Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale board approves five ASBA priorities after extended funding discussion
Summary
The Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board approved five priorities to send to the Arizona School Boards Association, including proposals to index district additional assistance, fully fund full-day kindergarten and IDEA obligations, and other funding-focused items.
The Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board voted May 22 to approve five priorities for submission to the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), after an extended discussion that centered on funding formulas and special-education costs.
Board President Martinez summarized the five priorities as: 1-2 (provide consistent base funding to meet academic and social-emotional needs), 1-4 (fully fund full-day kindergarten and include kindergarten in override calculations), 1-6 (index district additional assistance to inflation), 3-3 (education delivery/instructional priorities), and 7-2 (fully fund Individuals with Disabilities Education Act obligations). The board also agreed to two proposed combined priorities addressing several items in sections 2 and 4.
Why it matters: The priorities identify the local district's advocacy positions for ASBA's delegate process. Several items the board highlighted are budgetary and would require state-level legislative or administrative action to change funding formulas or allocations.
Discussion highlights: Mr. Berger, speaking for district staff, explained district additional assistance (DAA) and why indexing it to inflation is a priority, saying the request "would be to have it increased every year with the cost of living or whatever formula is decided, but that it actually grows every year." Superintendent Segata Jones and board members emphasized the district's struggle to staff special-education programs and said fully funding IDEA and exceptional-student services remains a top concern. Board members debated whether broad language such as "current-day pricing" or more specific funding-line items would be more effective for ASBA advocacy; several favored specificity so progress could be measured.
The motion to approve the priorities was made by a board member, seconded, and passed on a recorded unanimous vote. The board directed staff to include the stated priorities and the two proposed combined items in the submission materials to ASBA.
The board also noted the delegate assembly at ASBA as the forum for arguing refinements and that additional proposed language could be submitted as part of the package.
