Other transcripts

Transcripts

October 21, 2002

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
KAET Poll results for the gubernatorial race and gaming initiatives;
Candidates' Forum: Superintendent of Public Instruction
· Read the Poll results
In-Studio Guests:
Dr. Bruce Merrill, director of the KAET ASU poll;
Jay Blanchard, Democrat; Tom Horne, Republican; and John Zajac, Libertarian

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," the latest polling numbers are in for the race for governor and we'll let you know which gaming initiative voters favor with two weeks to go until election day. Plus the person elected superintendent of public instruction will have a major say on the direction of the state's education system. Find out where the candidates stand on the issues as we begin our general election debates. Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." With the election just over two weeks away, Janet Napolitano is pulling ahead of Matt Salmon in the race for governor. There is only one Indian gaming proposition which has a chance of passing. That according to the latest KAET ASU Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communications poll. That poll was conducted October 17th through the 20th and surveyed 514 registered voters statewide. Let's get the results.

>> Mike Sauceda: Janet Napolitano's lead over Matt Salmon is growing. The KAET ASU poll last month showed that the democratic Attorney General was supported by 37% of voters, almost identical to the 36% that supported Salmon. A Republican ex-congressman. But this month Napolitano has an 11-point lead over Salmon, well love the 4.3% sampling error for this poll. Among those most likely to vote, Napolitano's lead is slightly smaller, 46 to 38% independent Dick Mahoney's recent spate of negative ads have not impacted his previously small ratings much. He went up from 4% last month to 5% this month while Libertarian Barry Hess is at 2%. In the race for Attorney General, Republican Andrew Thomas is gaining ground. 41% support democratic canned gate Terry Goddard while 32% under favor of Thomas compared to 40% last month for Goddard and 25% for Thomas. Republican Jan Brewer's lead has shrunk in the race for Secretary of State. Last month she led Democrat Chris Cummiskey by a 10-point margin this, month she has a 35-29% lead. Finally n statewide races, Democrat Ruth Saul Monday is tied with David Peterson, 30-30%. Turning to Indian gaming propositions, one has enough support to squeak past and that is proposition 202 which is supported by 17 Indian tribes. 50% of registered voters support it compared to 34% against. Things are looking dismal for the other two gaming measures, 21% support proposition 200, sponsored by the Colorado River Indian tribes, 64% don't like that measure. Finally, proposition 201, sponsored by the racetrack industry also only gets 21% of the support, 65% are against it.

>> Michael: Joining me now to talk about those poll results is Dr. Bruce Merrill, director of the KAET ASU poll. Why is Janet pulling away from Matt?

>> Bruce Merrill: Well, I think that there's a number of things that are going on there. I think that probably some of the negative tea in the system has actually benefitted Janet Napolitano. She's a woman. We are going to release data late they are week that shows people really have come down hard on Mahoney for being so negative towards her and they see her as running the least negative campaign. The other thing is there's some really fascinating demographics this time. January set winning so far because she's doing very well with the moderate Republicans, the so-called soccer moms, and, in fact, there's the largest gender gap in this election than any we've mesh nerd Arizona. Women in Arizona today of registered voters are supporting Janet Napolitano 2-1 over Matt Salmon. Men are even, slightly more for Matt but pretty evenly divided.

>> Michael: Now, I know on our poll a few weeks back rural Arizona was voting heavily for Matt Salmon. Is that still the case?

>> Bruce Merrill: Yeah, he is still leading there, and Janet leads heavily in Pima County. But as you would expect, almost two out of every three registered voters are now in Maricopa County and she's dividing the vote in Maricopa County, doing better than dividing the vote and winning Pima County heavily. So that's why she's ahead at this point. Now, there's a couple of debates. There's one tonight in Mesa, one here in Channel 8, a little later, still two weeks to go, a lot of money to be spent. But there isn't much undecided vote and it is very clear that with two weeks to go that Janet is pulling away from Matt Salmon.

>> Michael: Now, Dick Mahoney really didn't gain, he didn't lose in this poll?

>> Bruce Merrill: Yeah, and for him to have run his media and picked up nothing, that, I think, shows the backlash in terms of his strategy to get media attention by going negative. I think if you saw his ad today that came out and he started with education and a come of things, I think had he stayed with those issues, prescription drugs for the elderly, et cetera, he would have done a lot well. But it's very clear that people saw this as a negative campaign, one of the most negative they've seen, and that does appear to be helping Janet Napolitano.

>> Michael: Andrew Thomas gaining ground on Terry Goddard. Last poll I believe that was about a 15-point spread.

>> But we've said at that time that that was largely due to Terry having very high name I.D. statewide. He ran two statewide campaigns. He's known statewide. Frankly, no one knew do they know today who Andrew Thomas is. But as the election approaches, party begins to firm up to some degree, which means there's more Republicans in Arizona, they vote in a higher percentage. As the election draws near, Andrew Thomas will continue to do better. The only question now is, was Terry out far enough that Andrew Thomas can't catch up in time now. Two weeks to go.

>> Michael: Bruce, you know, I think well over $20 million has been spent on the gaming propositions. The supporters of 200 and 201 have got to be just absolutely crushed by these results, and 202 is seeing its support erode at least comparing our poll results quite a bit.

>> Bruce Merrill: Yes, in fact, I ran some cross tabs before I came in. 50% of the registered voters in Arizona today are voting no on all three of the gaming propositions. I think this is another example of what happens when negative campaigning goes bad. You've got -- each of the three initiatives is running ads against the other ones. People are confused. They don't know what's going on. When people are confused, do one of two things, they say I'm out of here, I'm not going to deal with this, or they volt no because they're confused, and it's quite obvious that 200 and 201 are going down by very large margins, two or three to one and you've got 202, which is barely surviving. It's got 50% support at this time. Frankly, it's changing in a negative direction since our poll a month ago. So it's conceivable that all three could go down if one passes it will probably be 202.

>> Michael: All right. Bruce Merrill, thank you very much for the data. >> Bruce Merrill:And thanks to our volunteers.

>> Michael: Absolutely.

>>> Coming up, our first clean elections forum. Stay tuned.

>> Announcer: The superintendent of public instruction oversees the Department of Education, the state agency administers various education programs, distributes money to school districts and monitors the performance of public schools. The superintendent is also an important voice in the many issues facing public education, including adequate funding, bilingual education, the AIMS test, and school accountability.

>> Announcer: Tonight from the Channel 8 Studios on the campus of Arizona State University, a "Horizon" Election 2002 Special, a forum with the candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

>> Michael: Good evening. I'm Michael Grant of Channel 8's "Horizon." Welcome to the official clean elections forum of candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Each candidate will have up to 60 seconds for an opening statement. Another 60 seconds for a closing statement. In between I'll ask questions of the candidates with some of those questions coming from "Horizon" viewers. First let's meet the candidates.

>> Michael Grant: Jay Blanchard is the Democratic candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction. East state senator and professor of educational psychology at Arizona State University. Blanchard is a retired U.S. marine corps officer, he's lived in Arizona 17 years, he is married and has three children. Blanchard is a participating candidate under the citizens clean election act. Tom Horne is the Republican candidate, an attorney, and his 24th year on the Paradise Valley School Board. He's a former state representative and served on the House Education Committee. Horne has lived in Arizona 31 years. He's married and has four children. He is a non-participating candidate. John Zajac is the Libertarian candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Zajac is a TV and radio producer and director. He is the secretary of the Arizona Libertarian Party. Zajac taught ecology at UCLA as graduate student and worked with high school students as a coach for college admission tests. Zajac has lived in Arizona for 15 years. He is 45 years old and single. Zajac is a non-participating candidate. I should explain that John Zajac, we're advised is on Interstate 10 at this moment, perhaps heading for our studios. If he arrives in time, he will join us in progress. To determine the order of the opening statements, we drew lots before the forum and we begin with Mr. Horne for his opening statement.

>> Tom Horne: Thank you. Hi, I'm Tom Horne. As you heard, I'm in my 24th year on the Paradise Valley school board. That's Arizona's third largest school district. My 10th year as its president. I spent four years in the Arizona legislature, I was vice chair of the education committee and I was chair of the academic accountability committee. I'm talking primarily about three issues in this election, first, academic excellence, second, restore discipline to the classroom, and, third, restore funding to the classroom. When I was first elected to the Paradise Valley school board, we focused intensely on academics. We doubled the math and science requirements for graduation, we increased English and social studies by 50%, focus onned content of the courses and required every student read at least eight books or plays and in English scores. Our test scores soared to where we exceeded national and state averages in every subject, every grade level. I want to bring that focus to the whole state so all of our children learn more and do better academically and hopefully I'll get to talk about the other two issues in the question and answer or in the closing statement. Thank you.

>> Michael: Mr. Blanchard?

>> Jay Blanchard: My name is Jay Blanchard. Arizona is a strong state, but Arizona is a state concerned about its public schools. I know because I've spent the last three decades working in our schools. From Tuba City to peach springs, to Yuma, Wilcox, Phoenix and Tucson, I have been working in our classrooms. I am a certified teacher and teacher educator. I know the challenges we face. I have been a staunch supporter of our neighborhood schools. I fought to keep funding for our neighborhood schools. I fought to keep our neighborhood schools safe. I introduce add bill in the last session that assures that all our teachers, all our teachers, pass criminal background checks. I've been concerned about assessment. I'm concerned about common sense assessment. I'm concerned our 8-year-olds have to face three to four weeks of testing. I'm concerned about a labeling system that leaves 227 of our schools failing but only two excelling. I'm concerned about assessment. I'm concerned about our children.

>> Michael: Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchard. Here is where we would have an opening statement from John Zajac, but he's not here. Mr. Blanchard, let's talk about the AIMS test.

>> Mr. Blanchard: Ah, yes.

>> Michael: You have referred to the AIMS test as Arizona's instrument to mess up schools. How so?

>> Jay Blanchard: Indeed I have. For the last 24 years every superintendent has brought a new test and a new test causes conflict. I think we need stability. I think we need conformity. I support the standards. I think the solution ahead is to combine the AIMS and the Stanford together in what we could call an expanded Stanford and the publisher has suggested that that's a possibility. So I support that. And I should add that the AIMS test that we have right now does not meet no child left behind guidelines. We have to double the size of AIMS, we have to add science and I don't see more AIMS testing as a solution to our problem. I see staying the course on standards.

>> Michael: Do you see AIMS and the Stanford blend that you have described as a condition pre- requisite to high school graduation?

>> Jay Blanchard: No, I don't.

>> Michael: Mr. Horne, what's your position on A & M tests?

>> Tom Horne: I have proposed a modification to the AIMS test where a reasonable test would be required for graduation. If a student can't do trigonometry, we shouldn't make hem them a high school dropout. If they can do trigonometry, we should recognize that and I've proposed honors endorsement, graduate at different kinds of diplomas, tuition waivers for those at the top so that students are recognized for the higher AIMS standards but only to have a reasonable test as a graduation requirement.

>> Michael: Let me go to schools evaluation. Last week, as you know, 19% of Arizona's schools were ranked underperforming. By early next year those schools have to file a corrective plan. Le be on the watch of the new Superintendent of Public Instruction. Mr. Horne, give me your idea of what the key element or key elements are in a plan that takes a school from underperforming to improving and hopefully excelling.

>> Tom Horne: Well, first of all, the improvement plan would focus on leadership. Every study of schools that have excelled shows it depends on the leadership of the principal and that leadership has to focus on academics. That would meantime on task, for example, in our school district we expanded the amount of time spent on teaching reading to three hours. It means the amount of time you spend on the academics. It means the intensity of the focus on the academics. It means looking at the curriculum, be sure that the curriculum is based on research, phonics should be used in teaching reading, well researched programs should be used in teaching math. All of those things need to work together and schools can turn themselves around.

>> Michael: Any reason to believe that schools are not currently doing that kind of thing?

>> Tom Horne: Yes. If a school has been labeled as underperforming, chances are the test scores are low and getting lower. That's the definition used, which indicates that students are not learning enough.

>> Michael: Key elements of a corrective plan to take a school from underperforming time proving, excelling?

>> Jay Blanchard: First of all, we have to get the money to help the schools. One of the unfortunate things about the labeling process, Michael, we've done a great job fixing blame but we haven't decided to fix the problem. I there are three key elements we have to look at. First of all, we have to take a look at our teachers. Do we have highly qualified teachers. In some cases we do, some cases we don't. Second thing is expanding the school day, expanding the school year, perhaps offering summer school programs for these students. Thirdly, we've got to involve the parents. We've got to involve the communities. We've got to reach out. We cannot do it on our own.

>> Michael: The ultimate sanction if a school continues to underperformed is state takeover. That sounds a lot like I am from the government and I'm here to help you. Is that the appropriate nuclear weapon to inflict --

>>Jay Blanchard: It sure does. Seems like the bully on the block approach. The ultimate strategy is the threat. We're going to threaten you and if threats don't work, we're going to seize your schools and we're going to seize your property tax. That's not going to work at all. It's back to that old notion of fixing blame and not fixing the problem. I did not support legislation in the Senate and in the house that used the threat as a way to try to help our schools. Let's help our schools. Let's not seize our schools and seize the property tax.

>> Michael: If we don't do something different, though, don't we run the risk of remaining in the same apparent malaise that we have been in for a long time?

>> Jay Blanchard: I don't believe so. One of the reason the local school boards have been struggling is the legislature has consistently taken power away from our local school districts, they micromanaged our school districts. With the improvement plans, that with the federal dollars rolling in, 885 million we can make changes.

>> Michael: What do you think about the ultimate sanction, state takeover of local schools if they continue to under perform.

>> Tom Horne: Hopefully the schools will turn themselves around if but the scores students aren't learning, scores are low and getting lower, then the state has to intervene and do something and with your usual brilliance, Michael, you have focused on the two issues that divided us in this race, the important issues and they are both accountability issues, accountability of students and accountability of schools. On accountability of students I favor a reasonable test as a requirement for graduation, Jay does not. On accountability of schools I favor the ultimate sanction of state intervention if necessary to be sure that we never again have a mediocre school where a student would have to go to a school a child would have to go to a school where he's not going to learn and Jay does not favor that.

>> Michael: Why is there a belief that somehow sending people from the state capitol to a local school setting is going to make things better?

>> Tom Horne: It's been tried in other states and it's worked well. For example, in Texas, there's a school that we studied in our school district, they were about to be taken over because two-thirds of their students were failing. They switched their curriculum to core knowledge which is a curriculum I believe in and uses the classics to teach he will that men tree as well as high school. After switching the curriculum they went to having two-thirds of the students pass. When we started imposing core knowledge, we sent people down to study that school even though they had been in danger of a state takeover. Hit not been for that state takeover as a possibility, they would never have turned themselves around but because of the possibility of a state takeover they did turn themselves around and I believe the schools in Arizona will duty same thing in order to avoid a state takeover, they will focus on academics and they will turn themselves around.

>> Michael: Let me go to the budget. As you know there's a big hole in the state budget this year and for that matter next year and we hope not long after that but who knows. Governor Hull has suggested as one of the ways to handle that budget shortfall the $100 million plus in the so-called soft capital money that mainly goes to things like textbooks and transportation needs. Do you favor that cut?

>> Tom Horne: I do not. I should mention that on the basic education budget that goes for teacher salaries and programs, there can be no cuts because under proposition 301 it's voter protected. Soft capital is not voter protected, but we have not had an increase in soft capital since 1998, and the cost of those things have gone up. So in real purchasing power, we have already had a substantial cut in soft capital and in my school district, for example, we used to have a five-year cycle for textbooks, now we have an eight-year cycle for textbooks. So I do not favor that cut.

>> Michael: Here is the point the governor makes in defense of that, primarily focused on textbooks, number one, she thinks that some of the old textbooks are better than the new textbooks. And number two, particularly in the -- in this area, textbooks, it's overlooking the money that, for example, we have been spending on hardwiring and bringing computers to the classroom, which naturally deemphasizes the role of the printed textbook. What is your position?

>> Jay Blanchard: Well, she's mixing apples and oranges and I am sure she realizes that. Soft capital comes to us from students first. It's guaranteed in law that the schools will be helped, including the charter schools, receive this money. So I think she's a little bit astray there. She is probably talking about deficiency spending which comes to us from bonds, where we're spending money to wire the schools, that comes from the school deficiency plans and we also have money that's flowing for new school construction and by the way, we are about to launch into a rent to own school business, a bill I opposed, a bad idea, it will cost us more money.

>> Michael: Is there any area, Mr. Blanchard, of K-12 funding which could or should be cut?

>> Jay Blanchard: Absolutely not. What we need to do, though s to help our school district prioritize their he can spends. We need to help them lower administration costs. One of the reasons we have high admin costs is the Arizona legislature continues to micromanage the schools. They present the schools with unfunded mandates which drive up cost. Right now the average central office cost is 5.1%. That's pretty good. But in the future, we've got to help them also come one federal money. We sent money back, the Arizona Department of Education sent money back. We've also got to apply for federal grants. We have got to get every dollar we can.

>> Michael: Any K-12 contribution at all to this budget --

>> Tom Horne: I oppose cuts in K-12 education. I also want to make a point about whether computers can substitute for books. Education is about books, and I will be a warrior for book. Computers will never substitute for books.

>> Michael: Computers can do an amazing --

>> Tom Horne: They will never substitute for a nice hard cover book with pages that you can turn.

>> Michael: I'm inclined to agree with you but I'm computer illiterate. English immersion, you obviously made a primary issue of English immersion versus bilingual instruction. Specifically, if you were elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, what changes in what we are doing with English immersion and bilingual education?

>> Tom Horne: The big change is to put a stop to the abuse of the waivers. If a parent says they really want bilingual for their child, that should be respected. But we have to put a stop to the abuse of waivers under which schools Xeroxed numerous waiver forms h all kids -- parents sign them and put them all into bilingual and they were a bilingual school and avoided the effect of the proposition. Very recently my position has been vindicated by a magazine called education next which people can get on their computers at educationnext.com. It's sponsored by Harvard, Stanford and two research institutions and found students in English immersion outperformed students who had been in bilingual, in though they had more years in school, more years of college, had higher incomes.

>> Michael: Arizona voters approved English immersion. Are we running it correctly? Does Jay Blanchard do something different as Superintendent of Public Instruction in relation to English immersion?

>> Jay Blanchard: Well, we really don't know. Proposition 203 didn't carry any money with it and the Department of Education was supposed to evaluate a certain number of programs, actually 32. They didn't get a chance to start the evaluation and didn't get a chance to do the follow-up studies. I'm not sure yet that we're -- we should be with immersion. But back to the bilingual option. I think parents are allowed that option f they select that option freely, I will support them in that option.

>> Michael: But should you mass produce that option?

>> Jay Blanchard: Absolutely not. They should make be a informed decision about the bilingual selection process.

>> Michael: What's your position on vouchers for private schools?

>> Jay Blanchard: I don't support vouchers. They're against the law in Arizona, against the constitution. I do support an open and frank discussion on why so many of our citizens think that vouchers are a great idea. I think I've got an idea why. We've continued to micromanage our public schools. We've taken choice away from our public schools and some of our citizens look over at the private schools with envy and think, well, disruptive students, we can get rid of those students, dress codes, we like dress codes, codes of conduct, we like those. So I think we need an open and Frank discussion on what we've done to our public schools in terms of private choice.

>> Michael: So you are against --

>> Jay Blanchard: Absolutely.

>> Michael: -- vouchers each in terms if it were possible to send a constitutional amendment to the people, you just do not support the concept of vouch centers.

>> Jay Blanchard: That is correct.

>> Michael: Mr. Horne, what is your position.

>> Tom Horne: Article 9, section 10 of our constitution prohibits the use of money for private or sectarian schools but I have been a strong supporter of school choice through charter schools. I played a role in killing an amendment that would have restricted the growth of charter schools and they have since grown to where 2% of the -- with 2% of the population, we have 20% of the chart he schools. A student or family that does not like the public school they're in, they can go to any public school in the state but they have a wide choice of charter schools, all different kinds of schools they can go to to appeal to their need.

>> Michael: Let me clarify. I want to get to the philosophical issue 37 let's phrase it this way, because I realize you think there's a constitutional problem and incidentally there's a number of people who agree with you. Would you support a constitutional amendment being forwarded to the people on vouch centers.

>> Tom Horne: I have not supported a constitutional amendment. I have supported, as I say, I have supported the charter school option. Every place they've tried a constitutional amendment, and they've tried it in diverse places such as California and up in the northwest, it's gone down 70/30. I think if we had an experience, that would not be good for school choice. We have a great momentum for school choice with our charter schools, our tax credits and open enrollment and I think we should continue down that line and make a wide choice available to students, particularly with our charter schools.

>> Michael: All right. We have been joined by John Zajac, who I was told was stranded on the Interstate 10.

>> John Zajac: I was, but I'm the Libertarian nominee for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Here I am. Catching these guys in the last 30 seconds of the show. And I know that's kind of rude of me, but unfortunately, we got held up today, and got stuck on I-10, and just one thing after another happened. Anyway, I'm here. What can I --

>> Michael: Let me do this. It's impossible to catch up on the past 20 minutes, but let me ask you for some quick answers on some very basic issues.

>> By like -- AIMS -- I will give you an opportunity for a statement --

>>John Zajac: I'm for replacing the AIMS test with local control with a series of tests that each school district or county district would be able to order their own tests for their particular district that that would replace the AIMS test as a standard for that particular district.

>> Michael: Do you support it as a graduation requirement? Or some high stakes test?

>> John Zajac: I 30 should be -- yeah, I think there should be some sort of test as graduation requirement but I think the AIMS test is demonstrating to be deficient and we want to replace it with a new kind of test, competitive testing between districts.

>> Michael: We were just discussing vouchers. What's your position on vouchers? I think I may know what your position --

>> John Zajac: Tom is the guy who pointed out everyone it would take a constitutional amendment to allow vouchers to be applied to private and sectarian schools. I am for it and it ought to be passed. I'm for vouchers being issued by the state between six to 8,000 per student per year that would go to the parents and they could use that for any school of their choice, whether it's a private, public or privatized public school.

>> Michael: Let me rub this around the horn starting with you, Mr. Zajac, what about the tax credits? There's also a tax credit for extracurricular contributions to public schools. Do you support that?

>> John Zajac: Yes, I do. I think that's a good idea, and idle a step in the right direction towards privatization. We should keep it and I know of several private schools down in Tucson that have been using it to their advantage.

>> Michael: You touched on this, but your position on tax credits?

>> Tom Horne: I favor the tax credits. We're going around the Horne so to speak on this question. I favor the tax credits. I would reform it soap the public tax credit would be equal to the private school tax credit and remove the restriction on public school tax credits which now limits it to extracurricular activities and doesn't allow for academics, which is a completely irrational restriction and should be removed.

>> Michael: Mr. Blanchard?

>> Jay Blanchard: I support the tax credits but we need reform badly. There is no regulation of the student tuition regulations that handle taxpayer money and the flow of taxpayer must not tee to the private schools.

>> Michael: We have exhausted our time. It is now time for closing statements from the candidates. As with our opening statements, we drew lots with Mr. Zajac in absentia to determine who goes first and Mr. Blanchard, your closing statement.

>> Jay Blanchard: Michael, Mr. Horne has pointed out the big difference between and he I in this campaign and it's about accountability. Only his ideas for accountability about state control of our schools. Let me give you one example. Mr. Horne sponsored a bill that no third grader, no 8-year-old, could leave third grade unless they passed the AIMS test. That's about state control of our schools. I'm about local control. I think we can turn to our local school boards, free our local school boards from unfunded rules and regulations, and I think they can solve our problems and help lead the way to the success we need in our public schools.

>> Michael: All right that Mr. Zajac, you have one minute for your closing statement, even though you never got an opening statement.

>> John Zajac: Well, all I can say is that as a Libertarian nominee for this office, I stand for Libertarianism, which is basically local control and competition, and we would like to see the continuation of this, and I just -- I'm glad to be here, and I'm hoping people will vote for me because it kind of sends a message to the other two candidates that maybe something else needs to be done than what the usual thing we've been doing and I am I for school vouchers and school choice. I also think, I hate to mention this, but we've talked about this before, that teachers ought to have the right, since they have to go through the background checks and the finger printing, to actually be able to apply for the concealed carry weapons permit, be trained in the use of firearms to protect students -- protect the lives of students in the classroom from horrible tragedies like Columbine.

>> Michael: Thank you, Mr. Zajac. Mr. Horne?

>> Tom Horne: Thank you. Well, I agree with Michael and I agree with Jay. Accountability is the issue here. First of all, let me say something about students going to the fourth grade if they cant' read. Almost all students can learn to read in the first grade. There's absolutely no reason that with the extra help that was provided in my bill and that we're providing in our school district, summer school, tutoring, special programs student that is neurologically normal should not be able read by the third grade. To socially promote such a student to the fourth grade who cannot read is to doom that student to failure. I have been an enemy of social promotion. I think when a student goes from one grade to another it means the student has done some work and learned something and so I think that is the best thing for the students, not to socially proceed promote them and have them go from grade to grade unable to read. Now, accountability is twofold. It's the accountability of the student. I favor a reasonable test to graduate, and Jay does not. And it's accountability of the schools. I favor leaving the school alone if they produce good test scores but if the test scores are low and getting lower and students aren't learning, I feel the state has to do something about it. I favor and that Jay does not.

>> Michael: Mr. Horne, Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Zajac, thank you much for joining us. If you missed any portion of this debate, you can watch it online at the "Horizon" Election 2002 website. You can do that. The address is www.kaet.asu.edu. Simply click on election 2002. You will find our schedule of upcoming election coverage, information on ballot propositions and transcripts of this debate and other "Horizon" shows. The website also allows you to watch video of forums featuring candidates for the state's top offices. Thanks for being here on a Monday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.