Phoenix Union officials concerned with cuts needed under proposed Prop. 320

Phoenix Union High School District Superintendent Thea Andrade first assumed an upcoming proposition would enforce funding parameters that would be easy for her district to meet, and it might even pay teachers more.

But after she researched past the surface value, her stance changed. She realized it could do the exact opposite.

“The more I peeled back and educated myself on it, the more I realized it actually puts more burden on the teachers,” said Andrade. “If I was a teacher, I would go to a smaller district.”

If Proposition 320 is passed, public school districts with either more than 7,500 students or in counties with over 500,000 residents will be required to spend 60% of their operational funding on “direct instruction.” This means any public school in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties will fall under this jurisdiction.

Under current definition subject to change under the auditor general, a nonelected position appointed by the state Legislature, “direct instruction” excludes transportation, food services, special education, disability services, school resource officers, administrator pay, school maintenance and any other student service.

Phoenix Union would have to reallocate $48 million to reach this 60% threshold, which would take about 25 years, according to the Arizona School Board Association.

This means PXU, a district that serves more than 27,000 enrolled students, could eliminate its entire budget for food and transportation services and still not meet the required threshold.

Andrade wasn’t alone in this realization. Other members of the Phoenix Union governing board echoed her concern during their September general meeting after the Arizona School Boards Association presented what Proposition 320 would mean for their school district if voters approved it.

Before the ASBA presented the proposition, a teacher from Cactus Canyon High School, Amanda Corona, stepped up to the podium during a public comment section to call attention to ongoing printing issues after their copy center position was eliminated. She called the issues “horrendous,” and said paper is essential for their students to complete assignments.

“I’m quite serious when I say that this has been one of the toughest starts to any school year that I’ve ever experienced,” Corona said. “I know budgets, enrollment, staffing and morale are all quite low, and the writing is on the wall. Yet many of us (staff) have chosen to stay, despite the funding cuts and the leadership changes and the frozen pay… but any more, and I’m afraid the straw is going to break the camel’s back.”

Phoenix Union anticipates cutting another $10 million from its budget in the upcoming 2027 school year after already eliminating more than 160 staff positions their previous year. They attribute declining enrollment as the reason.

Governing board member Debbie Cross called attention back to this teacher after ASBA presented Proposition 320. She was concerned over the new amount of work teachers would have to take on if schools were to cut more student resources when educators are already overwhelmed.

“I’m very angry and I feel helpless to do anything about it,” said Cross.

These are visibly common feelings of frustration from public school advocates over Proposition 320, one of the many propositions drafted by Arizona’s Republican-led legislature. In the general election publicity pamphlet sent to Arizona voters’ homes, there are 28 arguments listed against Proposition 320 and only two arguments in favor.

Public school officials will be forced to make drastic funding reallocations if this proposition is passed. Phoenix Union, like most other districts in the state, faces a decision: they can cut student resources, or they can take the penalty that comes with failing to meet the 60% threshold.

That penalty could be a direct cut to teachers’ pay. School districts must reallocate resources to increase their teacher funding by 0.5% every year to avoid penalties. If they fail to do so, their classroom site fund dollars will be reduced by 25% every year.

“Let’s be clear. This doesn’t add a single additional dollar to our schools,” Jimmy Arwood, a Arizonans for Quality Education nonprofit representative, said during the Clean Elections debate.

“But what is guaranteed is a punishment. A punishment that is not defined until after the election, and that punishment will cut teacher pay,” Arwood said.

Chris Thomas, director of legal strategy for education policy of Goldwater Institute, argued the proposition would increase teacher pay and correctly reprioritize school spending.

“Schools are not centered enough on the teaching and learning that happen in the classroom,” Thomas responded. “The most important thing is to have a quality teacher in the classroom. And you get quality teachers by paying them.”

The Goldwater Institute’s official website’s 2026 ballot guide page mirrored many of Thomas’ arguments in favor of the proposition, who called the 60% mark an achievable goal for school districts. The website reads “while other important roles such as counselors, audiologists, speech pathologists, nurses, social workers, librarians and special education directors are also outside of direct instruction, these positions may still be funded from the remaining 40% of the district’s operational spending.”

Arwood said the public debate left many questions unanswered. He questioned why charter and private schools weren’t being subject to the same scrutiny even though they also take taxpayer dollars.

Thomas told 12 News that private and charters are their own entities that should not have the government oversight interference.

Arizona public schools ranked last in public education in 2025, according to a Consumer Affairs report. This was from a combination of lowest spending per student and lowest academic outcomes among K-12 students.

“Our kids deserve better than being funded at near last in the country. Our kids deserve real investment and not simply just taking away resources and putting them somewhere else,” said Arwood.

The Goldwater Institute is also a public proponent of the Arizona Department of Education Empowership Scholarship Accounts, better known as ESA vouchers. While former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey originally created it for families of children with disabilities, the program was expanded in 2022 and allowed any student across the state to apply. The vouchers provide taxpayer dollars to fully cover private school tuition and other educational expenses.

More than 107,000 students receive ESA vouchers as of the 2026-2027 school year. Critics argue that the program takes funding away from public schools, while proponents argue the program gives families freedom of school choice.

ESA vouchers have also been subject to multiple claims of fraud and misused spending. A 12 News records request from the Arizona DOE showed parents who received ESA vouchers from 2024 to fall of 2025 spent more than $10 million on unapproved items such as personal income, luxury hotel stays or even items like condoms and lingerie.

This summer, the courts struck down a voter-initiated Proposition 212 to place more restrictions over the state program, a proposition that would have appeared on this November’s ballots.

While the initiative collected more than 420,000 signatures, a legal fight led by legislative leaders, the American Federation for Children and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club sued to block thousands of signatures that pushed the total approved below the required 256,000.

The Goldwater Institute also claims fraudulent spending from public school districts as a reason to support Proposition 320. The general election pamphlet reads “unfortunately, over the past year, Arizonans have witnessed a school district spend $500,000 sending staff to Caesar’s Palace for a Las Vegas conference and another district spending $18,500 of public monies on membership dues and golf tournament tickets.”

Gwendolyn Owen is a student at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.