Tale of Two Districts: Parents Fleeing Phoenix Union Turns K-12 Funding Narrative on its Head

by admin | Jan 10, 2020 | Misc, News and Updates

Since 1994, when Arizona passed legislation to allow students to “open enroll” in a district school outside their boundary, families have been taking advantage of the power of school choice.

Open enrollment’s popularity is evident when you consider approximately half of Arizona kids do not attend their designated district school.  Of these migrating students almost half of them are choosing one district school over another. 

Recently, the Arizona Republic wrote a story about hundreds of parents waiting in line for up to 36 hours outside Sunnyslope High School with the hope of capturing a slot for their child. The Glendale Union District operates on a ‘first come, first register’ basis, and parents were not going to risk missing out on the opportunity to get their kid into this high-ranking school.    

This should be recognized for what it is: evidence that school choice works.  No longer are children trapped in underperforming schools by virtue of their zip code, parents are free to exercise their right to vote for their preferred school with their feet, and schools are getting market feedback on the quality of their product.

Yet, the AZ Republic gets the narrative all wrong:

“Educational inequality continues in Arizona despite a 2018 teacher strike that pushed Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature to give educators a three-step, 20% raise that will conclude this year. Even with tens of millions more in tax dollars going to Arizona public schools, the state remains among the bottom five for educational funding.”

The implication being made is that parents are camping outside of Sunny Side high school to flee the Phoenix Union District because of lack of funding and “educational inequality”. This story proves exactly the opposite!

According to the state Auditor General, Phoenix Union High School District (PUSD) received $13,853 per student. If Phoenix Union was its own state it would be #15 in the country in per pupil funding. By any metric they do not qualify as an “underfunded” district.

By contrast, Glendale Union receives $10,385 per student. Think about that: every parent lining at SunnySlope is willing to take $3,500 less to educate their child. 

It’s easy see why parents are willing to forfeit the extra funding after comparing the performance of the two districts. According to the Arizona Department of Education, only 4 Schools in Phoenix Union (28%) are rated an A or a B.  Six others are a C and four a D. State assessment scores corroborate these ratings with only about 20 percent of PUSD students passing math, English and science.  Glendale scores double and even triple these statistics when it comes to science testing. 

You can’t blame demographics either. Poverty rates are similar in both districts, and Phoenix has much smaller class sizes (17.7) than Glendale (21.6). The bottom line is the district that should have a distinct advantage is failing to compete.   GUSD is simply producing better academic results with less money.  Families in the area are savvy enough to understand this.

As for educational inequality, the only unfairness that exists in this situation is an entrenched school financing model that allows under-performing districts to receive the more funding (and be rewarded for this failure) than successful ones. Perhaps these parents should be able to take a portion of the $3,500 they lose when they relocate. That would help address funding inequality in a hurry. It could also go toward helping expand capacity in Glendale so that parents don’t have to camp out for days in the hopes of providing their child with a better education.

But don’t expect the education establishment or their media enablers to support any real reform. Even when all of the facts point toward the need to reward success and tying reforms to funding, they will never abandon their ‘throw money at the problem’ narrative.

Donor Harassment Initiative Looking to Qualify for 2020 Ballot

by admin | Oct 31, 2019 | Misc, News and Updates

After failing last year to qualify a measure forcing disclosure of contributions to non-profit organizations and eliminating donor privacy, Terry Goddard is back peddling a revised iteration of “Outlaw Dirty Money.”  This time dubbed “The Voters Right to Know Amendment,” the proposal would change the Arizona Constitution to require the disclosure of the “original source” of all major contributions used to “influence Arizona elections.”

Major contributions are defined as $5,000 or more in a single campaign, $20,000 for statewide campaigns or $10,000 for all other campaigns in an election cycle.

The issue is easy to speak to on a superficial level – convincing voters they have “a right” to know who is spending in elections sounds appealing to people on the left and the right of the political spectrum.  However, lying just below the surface are insidious motivations and consequences.

Coerced disclosure Encourages Government Corruption

Predating the drumbeat for private non-profits to publicly out the individuals who support them, there has existed extensive campaign finance laws aimed to disclose the financial support candidates receive who are running for public office.  Money candidates directly receive is treated differently than organizations because elected officials who are a part of the government have a duty to reveal potential financial conflicts of interest.  More importantly, laws already exist against corruption such as quid pro quos, bribes, and financial fraud.  These are the appropriate laws that keep politicians honest.  These are the laws that effectively weeded out 7 Arizona lawmakers in the infamous 1991 AZSCAM scandal.

In contrast, individuals freely and privately associating with organizations that share their common beliefs and want to share their views with voters is not corruption. It is free speech.

And protecting this right is important given the track record of harassment and intimidation directed toward individuals attempting to exercise their 1^st amendment rights.  This isn’t a theoretical argument; there are several documented cases of private citizens being targeted for supporting a cause or organization.  One such example occurred 61 years ago under National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) vs the State of Alabama.  In this case the state was arguing they had “a right” to the membership list of the NAACP to determine if the organization was doing business in the state.  In the tumultuous throws of segregation, the true purpose was for the government to create an “enemies list” of financial contributors by which they could exert their coercive power and intimidate members into abandoning the cause.

More recently, in 2015 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting every citizens’ First Amendment right by determining a three year investigation by the state into conservative groups was illegal.  In the commonly dubbed “John Doe” investigation, government regulators gnashing for names of their political enemies actually ambushed non-profit leaders in the early dawn hours at their homes, crashing into rooms where children slept in an effort to find donor lists.

This is why transparency is only a virtue when applied to government and privacy is a virtue when applied to citizens.  That’s why public record laws only apply to government and not private citizens.  Though the proponents of Goddard’s proposal strive to confuse voters with seedy sounding language like “dark money,” they cannot point to a single instance where knowing which individuals support what political speech led to the uncovering of a violation of law or “corruption”. HOWEVER, there are masses of real-life examples of similar disclosure laws being used to attack, intimidate, and compel private citizens. 

Goddard’s Initiative Doesn’t Know What Laundering Means

Lastly, the “Voters Right to Know Amendment” falsely equivocates laundering with the innocent and lawful act of individuals giving money to non-profits and organizations with which they align.  As an attorney, Goddard should know money laundering (which rightfully so is already a crime), involves concealing money obtained illegally by transferring it through legitimate businesses. This is an attempt by Goddard to implicate honest individuals with a constitutional right to spend their money however they like without the scrutiny of government.  Imagining every private citizen donor as a potential criminal with nefarious intentions is just wrong.  Not to mention criminalizing anonymous speech is a perversion of justice – there are no victims in non-disclosure– only victims when the right to privacy is violated.

At the end of the day, initiative’s like Goddard’s are a dangerous threat to every citizen’s right to privacy, free speech and association.  It concentrates more power into the hands of the government and erodes some of our most basic democratic principles.  Proponents have flimsy intellectual arguments and catchy rhetoric – but behind them is government target list and a loaded gun.  Hopefully, their third attempt to fool voters is equally unsuccessful. 

Phoenix City Council Considers Forcing Ridesharers to Subsidize Sky Harbor Train

by admin | Oct 17, 2019 | Misc, News and Updates

The City of Phoenix is addicted to wasting millions of dollars on antiquated train systems.  So much so that they are constantly looking for more people to subsidize the ever-growing and inevitable rising costs.

Their new target?  Phoenix Sky Harbor patrons who Uber or Lyft to the airport.

Even though ridesharers have absolutely no need to take the Sky Train at Sky Harbor, that hasn’t stopped city officials from implementing a 200 percent increase on the current $2.66 fee for them to pick up and drop off passengers.

Under the current proposal the Phoenix Council voted on October 16^th, passengers would see a $10 round trip cost increase by 2024, making Phoenix one of the costliest airports in the country for residents to rideshare.

A fee to cover the rideshare companies’ impact on roads and curbs is understandable.  However, forcing their customers to subsidize a train they don’t use is little more than social engineering.  Currently, many people find it more affordable to uber to the airport than to park their car.  The real goal of this policy: force people to use the train by making the alternative less economically desirable.  Afterall, if the issue was equity as argued by proponents, elected leaders would require a fee on users of the Sky Train not the ridesharers.  Additionally, rideshare patrons will get a discount off their fee if they use the Sky Train to the 44^th St Station.

Just like downtown Phoenix light rail, city officials are constantly looking for creative ways to force people onto their trains to make the millions they waste on a system people barely use look less like a boondoggle.

Pro-Light Rail Comedian Beclowns Himself in Attempt to Downplay Cost of South Phoenix Rail Project

by admin | Aug 21, 2019 | Misc, News and Updates

It has been interesting to watch supporters of light rail try to explain away its exploding cost and how projects such as the South Phoenix extension have turned into reckless boondoggles for taxpayers.

As has been reported by multiple news outlets, the cost for South Phoenix rail extension has tripled in three years to $1.35 Billion dollars. At $245 million per mile it is now one of the most expensive rail projects in the country. And with the Federal Government reducing their funding share to 39%, Phoenix taxpayers are now on the hook for an additional $400 million in cost overruns.

Now a little-known comedian named Hasan Minhaj has decided to enter the fray, putting out a short video attempting to demonstrate why light rail isn’t such a bad deal after all. In doing so he inadvertently provided more evidence on the absurd cost of the South Phoenix rail project and why other transit options (such as expanded bus, dial-a-ride, ridesharing, etc.) would make much more sense.

His first critique is that opponents to light rail have ignored their economic development benefits for the community. This is simply not true.

Maybe during his extensive research on the issue Mr. Minhaj missed the fact that our organization already looked into Valley Metro’s $11 Billion-dollar economic development claim and discovered that it was a sham. Virtually every project on their list was either government funded/subsidized or had nothing to do with light rail. Unless, that is, Mr. Minhaj wants to argue that QuikTrip gas stations, car washes, the Phoenix Police forensic lab, the Maricopa County Sheriff Office and a Tesla Auto Dealership were built because of light rail.

He then complains that our organization and others have messed up by overstating the actual costs of light rail. Using an uncited, non-existent transit “industry standard,” Mr. Minhaj declares that the true cost for the South Phoenix project is only $14 per rider. He arrives at this figure by calculating the number of projected boardings over the next 30 years (105 million) and divides that into the cost of the project.

One small problem: he confuses riders with ridership. These are not all unique individuals, unless Mr. Minhaj believes that the entire population of Arizona, California, Texas, Virginia and Florida all plan to visit South Phoenix and ride the light rail. Perhaps for educational reasons people will flock to the area to see how many small businesses light rail has bankrupted, but we doubt it.

Now Mr. Minhaj is correct that the projected daily boardings for the South Phoenix extension is 9,600. It is a figure that some light rail opponents have used to determine that it would be cheaper to buy every rider a Tesla than expand light rail ($1.35Billion ÷ 9,600 riders =$140,000). In reality they were being way too forgiving—since actual daily unique riders will be half that amount (around 5,000), the true cost is closer to $280,000 per rider. Forget Teslas, it would be cheaper to buy every rider a condo than build the South Phoenix extension.

This doesn’t mean that the $14-dollar figure Mr. Minhaj arrives at isn’t significant. Thanks to him, taxpayers now know that they will be paying at least $14 to move someone up to 5 miles in one direction on the light rail ($2.80 per mile).  Given that the average 5-mile uber/lyft ride is around $10, it would be cheaper to issue 100 million rideshare vouchers over the next 30 years than it is to build the South Phoenix project.

We give Hasan Minhaj credit for trying to inject some humor into the light rail debate. It is too bad that he assumes that opposition to costly light rail is only because of some deep seeded irrational hostility to transit or involves an evil Koch brother hiding behind every bush.

Light rail is simply too costly and will end up consuming the city’s transportation budget if expansion is not stopped. That doesn’t just mean canceled road repairs, but reduced bus and dial-a-ride service as well. There are better options available, and we intend to continue to advocate for transportation solutions that benefit all residents, not just the 1% of the population that use light rail.