its budget on administrative costs. Administrative costs
cannot be to blame for Arizona's education problems if most of the nation
spends more on administrative costs than Arizona and still outperform us.
There has never been a clear link established that would suggest the 65%
rule would improve student achievement in any way.

We should focus our attention on improvement plans that have a basis in
research and fit within a best practice model - something the sitting
Superintendent refuses to do. Last year ago when this same initiative was
proposed as a referendum in the Arizona legislature, the current
Superintendent supported the 65% rule. Now, he is quoted in the Arizona
Star as supporting the concept but not this initiative per se, calling the
wording flawed. The only difference between then and now is the political
climate has changed. Citizens of this state want and deserve real answers
to tough problems, not simple solutions that do not address the core of the
troubles facing Arizona public schools.

Please read this initiative carefully then reject it. It has the deceptive
appearance of increasing classroom spending, yet it does not add a penny to
the education system. I stand with numerous education, civic and business
organizations that are in firm opposition to this ill conceived initiative.

I urge you to forward this email on to your friends and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Slade Mead