Here’s why many Southern Arizona education leaders oppose Prop 320

For Tucson area schools, Proposition 320 could affect classroom staffing, teacher pay, transportation, special education and even basic building maintenance. The ballot initiative would require districts in Pima, Maricopa and Pinal counties to direct a larger share of their budgets toward “direct instruction,” reaching 60% beginning in the 2027 to 2028 school year. Southern Arizona education leaders gathered in Tucson on Oct. 7 to urge voters to reject the measure, arguing that its spending formula leaves out many employees and services students need every day.

The proposal would increase required spending on direct instruction by one half of a percentage point each year until districts reach the 60% threshold. That category is narrower than overall classroom or school operations spending. It does not include counselors, nurses, librarians, building maintenance, transportation workers or some special education employees, according to opponents. Supporters say the measure would ensure more education dollars reach classrooms. The Goldwater Institute, which backs Prop. 320, cites an Auditor General report showing that school districts spend a smaller portion of their budgets on classroom instruction than they did two decades ago.

Matt Beienburg, the institute’s education policy director, said the measure would still leave districts able to spend 40% of their budgets on special education and other support positions. He argued that district budget adjustments have not been reaching instruction in sufficient amounts. The proposal’s opponents, however, say that dividing school spending into a single required percentage overlooks how schools function. Pima County Schools Superintendent Dustin Williams said students depend on a broad network of adults and services, not only classroom teachers. He described that network as a “supporting cast” essential to student success.

Williams pointed to his own family’s experience. His son, who is on the autism spectrum, relies on occupational therapy, speech services and other supports that have helped him progress in school. Special education service providers would not count as direct instructional spending under the measure, according to opponents. Williams said that puts resources used by his son and other students at risk. He also warned that the issue extends beyond special education, because students across the county rely on transportation staff, cafeteria workers, school monitors, nurses, counselors and other employees throughout the school day.

Baboquivari Unified School District Governing Board President Juan Buendia said the proposal fails to reflect the particular costs of operating schools on tribal land. His district runs 622,000 miles of bus routes each year to bring students to school, he said. One in five children in the district needs special education services. Several Baboquivari schools also date to 1939, 1964 and 1969 and require substantial renovation and maintenance. Buendia’s concerns illustrate why opponents say a uniform spending mandate could have very different consequences in rural and tribal communities than in larger urban districts.

Teachers warned that the effects could be felt inside Tucson area classrooms. Rachel Eggebeen, a teacher at Apollo Middle School, said voters could be asked to accept a policy that limits spending on essential conditions in schools while leaving educators responsible for the results. She raised the possibility of reduced air conditioning in a windowless classroom, where seventh and eighth graders would be learning in uncomfortable conditions. Eggebeen also said a significant portion of her compensation comes from the classroom site fund in Sunnyside Unified School District. She estimated that a loss of those funds could reduce her pay by $3,000 the first year, $6,000 the second year and as much as $11,000 eventually.

The financial stakes could also be significant for Tucson Unified School District. At a September governing board meeting, TUSD Chief Financial Officer Ricky Hernandez said failure to meet the requirements could cost the district $9.7 million in classroom site funds, money the district would not recover. Under the initiative, a district that failed to comply would lose 25% of its classroom site funding for each year it remained out of compliance. Eggebeen said the classroom site fund provides $11,000 of the base pay for every teacher in Sunnyside, making the potential consequences more than an accounting issue for school employees.

Southern Arizona leaders who spoke against the measure included Williams, Buendia, Eggebeen, Catalina Foothills union leader Bailey Hollingsworth and Southern Arizona Leadership Council President and CEO Ted Maxwell. Their central argument was that the proposal could force districts to cut positions that support students in order to meet a numerical target. Williams said school employees who help students get to school, eat, receive services and remain safe are part of the educational experience, even if their positions are not classified as direct instruction. He described the measure as a threat to the full range of supports families currently depend on.

Supporters and opponents therefore frame Prop. 320 in sharply different ways. Goldwater Institute representatives say the initiative responds to long term concerns about how much districts spend on instruction. Local education leaders say the measure’s definition of instruction is too limited and could weaken the systems that make classroom learning possible. The proposal will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. If approved, districts would face the annual increases toward the 60% requirement and the possibility of losing a quarter of their classroom site funds during each year of noncompliance, leaving Tucson area voters to decide whether a mandated spending share would improve schools or put critical services at risk.