This is a fairly typical example of the emails I have been receiving for the past two weeks:

From: LOIS POSTIL
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:25 PM
To: tjenney@afphq.org
Subject: Arizona Federation of Taxpayers

Regarding the message below - are you kidding me? You come to my classroom for just one day and I'll show you just how wrong you are! When was the last time you set foot in a school? What is your suggested alternative, because I don't see one being proposed? And what teacher in Arizona makes $80,000???? What an idiot! Where did you get YOUR obviously superior education? I just love your use of statistics. Well, let me tell you something about statistics. Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can manipulate statistics to say whatever they want them to say!

Lois Postil, Teacher
Business Management & Technology
Desktop Publishing (Yearbook) I and II
Web Development I and II
FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) Adviser

Here was my response:

Dear Lois:

You wrote: “...what teacher in Arizona makes $80,000???? What an idiot!”

That was my precisely my point: teachers in Arizona do NOT make $80,000.

I believe that good teachers in Arizona should make at least $80,000, in salary and benefits. The fact that good teachers do not get paid that much is a big problem, because other than parents, the single most important factor in a child’s education is a highly motivated, highly skilled teacher.

We have urged taxpayers to vote NO on the November 3 overrides because we believe that school districts (including Amphi) have plenty of taxpayer money--more than enough to pay for excellent teachers and good administration.

School business officers association lobbyist Chuck Essigs has attacked one of the figures ($9,707) we had used for statewide average per-student funding, because it included capital costs and other encumbered fund sources.

So, let’s take out the capital. To find per-child costs for Amphi, go to page 72 of the superintendent’s report:

http://www.azed.gov/annualreport/AnnualReport2008/Vol1.pdf

It shows that Amphi had $7,767 of resources per student in 2007-2008. That does NOT include “expenditures for land, land improvement, buildings and building improvements, furniture, equipment, or vehicles. Also excluded are Internal Service Fund operations, Community School Fund operations, debt retirement, student activities, and nonpublic school programs, (e.g., adult/continuing education, community college education, community services, and day care centers).” See page 52 for the definitions.

If the average Amphi classroom has 25 students, that means there was $194,000 of potential resources in that classroom. Think about that for a moment.

Let’s assume an annual reserve of 5 percent. That still leaves $184,000 of potential resources in that classroom.

If Amphi limited overhead and other programs to 25 percent ($46,000), it could allocate $90,000 for the salary and benefits of a good teacher in that classroom of 25, and still allocate $48,000 towards a special education instructor who deals with the IEPs in that classroom.

(The good news is that ed schools and educrats seem to be—finally—getting over their longtime fetish with class size, and beginning to understand what the managers of independent schools have always understood, which is that the quality and motivation of the teacher is vastly more important than class size when it comes to increasing student performance.)

The big question is why so many school districts fail to pay good teachers what they’re worth.

The reason districts do not pay good teachers what they’re worth is that districts are mismanaging their resources. As district apologists invariably point out, districts are under a lot of constraints: it is difficult for them to simply reallocate resources in the ways we have suggested above. But those constraints are all political ones—and ones that the teacher unions and the school board association have mostly championed over the years. For example, much of the blame goes to the labor rules imposed by the teacher unions. Under those rules, good teachers are paid the same as bad teachers, and bad teachers are not given the pink slips they deserve.

Also, most school districts are very heavy on bureaucratic overhead—mainly personnel, hired in large part to fill out paperwork and (attempt to) comply with various mandates. Unfortunately, the powerful lobbying groups that wield so much influence on Arizona’s education legislation, such as the Arizona Education Association, the Arizona School Boards Association, and the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, have effectively promoted the mandates and the paperwork. Instead of lobbying for management independence, they have lobbied (endlessly) for more money. In response, legislators and the ADE have demanded more in the way of accountability—which, in the minds of central planners, means goading districts into trying out the latest pedagogical fads and having districts fill out more paperwork to see if the latest interventions are bearing any fruit.

An aside: Despite all of the money we have thrown at Arizona schools, the educrats tell us that Arizona is 49th in the country in per-pupil spending. Even if Arizona was 49th in the country, $7,730 per child on average for unified districts, or $9,700 per child for the whole state, including capital costs (we spend much more than we need to on capital), is more than enough money to give Arizona the best school system in the country.

But back to the overrides. Again, the problem with Arizona education is not a lack of money. The problem is mismanagement.

We are highly skeptical about the notion that more money will lead to increased student performance. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that notion. If taxpayers give more money to Arizona school districts, they will very likely continue to waste that money.

America’s government schools have sucked up more and more money for decades. Since 1970 we have more than doubled per-pupil spending, in constant dollars. Sadly, we have very little (if anything) to show for those investments when it comes to student performance:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif

Amphi could lose 6 percent of its funds if Prop 403 fails, but it would still have significantly more per-pupil resources than the state’s charter schools, which received $6,659 per child in 2008. Charters get 14 percent less than what the unified district schools get, on average—not counting the big capital costs. And yet, charter schools have proven to do a better job of educating kids, including disadvantaged student populations:

http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/

Since you asked about my “suggested alternative,” let me suggest again (this was in my original email) that you take a look at how Florida has managed to make significant improvements in student performance over the past decade, without increasing spending any more rapidly than any other state has:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2577

For a brief outline of how to use the charter model to reform Arizona education, check out the latest blog post by Republic columnist Bob Robb:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/RobertRobb/64748

Further, many Arizona private schools provide an excellent education for tuition of less than $5,000 per year:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1851

The bottom line is that we need more education for our tax dollars, not more tax dollars for education.

One of the educrats we communicated with this week accused opponents of overrides of risking doing “irreparable damage for the future of our children.” Yet, that is precisely what we will get if we continue to throw more money at the same old system without demanding fundamental changes in the way districts manage schools.

Districts need to put schools under independent management that has the power to immediately pay good teachers what they’re worth, fire clock-punchers and excess administrators, and streamline overhead. Districts need to be exposed to real competition, meaning that students and their parents should be able to take their per-student resources to the schools of their choice. These general ideas should sound familiar to you, since you have taught economics: they’re an attempt to bring more of the dynamics of the free-enterprise system to education.

For Liberty,

--Tom

PS: I went to University High.

My original email, to which Postil was responding:

Dear AFP Arizona Member:

Please forward this important alert to your fellow
taxpayers.

Half of the school districts in the state are holding
override elections on November 3rd. (Early ballots have
already been mailed to voters.) In some cases, school
districts are asking taxpayers and voters for more money.
In other cases, they are asking taxpayers and voters
to maintain spending at current levels.

The truth is that your school district has plenty
of taxpayer money--more than enough to pay for excellent
teachers and good administration. The simple fact is
that they are WASTING MUCH OF YOUR MONEY.

According to page 6 from the Annual Report of the Arizona
Superintendent of Public Instruction, school districts in 2008
had revenues from all sources of $9,232,916,095:

http://www.azed.gov/annualreport/AnnualReport2008/Vol1.pdf

On page 8 of that report, you can see that Arizona school
districts in 2008 had 951,117 students.

Do the math, and you find that Arizona school
districts had resources of $9,707 per child.

(Beginning on page 58 of the superintendent's report, you
can look up the figures for specific school districts, which
are organized by county and then in alphabetical order by
district).

If your child's average classroom has 25 students, that
means there is $240,000 of resources in that classroom. Think
about that for a moment.

There is enough money in your child's classroom to pay your
child's teacher a very good annual salary-and-benefits package
of $80,000.

There is enough money to also have a special education
teacher assigned to those students, and to pay that individual
$80,000 a year. And, there is enough money left over to
dedicate $80,000 for administration, athletics, facilities,
and other overhead.

The problem is that your district is mismanaging
that money. Much of the blame goes to labor rules
imposed by the teacher unions. Good teachers are not paid
nearly enough, and bad teachers are not given the pink slips
they deserve. Instead, under the union pay scale, good
teachers and bad teachers are paid the same. Also, most school
districts are very heavy on bureaucratic overhead. Further,
Arizona's school system has spent lavishly on capital
projects.

Powerful lobbying groups, such as the Arizona Education
Association and the Arizona School Boards Association, promote
the BIG LIE that Arizona schools do not have enough resources.
Your newspaper editorial boards then repeat that BIG LIE. They
tell us that Arizona is 49th in the country in per-pupil
spending. Even if Arizona was 49th in the country, $9,700 per
child is more than enough money to give Arizona the best
school system in the country.

Again, the problem is not a lack of money. The
problem is mismanagement.

On November 3rd, when it comes time to vote on your school
district's override, do not be bamboozled by promises that
more money will lead to increased student performance. There
is no evidence whatsoever to support that notion. If you give
more money to Arizona school districts, they will very likely
continue to waste that money.

America's government schools have sucked up more and more
money for decades. Since 1970 we have more than doubled
per-pupil spending, in constant dollars. Sadly, we have very
little (if anything) to show for those investments when it
comes to student performance:

http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/images/b2179_chart4.gif

If your school district is asking to renew an existing
override, do not be blackmailed by the myth that the
result will be drastic spending cuts. Even school
districts that are trying to renew full 15 percent overrides
will lose less than ten percent of their budgets if the
overrides fail.

Even with a 20-percent budget cut, there would still be
enough money in the average district to provide for an
excellent education. Instead of an $80,000 salary package, the
available resources in your child's classroom could support a
teacher and a special ed instructor at $64,000 each, leaving
$64,000 per classroom for administration, athletics,
facilities, and other overhead.

Charter schools in Arizona received $7,844 per child in
2008. That is 20 percent less than district schools. And yet,
charter schools have proven to do a better job of educating
kids, including disadvantaged student populations:

http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/

Further, many Arizona private schools provide an excellent
education for tuition of less than $5,000 per year:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1851

There are proven ways to improve school performance, but
they do NOT involve giving lots of money to mismanaged school
districts. For ideas, start in Florida:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2577

The bottom line is that we need more education for
our tax dollars, not more tax dollars for
education.

Please join me in voting NO on the November 3rd school
overrides.

For Liberty,

--Tom

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146