You are here: Home / Archives for Goldwater Institute

Time Is Running Out to Improve Arizona’s Digital Learning Options This Session

April 2, 2012 By 1 Comment

By Jonathan Butcher

Arizona students are at risk of having fewer digital learning options if lawmakers do not reconsider SB 1259, which provides more options for students to pursue digital learning outside of their school district’s boundaries.

We cannot expect all sides to agree with every detail of such a large piece of legislation, but current Arizona law lacks guidance when it comes to online learning.

As a result, some districts have adopted policies that limit student options for online coursework. Additionally, the state’s virtual school funding system pays schools based on enrollment, not student course completion and subject mastery. Until we find virtual truancy officers that won’t trample First Amendment rights, the state should adopt policies that fund schools based, in part, on course completion and evidence of student proficiency.

“Essentially, virtual education is moving into that intersection where rising popularity meets calls for greater accountability,” writes Kevin C. Bushweller in Education Week. “How the virtual education movement responds to those calls will have a significant impact on how it evolves in K-12 over the next five to 10 years.”

Education researchers and state lawmakers around the country are exploring ways to provide quality educational options online. Simply allowing students to enroll in any online class and use those credits for graduation is risky; students are bound to stumble across a class that demands little from them and, consequently, is not valuable to them.

Likewise, limiting student options to what local districts provide is akin to letting beachgoers swim only in tide pools.

This bill also creates a feedback system for parents and students. The result will be a guide to course selection similar to Consumer Reports. Parents and students will rate courses and offer comments on their experiences, and these ratings will be made available to help other students as they consider their options.

SB 1259 gives students more options and should give parents a consumer guide to online courses. Updates such as these help create an effective digital education environment for all students.

Jonathan Butcher is Education Director for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Cane Toads, Virtual Schools, and Unintended Consequences

Goldwater Institute: Keeping Up with the Speed of Virtual Education

Goldwater Institute: School Choice and the Future of Online Education

Education Week: Spotlight Turns Toward Virtual Ed. Accountability

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education, Legislation, State Government

Keeping up with the speed of virtual education

March 22, 2012 By 4 Comments

By Jonathan Butcher

In 1947, military experts were trying to build an aircraft that wouldn’t lose control at high speeds so a pilot could fly faster than the speed of sound. Pilots were afraid to accelerate beyond the sound barrier for fear they would never recover control of their plane.

Chuck Yeager, then a 24-year-old test pilot, took the challenge in an experimental aircraft and broke the sound barrier on October 14. “There was no buffet, no jolt, no shock. Above all, no brick wall to smash into,” Yeager told Popular Mechanics 40 years later.

Arizona legislators have the opportunity to cross another invisible boundary. SB 1259, sponsored by Sen. Rich Crandall, helps students move as fast as the speed of virtual education. While there is much we do not know about virtual education and we can’t anticipate all possible consequences, online education is a part of the 21st century’s educational landscape. The question is not whether students will take courses online but how they can access classes and how many they can take.

SB 1259 creates a system for Arizona to approve courses, direct funding, and test student mastery.

The bill considers several elements necessary for a sound system of quality online options and parental choice:

  1. Choice: The program allows students in grades 7-12 to take up to 2 courses online in core subjects required for graduation.
  2. Funding: The bill funds schools partly based on student performance. Virtual providers will need to prepare students for end-of-course assessments in order to receive full funding for each student.
  3. Quality: Parents will review their child’s experience, and the reviews will be made public in order to help others consider their options.

Online learning holds the potential to provide new opportunities to all students. SB 1259 begins to create a structure for digital learning, and not a moment too soon.

Jonathan Butcher is Education Director for the Goldwater Institute. 

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Cane Toads, Virtual Schools, and Unintended Consequences

Arizona State Legislature: SB 1259

Popular Mechanics: Gen. Chuck Yeager Describes How He Broke the Sound Barrier

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education, State Government

Rationing by Any Other Name

March 21, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By Diane Cohen

Just over a week ago, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved legislation to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (“IPAB”), and did so in an overwhelmingly bi-partisan fashion. This should come as no surprise because IPAB had bi-partisan opposition before it was enacted as part of the President’s healthcare law in March 2010, and opposition to it has only grown since then. The full House will vote on the measure on Thursday.

IPAB represents the worst of the President’s health care law and has been at the forefront of the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit challenging the Act. IPAB will be composed of 15 presidentially-appointed, unelected bureaucrats who will have sweeping powers; their decision cannot be reversed by Congress or the courts, and are subject to no meaningful Congressional oversight.

Because IPAB is not required to be bipartisan, President Obama could use his power to make recess appointments, as he has done before. That means he could stack the board entirely with members of his own party, who could then exercise all of the board’s powers. Even worse, while the board is meant to have 15 members, there’s no requirement that it must. The President could give all of this power to just one person by appointing only one board member, or appoint none, in which case his Secretary of Health and Human Services would exercise the power.

IPAB will have the power to dictate whether and how much medical providers can be reimbursed for medical care provided to seniors, which means it can decide not to reimburse for services in any manner it sees fit. That is why IPAB is a rationing board. And despite the law’s prohibition on rationing, that term is not actually defined in the law. “Rationing” will be whatever IPAB says it will be, with no judicial check on its decision.

IPAB is independent all right, but in the worst sense of the word. It is independent of Congress, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people. Far from representing reform, IPAB will reduce access to and the quality of care for millions of Americans. Call your Representatives and ask them to vote for H.R. 452, the IPAB repeal bill. It is time for Congress to step up and rein in this literally uncontrollable board.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

House of Representatives’ switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Goldwater Institute: Diane Cohen’s Congressional testimony

Goldwater Institute: Coons v. Geithner

Filed Under: Health Care, States Rights

Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant – Even on Campus

March 20, 2012 By 1 Comment

By Carrie Ann Sitren

As national Sunshine Week comes to a close, some legislators are trying to close out the sunshine. A new proposal would expand a current exemption to Arizona’s Public Records Laws and limit public information at universities.

Private research groups and ASU are spearheading the effort to keep more of their research private. Current law already protects some intellectual property and trade secrets from being released to the public so that competitors cannot copy university research before it is copyrighted. But the groups are trying to expand the protections to protect information in all university contracts that merely contain a statement of confidentiality.

This means that a contract between the university and any employee, consultant, or any other private group or individual can be kept out of public view. However, courts have already determined that a public body cannot contract out of its duty to disclose public records. Instead, the public has a right to monitor the government’s activities, including university contracts and research. That right is guaranteed by Arizona’s Public Records Laws.

The new proposal further proclaims an emergency, stating that it must be passed immediately in order to preserve the public peace, health or safety. It is difficult to imagine such an urgent need to limit public access to university records, or why the normal procedure for passing new legislation isn’t perfectly adequate.

Whatever the research groups and universities are trying to accomplish, the proposed legislation stretches too broadly and attempts to rush through a significant limitation on the public’s right to access information of public importance. If the current protections should be expanded at all, they should be tailored to address specific problems that are not met by existing law and thoughtfully considered with an eye towards letting in the sunshine.

Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Arizona State Legislature: HB 2272 (PDF)

Arizona Daily Sun: Use Sunshine Week to Insist on Open Government Records

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Constitutional Law, Legislation, State Government

Local Control – Sometimes

March 19, 2012 By 5 Comments

By Clint Bolick

Whenever local bureaucrats or special-interest groups want to neutralize conservative legislators, one of their most-potent weapons is two words: “local control.”

If the Legislature wants to curb excessive taxes, demand transparency, end union give-aways, align election dates, or anything that trenches on the power of local government, “local control” is the argument of choice to stymie reform — and it often succeeds.

The notion that the best government is the government closest to home is embedded in the American tradition. It conjures nostalgic images of town-hall meetings and other forms of civic engagement.

But the reality is that many local governments have grown large and distant from their citizens. Few voters are engaged in local elections — in part because they often occur on random dates. And newer types of local governments, such as special districts and regional authorities, are experiencing explosive growth yet are almost completely immune to democratic constraints.

What’s worse, local governments often are manipulated by special interests, especially unions. Our Constitution’s framers predicted this. “The smaller the society, the smaller probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it,” warned James Madison in The Federalist No. 10, making it easier for special interests to “concert and execute their plans of oppression.”

Our national government derives its powers from the states. So too do local governments, which possess only those powers expressly conferred by the state. Local and state government powers are intended to balance and constrain each other, so as to protect freedom.

Local governments affect our daily lives more than any other — from police and fire to schools, property and business regulations, and the most basic public services. Protections at the state level against local overreach are both essential and appropriate.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: It’s Time to Burst the Special-Interest Election Bubble

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, City Government, Constitutional Law, County Government, Government Reform, State Government

Arizona must choose the right path on tax policy

March 15, 2012 By 2 Comments

By Stephen Slivinski

On March 12, the state senate in Oklahoma passed a bill that would immediately turn the state’s income tax into a flat tax, cut the tax rate in half, and strip away the extraneous tax credits and special carve-outs. Then, over a 10-year period, it would slowly phase the income tax out of existence by cutting the rates each year until they reach zero.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, special interests filed a ballot initiative for November that would extend the “temporary” sales tax increase passed by voters in 2010. Additionally, the initiative will lock-in automatic future increases in education spending, burdening taxpayers with ever-higher tax bills. Passage of this initiative will also guarantee that Arizona’s average state and local sales tax rate remains the second highest in the nation.

There is another path, however. The Speaker’s “jobs bill” (HB 2815), which has already passed the House, would eliminate the capital gains tax in Arizona, something no state with an income tax has yet done. In addition, the House has also passed HB 2123, which creates a tax-reform commission that will consider proposals to eliminate the income tax altogether, and issue recommendations by October.

This year, voters and policymakers will have a clear choice on what path tax policy in Arizona should take. Should we choose the path of high tax rates, a tax base with all sorts of special carve-outs, and business as usual at the Capitol? Or should we choose the path that lowers tax rates, makes the tax code more sane, and sets the state up for robust job growth and entrepreneurial activity that could make the state an economic powerhouse?

The choice is clear. Oklahoma has taken its first step down the right path. Arizona should too.

Stephen Slivinski is a senior economist with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Wall Street Journal: The Heartland Tax Rebellion

Oklahoma State Senate: Statement on the Passage of Tax Reform Bill SB 1571

Goldwater Institute: Unleashing Entrepreneurial Forces: States Can Spark Business Creation, Attract Venture Capital Investment, and Increase Job Growth by Eliminating Taxation of Capital Gains

Goldwater Institute: Investing in Arizona: How the Legislature Can Get Arizona’s Economy Moving Again by Reducing the Barriers to Investment and Job Creation

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Economic Development, Economics, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, Taxation

Education Savings Account Expansion Will Help Hispanic Students

March 14, 2012 By 5 Comments

By Jonathan Butcher

Every student in a failing school should have better options. In Arizona, the largest failing schools enroll a high concentration of Hispanic students— students that, nationally, are at a high risk of dropping out and have low college attendance rates. Among the 20 largest public schools that received a “D” on their state report card, 71 percent of the students are Hispanic. (see chart here)

HB 2626 expands Arizona’s education savings account program to students in failing schools (along with children in military families and academically gifted students). This measure will offer options to many parents, especially in Hispanic communities.

State Sen. Steve Gallardo was quoted in the Arizona Republic last week saying the savings account program is “not aimed toward Hispanic kids” and that “White Republicans” have done “nothing” to help “Hispanic kids go to college.” These data on Arizona’s failing schools coupled with the proposed expansion of education savings accounts to students in “D” schools suggest the opposite.

Christina Martinez, representing the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options (HCREO) and the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, testified in support of HB 2626 last week. “We know that only about 50 percent of Latinos finish high school on time and only 13 percent of Latinos will go on to college,” she said. “We believe many of these instances are due to an educational environment that is not conducive to the needs of the student.”

“And because of this, we feel that if the system is failing, a student’s parents should have the option to enroll their child in a setting that is conducive. Furthermore, they should be able to use any and all resources available to them,” Martinez said.

Expanding education savings accounts to students in failing schools will help those students most in need of more options.

Jonathan Butcher is the education director for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Arizona State Legislature: Arizona Senate Finance Committee video, March 8, 2012

Arizona Republic: Democratic lawmaker opposes use of cute Latino kids

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education, State Government

Support Public Pension Reform

March 13, 2012 By 4 Comments

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

I’ll be blunt. Last year’s tepid reforms to the state’s pension systems were not enough.

Those reforms were probably about as far as the legislature could go and keep the pension systems in place for all future and existing public employees. But the only reform that can begin to dig us out of the financial hole pension systems represent would move all new employees to 401(k) plans. So far, that has been more than the legislature has wanted to bite off.

In the meantime, even the modest reforms passed last year have been under legal assault. The state recently lost a lawsuit in its bid to require employees in the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) to contribute a greater share of the pension system’s costs. Another lawsuit by judges would block any increases in their share of pension system costs and block modest limits on cost of living adjustments.

Judges participate in the Elected Official Retirement Plan (EORP) where employee contributions have been held to 7 percent of salary for at least a decade. Meanwhile, taxpayers are now contributing an average rate of almost 30 percent of salary, up from 7 percent a mere 10 years ago.

At least ASRS participants see their contributions rise and fall with taxpayers’. These judges are insisting that they not face any of the risk of their own retirements, even while they are still working.

Representative Kavanagh has proposed HCR 2060, a constitutional amendment to explicitly allow increases in EORP member pension fund contributions and to allow reductions in cost of living adjustments. This is minimal protection for taxpayers, especially when the judges who decide whether reforms are legal have a conflict of interest with the taxpayers they are sworn to protect.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn more:

Arizona Capitol Times: Judge overturns Arizona pension law change

Arizona Republic: Put-upon judges to defend their cushy pensions — in court

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Economics, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Jobs/Labor, State Budget, State Economy, State Government

Time to End the ‘Meet and Confer’ Shakedown

March 7, 2012 By 1 Comment

by Nick Dranias

Government unions claim “meet and confer” collective bargaining only promotes innocent brainstorming between government employees and employers about work conditions. But in reality, as with any other collective bargaining law, meet and confer laws legalize a shakedown of the taxpayer.

Government Union InfographicLike a “discussion” conducted under the threat of a business “accident,” meet and confer laws ensure collective bargaining in Arizona is conducted under the very real threat of costly litigation. Such laws empower government unions to sue government employers for failing to negotiate in “good faith” whenever the employer refuses to yield to union demands. And government unions routinely sue government employers to meet their negotiating demands.

As a result, it should be no wonder that meet and confer collective bargaining costs Arizona taxpayers $550 million per year in outsized wages and unsustainable benefits. The legal compulsion leveraged by government unions is not offset by the fact that elected officials ultimately must approve the deal that is struck.

As the Arizona Republic reports, neither elected officials nor the media are able to monitor collective bargaining, which is typically kept secret by meet and confer laws. Elected officials rarely read or understand the hundreds of pages of labor agreements they must approve every year. And willful ignorance is encouraged by the fact government unions do not hesitate to threaten the political careers of elected officials unless they approve those agreements.

In the final analysis, meet and confer laws encourage government unions to apply legal and political force to control both sides of the bargaining table. This inevitably skews any negotiation over wages, benefits and work conditions to their advantage and to the detriment of the taxpayer—as evidenced by the outrageous phenomena of “release time,” in which union officials are put on the government payroll but work exclusively for the union.

Even if release time is banned or struck down, leaving the power of a legalized shakedown in the hands of government unions will only allow new abuses to take its place. Only a structural reform in the way government does business with unions can prevent such future abuses. For this reason, SB 1485’s total ban on government sector collective bargaining remains absolutely essential to protecting Arizona taxpayers from being fleeced by government unions.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Save Taxpayers Tens of Billions of Dollars

Arizona State Legislature: SB 1485

Arizona Republic: Surprise drops curtain on police, fire union negotiations

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Government Reform, Jobs/Labor, State Government

Cane Toads, Virtual Schools, and Unintended Consequences

February 29, 2012 By Leave a Comment

By Jonathan Butcher

In 1935, Australia had a problem with beetles. The bugs were destroying the nation’s sugar cane crop, so, to combat the pests, lawmakers introduced over 100 Cane Toads to the continent.

While the toads took care of the beetles, Australia now has 200 million Cane Toads and an ongoing problem controlling these amphibians. Cane Toads are poisonous and threaten many native species, including snakes and freshwater crocodiles.

“You cannot always predict the results of purposeful action,” writes Steven M. Gillon in That’s Not What We Meant to Do, a book describing the unintended consequences from many 20th century policies (he cites Australia’s toad problem as an illustration of how we need to be saved from our own solutions sometimes).

In Arizona, SB 1259 attempts to remedy a problem with the state’s virtual school funding system. Currently, virtual schools receive funding for each student that enrolls, even if the student does not master the material at the end of the course. SB 1259 creates a system similar to Florida’s Virtual School, wherein the school receives a sizable percentage of its funding only after a student completes a course and can demonstrate what they have learned.

However, SB 1259 creates an incentive for virtual schools to give all students at least a C-, the mark at which a student has to score in order for the school to receive 85 percent of student funding. Grade inflation could become an unintended consequence of the measure.

SB 1259 addresses important parts of the virtual school law and shows the state’s policies are maturing. But lawmakers will have to watch for unintended consequences and be prepared to revise the measure so that it appropriately fits the world of online education.

Jonathan Butcher is the Education Director for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Education Next: Florida’s Online Option

Arizona State Legislature: SB 1259

Australian Government: Policy on Cane Toads (PDF)

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education, Legislation, State Government

Good government, not Armageddon

February 28, 2012 By 17 Comments

By Nick Dranias

Somebody hit the panic button too quickly at the Arizona Republic. A couple of weeks ago, its editorial board declared plans for a Regulatory Tax Credit would result in “regulatory Armageddon.”

No doubt the tax credit has the potential to encourage serious regulatory reform. It would allow victims of excessive regulation to bill the government for its regulatory overreach. But, far from Armageddon, the initial impact of the pilot program proposed by the Arizona House Leadership is downright tiny.

Beginning in 2015, the reform would give taxpayers only a modest tax credit — $1,000 per tax year for individuals and $3,000 per tax year for corporations. The total for all credits would be capped at $800,000 per year—an infinitesimal 0.02% of the $3.4 billion in annual state income tax revenues.

Given the tax credit’s tiny fiscal footprint, the real question is: Why would anyone be against it?

It can’t be the cost of administration. Estimated administrative costs would be roughly $350,000 per year. That’s $50,000 less than what Phoenix recently paid for a single study of excessive government employee compensation.

It can’t be tax evasion. The handful of taxpayers who would claim a regulatory tax credit would paint a target on their backs, risking tax audits if they make frivolous claims.

And it can’t be the definition of “excessive regulation.” To trigger a tax credit, the taxpayer must show that a regulation does not verifiably protect public health and safety or guard against fraud, dangerous occupations or harmful property uses and conditions. This is the very definition of a needless regulation.

Yes, the Regulatory Tax Credit would modestly require the government to foot the bill of excessive regulations for affected taxpayers. Hopefully someday the program will expand. But this would only motivate governments to consider more seriously how and whether to regulate people and businesses. It would not repeal a single regulation government was willing to pay for.

That’s good government – not “regulatory Armageddon.”

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: The Missing Reform: Regulatory Tax Credits

Arizona Legislature: Nick Dranias Testimony in support of HB2815 (at 3:52)

Arizona Republic: Measure Itself Is Excessive

Arizona Republic: Tax credit could guard against regulatory abuse

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Economic Development, Government Reform, Legislation, State Economy, State Government

Time for State to Look to GM on Pensions

February 23, 2012 By 26 Comments

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

General Motors is moving 19,000 salaried workers off its pension plan to a 401(k) plan. The move will help reduce the risk GM’s pension poses to the company and investors, including the federal government – i.e., the American taxpayer. GM’s unfunded pension balance is currently $8.7 billion. GM’s profits in 2011 were $7.6 billion.

The new retirement plan makes sense for the company and for employees, who can now take an ownership stake in their retirement savings.

State governments would do well to consider taking similar steps. Arizona’s pension systems have a combined unfunded balance of $16 billion – an official total that is arguably low. State General Fund revenues stand at $8.4 billion, a position far more precarious than GM’s.

Moving state employees to 401(k)-style retirement plans not only makes fiscal sense, but would greatly reduce the risk to taxpayers, who, unlike investors in private companies, cannot simply opt-out of the risk by selling stock.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is Director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Joint Legislative Budget Committee: Historical General Fund Revenue Collections (PDF)

DailyFinance: General Motors Meets on Revenues, Misses on EPS

New York Times: G.M. Changes Pensions for Salaried Workers

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Economics, Spending, State Budget, State Economy, State Government

No More Tax Credits for Hollywood

February 22, 2012 By 1 Comment

By Stephen Slivinski

It’s like a bad re-run. A few legislators are trying to revive Arizona’s film production tax credit (SB 1170) that lapsed in 2011.

According to the last annual report on the effectiveness of the credit, in 2009 four media companies completed production on credit-approved projects. After taking into consideration the small bit of sales tax revenue the film generated while in production, the state paid out a net of just over $2 million in tax credits. That’s an average of half a million dollars per project.

How many jobs did that create? About 41 jobs directly related to the project and another 20 that were presumably from the ripple effect on the local economy. An analysis by economists at the W.P. Carey School at Arizona State University shows that these jobs were temporary and, thus, the post-production employment impact of this tax credit was “minimal.”

States like Washington and Iowa terminated their film credit programs last year and others have suspended them until their effectiveness can be studied. The general consensus among analysts is that these credits cost more than they’re worth and their existence owes more to star-struck policymakers than it does to economic logic.

The legislature this year, just as they did last year, should avoid putting Arizona taxpayers back on the hook for film production. Arizona doesn’t need to buy another ticket to this overpriced flop.

Stephen Slivinski is a Senior Economist for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Arizona Department of Commerce: Motion Picture Production Tax Incentive Annual Report for 2009 (PDF)

Tax Foundation: Report on Film Tax Credit (2011)

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Arts, Economic Development, Economics, Legislation, Movies, State Budget, State Government, Taxation

Digital Learning: A Game Changer for American Indian Students

February 21, 2012 By 1 Comment

By Jonathan Butcher

American Indian students are more likely to live in poverty and face unemployment later in life. These children carry the burdens of geographic isolation and multi-generational poverty that are heavy to lift.

In my conversations with state leaders on ways to help students in chronically failing schools—ideas such as expanding eligibility for education savings accounts and allowing parents to petition to convert a failing school to a charter school—policymakers regularly cite the unique challenges presented by American Indian students.

Digital and online learning opportunities offer hope. As Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Dan Lips explains in his new Policy Brief, Digital Learning: Improve Educational Opportunities for American Indian Students, online programs can be made available to any student and would increase educational opportunities in rural areas and on reservations.

Over 300,000 American Indians from 21 tribes call Arizona home, and American Indian students comprise 5 percent of the state’s K-12 population. These students score well below their white peers on the nation’s report card, often lagging behind other minority groups such as African American and Hispanic students. Among 4th graders, 70 percent of American Indian students score below the basic level. Only 8 percent can read at grade level.

Lips’ Policy Brief explains how policymakers can incorporate blended-learning programs into the classroom; provide a specific option for children attending Bureau of Indian Education schools to allow them to enroll in Arizona Online Instruction classes; expand private school choice programs to offer full or partial scholarships to American Indian students to enroll in virtual school courses; and create a Federal Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Virtual School.

Reasonable people can disagree about what’s best for American Indians in the 21st century. But everyone agrees that more quality educational choices for children of any heritage are worth pursuing.

Jonathan Butcher is the Education Director for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Digital Learning: Improved Educational Opportunities for American Indian Students

Arizona Department of Education: 2007 Indian Education Annual Report

Arizona Republic: Arizona’s American Indians

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education

Save Money, Double Turnout with Consolidated Local Elections

February 15, 2012 By 13 Comments

By Lucy Morrow Caldwell

Ask any grassroots activist and he’ll tell you that getting out the vote is tough, because the majority of Arizonans have busy lives beyond the ballot-box. Worse still, with elections happening at a variety of times throughout a two-year cycle, many voters don’t know when an election is taking place.

This gives special-interest groups the upper hand because they can turn out their supporters on obscure election days while regular Arizonans are left in the dark.

This could all change with a single piece of legislation.

HB 2826, a bill currently moving its way through the Arizona Legislature, conforms all election dates across the state—from bond to municipal to statewide—to occur in the August-November cycle of even-numbered years.

In Scottsdale, where municipal elections have been consolidated to Novembers in even-numbered years since 2008, voter participation has ranged from 60 percent to over 85 percent. Previously, when Scottsdale municipal elections occurred in the springtime, voter turnout rarely rose above 30 percent.

Voter turnout suffers in cities without consolidated election dates.

Less than 30 percent of registered voters turned out in Phoenix’s 2011 mayoral election, and only 25 percent voted in the council races in 2009. Tucson’s 2011 mayoral election turned out just over 30 percent of registered voters.

This is not an indicator of voter apathy in those cities. When Tucson placed a municipal ballot question on the 2010 general election ballot, over 60 percent of registered voters participated.

The Arizona Legislature has a long history of pursuing legislation to increase citizen participation in the voting process—the motor-voter initiative, the permanent early voting list, and other voter-awareness campaigns. HB 2826 is the natural next step to increase voter participation across the state and make Arizonans’ voices heard.

Special interest groups that enjoy advancing their agendas under the radar in off-cycle elections are likely to oppose HB 2826. But the measure is a slam-dunk for Arizonans who want to give all voters a voice in elections at every level of government.

Lucy Morrow Caldwell is the external affairs manager at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Arizona Legislature: House Bill 2826

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Government Reform, Legislation, State Government

Let’s Open the Door to Compassionate Volunteers

February 14, 2012 By 2 Comments

By Diane Cohen

As you read this, hundreds of doctors and other health care professionals are ready to come to Arizona to provide free medical care for those in need. They are volunteers from around the country, who pay their own travel, room and board so that they can donate their skills over the course of several days at free medical clinics.

These volunteers do not need government funding or reimbursements. They do not care if those they serve have insurance, because they would not take it anyway. The only thing these volunteers need is for the government to get out of the way by allowing them to come to our state to serve.

Remote Area Medical (RAM) is one such group, which brings together medical professionals to serve in free medical clinics in the United States and around the world. RAM provides everything from free diabetes screening to dental surgery, vision tests, free eyeglasses and even veterinary care, to those in America’s inner cities, rural areas and on reservations.

Since 1985, RAM’s thousands of volunteers have treated more than half a million people through more than 660 free medical clinics.

Stan Brock, RAM’s iconic and inspirational founder, dreams of a world where people help each other, “just because they can,” but says the biggest obstacle to providing free care is not the lack of volunteers, but their inability to cross state lines and donate their expertise due to restrictive state licensing laws.

Inspired by RAM, Senator Nancy Barto introduced SB 1189, which would amend Arizona law by providing a temporary exemption from our licensing laws to volunteer medical providers who are licensed in good standing in other states. The law would also open the door for other, similar charitable organizations to aid Arizonans.

A committee hearing will be held on the bill this Wednesday, February 15, at 2 p.m., in Senate Hearing Room 1. With its passage, Arizona would join Illinois and Tennessee, which have passed similar laws.

Let’s open our doors to that which makes America great: its people, who more than any government ever could, want to help others just because they can.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Arizona Legislature: Contact your legislator to share your opinion on this bill

Remote Area Medical: RAM Website

CBS News: 60 Minutes profile of RAM

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Government Reform, Legislation, State Government

What to Do about Accountability in Education

February 13, 2012 By 3 Comments

By Jonathan Butcher

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the primary federal education law for K-12 public schools, was signed by George W. Bush a decade ago. Heralded by many as a great bipartisan agreement, NCLB ushered in a new era of accountability for public schools and, for the first time, required schools to show evidence of student achievement or face consequences.

But NCLB was a compromise, and no one was completely happy with the plan. NCLB applies to a system with diverse stakeholders and powerful, entrenched interest groups, so we should have anticipated the derision the law receives today from all sides. In addition, the law required states to use high-stakes tests as a yardstick for student achievement, and some schools and teachers gamed the system by teaching to the test or simply cheating outright.

But because of NCLB, the first decade of the new century may be considered the era of education accountability. This is especially true in Arizona, where schools are growing into their new A-through-F school and district grading system — the system that is replacing labels such as “performing” and “performing plus.”

But if you look at the fine print, you will notice that the range is actually from “A” to “D,” since a school must earn a “D” for multiple years before being labeled an “F.”

State leaders quickly recognized this needed to be addressed or some schools would find ways to cut corners, much like what happened under NCLB. The Arizona Legislature is considering a bill—HB 2663—to allow the state board of education to classify a school as an “F” sooner. Otherwise, schools could flounder with a “D” for multiple years before taking serious measures to improve.

HB 2663 is an important adjustment to the system, and the details of the law and implementation will be critical. No school wants an “F,” but it’s more important that parents know the truth about their school and can find better educational opportunities immediately.

Jonathan Butcher is education director for the Goldwater Institute. 

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: My school got a D, now what?

Washington Post: No Excuses for Atlanta’s Cheating Scandal

Arizona Department of Education: A-F Accountability

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Education, Legislation
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »