Arizona has made a number of policy decisions signaling our commitment to ensuring that high school students graduate truly prepared for college or career. Our students are making some of the greatest academic gains on NAEP in the country and graduation rates continue to improve.

But the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) is looking to stymie further growth through government overreach. Last week the USDOE denied Arizona’s waiver for flexibility in using a Menu of Assessments, instead of just the statewide AzMERIT high school assessment, for federal accountability. They also said the current state AzMERIT End-of-Course examinations in high school do not meet their regulations either.

Before I go any further, let me give you some background.

Arizona’s “Menu of Assessments� law has been on the books since 2016 and includes trusted and reliable exams like Cambridge, SAT and ACT, which schools across the country use to determine the honest likelihood of student success in college. Our strategy that allows them to choose a test other than the state’s AzMERIT assessment. This gives Arizona schools the opportunity to meet and exceed federal testing expectations while also reducing duplicative testing in schools that gave other tests on top of the AzMERIT.

Over the same time period, the federal government adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act (EESA), which was touted as a way to return more control and flexibility over K-12 education to the states and allow for more innovation. The intent of the law was to limit USDOE’s role under ESSA to one that provides guidance and support for states.

Ironically, the USDOE waiver denial runs counter to the larger intent of the law. Additionally, their rationale creates challenges for Arizona regulators, schools and students.

For starters, two years ago, the USDOE approved Arizona’s state ESSA plan, which included the current high school AzMERIT End-of-Course examinations. It is poor form for the federal government to now reverse course, especially given that students are taking these exams right now as part of our rigorous accountability system.

As for the denial to use a “Menu of Assessments� instead of AzMERIT, much of the letter from USDOE cites failures of process to achieve approval. While we are pleased that there does appear to be a path forward to Menu at a later date, the idea that the federal government expects our state agencies to spend valuable time jumping through bureaucratic hurdles to prove that these exams, accepted by colleges and universities across the country, align with college readiness and rigor is laughable. This is an unfortunate example of the federal government exerting its influence over K-12 education in a way that is heavy-handed rather than supportive, and that ignores the will of local and state-level stakeholders.

The letter’s implication that states ought to calibrate their academic standards to fit a particular exam is equally troubling. The opposite is true. Given that Arizona’s standards are supposed to culminate in college-ready and workforce-ready students, we believe these high-quality assessments are all aligned to our standards as well as to the spirit of the federal law to better support all students.

This push for a one-size-fits-all high school testing regime runs counter to Arizona’s robust school choice environment and demand from the field and families. At A for Arizona, we have learned from the state’s highest performing, high poverty school principals and system leaders that they want the opportunity to choose the test that best aligns with the material taught in their classrooms and that has relevance for students and parents based on course sequencing and rigor.

One of those school partners is University High School Principal Amy Cislak whose students just took the ACT last week. After the exams, I asked her how state testing went in the inaugural year of Menu of Assessments.

“UHS juniors took the ACT last Tuesday. What happened after that three-hour exam? We got back to teaching and learning. If our students were still required to take AzMERIT, they would be testing for three more weeks,� she said. “The decision to select from the Menu of Assessments was a great decision for our high school students. It needs to continue so we can do what’s best for our kids.�

It is ironic that the department led by school choice champion Secretary Betsy DeVos would attempt to stand in the way of our efforts to innovate in order to better serve all Arizona students and force us to measure in the tired one-size-fits-some model rather than cheer our progress. Lastly, it is egregious that the USDOE has threated to withhold federal Title I dollars from Arizona schools and irresponsible to deliver this news while Arizona educators and students are in the middle of testing season. We appreciate the quick work by the Arizona Department of Education – under the leadership of new Superintendent Kathy Hoffman – and the State Board of Education, to develop a solution that works for Arizona and a plan to secure our state Title I funding.

The post Column: The test still matters appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.

Less than a year ago, Arizona witnessed arguably the most hotly contested debate over education policy in years as 50,000 teachers marched at the State Capitol to fight for an increase in teacher pay. It was hard to go far without seeing #RedforEd messages on signs in business windows and t-shirt racks.

Polls showed unprecedented levels of support by voters as teachers rightfully earned and deserved a major pay increase. Arizona proudly continues its decade-long reign as one of the fastest academically improving states nationally. In April of 2018, the Arizona Legislature responded with a teacher pay raise of 20 percent. The first 10 percent is already in paychecks and the next 10 percent is in the state budget for next school year. This amount becomes part of base funding with annual inflation increases. No state had ever mandated a local teacher raise to that degree before, but Arizona teachers had earned it, and the public was adamant that they have it. This was the kind of next step needed at a time when our schools shared about their priorities around recruiting and retaining the best teachers.

Significant as this $650 million state investment is, we cannot lose sight of the fact that local decisions impact pay too. As we strive to further improve teacher salaries, we should carefully watch two things:

First, as state funds are allocated to district and charter central offices, the result should be that teacher pay grows at the school level too. Thanks to a new school level transparency law championed by Senator Paul Boyer in 2017, and taking effect next year for district and charter schools, parents and taxpayers alike can monitor progress.

Next, we must ensure that all education resources are maximized for the classroom.

One area of particular risk for diversion of classroom dollars is the upkeep and maintenance of empty or under capacity buildings. For example, a 2012 Arizona Auditor General report found that the Scottsdale Unified School District could pay teachers $3.8 million more if they made better use of their school facilities.

New research shows Arizona currently has at least that is going unused. And this is only the space we know about. Poorly utilized school space is expensive and restricts the ability to focus resources on students and teachers.

Between fiscal years 2004 and 2017, Arizona school districts added 22.6 million square feet of building space – a 19 percent increase – despite a student enrollment increase of only 6 percent during this same period. If these empty or partially  or partially-utilized buildings were utilized in a way that created resources for their host districts -similar to what we’ve seen in Georgia, California, and New York- the savings for school districts could reach $21 million to $38 million per year.

Fortunately, there is a solution in play to maximize use of this publicly built space to expand opportunities for families to attend high demand district and charter programs, while allowing more resources to be directed into classrooms.

A bill moving in the state legislature, Senate Bill 1161, gives school districts additional tools to manage empty and partially used buildings and to support voluntary and innovative school partnerships to use this space. Some partnerships already in the pipeline are with other district partners, a military base, or public charter schools. If we want to relieve budgetary pressures, secure facility cost savings, and free up resources for teachers and other educational resources, we must empower districts with the authority to manage these expensive assets.

To continue our groundbreaking academic gains, we must look at all policy barriers – including empty facilities – to drive available dollars to teacher pay and provide more families with access to an exceptional education.

The post Column: Building teacher pay appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.

Today, more than choose to send their children to a school other than the one assigned to their home address. It is wonderful to see Arizona parents and families empowered in this way.

Parents clamoring for more quality choices have given rise to innovators in education who have developed new school models that deliver education in a variety of exceptional ways. This is a huge benefit to Arizona families.

As Arizona students head back to the classroom, let’s remember the privilege families in our state have to choose a school environment that best fits their one-of-a-kind child. After all, some states deny families free options other than their assigned school. And, as long as we insist that that every choice delivers a high-quality education, we should support all school models as equally valuable to the families whose needs are successfully met through them.

We often hear about the school choice debate at the political level. But what does it mean at the personal level?

It allows the family with special needs to find a quality school model that can recognize and teach to their child’s learning style.

It allows students in a failing school to attend a better quality school, even if it’s not in their neighborhood or immediate zip code.

It allows the student with a keen interest in art, robotics, music, or computer science to flourish in a specialized school environment rather than be disengaged or uninspired.

It allows the child who is the victim of bullying to find haven and a fresh start within a school focused on social and emotional learning.

It allows high school students to dual enroll and get ahead with college credits or to learn firsthand on the job with apprenticeships and internships related to their passions and talents.

Beyond these examples, having more choices in the marketplace keeps all schools sharper, and if nothing else, highlights those that need to up their game. And here is where many become uncomfortable with the debate around school choice. It’s hard to acknowledge that neighborhood schools sometimes fail students.

As a former Title I school teacher myself, I more than understand these challenges. Still, I’m far more empathetic to the needs of Arizona kids obtaining the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in life than I am to prioritizing adults over student learning. For me, the more ‘D’- and ‘F’-rated schools that fall away this year in place of models producing amazing results for their students, the better. After all, there is only one answer to this question for every parent: If you knew one school would bring opportunity to your child and one would not, would you exercise choice?

As we embark on a new school year set against the backdrop of a somewhat tense education climate, let’s remember what quality school choices have provided for Arizona families and why we need to fight hard to preserve all of them.

Emily Anne Gullickson is the executive director and co-founder of .

The post Guest Commentary: The choice is yours, Arizona appeared first on Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­.