Prop. 320 would impose an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all spending formula on certain school districts, requiring them to direct at least 60% of operational spending toward narrowly defined “direct instructional expenses.” Districts below that threshold would generally have to increase their instructional share annually — potentially shifting funding away from essential student support and school operations — or face escalating penalties that begin by taking away 25% of their Classroom Site Fund allocation, which supports teacher pay, smaller classes and student services.

Not one cent. It provides no additional education funding and instead dictates how affected districts must divide their existing operational budgets. 

No, in fact it will likely lead to cuts to the classroom, including teacher pay. Although proponents promote it as a way to prioritize teachers and classrooms, Prop. 320 does not require any individual teacher to receive a raise.

No. The vast majority of spending goes to student support, instructional support, transportation, food service, and facility operations like air conditioning which schools rely on to operate and keep kids safe and learning. We can all agree a school nurse is not administrative waste, a counselor is not administrative waste, and the bus that gets a child to school is not administrative waste.

If Prop. 320 passes, districts will likely need to make funding cuts to key areas like safety and security, counselors, speech pathologists, sports, librarians, nurses, social workers, transportation, technology support, building maintenance, food service and other essential services that don’t count as “direct instruction.”

Kids and teachers would be punished. The district’s Classroom Site Fund allocation would be reduced significantly, slashing dedicated funding for teacher base and performance pay, smaller classes, teacher development, student-support services, and academic intervention.

No, because it takes away resources tied directly to the measure’s stated goals. A district that struggles to meet the formula could lose funding used for teacher pay, smaller classes and student support — leaving it with fewer resources to serve students and improve. 

No. Even though districts serve different students and communities, Prop. 320 imposes a blanket, arbitrary standard. District needs vary based on enrollment, disability and special education services, transportation distances, facility conditions, staffing shortages, and many other local circumstances. Local communities know their schools and students better than a one-size-fits-all formula written at the capitol.

No. It applies to only to district schools, and does not impose the same 60% mandate and penalties on charter schools or private schools receiving public ESA voucher funding. 

Require clear, accessible school-budget reporting and hold locally elected boards accountable for results while allowing communities to decide how best to meet their students’ needs. Arizona can prioritize teachers without undermining the services and professionals that make classroom learning possible. 

Arizona voters should vote no on Prop. 320 because it is misleading, arbitrary and self-defeating. It treats essential student services as competing with instruction and could take away teacher-pay and classroom funding from the schools it claims to help.