Money not the issue in Arizona schools

Simple concepts:

While Arizona’s K – 12 student attendance increased by a mere 4.9% since 2004, the state general fund appropriations have increased by a whopping 51.64%.

In 2008, the number of district pupils was 950,815. However, the current number has decreased to 931,844 — a significant loss of 18,971.

Figuring the average class size as 30 students, that is a loss of 632 classrooms and subsequently a lack of need for 632 teachers. Teacher reductions are not due to low appropriations, but rather a lack of pupils. The pupil count is continuing to decline every month and will for the foreseeable future.

Vote No! on Prop. 100.

Growing Our Party has an excellent analysis. We highly recommend it.

25 Responses to Money not the issue in Arizona schools

  1. North Valley Republican says:

    How do school districts keep justifying more and more money from the taxpayers?

    In my friend’s district, the local property taxes for the school district grew by 42.7% from 2004 to 2009. Student enrollment grew by just 8.1%. And, the district was surprised in March when voters rejected a 50% increase in the amount of override taxes to be collected!

    But, the district’s answer to challenges to further taxation is to declare war on the fiscal conservatives who dare question their spending.

    While taxes can double and triple, student achievement remains static. That is an imbalance that taxpayers should reject.

    My friend, who helped them win those giant increases in taxes, is now ostracized by the Administration for daring to challenge their performance. That explains the March defeat. Will they be smart enough to bring him back for November?

  2. RJ says:

    The part that angers me the most is the outright lies the education community puts out on a regular basis.

    Leading people to believe that teachers are working for near slave labor when they actually are costing taxpayers an average of over $45 per hour.

    Saying the teachers have to provide their own copy paper etc. while the districts roll-over hundreds of millions of confiscated property and state taxes at the end of the year.

    The latest “information piece” from the YES Committee is so full of blatant lies that it is high time for some entity like the Center for Justice, Goldwater Institute or Free Enterprise Club to file suit against them for their fraudulent actions.

  3. Jana Simmons says:

    I’ve intended to vote against the tax increase all along, but this provides even more reason to do so. The linked information is very helpful. We are parents of school aged children, but have long ago tired of the districts using them as an excuse for excesses. My husband and I stopped supporting the “overrides” long ago. We’re tapped out. District residents are struggling to live within our ever tightening budgets. It’s time the schools did so as well.

  4. Doc says:

    It’s not just the teachers, gang! I recently had 2 issues with my Son’s school. 1st, a playground equipment issue involving a broken implement. I called the MANUFACTURER, spoke to the regional rep, who informed me that the parts needed for repair were local, available, & cost about $60.00. The maint. mgr for the district, after 3 different contacts with them, finally calls me back with a $120.00 cost ESTIMATE, & he still doesn’t have the parts. After stating that I’d go remove the broken piece myself before someone’s kid got hurt, & making a fool out of the guy…he finally agreed to have his “men” go remove the broken part.

    Then, there was a discipline issue. My Son got into a tussel. The school called me & insisted that I come & get him. I was at work. I had to leave work…for the rest of the day. I asked the Principal why this was & he said that the district no longer had a detention system. I told him that he was not gonna’ have a lotta’ things…because you can’t keep calling parents away from work because the district refuses to be fiscally responsible…people are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS! It’s hard to get tax revenue from unemployed people!

    Sherriaz hit it again! Homeschool ’em! And I’m striving towards that goal. “Oh, Doc! He won’t get the ‘social skills’ he needs!” Which ones would that be? The gang sign throwin’, the disrespectfulness that I see 3rd graders show their teachers? THOSE SOCIAL SKILLS? Uuuuhhh…no thanks…I’d just as soon he be somewhat un-sociable. My Wife & I can Teach him his ‘social skills’…like how to be honest, have dignity, character, morals, how to be respectful…even when the creatin neighbor kids want you to do otherwise…all that stuff decent schools USED TO TEACH OUR KIDS…

  5. LD20er says:

    Look for the pupil count to continue decreasing with SB1070.
    After the 2007 Employer Sanctions law was signed in July 2007, enrollment dropped that August in districts/schools with a high illegal population.

    Even the AZ Repugnant printed the stories, perhaps not knowing that their story was validating the “attrition through enforcement” priciple.

    Apartment buildings in those areas were virtually empty.

    The same is likely to happen with SB1070 for the same reason. So long as illegals can go to nearby states with less stringent enforcement of immigration laws, they will.

    That states like Utah and Texas are already preparing similar laws reveals their recognition of past experience.

  6. VoiceInTheWild says:

    Money’s not a problem – attendance is a problem. Look at the Phx Union H.S. Dist. last week – hundreds of kids were allowed to walk out 2 DAYS IN A ROW to go “protest” at the state capitol (yeah, right, like they all walked from Camelback H.S. or others many miles – oh yeah, Phil probably made sure the city buses and light rail were running to get them there).

    Here’s some novel concepts:

    1. Across the board pay cuts
    2. Reduce administration staff by 10% – either they are teaching or sweeping, don’t care which
    3. Turn off the stinkin’ lights. How come I see schools with their digital signs going all night? Save some juice, save some bucks.
    4. Don’t buy new textbooks each year – use them for three or four years … how many times do math books change anyway?
    5. More pay cuts – drive thru a teacher parking lot sometime at your local school and see if the teachers are driving a better car than you

  7. John H. says:

    Voice in the Wild:

    Let me help you to understand that what you’ve proposed is already happening.

    1. Every Arizona teacher will take a pay cut this year due to the loss in Prop 301 revenue, a conservative performance pay plan that pays greater compensation to teachers who perform at a higher level. In addition, in my school district, Deer Valley, teachers will sustain a pay cut of 3.1%.
    2. Across the state there were 450 adminstrative positions lost in Arizona last year. Unfortunately, most positions eliminated were principals and not district admin.
    3. I agree that we should turn off the lights but this is not a real viable solution to saving money. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Turning off the lights will only save a district in the single digit thousands.
    4. Schools are not buying new text books every school year. My son is in 7th Grade. He can’t even bring his years old text book because he shares with other classes. We’re forced to print his homework at home from a website. What if we didn’t have a printer? Not to mention the fact that textbooks are outdated as a resource for ensuring our students are using the kind of technology that will make them competitors in today’s ever-broadening global market-place.
    5. More pay-cuts? Teachers and school employees earn quite low wages already! I know a thirteen year veteran teacher with a masters in education administration who has won several awards for teaching excellence, continues to show high marks among her students on both grade point average and standardized test scores, and is well liked among admin, peers, and parents. Her salary is $42K per year. She works approximately 50 hours per week and during the summer–now from May 31 – August 23–she’ll be working on required professional development hours, required SEI training, among other required obligations during this time. More pay-cuts are not the answer. We must invest in teachers because they are closest to the classroom, closest to our future, and closest to creating the workforce that will secure our economic future.

    Fact: since 2004 Arizona’s student population has grown by approximately 145,000 students.
    Fact: If Prop 100 fails, Arizona school funding will fall short of its aid to school districts in 2004.
    Fact: Arizona has reduced its teaching force by approximately 3,500 positions in the past two years.
    Fact: Businesses are turning away from Arizona due to its poor investment in education and other important areas of infrastructure.

    • Ben F says:


      As the AEA lobbyist, I know you expect everyone to accept your propaganda as fact, however, in the real world, people like to check for themselves.

      Your sad story about a specific teacher is a good attempt at a heart wrenching novel. However, if you want to see real misery, I would refer you to the thousands of state employees that have been laid off in the last eighteen months because funds were diverted to K-12.

      If that is not enough for you talk to the seniors on fixed incomes who are being taxed out of their financial stability with the increase in sales taxes to fund K-12 CSF, increased Primary and Secondary tax rates, overrides up to 17%, now a potential for increased sales taxes.

      In case you do not know, the state General Fund appropriations to K-12 M&O has increased from 43% to 85% of the total TAX revenues from 2003 to now. Stop the whining, John, even if it is your job.

      Lets look at your ‘facts’:

      ‘Fact’ 1: False! The increase of students in District Schools that you represent, is 44,345

      ‘Fact’ 2: False! That would require almost a $2 Billion cut. Nobody is suggesting that.

      ‘Fact’ 3: False! The number of teachers in 2007 was 52,590; 2008 it was 53,883; and in 2009 it was 54,508.

      ‘Fact’ 4: False! Businesses that do not come to Arizona are more impacted by our high corporate taxes.

      As to our infrastructure, you have, obviously, never traveled to any of the other cities the size of Metro Phoenix. The combination of freeways, arterials and other surface streets that make up our transportation grid is unparallelled and the rest of the infrastructure is the newest of any city of comparable size.

      Sorry, John. The facts are in print and you have not had either enough time or enough influence to re-write them.

  8. Villanova says:

    When the teacher’s unions stop acting like an arm of the Democrat Party, I’ll give more consideration to your “facts,” John.

    The fact that I am aware of is my children were being indoctrinated in their public school with pro-Obama stories, poems and praise. They never got that when G. W. Bush was president! My wife and I made the difficult decision to move them to another environment. Thank God we did so. Both of them are flourishing and the myriad differences were readily apparent. They are reading at higher levels and testing better in math and other basics. I regret we didn’t make this move sooner. Our reluctance was based on the fact that both of us had been educated in Arizona public schools. It is now apparent to me that what we received in education and what our children were getting was not in the same league. And, John, I’ll bet you a good steak that our education didn’t cost (inflation, factored in) anywhere near what is being spent today. The truth is, we are getting less for more, no matter how you slice it.

    We have friends who were home schoolers and their children tested so high they both received full university scholarships! They always referred to public schools as “government” schools. It used to rankle me when our children were attending, but no more. I now see what they were talking about. BTW, the parents are both college graduates and they partnered with other parents (who were more knowledgeable in some subjects) for outings and classes as diverse as music and chemistry.

  9. MikeGregoire says:

    I am going to have to disagree with your numbers. If you would, go to the AZ department of education and refer to the latest annual statement (volume 1) and your numbers here don’t add up. Errors:

    1) Student growth was 10.6% from 2004 to the latest year 2009.
    2) You fluctuate between district students and overall. Compare apples to apples.
    3) Since 2004, taking into account growth (by basing increase per student), the following is correct:
    2005 spending increase is 1.4% over 2004
    2006 4.3% over 2005
    2007 6.4% over 2006 (full day k year)
    2008 4.1% over 2007
    2009 3.4% over 2008

    Averaging these out (and including fulldayK), an annual increase of 3.92%, which is on par with inflation.

    You spin the numbers and pick and choose the ones that have the most skewed results. Not good research!

  10. RJ says:

    Mikey, Mikey, Mikey

    Since you are a Deer Valley School Board Member, I would expect nothing less than the spin of the education community. You have been so used to spinning the numbers that you think everyone else does the same.

    If you want to help the students, I suggest you start by eliminating the double-dipping of your Superintendent that is taking over $300k annually from her compensation package. That alone will be enough to buy copy paper for the full year.

    As to utilities, you and Valley Schools are constantly marketing about your state of the art solar units. That must be saving you hundreds of thousands each year based on the amount of bragging you do about it.

    The number of students in September 2004 was 887,489. The numbers for the current year, not 2009 as you would like to count, is 931,844 from the SAIS report since the SAFR report is not available yet. That is an increase of only 44,345.

    My figures for total state tax appropriations are EXACTLY as I stated. YOu obviously do not like the fact that compound percentage growth over a period of six years adds up to more than simply adding year to year increases. That too is typical of the financial smoke and mirrors you people like to use.

    As to this year’s funding, please look at the chart on the top of Page 3 of the JLBC March Fiscal Highlights release that shows K-12 as the only agency in state government with an increase – $349.1 million increase while all the other agencies experienced a cut totaling $668.1 million.

    So, if you want to talk about spin and lack of credible research, I suggest that you, the AEA and the YES on 100 Committee look in the mirror. Oh, I’m sorry, it is too smoky to see anything in it.

    Too bad you have someone who can do the real research that shows your predilection for misrepresentation.

  11. Stanford says:

    John H. “Let me help you to understand?” How condescending! You must be great fun to hang out with.

  12. sherriaz says:

    Doc, thanks for the plug on homeschooling. I highly recommend alternatives when possible depending on the situation. There are tons of resources available for those seeking to move their kids out of district schools. One example used to be the Eagleridge program through Mesa Unified that allowed homeschooled kids to take classes at a single site and allowed the parents to use textbooks if desired. (Don’t know if the program is still running, but worth checking if you have kids K-8. My kids had social interaction galore and some great trips).

    The more I see what is going on, especially in the high schools, the happier I am that my kids were not exposed to any of it. They have done well in school ( one is in college and the other will graduate high school early and then start college courses ) and are solidly grounded. It doesn’t work for every family, but it beats the liberal agenda being shoved down their throats by most teachers and administrators these days.

  13. sherriaz says:

    Oh, and I already voted NO!

  14. John Q says:

    Mike Gregoire,

    I woud like to thank you for your service as a DVUSD school board member. I see you are running for another term this year and I think everyone should know how much you mean to the property owners in the district.

    In your role as a board member you have been at least partially responsible for setting the tax rates. You and your fellow board members should be held accountable for those actions.

    In the 2004/2005 school year the property owners were taxed $110,111,556 for the local portion of taxes to fund the education of 31,914 students. In the 2008/2009 school year, the property owners were taxed $157,314,461 for the local portion of taxes to fund the education of 35,048 students.

    That is a 42.86% increase in tax confiscations for a 9.82% in student growth. Did you get that Michael? In the middle of the worst recession to hit this country in nearly 80 years, you felt it was appropriate to sock it to the homeowners in DVUSD at an increase in taxes nearly 5 times the rate of student increase.

    Even with that exorbitant increase in funds, you and your friends now want to impose a 17.8% increase in the state sales tax rate. For what, Michael? What is so critically underfunded that you want to place your neighbors in a position where they may lose their homes?

    Now comes the real kicker. I would like to hear your justification for more money for your friends in a situation where the number of students is declining in our district. That’s right, this year student count is 34,528 – a reduction of 520 students. That is 20 empty classrooms!

    Again, the property rates that fund the local portion of the revenue for DVUSD was decided by you and your fellow board members, not the legislature, not the governor, not Santa Claus.

    I cannot find the words to adequately express my thanks – or at least, I cannot use them here.

    NO on Prop 100 and No to Overrides and No to additional spending and NO to you and your cronies.

  15. VoiceInTheWild says:

    Here’s the facts:

    Arizonans are running out of money.

    While there may be some school districts operating lean or efficient, many of them are just not cutting it.

    Private employers have cut wages & benefits, along with jobs.

    If someone is a government employee, covered by a PENSION, with HEALTH CARE BENEFITS, they should feel lucky to have a J-O-B right now.

    My day, there were 35-40 kids per class in the elementary grades. I graduated. I got a college scholarship (at a public university). I was not the only one.

    If parents want success with their kids then they have to do what my parents did with me and I am doing with mine – taking an active role in their homework and studies. No video games, no cell phones, no la-de-da do-day extras. Education first. I figure the teacher sends home homework, I make sure it’s done.
    Tough times – we just don’t have the money to keep dolling it out.

    I’d rather the cities take a huge hit on revenue sharing and we spare the schools many of the hits. The cities have been dishonest for too long – living on shared revenues and running up the bills. Phil Gordon is one of the prime examples of lavish city government.

    I don’t know about Deer Valley – I do know about some others and I know about our home budget.
    We got a food sales tax shoved down our throats. Some bozzos’ tried to say “well, it’s only $200 more a year per family.”

    Now, the tear jerker sale of the Prop. 100 – and the estimates it’s only $400 per family per year.
    Now, that $600 out of our pocket.

    That’s school clothes for the next year and half.
    That’s more than a month’s groceries.

    That’s the water & power bill for a couple of months.
    For a senior citizen, it is probably their co-pay for their meds.

    For someone else it is the car payment and maybe the gas for the month.

    It is NOT “just $400” or “just $200” – it has been an endless cycle of more, more, more and not a lot of attention to how it is spent.

    I do see new books bought yearly. I do see school districts with declining enrollment.

    Contraction is what is needed until times get better – and maybe this will be an economics lesson so as times do get better, we are smarter how we do business in the future.

    Get tough.

    And now that the AEA and others are reading Seeing Red, maybe they’ve figured out we just not a bunch of right wingers. Guess what, we’re educated, too, and not the Goldman Sach crowd, either.

  16. David says:

    My viewpoint is more simple. If I felt that the State spent tax dollars with some wisdom, I would be more in favor of 100. I am voting no.

  17. MikeGregoire says:


    You are wrong on more then a few things:

    1) I am not on the school board. I was from 2005-2008.
    2) Maybe we should sit down and let me point to you the numbers. I would ask that you go to the AZ dept of education site and download and review the 2008/09 Annual Statement. This is the latest published. Specifically, go to two reports that give summaries.

    a: RESIDENT ADM HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION (on page 8) report gives you the ADM (average daily membership), or attendance numbers to the laymen. In the year ending 2004, there were 933,734 students attending K12 schools. In 2009, there are 1,043,355 students. Do the math.

    b: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION FUND EXPENDITURES BY YEAR (on page 7). I quote, 2004 expenditures for all K12 was 4,733,046,636. In 2009, that number is 6,450,024,285. Do the math. Thats 36% total growth. Now you can say that is a lot, but that amount does not take into consideration the 10% growth in students. Now any good statistician will tell you to first break it down by dollars per student and then compare, which I did in my previous post. However, if you want to leave it in its incomplete form and hold fast to the 36% or whatever contrived number you have, by all means, hold to your made up number.

    Now I bring these things to light so that the truth be told.

    However, if you really want the whole story, here is what I think needs to be done (at least in DVUSD):
    1) Fire the Superintendent. The problems and issues that face a district are mostly financial in nature and needs a good leader who knows how to muck his way through it.

    2) There are many chiefs in school districts doing little but drawing a check. There are many efficiencies that technology has solved and helps the district to keep up with its paper work without having so many hands.

    3) Update the accounting software. This prehistoric model requires too much redundant input.

    4) Look for alternative sources of textbooks. These companies are taking in millions for overpriced books that costs districts millions each year.

  18. MikeGregoire says:

    John Q:

    You leave out so many facts in your numbers that I find it hard where to start. I would first ask your source for the numbers so we can at least agree on the facts.

    But your 17.8% increase, as you describe it is problematic.

    How about the $3B you just saved each of the last 2 years? What $3B? Well, its the $3B that state did not receive in its budget. If the state didn’t get it, well, it only goes to display that we didn’t pay it. Let me do the math, that would be about a 30% CUT in our taxes, which by the way was passed on to all state agencies, and more specifically in our argument here, the school districts.

    DV cut $4M in fiscal 2009, $17M in fiscal 2010, and now if Prop 100 fails, another $26M in 2011. There is your tax cut.

    Now claim all you will about waste. I would invite and if there is any solidity to it, will be right there on the bandwagon with you. I have ideas how we can cut, but its all nickel and dime compared to what everyone of you have in your minds. Every company or organizations has waste, and dammit, we have to keep striving to get rid of it. But this slash and dash is stupid. Lets make intelligent cuts.

    And oh, by the way, the savings so far from DV’s solar projects amount to about $500K so far this year, and that’s with the system coming online in January!

    I would be happy to sit down with anyone here and go item by item in these budgets. Instead, you would rather vote on your sweeping generalities of ‘government waste’. Don’t you at least owe it to yourelves, the students, to get the facts. Bloggers like this are just spewing mis-facts.

    You know, I am a card carrying Republican and I always thought that it was the Democrats who voted on their emotions and not the facts!

    • John Q says:


      I just did some further research into one of your other ‘facts’. The current savings from the solar project for the time period you selected is actually in the $100,000 range – including the APS rebates, which is most of the savings. The actual electric use savings is actually 10% of your off the wall statement.

      Even those miniscule savings when put in perspective with the total budget, are actually being subsidized by taxpayers in the form of additional electric rates, because as we all know, any rebates to some users are subsidized by the rest.

      In addition, DVUSD property owners will be paying for the $6 million original cost for seven years.

      Once again, Mikey, thanks for your service.

    • North Valley Republican says:

      It appears you wouldn’t know a fact if it walked up and introduced itself to you. How could you claim five times the amount of savings for the solar energy program? That just sounds like you are the one trying to play emotions on this blog.

  19. North Valley Republican says:

    Tax receipts are down. Taxes are not down.

    The “cuts” you declare were simply reductions in revenue because there was so little tax collected, due to people not spending or earning, not due to tax cuts. Even you definition of “cuts” are exaggerations to reality due to overlap and duplication of numbers.

    You speak as though you have all knowledge and everyone else is stupid. Like most who want to hug-up to AEA members, you look in the dark and declare there is nothing there when in reality, you can not see.

    You are no longer on Deer Valley’s board because you were voted out of office. You want back in, but voters are smarter than that, particularly when they find out your definition of a tax cut.

    Not spending what you didn’t get is not a tax cut, it demonstrates a lack of tax collections from those unemployed, underemployed, and unable to spend what they don’t earn. Therefore, less sales tax and less income tax collected – those with jobs and still able to spend are still paying high taxes. Where’s your tax cut?

    Your own district is a perfect example of taxing until it kills the golden goose. Your school district is collecting more than 42% more property taxes now than in 2004, but enrollment only went up 8%. Your fuzzy math wants us to reverse those numbers. But, you are just wrong.

  20. RJ says:

    I know when you were on the school board – exactly when the increases in funding were the most – and the percentage to the classroom were spiraling down. Congratulations for your heritage.

    As to the attendance, please go to the source data for DISTRICT SCHOOLS, not the ADE summary that is flawed when discussing this subject because it includes charter students. For laymen, like yourself, any sales tax revenues from Prop 100 will go to DISTRICT SCHOOLS, not to include charter schools. You district school bureaucrats like to include the charter school numbers because they are growing while you are declining and it makes your numbers look better. Please stop misrepresenting the numbers to fool the electorate. It is not becoming and sets a bad example for the students.

    You can find out the real numbers by going into Volume II of the SAFR report . . . scroll down through the individual school reports – incl. DVUSD – to the state total. For 2008-9, that is PDF page 267, for 2004-5, the there is a tab for county and state totals, then a tab for state district school totals.

    As to the finances, again, you like to include numbers that have nothing to do with Prop 100. You include items like federal, county, local, bond, debt service, etc. For the sake of your own integrity, please stick to the subject which is the state General Fund costs to the taxpayer, the only area that could be impacted by Prop 100.

    I may agree with some of your campaign points, but you did nothing about those issues when you were in office the last time, what would make anyone believe you would do differently this time? Sounds like the conversion of McCain to the illegal issue, or Clinton’s parsing of the word “is” to me.

  21. John Q says:

    Mike your first paragraph is so stupid that you should never run for any public office. I didn’t save any money because employers went out of business or laid off hundreds of thousands of people who had been paying income taxes, the near failure of both housing and auto markets that cut state tax revenues, local/national/international businesses lost billions resulting in NO income tax liabilities, etc.

    The amount of state tax revenues to K-12 increased from 43% in 2003 to over 90% now. That is possible, for laymen like yourself, because of the state borrowing $900 million from BofA (not a tax revenue), selling state buildings for $780 million (not a tax revenue), sweeping funds from 90/10 agencies (I’lll have to explain what those are after you grasp the rest of this lesson), taking stimulus funding (not a tax revenue, but a federal debt), and a current deficit that approaches $2 Billion.

    As to your Deer Valley numbers – balderdash! In FY2008, your revenues were $291,411,467 and in FY2009, your revenues were $292,825,706. A small increase admittedly for the last school year. Of more interest is the fact that your student count is down 520 this year and it is projected it will decline even more dramatically next year.

    As to the solar project, if DVUSD has saved a half million in less than four winter months – enough to hire ten teachers – you should be able to offset whatever cuts that may come.

    I am sorry that you feel you can cherry pick the data you want – even if it is not germane – and add in Charter Schools to make the monopolistic district system look better, but that is a democrat method that must have snuck into your mindset when you were not looking. A little self evaluation is called for.

    Lastly, you may have disagreements with others about generalities, but I have been very specific in my arguments, so take that junk to some other forum.

  22. Ben F says:


    You are either incredibly unknowledgeable and unintelligent, or you are trying to be too clever by half.

    The numbers you refer to are PUBLIC school numbers that fall under the jurisdiction of Tom Horne and the ADE. PUBLIC schools are comprised of two major sections – DISTRICT schools (which is what used to be public schools and what many uninformed still think are called public schools) and CHARTER schools.

    You keep referring to PUBLIC school numbers when, as you ought to know, ONLY DISTRICT schools are affected directly by this proposed tax.

    DISTRICT schools are serviced (hosed) by the AEA and have a distinct funding mechanism that includes General Fund appropriations, a publicly elected school board, the authority to establish tax rates on all property in the district, and are the proposed beneficiary of this tax scam.

    CHARTER schools fall into two categories, those run by DISTRICT school boards and those run by private sector entities. Neither group is the subject of the post or the fight over this tax.

    Again, either educate yourself and apologize for your incredible lack of acuity, or accept that others are aware of your attempt at obfuscation. Those are the only two options available. I am sure that the others here will be waiting for your apology.