For Immediate Release: Friday, March 12, 2010

The following statement is attributed to Speaker Kirk Adams on recent Arizona Board of Regents actions:

“Over the last two days, the Board of Regents has tackled difficult issues regarding the future financial position of our public universities and the impacts of their decisions on our students, their parents, and faculty. Our state’s financial troubles, coupled with increased demand and higher costs, require the Board to seek fiscal alternatives that will hopefully protect the quality and integrity of our public universities. Their continued leadership will ensure that our public universities do not eliminate valuable public services that not only move our economy forward but allow our citizenry access to a better life while still seeking efficiencies in the system.

Today, the Board of Regents directed the University Presidents to develop an implementation plan to reduce state supported salaries by 2.75 percent by May 2010. This gesture of solidarity and recognition that other state employees are losing pay and will be furloughed in the next three years demonstrates that the Regents are aware that everyone must contribute to the difficult solutions that we have made as we resolve Arizona’s worst fiscal crisis ever.

I encourage the Regents in their efforts to analyze universities’ operating budgets for cost efficiencies and look forward to working with the Board of Regents, President Crow, President Haegar and President Shelton as we pursue higher education reform. Last year, I supported the Regents, “Arizona Productivity Improvement Imperative” and am extremely proud of Arizona’s $1.5 million grant from the Lumina Foundation. In my letter of support, I stated that economic development depends in great part on innovation and access to a skilled and prepared workforce. I believe that our higher education system can meet that challenge through a student centered system that produces more degrees at a lower cost and a finance model that optimizes productivity.

Now that the FY2011 budget is near to completion, the Legislature must focus its attention on economic recovery and job creation. HB2250 will create the groundwork toward a strong and diversified Arizona economy. To that end, we must also partner with an equally strong higher education system — one that recruits and trains the talent necessary to meet workforce demands. Next month, I will visit each of our three universities and meet with institutional and business leaders to develop a strategy to combine our respective resources toward the common goal – a long-term, sustainable and prosperous economy.”

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX—A rural school district in Yavapai County, Arizona, has gone to court to stop four taxpayers from seeking any public records from the district, from suing the district and from filing complaints about the district with state oversight agencies. The Goldwater Institute has agreed to represent the four women and today requested that the Yavapai County Superior Court dismiss the case.

“Is every parent going to be afraid now to request records about their children, which they are entitled to see?” said Barbara Rejon, one of the defendants. “Are taxpayers no longer going to be allowed to see records about how a school district spends money? If the school district can do this, it’s going to shut everyone down. No one is going to be able to ask questions or anything.”

The Congress Elementary School District is located in southwest Yavapai County near Wickenburg. In January 2010, the school district filed a court motion for a preliminary injunction against Ms. Rejon, Jean Warren, Renee Behl-Hoge and Cyndi Regis. The district claims the four women have been harassing local officials with repeated requests for information about school district operations.

Goldwater Institute Investigative Reporter Mark Flatten wrote Wednesday about the lawsuit and the efforts of these four women to hold the district accountable for complying with state law. Most of the time, the women have requested basic public records such as minutes and agendas for school board meetings. Such documents are widely recognized as protected by Arizona’s public records law and should be available for review upon request by anyone. Behl-Hoge, Regis and Rejon also have sought school records about their own children, as parents are guaranteed access to such records under both state and federal laws.

Mr. Flatten found the Congress school district has a history of violating these laws, as documented by the state attorney general and the state ombudsman.

Shortly after learning about the district’s lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation offered to represent the four women.

“The district is acting like a classic schoolyard bully,” said Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute director of litigation. “We will take whatever action is necessary to protect our clients’ rights and to deter other government officials from even thinking about taking such outrageous actions to silence citizens.”
 
If the Congress school district’s lawsuit is successful, it could inspire other governments in Arizona to pursue legal action against taxpayers that request information. Mr. Flatten quoted assistant state ombudsman Liz Hill as saying many other government agencies have discussed filing similar lawsuits to curtail the number of requests they receive for public records.

To learn more about this lawsuit, Congress School District v. Warren, click here, or to read Mr. Flatten’s investigation click here. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
 
To get Goldwater Institute news and information direct to your cell phone click here.

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Through the magic of public access television, I recently watched debate before the state House of Representatives on bills to reform the tuition scholarship tax credit program. I’m happy to report that legislators engaged in a substantive discussion and adopted amendments from both parties.

Congratulations to Representative Rick Murphy for bringing an important and helpful bill, HB2663, to the House. His bill will strengthen oversight through several steps, including empowerment of the state Department of Revenue to revoke the designation of “Student Tuition Organization” for rogue scholarship groups.

I was also impressed with the level of debate from House Democrats. In years past, I’ve had the impression many of these elected officials were content to complain about the scholarship tax credits, but they were not serious about doing anything to address their concerns. In this debate, I saw serious proposals offered.

For instance, Representative Steve Farley offered a floor amendment to allow the Department of Revenue to collect a fee from STOs to fund better oversight. Farley made a convincing case that state government is moving towards user fees during this economic downturn, and scholarship groups ought to be included. The amendment wasn’t adopted. But a fee of less than one-half of 1 percent on the total amount each STO raises each year should provide sufficient funding and merits further consideration.

Other amendments would have required that scholarships funded by the individual tax credits go to students from low-income families, and would have forbidden STOs from considering any recommendations from donors about who should receive scholarships. Reasonable people can and have disagreed on these subjects.

Only the Internal Revenue Service can ultimately determine the legality of donor recommendations. I’ve seen legal opinions going both ways. In the meantime, HB 2663 specifies that donor recommendations cannot be the sole reason any student receives a scholarship, and scholarship groups must consider financial need as a part of their criteria.

No one is getting everything they desire from these reforms. But this bill represents a positive step towards improving transparency and accountability in the program if the Senate and the governor also approve it.

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

By Justin Olson

In Maricopa County, more than half of the districts with override elections on next week’s ballot are asking voters to approve an override that the voters already rejected. In all but one of those districts, the voters rejected the overrides only four months ago. In some districts, such as Dysart Elementary and Union Elementary, the defeats were resounding with “no” votes outnumbering “yes” votes by more than 2 to 1.

The message these districts are sending is clear: The taxpayers don’t get to say no. The districts are now spending taxpayer dollars to put the same questions before the voters when the voters have already spoken with a strong voice rejecting the overrides.

Last year’s legislation authorizing an expansion of school district overrides also provided one-time authorization for a March election so that districts could implement overrides under the new limits. Districts could not implement the new limits in November because the new limits became effective after the November elections. This legislation specified that districts could cancel their November elections in order to wait for the March election when the new limits would apply. Next week’s election was not intended to provide districts a second chance to ask voters to approve overrides that they rejected in November.

The override expansion that the Legislature passed last year increased the amount a school district can ask voters to approve in a general budget override known as the maintenance and operations (M&O) override. The new law increased the M&O override limit from 10% of a district’s budget to 15% in most cases and as high as 17% for certain elementary districts. ATRA opposed this override expansion for the following two reasons.

First, as some districts routinely pass multiple overrides and other districts operate with none, increasing school district funding through voter-approved overrides increases inequities among school districts.

The Arizona Constitution requires the state to establish a “general and uniform” school system. The courts have consistently ruled that this obligates the state to ensure a certain level of equality in school district expenditures and tax rates.

Expanding overrides increases inequities among school districts and puts the state at risk of costly lawsuits.

ATRA warned the Legislature of this constitutional concern when the Legislature considered passing this measure. No less than eleven days after the governor signed this legislation into law, two separate cases were filed in Superior Court suing the state to rectify existing inequities in public school expenditures.

Second, ATRA opposed this override expansion because it will lead to substantial property tax increases. This increase in override capacity could result in property tax increases of up to $193 million statewide.

While this 5% expansion of the M&O override replaces the 5% specialized K-3 override, the increases will result primarily because the general M&O override is utilized much more frequently. In 2009, there were 68 districts that levied the maximum M&O override but levied no K-3 override.

If the voters of these districts continue to support the M&O override at the maximum allowable level, the property taxpayers of these districts will see a $143 million increase in their bills. This increase comes on top of the $250 million record property tax increase that occurred last year with the reinstatement of the state equalization rate.

Some argue that tax increases should not be a concern if the voters are choosing to tax themselves. In many cases, the voters are not choosing to tax themselves but are actually authorizing the district to tax someone else as the bulk of the property taxes are paid by business owners. Due to Arizona’s assessment ratios, business owners pay more than double the amount of property taxes that a residential property owner pays on a similarly valued property. Arizona consistently ranks among the ten states with the highest business property taxes. These high taxes deter businesses that would otherwise locate in Arizona and provide our economy with sorely needed jobs.

Proponents of this override expansion sold the legislation as a necessary measure to allow districts to backfill cuts in state aid. While the override expansion allows a 5% increase in school district budgets, the implemented reductions were only 2.7% of the same budget limit.

With the use of federal funds, school districts have actually increased their spending during this fiscal crisis. A review of the fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 budgets of the districts in Maricopa County that have override questions on next week’s ballot shows revised 2010 budgets that on average are 6% higher than the amount the districts adopted in July 2008 before the fiscal crisis began.

Justin Olson is a senior research analyst for the Arizona Tax Research Association

Whew! Black History Month ended just in time to give Americans—exhausted from a month of vigorous celebrating—time to recover. Promoters of Brown History Month, Yellow History Month, Red History Month, White History Month and Green History Month will continue to have to wait for a month of their own. There was a time when we celebrated the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in February but Liberals put an end to that (be warned, they’re still working on exterminating Christmas). I wonder what Barack Obama does during Black History Month—since he’s only half black maybe he only celebrates half the month?

Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.

While we’re on the subject of needless celebrations maybe it’s time we resurrect one of the ancient celebrations and replace Black History Month with it. The Romans had some exciting ones to pick from and none of them have yet been ruined by Liberals. We could have it in February and best of all, all Americans could participate—not just the preferred few.

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Last week, I had the opportunity to discuss Florida’s education reforms on KAET-TV’s “Horizon” with Arizona Education Association President John Wright. We were discussing the Nation’s Report Card scores for Florida and I was surprised to hear Mr. Wright make the following claim: “The steepest increases that Florida saw in both reading and math scores were between 1994 and 2002–before most of these reforms took place.”
 
There are a few problems with this statement. First, the Florida legislature enacted most of the reforms in 1999, which falls between 1994 and 2002. Second, the Nation’s Report Card gives tests for fourth-grade reading and math, and for eighth-grade reading and math. Florida students, however, did not take a Nation’s Report Card test in 1994 for fourth-grade math, eighth-grade math or eighth-grade reading.
 
Florida’s fourth graders did take a test in reading in 1994. Between 1994 and 1998, Florida’s reading scores increased by two points. After the reforms, Florida’s scores increased by 18 points between 1998 and 2007. A 10-point gain equals about a grade level’s worth of learning.
 
Still, while I thought Mr. Wright had his dates mixed up, perhaps there was something to his assertion on trends.
 
But the truth turns out to be much different. Going back as far as possible into the 1990s for each subject, the average gain in scores before the reforms were adopted equaled four points. Post-reform, the average gain over nine years has been 20 points.
 
Mr. Wright also claimed that Arizona’s K-12 education budget cuts were “pulling the rug from beneath the teacher’s feet.” The 2008 Superintendent’s Financial Report, however, reveals the total revenue per pupil to be $9,707 while the 2009 Superintendent’s Financial Report reveals the latest figure at $9,424 per pupil: a whopping decline of $283 per pupil or less than 3 percent.
 
Someone is indeed trying to pull something–it’s the AEA trying to pull the wool over our eyes, not the Arizona legislature.

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

“Good morning, Citizen.  YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE!”

Representatives Carl Seel (R-LD6) and Frank Antenori (R-LD30) are doing what they think is right and what ostensibly is a good idea: to count illegals in the classroom in order to assess impact of their cost on the state education system.

The intention is right.  But what are the details?  How is this to be implemented?

Well, read the bill!

Text from HB2382:

…school districts shall collect and compile from the parents or legal guardians of all students enrolled in a public school, data concerning students who are enrolled in a public school and who cannot prove lawful presence in the United States.

How are the school districts going to do this?  How will they know who is here LEGALLY in the United States for the 95-99% of us who are law-abiding American citizens ?

Well, that’s obvious, schools will need to verify immigration status of ALL students, including law-abiding Arizona/US citizens.

As a parent, I know what *my* response is going to be when the school asks me to verify the citizenship status of my children.  I cannot post it here.  But it goes a little something like this: “@#$$%% @@!# &&%$##$^ !@#@$^&.”

Will that mean my child is prohibited from attending school?  Will that mean that I, an otherwise, law-abiding, taxpaying productive American citizen who is just sick and tired of government bureaucracy will end up in jail?

For the 99% of us who are citizens, how are we going to comply and what are the ramifications if we do not?

It is American tradition to not force the law-abiding citizen to have to undergo the yolk of government in order that the government can enforce laws against the non-law-abiding.  It is the government’s job to enforce against the non-law-abiding, not for them to heap on additional bureaucratic regulations and costs on the law-abiding because the government cannot or does not enforce its own laws.

The concepts of Reaganism were not only to reduce taxes, but also to reduce REGULATIONS. Regulations increase costs.  Furthermore, Reagan highlighted that government is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Heaping more government, more bureaucracy and more regulations on the law-abiding citizens of this nation is necessarily anti-liberty and AGAINST the legacy of the Reagan revolution.

Furthermore, these new enforcement mechanisms also necessarily require a national id system, a system to collect information on law-abiding students and families, a system to track law-abiding students and families, a system to enforce the regulations against non-compliant OTHERWISE law-abiding students and families, and then, lastly, the infrastructure to track and enforce against illegal immigration.

All of this involves costs, regulations, but most objectionable: the presumption of guilt against innocent law-abiding citizens by their government.

I know Reps Seel and Antenori are doing what they think is right.  I support enforcement against illegal immigration, but not at the cost of more spending, more regulation and abrogating the presumption of innocence against the 95%-99% of us who are, in fact, innocent.

There is a little something called the Law of Unintended Consequences.  In this case, humanity has been through this before historically.  The bible also weighs in on the numbering of human flesh.  I don’t think I need to elaborate further.

You cannot be anti-liberty and pro-liberty at the same time.  If Reps Seel and Antenori believe they are pro-liberty then they need to protect the liberty of law-abiding Arizona citizens and not heap additional burdens on their children and their families.

At a minimum, to protect those whose religious beliefs preclude placing a mark, the number of a man, in the mind or in the hand of human beings, there must be a religious exemption.

“Citizen, where are your papers?!?  Please come with me.”

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Governor Jan Brewer has been encouraging the universities to develop lower cost alternatives to getting a four-year degree. But, the state is bankrupt and will not be able to find additional money to help create such options.

I have an idea that would help, and it will not cost a dime.

A consulting firm recently presented a report to the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board with disturbing information about completion rates. The report found that 82 percent of community college students aim to get a degree, but only 11 percent of them have done so after three years. This completion rate puts MCCCD in the bottom 12 percent of all community college systems nationwide, the report says.

When we go to the university level, the results are little better. The Education Trust’s database of university statistics reveals the four-year graduation rates of Northern Arizona University, the University of Arizona, and Arizona State University to be 28.4 percent, 32.7 percent and 27.7 percent, respectively. Give students two more years and only UA cracks a 50 percent graduation rate.

Arizona’s system of higher education is doing an extremely poor job in matching students with colleges. There is a fine line between giving students an opportunity to seek an education despite previous academic failure, and simply using students as financial cannon fodder. Arizona obviously went screaming past that fine line many years ago.

We are not doing students any favors by encouraging them to run up thousands of dollars in debt to pay for school, only to flunk out. In addition, taxpayers should not subsidize six-year odysseys of self-discovery that half of the time fail to result in a university diploma

Arizona’s community colleges and universities should raise their admission standards for new students. Some, perhaps most, of the students flunking out of ASU, UA and NAU ought to be attending community colleges. Community colleges traditionally focus on remediation and are less costly to students and taxpayers.

If we would properly match students to institutions, our higher education system would both save taxpayers money and serve students better.

Those in higher education often are quick to point an accusing finger at the K-12 system for not preparing enough teenagers for college, and rightly so, but no one is forcing them to admit utterly unprepared students.

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
On March 10, 2009, President Barack Obama gave a major education speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In that speech, he declared that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan “will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars: It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.”

On March 13, 2009, Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D- Ill.) wrote of the Washington, D.C., scholarship program for students to improve their education by attending the school of their choice in the Chicago Tribune: “Many benefiting from this program want no questions asked about its efficacy. I think the taxpayers deserve better.”

As it turns out, the U.S. Department of Education has subjected both school vouchers and the popular early education program “Head Start” to random assignment studies. The results are now in: the voucher program improves reading scores and students’ satisfaction with their schools. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program works, and it is one of the few programs funded by the Department of Education about which we have supportive evidence of the highest possible scientific quality.

The Department found, however, that Head Start fails to produce lasting student gains when subjected to a random assignment evaluation.

Some have written that all of President Obama’s promises come with expiration dates, but perhaps that is unfair. If so, President Obama could keep the promise he made before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce by supporting the idea that works and calling for all Head Start funding to be transferred into the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

After all, as Senator Durbin said, the taxpayers deserve better.

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.

Is Tom Horne really the worst Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona history?

Many education reformers say it’s looking that way, based on objective measurements of the performance of Arizona schools during his seven-year tenure, and the on-going scandals that have rocked the Arizona Department of Education under his administration.

During Horne’s tenure, inflation-adjusted spending per student has increased more than 20%.  However, instead of academic achievement increasing, the results from Arizona schools has dropped.

Academic performance declines at Arizona schools under Horne

An article in today’s Arizona Republic reports:

“Arizona has received a C- for the overall quality of its K-12 education system based on national comparisons of factors such as school spending, academic standards and teacher training, according to the annual “Quality Counts” report card released this month.

Arizona was short of the national average, a C, and dropped from 43rd to 46th place among all 50 states in the national report by Editorial Projects in Education, the non-profit group that publishes “Education Week.”

This bad news is just the latest in a series of reports that make it clear that Tom Horne’s tenure as Superintendent has been one of declining performance by nearly all objective measures.

Matthew Lander, Vice President for Research at Arizona’s premier conservative think tank, the Goldwater Institute, reported last November that:

“The Nation’s Report Card released 2009 results on its 4th- and 8th- grade math test, and you can examine the results for Arizona and other states here.

The news is not good. Arizona has stalled out with bad scores.

With a score nine points below the national average, Arizona 4th graders know almost a grade level less math than the average American student. Florida and Texas–states with similar levels of spending and student demographics–both scored above the national average.

I noted previously that Arizona students have scored below the national average on 32 of 32 NAEP exams at various grade levels and subjects since the early 1990s. Now you can make that 34 of 34, with 4th and 8th grade reading results coming out in a few months.”

An August 2009 article in the Arizona Republic reported:

“Test scores released today may offer stark new evidence that Arizona isn’t preparing enough students to succeed in college.

Less than half of high-school juniors required to take a college-entrance exam in seven districts met the minimum scores in four subjects needed to be ready to pass college freshman-level courses. Barely over half met the minimum in one other district, Mesa Public Schools. The percentages of college-ready students were well below those in five states that mandate the exam for all juniors.

The results on the pilot ACT tests are a unique look at how the state equips all types of students to succeed in college-level courses.

In April, the eight districts administered the exam in English, reading, math and science to all juniors, even if the students didn’t plan to go to college. That contrasts with the annual ACT and SAT tests, which are taken voluntarily by often college-bound students.

Average scores on the ACT pilot test in all districts and all subjects were below what the testing firm’s research shows typical students need to succeed in college freshman courses.”

With one year remaining in his term of office, Horne’s performance as Superintendent is getting a closer look, and even supporters of Horne admit it’s difficult to put a positive spin on these reports of lower test scores.

Then there are the scandals.

Scandals Rock Arizona Department of Education

Josh Berstein of ABC 15 in reported in July that:

“For six days in July, hundreds of teachers from all across Arizona enjoyed an all-expense-paid visit to a four-star mountainside resort in Tucson.

There was a laundry list of classes offered at the conference, and teachers had the opportunity to learn critical skills to pass on to their students.

But while training was underway, we found many of the teachers lounging poolside. Is this your tax dollars hard at work?

… The alcohol was flowing and our cameras were rolling as dozens of teachers worked on their tans.

We found one teacher by the pool who told us her district spent more than $900 to send her.  ”I felt guilty because the one (class) I paid for yesterday was $40,” she said.  She then told us she didn’t even go.

We met another teacher who spent about five hours by the pool. His superintendent was at the conference and seemed to have no problem with one of his employees cooling off at your expense.

Your tax dollars also paid for friends and family to enjoy the resort.

Another teacher we met brought along her kids. She told us her school district paid for her trip.

One of the wives staying at the resort told us how much they enjoyed their stay.  ”Not too rough at all, especially, for us,” she said, “We don’t have to attend the meetings; we just get to hangout at the pool.”

Even their ride to Tucson was provided by you, the taxpayer. The parking lot was filled with school district vehicles.

… According to the registration desk, more than 1,200 educators attended the conference.  The average registration cost almost $1,000.  Tack on the hotel stay at $85 per night for five nights plus money for food and the cost was substantial.”

David Safier of Blog for Arizona reported in June 2008 that the Arizona Department of Education misdirected $6.4 million in taxpayer funds and was making no effort to recover the money.  Safier reports that an audit found the error was made by the Education Department, but that after the error was discovered,” Horne said, in essence, “My bad. Keep the $6.4 million.”

Tom Horne is also reported to have brought his personal life to work at taxpayer expense,  hiring a close personal friend named Carmen Chenal to work under him at the Department of Education.

According to the Phoenix New Times:

“Say you’re a lawyer, and you’ve gotten busted for doing the things that lawyers aren’t supposed to do. The Arizona Supreme Court, not surprisingly, takes away your law license.

You can’t practice law. So whaddaya do? If you were The Bird, you’d probably have to find another way to feather your nest. But if you’re Carmen Chenal, life is a bit easier. All you have to do is work your connections and get a cushy job with the state.

Here’s what happened: After receiving — and investigating — seven different complaints about Chenal, the Arizona Bar filed formal disciplinary charges against her. In August, the Supreme Court’s disciplinary commission found that she’d screwed up: She’d bounced checks to the court itself, failed to file appeals for one unfortunate client, and even attempted to file some stuff in Illinois, despite not being licensed to do legal work there. Chenal also presented claims barred by the statute of limitations, and, according to the court’s disposition summary, filed a lawsuit against someone but never bothered to make any allegations against them. Whoops!

So the Supreme Court told Chenal to pay $2,500 in restitution and cover the costs of the $1,018 investigation. It also suspended her license for 120 days and put her on probation for two years.

Most prospective employers would look at a record like that and run away screaming. But Tom Horne, Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, wasn’t that kind of prospective employer, the kind who cares about things like a good résumé and a history of doing the work someone’s paid to do.

After all, Horne wouldn’t be paying Chenal’s salary — that’s what taxpayers are for!

…Horne, surprisingly, was willing to take The Bird’s call. Not only that, he even volunteered that Chenal’s a former law partner and that, despite knowing all about her problems with her legal career, Horne personally recommended her hire.”

In August 2009, the Huffington Post reported that Horne was caught speeding in a school zone.  According to the Huffington Post:

“Horne (R) has been ticketed for speeding half a dozen times over the last eighteen months, including one ticket for speeding in a school zone and two tickets in the exact same location two days in a row.

… Horne also told the Arizona Republic that the ticket he received just outside of the Pappas school “was frustrating because there was no school.” Indeed, the school was closed down — but not until three months after Horne was cited for speeding in front of it.

When I asked Horne to clarify his story based on the timing of the school closure, he first stuck to his story, then said the ticket must have occurred after school hours “because I have no memory of seeing kids or crossing guards.”

In fact, Horne’s speeding incident occurred in the morning hours, on a school day, at just the time when students would be walking to the school.

Promotion as a reward for failure?

Horne is barred by term limits for running for a third term as Superintendent of Public Instruction.  However, he is now running for a higher-profile job, Arizona Attorney General.

The question is:  are voters willing to reward failure with a job promotion?

Although Horne worked briefly for the Arizona Attorney General’s office in the 1970s, he was a civil litigator and never prosecuted a single criminal case.

Given the managerial failures, poor performance and scandals that occurred during his tenure as Superintendent of Public Instruction, voters may be hesitant to promote Horne to be Arizona’s chief law enforcement officer.

In the meanwhile, Arizona’s children continue to suffer from a failing educational system.  According to Dr. Matthew Lander of the Goldwater Institute:

“Despite a reform push during the 1990s, the fact is that on the whole Arizona is a K-12 backwater and will remain so until it decides to get serious about reform. Since the 1990s, Arizona’s AIMS has been dummied down, and the positive impact of choice programs have been drowned by enrollment growth. Rome continues to burn, we continue to fiddle.”

Further Reading

Report: Education system in Arizona rates C-, State slips to No. 46 in nationwide report
New Nation’s Report Card shows AZ students almost a year behind in math
A Test of Credibility: NAEP versus TerraNova Test Score Results in Arizona
Arizona SAT scores slip in math and writing
Arizona teachers at 4-star resort, and you’re paying for it
Who Are the Latest Public Employees Going on Vacation at “Training” Resorts on the Taxpayer Dime? Arizona Teachers
More evidence Arizona not readying students enough
Tom Horne’s $6.4 Million Giveaway
AZ Schools Superintendent Caught Speeding in School Zone, Plus 5 Other Tickets, 2 Unpaid