On Arizonans’ ballot this November is a resolution that Republican lawmakers say will strengthen public schools, but teachers and advocates are warning against it and urging Arizonans to vote no.
Proposition 320, a Republican-sponsored ballot measure, requires most school districts in Pima, Maricopa and Pinal counties, or districts with at least 7,500 students, to spend a minimum of 60% of their operating budgets on “direct instructional expenses.” The ballot referral passed the state Senate and House on a party line vote earlier this year and will now appear on ballots this November.
Sponsored by far-right lawmaker state Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), the measure would penalize school districts that fail to meet the funding threshold beginning in the 2027-28 school year. Schools that don’t hit the mark would lose 25% of their Classroom Site Fund allocation the first year of noncompliance and another 25% for each subsequent year, losing the full amount by the fourth year. The state superintendent can waive the penalty for up to a year, with a maximum of two waivers allowed over a 10-year period. The measure does not, however, apply to charter or private schools.
Characterized as “pro-teacher” by Republicans, Arizona education advocates are warning that the measure could hurt public schools and teachers more than it could help.
Beth Lewis, director of Save Our Schools Arizona, called the measure “dangerous.”
“It sounds good when you first read it, right? Because everybody wants money to go to classrooms, to teachers, but the reality of Prop 320, the fine print, is really going to spell cuts for classrooms and cuts to teacher pay,” Lewis said.
For schools that use their allotment to pay for things like school counselors and the arts, the measure risks penalizing them for directing money to those programs—meaning students could miss out on other activities and districts would have to make tough choices.
The measure narrowly defines “direct classroom instruction” to include things like the teacher’s pay, textbooks, and potentially a teacher’s aide. It does not include funding for special education, math and literacy coaches and professional development for teachers. That means the other components that make up a school day could face steep funding cuts as administrators would have to work to ensure compliance if the ballot measure is passed this fall.
“All of this is a huge punishment for kids, and it would slash teacher pay, even though they’re advertising it as more teacher pay,” Lewis said.
If schools have an increase in students who need special education resources, including counselors or specialists, it opens the door for schools to be penalized for directing money to those resources. The baseline 60% is also too strict, advocates say, as not all districts spend the same. A 2026 report by the Arizona Auditor General found that the state’s public school districts spend approximately 52.1% on those instructional expenses—meaning few schools are hitting the mandatory 60% mark already. The rest of the funding goes towards student and instructional services, administration, facilities, food service, and transportation.
Supporters of Prop. 320, including the Goldwater Institute, argue school districts have let classroom spending erode over time—from 59% of budgets in 2004 to about 52% today—while a larger share goes to administrative purposes.
GOP lawmakers argue that the measure redirects money to teachers rather than administrators, and minimize “administrative bloat” that prevents money from going into the pockets of the state’s teachers
Rep. Matt Gress (R-Phoenix), who sponsored the House version, said the goal is to boost teacher pay.
“We have over 3,000 teacher vacancies.… And yet we’re spending more money outside of the classroom year after year after year. We have to reverse that,” he said.
Education advocates argue the “one-size-fits-all” approach risks hurting public schools more than helping it, as each district has a different student population with diverse needs. Creating more rules on funding isn’t a solution, Lewis said.
While Arizona consistently ranks one of the lowest states for public school funding, Lewis said the solution is to direct more money to schools—not to create strict guidelines that risk taking money away from schools.
The legislation risks impacting rural areas, too. Dawn Dee Hodge, the Coolidge Unified School District (CUSD) superintendent, called the measure “detrimental.”
“When we modeled this, we would be reducing assistant principals, IT staff, instructional specialists, custodial (staff) and grounds (staff),” Hodge said to Pinal Central. “Even if we do all of that, we are still $400,000 short from meeting that 60% mark.”
Advocates have pointed to rising costs under President Donald Trump’s administration, too, including higher food and gas prices, making it harder for schools to afford expenses. New regulations on spending would make it harder for schools to pay for the everyday things—like food for students or gas for buses— it needs to keep a school running.
While Lewis agrees schools need better funding—and so do their teachers—she argues this measure risks hurting public schools and jeopardizing teachers’ bonuses by slashing the Classroom Site Fund if the school fails to meet the mark.
“This is aimed to hurt public schools,” Lewis said. “It cuts teacher pay. It cuts really important programs and positions like nurses, sports, and the arts. We really need voters to read the fine print and remember to vote no.”
