Teach the Children

It’s a safe bet that Arizona voters never dreamed their elected officials would ask them to kill education programs and then stretch the truth to justify the move. But there it is, on the November ballot, courtesy of the Arizona Legislature. It’s called “Public Program Eligibility,” or Proposition 300.

Of course, I’m betting voters also never expected that someday, they’d have a chance to vote on a bold new approach to early childhood education, but that’s on the ballot, too, thanks to a citizens initiative. It’s called “First Things First,” or Proposition 203.

If anything spotlights the political schizophrenia of Arizona, it’s these two education issues, which voters will decide during this election. They tell us a lot about this state and where we’re headed. Are we progressive, fair-minded folks, or just fruit loops? I’m not being snotty, I’m being honest. Just listen to the voices of all kinds of decent folks, folks who have earned admiration and support for their genuine concern about our state and its people. They can explain it a lot better than I can.

Proposition 300 is billed as a measure that would prohibit your tax dollars from “subsidizing illegals.” So, you have to wonder right off the bat why the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation hardly a liberal outfit wants you to vote “No” on Proposition 300, which was referred to voters by the Legislature.

You’re also urged to vote “No” by the Arizona Interfaith Network, which includes 170 churches, schools, nonprofits, businesses and unions throughout the state (and that includes Catholic, Protestant Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim).

In all, nine separate groups have submitted arguments against this issue, which are included in an informational pamphlet that Secretary of State Janice K. Brewer has sent to every registered household in Arizona. (The pamphlet provides pro and con arguments for every proposition on the ballot.)

Support for Proposition 300 comes from three individuals: Its sponsor, former state Senator Dean Martin of Phoenix, who’s now the Republican nominee for state treasurer; Don Goldwater, who was defeated in the September primary for the Republican gubernatorial nomination; and state Republican Representative Russell Pearce of Mesa.

They’re trying to sell the proposition as a “reasonable” response to illegal immigration. They call it “fair.” Martin claims that “Arizona is currently giving away millions of your tax dollars as subsidies to illegals.”

Here, Pearce explains the proposition in his own words: “This referendum prohibits the state government from offering adult education classes, tuition waivers or childcare assistance to illegal aliens. By offering these services to illegal aliens, it increases the burden on our state programs and robs our own citizens of services they’ve paid for with their taxes. Above all, free state services for all takes away the incentive for illegal aliens to become full citizens and legitimate members of American society.”

With all due respect to former Senator Martin and Representative Pearce, two of the most conservative politicians in the state, their assertions are at best manipulations, misrepresentations and mistakes. They are taken to task again and again by the nine groups that argue that Proposition 300 will “punish children including citizen children hurt families… and undermine communities.”

Opponents say the proposal actually prohibits in-state tuition status to anyone whose parents are not legal residents, including students who have spent their entire lifetimes in Arizona. They say that this is what Martin and Pearce mean by “tuition waivers.” Most people would interpret that to mean “free” tuition. It doesn’t, opponents say. It means in-state tuition rates, which are lower than out-of-state rates.

What’s more, the Legislative Latino Caucus notes that even the Arizona Senate didn’t intend to be so “destructive.” “A Senate compromise allowing undocumented children to be granted in-state tuition status if the student had been in Arizona for at least six years and if the parents had filed income taxes for those six years was removed in the House,” they note. “The proponents have no interest in sound public policy, but rather to be mean-spirited because they can.”

The Arizona Chapter of the National Organization for Women points out that some of the potentially affected children brought to the United States by their parents, and hardly responsible for their immigration status have already garnered the state some glory. Take a group of Hispanic students from Carl Hayden High School, for example. They recently won a national award in a robotics competition, outsmarting students from the prestigious MIT.

The organization also claims that the proposition creates a phony issue by pretending to end financial aid for illegal students, because citizenship is already a requirement for most financial aid. Further, it argues that a second false issue exists on the claim that the proposition will end state-subsidized childcare, because Arizona law already requires children to be citizens to receive a childcare subsidy. As the Valley Interfaith Project puts it: “Proposition 300 denies even American children their rights based on their parents’ legal status.” Finally, they argue, the proposition prohibits adult education classes for undocumented aliens primarily English classes. Think about that for a second.

You would like to cry, except you have to laugh. Because elsewhere on the November ballot is Proposition 103, which demands that English be named the “official language” of Arizona. It, too, was referred to the ballot by the Legislature. So, let’s review: The Legislature wants to mandate that English be the only official language in this state, but it is handicapping undocumented workers, preventing them from learning it.

We all understand that speaking English is a baseline measure of “making it” in America. Some have asked, “When was English not the official language of Arizona?” Never, of course. It is, and always will be. That’s precisely why we have so many adult education classes to teach people English. That doesn’t mean people can’t also speak another language. In fact, throughout the world, being bilingual or trilingual is considered a badge of honor. But in America, we have an obsession with “English only.”

Arizona should be particularly ashamed of this attitude, considering our revered history with the Navajo Code Talkers – speaking in their native tongue, these soldiers created the only code the Japanese couldn’t break. Their language helped America win World War II.

“Most adult-education students are employed, are paying taxes and are the parents of American citizens,” notes the Pima County Interfaith Council, which says that about 35,000 people are enrolled in adult education classes around the state. “Restricting parents’ access to English language learning opportunities [Prop. 300] dramatically undermines Arizona’s substantial financial commitment to help Arizona’s 160,000 non-English-speaking children learn English.”

The Arizona Farm Bureau also puts things into perspective: “This proposition comes from the frustration over the failure of the federal government to act responsibly and comprehensively on securing our border and reforming the immigration system. But the fallacy of this measure is the same as when politicians call for penalties on employers who unknowingly hire workers…. This proposition is not the answer.”

The Arizona Interfaith Network probably sums it up for most of the opponents when it says: “Proposition 300 violates our belief that childcare for working families is better than leaving children home alone; that talented high school age youth getting to college is a good thing; and that adults learning English is good for themselves, their families and their communities.”

“In shocking contrast to what the Legislature sent voters is the citizen-sponsored Proposition 203, known as “First Things First.” The powerhouse behind this initiative is Nadine Mathis Basha, the wife of grocery magnate Eddie Basha. The couple is known throughout the state as fearless and tireless fighters for improved education.

“Please vote yes on the ‘First Things First’ Initiative to ensure that every child in Arizona is given the fair opportunity to start school healthy and ready to learn,” Nadine Basha urges. In his own statement of support, Eddie Basha calls this “the most important thing that you can do for Arizona.”

Proposition 203 has enormous support: 27 separate groups and individuals have submitted statements of support in the state’s publicity pamphlet. They include groups representing business, religion, education, firefighters and child advocates. Phoenix and Tucson chapters of the United Way are supporters, as is former Governor Rose Mofford.

Opposition comes from five voices, including a tobacco company and the Arizona Tax Research Association, which calls itself the “only statewide taxpayer organization.”

The proposition would raise $150 million annually through an 80-cents-per-pack tax on tobacco products to fund voluntary early health screenings and education programs for children up to 5 years old. It mandates that only 10 percent of the money can be used for administrative costs, while 90 percent must be spent on the children. The money would not go through the Arizona Legislature, but would be controlled by a statewide citizens board and regional councils that would determine the program’s needs in cities and towns throughout the state.

Opponents attack everything, from the basic premise that early childhood education is a good thing Mesa Senator Karen Johnson’s opposition statement calls the proposal a “tired old fantasy” to the citizen councils. “Unelected bureaucrats will spend over half a billion dollars in less than four years,” complain representatives of Philip Morris USA, one of the nation’s major tobacco companies. The tax association worries that the proposition will end up robbing other programs that already rely on tobacco tax revenues by making cigarettes too expensive. It notes that the plan would “propel Arizona tobacco taxes to the fourth highest in the nation,” and claims it will be an incentive for smokers to seek cigarettes on the black market and “lead to further declines in taxable cigarette sales.”

Not one of those arguments, however, comes close to matching the basic premise of this issue.

“The ‘First Things First’ Initiative evolved out of longitudinal studies spanning 40 years, and the latest brain science that shows a child’s brain is 90 percent developed by age 3,” notes the United Way of Tucson and Southern Arizona. “Investing in quality early learning, health and education programs will help Arizona be a great state to grow up in, and create the human capital necessary to sustain the state’s growing and vibrant economy.”

Phoenix Firefighter President Billy Shields simply calls it a “wise measure.” Former Governor Mofford says, “I was born and raised in Globe, Arizona, and I spent more than 50 years in the service of this state. In my lifetime, I have not encountered a proposal as smart or overdue as ‘First Things First.’”

The Arizona Chapter of the National Organization for Women says, “This is not a ‘Big Brother’ program of state-imposed uniformity and mediocrity. Volunteer councils with broad-based representation will oversee the program. Even better, it will be funded by a dedicated tax on tobacco products and will not be a drain on the existing state budget.”

Arizona voters will make the final decision on both of these education propositions. I hope we have an enormous election turnout and that voters make wise, fair choices. The future of this state is at stake.

For more information on this month’s election, visit www.azsos.gov