Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

SV school board should avoid biased forums

Published/Last Modified on Friday, Dec 14, 2007 - 06:17:49 am MST

Font Size

To the Editor:

At the Dec. 3 school board meeting, Chuck Essigs, representing the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, and district business manager Michelle Quiroz presented what was advertised as a tutorial on Arizona school financing. However, the presentation contained much that appeared to be propaganda supporting overrides.

Half the presentation covered financing; the other half history and propaganda in the mold of that supporting the current maintenance and operations override. Included were the usual per pupil expenditure rankings showing Arizona at or near the bottom compared to the other states. Since money spent doesn’t necessarily relate to effectiveness and since the various states compute per pupil expenditures differently, I asked Mr. Essigs for rankings showing expenditure effectiveness. He didn’t have that information. The debates preceding the current override vote taught us that analyses of investment in and performance of schools throughout the country can be tailored to support a variety of preconceived conclusions. This presentation included the most popular “facts” related to Arizona being among the stingiest in funding. That, coupled with board member comments regarding the impact of state mandates requiring “the loss of librarians, art, music, physical education and the gifted program if the current override is not renewed,” that “the new state high school graduation requirements mean we’ll have to hire more math and science teachers, which means something else will have to go,” and that “90 percent of Arizona students attend schools with overrides” indicate the same punishments used to ensure passage of the current override are already being considered for its renewal.

Other propaganda showed inflation outpacing funding increases, without presenting data showing funding as insufficient to provide the desired level of education excellence. Without relating performance and performance goals to funding, one cannot judge funding level adequacy. Merely stating that funding has lagged inflation is biased. To show funding “rankings” without associated performance data or even associated funding data further biases the presentation. Since Mr. Essigs presented the National Education Association Rankings and Estimates (2006) ranking of Arizona teacher salary (not adjusted for cost of living) as 27th, he could have presented Arizona’s K-12 rankings in other areas from the NEA site (pardon the statistics) such as: total funding — 24th; funding from all sources — 21st; total enrollment — 15th; and total number of teachers — 24th. The Arizona Department of Education site shows all district schools meet state performance standards, rating from performing to excelling, and that all schools except Buena High School met the No Child Left Behind Annual Yearly Progress requirements. Buena only failed to meet the percent tested criterion. Presenting ranking data out of context makes conditioning us to the “need” for an override extension appear as at least a secondary goal of the presentation.

I encourage the board to keep future public education forums unbiased.

Ron Murray

Sierra Vista

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Happy Pagan wrote on Dec 16, 2007 1:02 PM:

" I strongly support education, but don't feel that being critical of the School District is contradictory. Something is wrong with an organization when one person can cause an error of such magnitude and no one catches it. And, once identified, everyone goes comatose. Something is wrong when the Board wants to form a "finance committee" but does not require applicants to have some financial background. Something is wrong when this "finance committee" is comprised of insiders (teachers, unions), community organizations (none of whom attended the meeting held to hear their views)and one taxpayer. "

Independent wrote on Dec 16, 2007 12:33 PM:

" After attending recent School Board meetings (finance tutorial, new Superintendent input, regular meetings) I have to say this Board is inadequate to oversee a $38 million/year organization. At regular meetings, the President reads a few lines describing what staff wants them to approve. No staff report outlining issues, background or options available, just a quick vote. They appear programmed to obey. Johnson, Richardson and Rothery are up for re-election next year and should be replaced with new people from outside the educational setting so community interests also get a hearing. "

Citizen wrote on Dec 16, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Well, here we go again. Let's spend more and more money and then Arizona won't be near last in education. What???? We all want to keep Library, Art and PE. The schools did have one year without it, and still, like I say, here we go again. That one year was a scare tactic to all of us with kids in the system. But, the regular teachers did have the art, music, PE and Library at their service. It worked fine. Please, school board and Admin. folks, give us a break. "

Ghosts wrote on Dec 16, 2007 2:56 AM:

" So who are Murray and Wenc? Never heard of them. Must be the local anti-tax activists. They make good ghost targets for the misplaced anger of the pro-board crowd. Does not change a thing. This board is HISTORY, if my neighbors attitudes are any judge of the future. "

Want More wrote on Dec 15, 2007 4:37 PM:

" "Who's in LaLa Land, you want more funding for the schools? Since 50% or better of the state budget already goes for education, a fact that wasn't mentioned by Mr Essigs in his presentation until the specific question was asked, why don't you and the rest of the School Boards get the State to impose a sales tax increase specifically for education. That way schools would get increased funding, all who have kids in school and those that don't share equally in the tax burden. Put it on the ballot next November. Lets vote on that. "

Taxed Out wrote on Dec 15, 2007 1:53 PM:

" Once again we see that those who apparently favor unrestrained spending for education can only argue using name calling. It would be refreshing to see them use facts. Amount of money spent doesn't equate to effectiveness of the education process, but educators seem willing to spend as much as they can get without improving education. "

Who's in LaLa Land? wrote on Dec 15, 2007 11:05 AM:

" I am a taxpayer/homeowner, have kids in the system and can appreciate the situation from both sides. I have indeed done research and have lived in other ares and seen how those communities support the school systems. This community is dominated by ultra right wing retired (or those without children in school) people who are consistantly against most anything the school system does. I am a republican, so don't acuse me of being a bleeding heard liberal. I stand by my statement that the vocal opposition will never be satisfied as long as tax dollars go to public schools. "

Small Hearted Grinches?? wrote on Dec 15, 2007 9:30 AM:

" "Who's in LaLa Land" is the one refusing to see both sides of the issue. Mr Murray (both of them) and Mr Wenc have a right to present other facts, facts the District and Board convieniently omit because those facts would be counter to thier agenda. Any fact or statistic that might remotely present a brighter picture must never be presented. I attended the presentation and it was biased. It was more of a justification for overrides with a tutorial on school funding as a lead in. Prep work for next year's request to raise taxes again. "

But They Do! wrote on Dec 15, 2007 9:00 AM:

" The District and the Board consistantly uses "selected out of context statistics" to paint the worst picture possible to get thier way. They used the BRAC as a scare tactic to get a tax increase, they cut important programs to get more money, they constantly complain about mandates to get more money. Everything they present to the public about funding is biased. It is the District and the Board that refuse to see both sides if the issue. "Who's in LaLa Land" needs to do a little research. "

Who's in LaLa Land? wrote on Dec 14, 2007 9:43 AM:

" Mr Ron Murray accuses the school district of using statistics to unfairly support thier views while at the same time that is what he does. The likes of Mr Murray (both of them) and Mr Wenc will never be happy as long as tax dollars go to public schools. They also seem to have little else to do with thier time than to harras the school district. They refuse to even try to see the issue from both sides. Its their way or nothing. Like the Grinch, their hearts must be "three sizes too small". "

Low Expectations wrote on Dec 14, 2007 8:15 AM:

" Did you expect anything other than propanda? "

La La Land wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:18 AM:

" Aftering hearing the boards dog/pony show at the meeting it becomes clear the board is attempting early damage control on the override ship. I felt it was kind of like Yamamoto looking for a parachute. Too little, too late. Very sad. I think this board really does not grasp the serious damage of which not a small portion is their responsibility. They very much underestimate the communities resentment and anger at the tax fiasco. La La Land. "