Prop. 320: Rearranging the Deck Chairs at Arizona’s District Schools

For anyone following the fight over public education in Arizona, this has been a consequential year. 

The Protect Education coalition mounted a valiant effort to get Prop 212 on the ballot. But the initiative ultimately failed to qualify after a well-funded pro-privatizers managed to challenge enough petition signatures to defeat the will of over 420K Arizona voters. 

Now voters face another education measure, this one referred to the ballot by the GOP-led Legislature: Proposition 320.

It would require certain large school districts and all those in counties with populations of 500,000-plus, to spend at least 60% of their operational budgets on what it calls “direct instructional expenses.” The proposition does not define that category; instead, it directs the AZ Auditor General (AG) to do so. Currently, the AG counts certified teachers, teacher assistants, substitutes, and instruction materials.

But here’s the problem: You can’t create more money for public schools by simply ordering districts to move the same money from one bucket to another.

In FY2025, the Arizona Auditor General reported statewide classroom spending at 68%, while instructional spending accounted for 52.1% of that—the lowest level since the state began tracking it in 2001. GOP lawmakers would have us believe this is because districts are spending too much on administrative costs. 

The truth is that AZ school districts spend only 56% of the national average on administrative costs. Rather, reasons include declining enrollment—part of which is due to unaccountable universal vouchers—which reduces revenue while leaving behind fixed operational costs and a backlog of maintenance and repair work. Additionally, as overall student populations shrink, the proportion of enrolled students requiring specialized, resource-heavy special education has grown. 

Prop 320 would require districts below the 60% threshold to increase their proportion of direct instructional spending each year until they comply. Noncompliant districts could lose 25% of their Classroom Site Fund allocation each year, subject to limited waivers.  Those funds pay teachers, and support specialists such as social workers, counselors, and therapists; reduce class sizes; and fund tutoring, teacher development, dropout prevention, and other programs. 

GOP Legislators say Prop 320 is about increasing teacher pay and reducing administrative spending. I’m not buying it. Not for one minute. They know our public schools are underfunded and mandating teachers be paid more from already insufficient budgets, is a recipe for disaster.

At a recent KTAR News town hall, former Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda spoke the quiet part out loud, describing legislative referrals like this as a “punishment referral,” arguing that lawmakers should address problems directly rather than sending measures to voters simply to make a political point. Former No Labels gubernatorial candidate Hugh Lytle similarly argued that Arizona has a revenue-structure problem rather than simply a spending-discipline problem.

The GOP apparently isn’t interested in ensuring our schools have the funding they need—they have, after all, owned our Legislature for 60 years. Arizona has had a severe teacher shortage for years. Roughly 14% of Arizona teachers leave the classroom every year—double the national average. 

Compensation is one factor in the retention debate—Arizona ranks 31st in the nation for average teacher salary which is below the state’s minimum living wage—but it’s not the only one. Working conditions, workload, staffing levels, class sizes, student behavior and access to support personnel can affect teachers’ experiences and therefore student outcomes.

That’s right, teachers do not educate students in isolation. Just like a surgeon requires an entire support structure—both inside and outside the operating room—teachers depend on nurses, counselors, speech-language pathologists, social workers, librarians, special-education personnel, technology staff, custodians, transportation workers, food-service employees, administrators and others to help get the job done.

These employees support the basic operation of schools and help students get to class, stay healthy and safe, receive specialized services, and address behavioral and academic challenges.

Prop 320 isn’t about ensuring teachers are paid more. It is about continuing to dismantle our system of public education and replacing in with a pay-for-play (at taxpayer expense), segregated system that further marginalizes the disadvantaged, erodes communities, and takes away more of the people’s power to self-govern.

If lawmakers believe teachers need higher salaries—and they do—then let’s have that conversation honestly. How much more should teachers earn? How will the state pay for it? What additional resources do schools need to retain teachers and support students?

Those are real questions. Prop. 320 doesn’t answer them. It establishes a spending mandate and leaves districts to figure out what to sacrifice to meet it.

Public education is not a zero-sum game in which helping teachers requires hurting everyone else who works in a school.

Teachers need support. Students need support. Families need functioning schools. Communities and employers need an educated workforce.

The goal should be to give schools the resources to provide all of those things—not to force districts to fight over pieces of an already inadequate pie.

Arizona can do better than telling school districts how to divide the shortage.

We can choose to fund the whole system.