Higley Schools Blog

Here is a guest post submitted by HUSD Governing Board Member Venessa Whitener. This information will be useful to anyone interested in HUSD as a growth district — Editor

This is communication from me (Venessa Whitener)to some of our legislators. There has been input going back and forth regarding the financial hurdles we face NOW. This next year will be more difficult as the State will cut even more funds in Education. It is our responsibility to inform our representatives and offer our solutions. Lets please put our efforts into positive solutions and accurate information.

Contact Kirk Adams, Rich Crandall, Lorin Hendrix, Thayer Verschoor all at
http://www.azleg.gov

Thank you so much for responding. I always represent a broad base of community members, teachers and staff. I would like to offer some perspectives from a growth district representing the concerns of our community.

It is one thing to talk of cuts and then have to make them from a current budget; most districts can deal with that. A growth district is already so far behind the majority of districts that we can barely stay afloat. These are perspectives, suggestions and concerns for specifics:

-Growth-As you know growth districts do not receive funding for ADM growth until the following year. So this year we are absorbing costs for about 700 students. We have dealt with this before, but compounding the cuts hurts too much. We have to use our Bond funds to build 2 new schools because of the moratorium enforced by School Facilities Board. Now how does our community react when we can now go to them for more bonds to make up for cuts from the state? I have confidence that they would be supportive, but we would be over taxing our constituents because of the burden of taxing for new schools. This burden is so unfair to growing districts. Charter schools get immediate funding (real time) ours is delayed an entire fiscal year. (I am glad though we do receive it. Even if it is a whole year later)

-Growth districts are penalized when it comes to entitlement funds. Title II and Title III Funds are based off of the 2000 census. Our district alone should be receiving 200% more funding according to our current numbers. This is a disservice to these students. In 2000, our population was 1000, now, 2008 is 10,000. We are meeting so many needs based on a number that has no relevance to our population. (Older districts do not mind this at all because they are losing student numbers but keeping the same funding, especially when it comes to Title 3 or ELL funds, if you were losing children but getting the same amount of dollars from 7 years ago, would you speak up, NO)

- Excess Utilities, another way to HURT growth districts. Again, based on a number irrelevant to growth districts. This has been improved minimally, but for example, these numbers are based on 2 yrs. previous, well since 2005, we have added 4 more schools, a warehouse and a district warehouse. Our district almost doubled in size square footage wise in 3 years, but only has half the amount of funds to pay for it.

- Soft Capital, (classroom supplies) how can you take a cut when the number has not increased since 1996? I know 10% cut is proposed, then allow us more flexibility in M & O or go for more override capability.

- Tax credit donations- Our community is begging to be able to use these funds in the classroom. I understand inequality issues, but we are missing an opportunity to use these funds more effectively and for better purposes than for extracurricular activities.

( I see this is where the general obligation bonds could come into play) and/or if CUTS have to be made in soft capital, let the districts be able to use tax credits to subsidize soft capital and/or use tax credits to subsidize sports and arts programs that may have to be cut due to STATE BUDGET DEFICIT

-Teacher Pay/ Taxes/Bonds/ Career Ladder -Our community KNOWS we are growing and struggling and is willing to help out until we stabilize and/or are properly funded. Our community has asked for more obligation bonds so we can better pay our teachers just the current rate as Gilbert or Chandler. WE CANNOT pay our teachers similar to surrounding districts because we constantly have to make up for the shortfalls listed up above. Therefore we cannot attract teachers and retain them when they can always go to Mesa and Chandler for more pay and career ladder, another INEQUALITY. If older districts can have Career Ladder, than let the newer districts pass bonds to make up the difference ( equal to career ladder) AND/or cut Career Ladder (everyone on the equal playing field and save the state $$) and use tax payer bonds to supplement teacher pay and pay for performance or reinstate the Arizona School Tax for Career Ladder.

These are just ideas to think about! I like to present all sides.

I spent 3 years teaching in Philadelphia and its suburbs. I saw a lot of wasted funds, but I also saw a lot of struggling blue collar communities who put their money where their heart was; in its children. They were willing to literally invest in their children. If constituents are willing to offer help, we need to give them opportunities to support our children financially. If they wanted to increase teacher salary, they put it up to a vote.

-This brings up the “Arizona School Tax”. Why is the perception that Adams and Burns are so set on repealing this. Can someone explain why reinstating this is so negative. We cannot afford to do away with this. I obvious do not grasp this issue because I do not understand the reasons for repealing it. Can you help me understand this? (Unless of course you are going for a general statewide sales tax increase that would be funneled into Education)

- Full Day Kindergarten- Majority of the public does not realize that we have had full day kindergarten for 3 years and have NOT been funded by the Sate. The money for teachers, double classroom space and supplies comes out of our pockets. You know this. I am supportive in whatever decision you make in this area, just STOP districts from having to pay for it without funding from the state when Gov. mandates it. I did my Master’s thesis on this topic and am in agreement that low socio-economic, bi-lingual, ELL and Special Education children benefit from full-day kindergarten. Anymore questions just ask!!!

Thank you for listening, I hope this was not the same “woe is me saga” you hear over and over again. There is a sincere attitude from the public that wants what is best for our children and want to improve the situation. Our state is now full of people coming from all over that notice their property taxes are much lower here in AZ than in their hometowns. Then they realize what deficiencies our schools have and see the correlation. Yes, I am a native to Arizona and pride myself in low property taxes, but our students cannot get the upper hand they deserve and meet the expectations from parents, teachers and nationwide expectations without the proper and FAIR funding.
You TWO both know firsthand the potential that lies within the children of this State.

My point in all of this, we WILL make the cuts and will do it responsibly, but PLEASE, if we are all in this together, then level out the playing field. Growth districts CANNOT keep up in this game unless our older districts and legislature meet us half way and until we enlist our local community members who want to get in the game and fight for our students.

I can offer more details and suggestions if you wish, a phone conversation may be best. This e-mail does not intend to relay any negative offense; we know tone and context are distorted in e-mail. My intentions are true and I know yours are too. Thank you for your time and if I may be of any help, please call.

Venessa Whitener