By
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - A sales tax increase for teacher pay raises and other education improvements was only approved by the voters a few months ago and people are already looking to change what it will provide.
Legislators are being asked to revisit the tax hike, on the November ballot as Proposition 301, to decide how some pay raises will be apportioned and to change some of the "accountability" provisions promised to voters.
One of the hottest issues involves which teachers would get $106 million allotted annually for "performance pay."
Other proposals being debated are a call to put new limits on an autonomy system for school principals and a separate system aimed at identifying and improving poor-performing schools.
Lawmakers have leeway to make changes in the legislation because most of its provisions appeared only in the law approved by the Legislature and not on the small part submitted to voters.
However, it's politically sensitive because much of the public debate on Proposition 301 included discussion of the entire package. Also, there was give-and-take among lawmakers, education groups, state Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, Gov. Jane Hull and business groups in drafting the package.
"We compromised a lot of things and now they want to change the compromise," said Mike Smith, a lobbyist for school administrators.
Even Smith's group is seeking changes in at least one part of the 2000 law.
By the time all the proposed changes are added up, more parts of the law are under review than not.
Senate Education Chairman Ken Bennett said the law "was negotiated with great difficulty and many of the things that were included in there were done so with simple statements of principle and intent.
"As with most things we do down here, the devil is in the details," the Prescott Republican said.
On performance pay, Keegan and other conservatives say teachers should have to earn that money by recorded improvements in their students' academic performance.
"It's further definition of what I think the voters intended," said House Education Chairman Linda Gray, R-Glendale. "When they voted for accountability and performance pay, I thought we were all on the same page on performance pay, that it was tied to academic achievement."
Bennett said some details should be left to school districts to decide, but that performance-based pay should be based on student performance.
School groups object to Keegan's proposal, saying each district should be allowed to craft is own plan depending on its needs and circumstances.
Mary Kay Haviland, lobbyist for the Arizona Education Association, a teachers union, said teachers will balk at being assigned to special education classes or alternative schools for dropouts because of the difficulty in recording academic achievement.
"Achievement for those kids (dropouts) is getting them to go to school," she said.
The school groups gained support Wednesday from Attorney General Janet Napolitano. She said in a legal opinion requested by a school district that the 2000 law putting Proposition 301 on the ballot gives districts the leeway to consider a variety of factors when approving a performance pay system.
That leaves Keegan and others faced with having to change existing law, not just arguing that it needs clarification.
Keegan is in the same position on another Proposition 301 issue. She contends the "classroom site fund," money that can be spent on teacher pay, smaller class sizes and other improvements, should be allocated to individual schools on a per-student basis and that principals, not district superintendents or governing boards, should decide how to spend that money.
Napolitano said the 2000 law gives final say to the district though they have to consider the principals' priorities.
There also are calls to change the law's "local education autonomy program" for school principals.
As it stands, principals of poor-performing schools or those in disciplinary trouble could sign their schools up for the program and largely thumb their noses at district officials.
"There's merit in the concept (but) there aren't any safeguards," said Haviland.
School officials also argue the program creates liability and accountability problems for district officials who would be left with responsibility but little control over autonomous schools.
Bennett, who fought to get the program included in last year's law, said he will consider changes but that he still supports it because it is a powerful tool to spur innovation.
"It's really trying to empower them," Bennett said.
Meanwhile, a Keegan proposal to retool what criteria the state uses to identify failing schools enjoys wide support. As written, the 2000 law would have labeled nearly all schools as "failing" because it required constant improvements in test scores and similar measures.
The new criteria to measure failing schools is in jeopardy, however, because it is currently in the same bill (HB2434) as Keegan's proposals on performance pay and school-by-school funding.
"If it stays in that we're going to have to kill it too," said Smith, the administrators' lobbyist.
John Schilling, Keegan's policy adviser, said political reality may force Keegan to compromise on performance pay and other issues.
"That's obviously a steep climb for us," he said. "The composition of the Legislature this year is, shall we say, not as reform minded."
