There is a $7 billion reason why so many Arizona school districts hold bond elections

PHOENIX — A Maricopa Superior Court Judge’s recent landmark ruling shows why many school districts are seeking local help to run their schools in the upcoming election. This year, 36 Arizona school districts have bonds and overrides on the ballot.

The multi-billion-dollar, 8-year-long legal battle came down to one phrase: whether the state was providing “a general and uniform public school system” to all schools, as required by the constitution.

Judge DeWain Fox, a Ducey appointee, ruled the legislature does not follow its own laws that dictate minimum funding requirements for schools for facilities, renovations and maintenance. Fox cited reams of evidence revealing the state legislature has not provided constitutional “minimum standards for schools.” Lawmakers have chronically underfunded formulas dictated by law and failed to adjust formulas for inflation.

An analysis of data by consultant Anabel Aportela – who provided exhibits for the plaintiffs in the case based on JLBC and state Facilities Board records – shows the cumulative shortfall to schools dating back to 2000 is nearly $7 billion.

The landmark Roosevelt V. Bishop decision in 1994, which concluded gross inadequacies in Arizona’s building and maintenance funding system, led to the creation by the legislature of a Building Renewal formula. That formula dictates how much a district should get based on factors like age of schools, upgrade costs and student capacity. The fund pays for building construction, upgrades and maintenance.

But the legislature only fully funded that formula once, in 2002.

In 2013, lawmakers took a different approach. Instead of fully funding the formula, they just got rid of it and created a grant program that Judge Fox concludes is worse.

“The grant approach… is slower and more cumbersome,” he writes, and “provides no funding for preventative maintenance.” As a result, Fox writes “many districts must rely on local funding (i.e., a bond election)” to meet minimum safety and learning standards.

“The chronic lack of Building Renewal grant funding for eligible projects (i.e., to correct existing MAG deficiencies) has been extremely frustrating for SFD board members and staff as well as for the school districts they serve,” the judge wrote.

Annual data provided by the state facilities board shows the amount provided for projects versus the amount requested from districts was nearly $4 billion.

The legislature’s “Additional Assistance” formula was also severely shortchanged. Additional assistance is intended to pay for soft capital needs like books, technology, buses, and maintenance.  Between 2009 and 2022, the legislature shorted the additional assistance formula by a total of $3 billion, according to evidence cited by Fox in the decision.

The picture is bleaker than that. Between 2000 and 2022, lawmakers never adjusted the additional assistance formula amount for inflation, which means their “purchasing power” was also dropping.

Although the legislature restored DAA formula funding in 2023 and bumped up the formula 27%, those increases “did not replace or eliminate the lasting impact the below-formula funding had on districts” for 13 years, the judge writes.

In addition, the current amount is still insufficient for districts to meet their soft capital needs because the legislature has not fully adjusted the formula to make up for 25 years of inflation. An analysis of purchasing power shows school districts have $146 less purchasing power per student under the current formula and charter schools have $67 less purchasing power per student.

The legislature is currently only funding the District Additional Assistance at 70% of the formula, Fox wrote.

Delays in completing repairs lead to poor learning environments and make districts liable to lawsuits, the judge wrote.

“The Amphitheater School District had to wait from 2015 to 2024 to get a roof replaced and to complete the weatherization of a high school building. As a result, the building ended up with mold, and the district is a defendant in an ongoing class-action lawsuit for exposure to the mold,” Fox wrote.

“The system is very cumbersome,” said Superintendent Aspasia Angelou of the Nadaburg School District west of Peoria.

As a former administrator in three states and the Oklahoma High School Principal of the Year, Angelou calls Arizona’s funding system inadequate and says her small West Valley school district must rely on passing a $15 million bond this November to meet the needs of students.

“We need that specifically for campus upgrades, new playgrounds, and buses because we need to accommodate this growing enrollment,” Nadaburg said.

Superintendent Angelou answered written questions from 12News about her experience as an administrator in Arizona. See her responses below.

Based on your previous experience in Dallas and Oklahoma City public schools, what was your reaction when you learned about how the State of Arizona handles capital funding for schools, particularly for a district like yours that is growing?

Coming from large urban districts like Dallas Independent School District, Tulsa Public Schools and Oklahoma City Public Schools, I was used to a more predictable, state-supported capital funding structure. In Arizona, I was surprised by how limited and inconsistent the system is — especially for a small rural district that’s growing rapidly. We have experienced 55% growth over the last five years — some of the most rapid in Maricopa County. Here, districts rely heavily on local voter approval and a competitive school facilities building renewal grant process for critical building maintenance funds. The fund runs out of money before the year even starts. If a bond fails, there’s no real safety net. For a fast-growing district like ours, that can mean students learning in outdated or overcrowded spaces while we wait years for relief. It’s a very different landscape than what I saw in larger urban systems.

As you know, a Superior Court Judge ruled the state legislature chronically underfunds school districts and wrote, “The State has a responsibility to ensure that schools are safe and in good condition for learning. Throughout Arizona, but especially in rural and Tribal communities, this is not the current situation.” What is your response to the judge’s conclusion?

I think the Judge Fox’s conclusion reflects what we live every day. The State Constitution and laws make clear the state’s responsibility to ensure safe, adequate facilities for learning, but many rural and Tribal communities — ours included — are still struggling with leaky roofs, aging HVAC systems, and insufficient space. Local communities work hard to fill the gap, but when the state system chronically underfunds capital needs, children are the ones who feel it most. I appreciate the court recognizing that this is a systemic, not just local, problem.

We hear many citizens express concern that school districts are not financially managed well.

I understand why some citizens worry about how school funds are managed — it’s taxpayer money and should be handled with great care. Our district has received clean, unqualified audits for five consecutive years, and we work under tight oversight from the county and the Arizona Department of Education. The bigger challenge is not mismanagement; it’s that the base level of capital funding is so inadequate that districts are forced to patch and stretch dollars. Small districts without bond funds have to use maintenance and operations (M&O) funds — meant for teachers and classroom resources — to supplement capital funds just for necessities: to cover roofs, buses, and HVAC just to keep schools functional. Small districts simply do not have any wiggle room–every dollar matters. Simply put, small districts do not have the luxury of mismanagement.

What has it been like historically for a school district like yours to go through the process of requesting Building Renewal Grant (BRG) funds?

Historically, the BRG process has been slow, cumbersome, and unpredictable. We’ve put in detailed applications for things like roof replacements, HVAC, and security upgrades, but we’ve only received about half of what we’ve requested over the past decade. It’s not unusual for districts to wait months or years for decisions, only to be told there’s not enough money. Meanwhile, the buildings continue to age. For a rural district with a small tax base, that lag is devastating. The BRG fund is inadequate from the first week of the fiscal new year on July 1.

Since 2011, the district has attempted to pass 7 voter initiatives but only passed one.  Can you explain in general terms what those failed initiatives were meant to pay for?

Each of those initiatives was about maintaining safe, modern schools — replacing aging classrooms, expanding capacity as families move in, updating buses and technology, installing elementary playgrounds, updating security systems — educating and keeping students safe. Security cameras are not included in the minimum adequacy guidelines (MAG) that School Facilities Division funds. How is that possible in this day and age? Our community is hardworking but largely rural, with many fixed-income households. Even when people value schools, tax increases can be hard to support. Unfortunately, when bonds fail, we can’t fund new classrooms or major repairs, so we end up deferring maintenance and stretching operating dollars to cover needs.

How difficult of a decision is it for a superintendent to have to use M & O funds for capital needs, and what gets sacrificed in the process?

It’s one of the hardest decisions a superintendent makes. When you divert M&O funds to cover roofs or air conditioning, you’re taking from classroom technology, materials and resources, and programs for kids. We consider delaying curriculum purchases and cut professional development to keep our buildings safe and functional. It’s an impossible trade-off. 

In recent years, public school funding in Arizona has become increasingly a Republicans versus Democrats issue. Your school district sits in a politically conservative voting district. What would you want the voting public to know about Arizona’s debate over school funding?

Our community leans conservative and values fiscal responsibility — I do too. I’ve worked with public schools, private schools, and charter schools around the country– I try to bring best practices wherever I go. Every student is unique, and schools should address their needs. I want voters to know that supporting schools isn’t a partisan issue; it’s an investment in our youth and in the long-term strength of our local economy. When the state doesn’t fund capital adequately, the costs don’t disappear — they’re just deferred or shifted onto local taxpayers, often in less efficient ways. We can be prudent with dollars and still ensure that children learn in safe, modern facilities. Good schools are foundational to strong property values, workforce growth, and safe communities, no matter your politics.