Arizona State and Local Government Documents Collection

The state government general fund shortfall in the current fiscal year is projected to be between about $550 million and $1 billion. This shortfall will need to be eliminated through spending cuts and/or revenue enhancements. The Legislature has demonstrated a preference for spending cuts. However demand does not decline during a recession for most public-sector services, including university services. Any reduction in funding for universities will have a negative and direct effect. A reduction in state government spending for universities of around $200 million would cause direct and indirect job losses of approximately 4,000. A substantial decrease in state government funding for universities will have negative consequences beyond these short-term effects.

The Strategic Plan comprises an ambitious set of goals and objectives. It is a “living” document that will guide our focus and activities. As such, some objectives and expected results will be subject to change as information and events unfold. Objectives and measures aligned to drive achievement have also been developed in Units, Sections, and Divisions throughout the Department.

Our Plan includes ambitious, innovative goals and objectives focused on developing great schools, excellent teachers, and successful students. We believe that implementing this Plan in partnership with education, business and community stakeholders will help us achieve our mission: To serve Arizona’s education community, ensuring every student has access to an excellent education.

In view of the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity in American youths, the Arizona Department of Education’s Health and Nutrition Services has taken the initiative to evaluate the nutritional content of competitive foods and beverages sold on school campuses in Arizona. This study also intends to evaluate the financial implications to schools when replacing foods and beverages found to be less nutritious with healthier choices.

The Team Nutrition Grant Project began in 2003 with the goal to guide and assist schools to create and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive school health program. Such a program integrates a school’s child nutrition programs, with the classroom, the community, and entire school environment. A coordinated, comprehensive school health program (CSHP) can be implemented to create a healthy school environment through a “model” nutrition policy. Using the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service Team Nutrition’s Changing the Scene, A Guide to Local Action, the project proposed to implement the model at a state level by forming a state level coalition of key decision makers within the school environment.

Economic convergence was only a matter of time for Ireland. That it happened when it did and in such a short period of time was the result of both thoughtful decision-making on the part of many stakeholders and a favorable set of external economic developments. To continue to achieve rapid economic growth, however, Ireland will not be able to rely on increased labor utilization but must succeed in raising output per worker. This, in turn, will require more entrepreneurial activity and participation higher value-added activities. Ireland will need to participate more in the creation of knowledge and not simply be operational in the application of knowledge-based technologies. Arizona, like Ireland in the 1980s, has an opportunity to change its growth trajectory. Arizona can follow Ireland’s lead today and pursue the returns that can accrue from strategic investments or continue on its current path.

Education decisions are among the most important choices people ever make. So we were surprised and disappointed to see an article so loosely reasoned and reckless in its conclusions as “Five Reasons to Skip College” published in Blank Slate at Forbes.com on April 18, 2006. The article never provides a numerical assessment of the costs and benefits of going to college, uses statistics inappropriately and in a way that biases the conclusions against college, contains conceptual errors on how to evaluate the return on a college education, and greatly exaggerates the only substantive criticism of typical evaluations of the financial worth of a college degree.