Hobbs launched new criticisms against the Empowerment Savings Accounts (ESA) program, the school choice initiative allowing all Arizona families to direct education spending to charter or private schools, calling ESAs “unsustainable” and “unaccountable” after reporting the program is estimated to cause a shortfall in the Arizona General Fund.
Total costs for the program are estimated to be $943 million, according to the Hobbs. This will leave the general fund with a potential shortfall of $319.8 million. Revenues for the general fund are estimated to be $17.9 billion.
Hobbs claimed the program increases costs because “more than 50% of ESA voucher funding represents” students previously outside of the public education system, including those “previously enrolled in private school, home schooling,” or attending a “non-state aid” school. In the same press release, Hobbs declared the ESA program is “unsustainable,” and charged that ESA vouchers “do not save taxpayer money” or “provide a better education for Arizona students.” She warned that the program could “bankrupt our state” if left unchecked.
While Hobbs’ press release questioned the methodology used by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) when formulating its estimate, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne noted his agency calculated a number “only 0.008 percent” different from the $943 million figure.
In a statement responding to Hobbs’ claims, the Republican head of the ADE said Hobbs knew the estimated cost of the program and the methodology used to reach it on May 31. He then criticized the governor for appearing to question the integrity of the government agency.
“The projections we released are, ironically, almost exactly the same as those in the governor’s memo,” said Horne. “There is a difference of only .008 percent between their numbers and ours. Questioning our methodology and our commitment to integrity in this process is unfair and unnecessary.” He also noted that the ADE held a press conference “where all aspects of these estimates, including the methodology, were thoroughly discussed and scrutinized by members of the news media.” This, Horne said, “contradicts the contention that ADE was anything less than transparent in this process.”
