When you think of Arizonan politics, you might imagine discussions of water conservation in light of the desert’s 15-year drought, or maybe you think conversations revolve around the new semiconductor factories being built from the passage of the CHIPS Act. But ask any Arizonan, and you will certainly hear about education.
Arizona’s schools were ranked 49th worst overall for the last several years and were tied for the highest dropout rate in 2022. As a result, improving the declining education system has been a key policy priority for politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Newly elected Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs made education her top priority in her State of the State speech, and her predecessor, Republican Governor Doug Ducey, stated during his term that “Arizona education is my top budget priority.”
The dire state of Arizona’s education system has captured the attention of all politicians across the state. Yet, the roots of the problem and the proposed solutions are fiercely contested between Democratic and Republican leaders.
A central point of contention in these debates is school choice, defined as “the right for parents to use the tax dollars designated for their child’s education to send their child to the public or private school which best serves their needs.” Right-wing politicians champion policies promoting school choice as an essential part of the solution to improving the state’s education system, while those on the left perceive school choice as a direct threat to Arizona’s students.
The Theory Behind School Choice
As of July 2023, over 80% of Republicans nationwide support school choice policies, marking a 5% increase since 2020. This increase in public support for school choice programs was made evident by the election of Republican Tom Horne, Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. A fervent advocate for school choice policies since his time as a legislator in the 1990s, Horne successfully unseated Democratic incumbent Kathy Hoffman in the 2022 midterm election for the Superintendent of Public Instruction position.
Horne explained to the HPR that a large portion of the appeal behind school choice was that the public school system’s one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t resonate with all parents. According to him, policies allowing school choice allow parents to enroll their children in more specialized schools that meet their needs, whether for accessibility concerns, religious reasons, or a lack of high-quality public schools in their area.
Horne also clarified that supporting school choice policies is not mutually exclusive with wanting public schools to prosper. In fact, he stated that school choice policies only benefited public school systems. He explained that school choices create a market dynamic where parents could pull their kids out of poor-quality public schools and into better, privately run schools. With the threat of losing funding, public schools would either improve or close.
Overall, policies focused on fostering school choice seem, on paper, like sensible ways to bolster education systems. However, the implementation of these ideas draws so much disagreement. In Arizona, school choice manifests primarily through establishing charter schools.
The Implementation of Charter Schools
The distinction between public district schools and charter schools might seem subtle on paper, but it translates into significantly different student experiences. Public district schools, fully funded by the government, must align their curriculum and operations with regulations set by the state Department of Education. These schools are directly overseen by elected school boards, providing citizens the opportunity to run for and participate in the election process.
On the other hand, charter schools, though also labeled as public schools, are operated and owned by private corporations. They receive a portion of their budget from the government and supplement it with contributions from parents and independent sponsors. In return, they have more flexibility in their curriculum and operations, including exemptions from teacher or staff licensing requirements. In Arizona, all charter schools must be tuition-free and are prohibited from selective student admissions.
Many Republican lawmakers strongly support charter schools because they offer families alternatives beyond traditional public district schools. Given that Republicans in the state have held total control over the government 22 times since 1992, they’ve implemented policies that expand government funding for charter schools and ease regulations, encouraging companies to create charter school networks across the state.
As a result, Arizona is the state with the largest share of students who attend charter schools in the US. Of the 3.1 million students who attend charter schools in the US, 200,000 of them are in Arizona. This surge in charter school enrollment appears to align almost directly with the diminishing quality of the education system in the state. This poses a question: could charter schools primarily contribute to this decline?
According to Superintendent Horne, the impact of charter schools on the state’s education system is beneficial. He elaborates that certain charter schools, emphasizing a more rigorous curriculum for advanced students, showcase impressive test scores. On the other hand, those prioritizing accessibility, such as online or rural institutions, cater to students who might otherwise face challenges in finding a suitable public district option. Charter schools can provide these students with better-tailored education, but these students often exhibit lower academic performance, lowering rankings.
Instead, he argues that, owing to inadequate leadership at both local and statewide levels, public district schools have shifted their emphasis away from academic success towards what he terms “distractions,” including sexual education, social-emotional learning, and critical race theory. When comparing the effects of school choice against this academic decline, Horne believes that the shift away from academics “is the main event. The effect of school choice is collateral in comparison.”
Nevertheless, Superintendent Horne is proud of Arizona’s robust network of charter schools. Even if they are not the solution, in his belief, their existence has mitigated the effects of public schools lowering academic standards.
The Hidden Costs of Charter Schools
In an interview with the HPR, Heidi Vega, the director of communications for the Arizona School Boards Association, spoke about a different hypothesis for the decline in the state’s education quality. Director Vega said that much of the decline can be attributed to low governmental spending on public district schools compared to other states.
Arizona holds the lowest rank in the nation for per-pupil spending, with an average funding of $10,244, trailing behind the national average of $15,446 by a considerable margin of $5,202. The insufficient resources provided to students have drastic consequences for the quality of Arizona’s education. Additionally, Arizona has one of the highest teacher turnover rates in the country, as teachers are under-compensated compared to other jobs and states.
Director Vega continues by explaining how charter schools only exacerbate this issue. Not only do public district schools have to compete for funding with charter schools, which siphon an estimated $1 billion away from district schools, but differences in regulations across the two types of schools often contribute to the severe overburdening and underfunding of public district schools.
For instance, certain charter schools may provide inadequate accommodations for students with learning disabilities, leading to a disproportionate enrollment of these students in public schools that often lack the necessary resources for meaningful education. Additionally, Director Vega highlights scenarios where parents enroll their children in charter schools but later transfer them to public district schools within the academic year. This is often attributed to parents and students being unfamiliar with charter school curricula, the absence of common public school resources such as school buses, or other sources of dissatisfaction.
Public district schools, mandated to accept students at any point during the year, often do not receive funding for these students if they enroll after 100 days. This intricate dynamic further strains the resources available to public district schools.
Director Vega concludes by stating that while charter schools have the potential to impact education systems positively, the current implementation “over the last 7-10 years is a failed $1 billion experiment at the expense of the 1 million students [in Arizona].” She emphasizes the need for a comprehensive reform of the current charter school framework to ensure they enhance education without exacerbating the challenges faced by public district schools.
The Path Forward
The debate over school choice manifested through charter schools reveals why Arizona is struggling to fix its educational system. Charter schools, seen as an apolitical issue to most of the public, is a highly divisive subject with starkly different perspectives across party lines.
Advocates contend that empowering parents with the ability to customize their children’s education through school choice is key to fostering diversity and addressing individual needs. They further argue that charter schools provide necessary alternatives, prompting healthy competition that can spur improvements in public district schools. On the other hand, critics believe that the current implementation of charter schools exacerbates resource disparities, draining vital funds from public district schools and contributing to their underfunding.
While there is no objective answer on the merits of charter schools, it is undeniable that their presence can positively benefit education systems by increasing accessibility and competition. However, it is equally evident that significant challenges and hidden costs are associated with Arizona’s current implementation of charter schools.
If Arizona is ever to improve its education system, it is imperative to adopt a strategic and balanced approach that maximizes the potential benefits of charter schools and minimizes the associated harms. Achieving this delicate equilibrium is essential for cultivating a comprehensive and effective educational landscape that properly serves Arizona’s students.
Associate U.S. Editor
