Arizonans will soon decide whether state law should mandate that K–12 public schools spend 60% of budgeted expenses on classroom instruction. If Proposition 320 (“Prop 320”) passes, the new regulation would apply to school districts with at least 7,500 students or counties with populations exceeding 500,000.

Goldwater Institute, a proponent of the ballot measure, explains on its public website, “Prop 320 ensures school districts prioritize teacher pay in their budgets…many Arizonans would be shocked to learn that teachers salaries often account for less than half of a district’s budget…In 2004, school districts spent on average 59% of their budgets on instruction, but now that number has fallen to 52%.”

Further, Goldwater points out that Prop 320 “fixes this problem” of teacher pay shortages by removing some administrative controls over district spending. For example, the auditor general would define “instructional expenses” to include “teachers, general instructional supplies and athletics” while excluding “superintendents, HR staff and instructional related technology services.”

The Arizona Auditor General classifies administrative positions under operational spending, but the “instruction” category only encompasses the district activities of teachers and students.

In a debate hosted by Arizona PBS, Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at Goldwater, stated that Prop 320 does not mandate any new spending but reprioritizes available funds for classrooms.

The Director of Governmental Relations for the Arizona School Board Association (ASBA), Jimmy Arwood, countered, “This punishes schools for providing kids the resources that they need. When you drop your kid off at campus for a day at school…you expect as a parent that the security, you expect that the security there is going to be good, that the school resource officer there is keeping them safe. That is not included in direct instruction.”

Arwood noted that school nurses and building maintenance fall outside the instructional-spending classification and therefore “count against schools.” When the moderator observed that the 52% rate was the lowest since tracking began in 2001, Arwood disputed that it required correction, defended funding for student services and upkeep, and warned that Prop 320’s budget changes would ultimately affect students.

Beienburg gave examples of wasteful expenditures, including Tolleson’s (unsuccessful) pitch for an $80 million dome stadium proposal and one district’s $500,000 Las Vegas conference. The latter likely referred to Dysart Unified, which sent nearly 200 employees to Caesars Palace after voting to eliminate school bus services. Beienburg also mentioned that many school districts failed to comply with regulations when voters passed Proposition 301 in 2000. The statewide average per pupil spending is approaching $16,000, which, Beienburg said, “is not translating to teachers’ pay or higher [academic] outcomes for students.”

Beienburg reiterated that Prop 320 seeks to curb waste on empty buildings and extravagant expenses without micromanaging how schools allocate the required 60% within the instructional-spending category.

If Prop 320 passes, school districts currently spending less than 60% must allocate 0.5% every year until it reaches the threshold. Under Prop 320, also called the Prioritize Teachers Pay Act, could impose financial penalties by diverting a portion of its Classroom Site Funds (A.R.S. 15-977) to districts that meet the 60% requirement.

Voters can view full language of the Prioritize Teachers Pay Act here.