Just over 87 percent of parents support school choice, according to a recent survey by Wordtips. The greatest majority of parents to express support were Black or African American parents at nearly 58 percent, followed by Hispanic or Latino parents at about 51 percent. A slight majority of parents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic didn’t change their perception of school choice; 2 in 5 parents supported school choice more since the pandemic.
776 parents were surveyed across the country. Nearly 53 percent were female and over 47 percent were male, averaging about 39 years old.
The study explained that nearly 90 percent of parent respondents understood the concept of school choice. A majority of respondents familiar with school choice were White, with Black or African American parents coming in a close second. Hispanic or Latino parents ranked third in familiarity, with Asians ranking last.
Access to safe schools was the primary reason that 87 percent of parents support school choice. Parents were nearly split on the runner-up reasons for supporting school choice: choosing better schools outside the district, greater flexibility for parents, supporting children’s talents, and better resources for children with learning disabilities or special needs.
Additionally, the concept of inclusivity was a sweeping reason for parental support of school choice: just over 65 percent of parents agreed with that sentiment. They believed it would make private and charter schools more inclusive environments.
Republicans strongly supported school choice by about 6 percent more than Democrats; independents and Democrats nearly tied on strong support, with Democrats strongly supporting school choice by about half a percentile more. Although, independents ranked higher on somewhat supporting school choice than both Republicans and Democrats.
Generation X strongly supported school choice slightly more than millennials.
Nearly half of the parents that expressed support for school choice reported that they don’t use it. The vast majority of those respondents explained that it was due to living in a district with a good public school.
Of the 116 parents that opposed school choice, over 46 percent said they were deterred by private and charter schools’ ability to deny admission. 42 percent reported that vouchers don’t provide full tuition. The three reasons listed after those two are often the top arguments for opposition to school choice: it takes away funding from public schools, it would lead to privatization of education, and it would benefit wealthier families over low-income ones.
Additionally, 46 percent of parents feared that school choice harbored a hidden agenda in which religious institutions would receive indirect, secret funding.
When asked what priorities schools should have, 43 percent of parents believed that “life skills” classes should be taught. A close second in desired priorities was increased teacher wages.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
Representative Ruben Gallego’s (D-AZ-07) falsely accused previous President Donald Trump of using police to clear protesters for a photo op last June, per the U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) final report. Gallego wasn’t the only one – he rode the same bandwagon as many of the mainstream media outlets. The DOI published their report on Wednesday.
According to the report, officers were attempting to install more fencing to guard against the onslaught of Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters. Their attempts to clear the protesters had no connection to Trump’s visit. In fact, the report says, officers began clearing the area hours before they knew of Trump’s visit.
DOI Inspector General (IG) Mark Lee Greenblatt issued a press release accompanying the report. Greenblatt clarified that this report would be “the first of a number of projects” to examine all that occurred from an operational perspective the day of the incident, June 1. Those projects would assess how the U.S. Park Police (USPP) and other law enforcement decided to clear the park and acted upon those plans.
“The evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing in response to the destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and 31,” said Greenblatt, in reference to the BLM riots over George Floyd’s death on those days. “Moreover, the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day. As such, we determined that the evidence did not support a finding that USPP cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” (emphasis added)
Greenblatt acknowledged that officers did fail to provide “loud enough” dispersal warnings and exit directions to the protesters. He added that individual use-of-force incidents are subject to separate investigations and ongoing lawsuits.
It is unclear why it took a year and several days to complete this report.
Following the Congressional hearing about the incident last July, reporters asked Gallego if the hearing offered more transparency or left him with more questions. Gallego was confident that Trump attacked the protestors purposefully and accused him of pushing “one big cover-up” onto the public.
“I’m not confused at all – to be honest, I actually feel even more satisfied to know that this was a preplanned operation to incite violence and to initiate violence against peaceful protesters in order for the President to have his photo op,” said Gallego.
WATCH: National Guard officer contradicts Barr’s account of clearing protesters from Lafayette Square during racial protests.@RepRubenGallego: “I’m not confused at all. … This was a preplanned operation to incite violence.” pic.twitter.com/eqpDXK30Of
Later, during the Congressional hearing, Gallego also accused officers and officials testifying of telling “lies and excuses.” In a Facebook and Twitter posting, Gallego is seen in a video accusing USPP Acting Chief Gregory Monahan of attacking peaceful protesters. Monahan responded repeatedly that officers had based their response on the level of violence that had been occurring.
“U.S. Park Police’s actions in Lafayette Square on June 1 were unprofessional and unconstitutional. I would never have been permitted to behave that way with civilians when serving in Iraq – particularly for a photo op,” wrote Gallego. “Today’s testimony was full of lies and excuses. We need accountability.”
Gallego has yet to issue a response concerning his false accusation.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
A woman who’d immigrated legally to the United States filed an amicus brief against the sheltering of migrants in a Scottsdale hotel. Concerning the June 4 filing, the woman, Yvonne Cahill, told AZ Free News that she’d gone through all the legal processes without any extra assistance from federal agencies or free passes on testing.
“I came to the USA as an immigrant and I did it legally. No federal agency paid for my immigration attorney, put me up in a hotel room, or bought me a ticket to go visit relatives. In addition, I was required to take an oral, written exam and pass a physical exam. I had been working as a registered nurse in the USA for several years, but this was still a condition for citizenship,” wrote Cahill. “We need to fight against the federal government overreach into our communities.”
Cahill filed the brief under the ongoing case against Woodbridge Hospitality, the company that established the hotel with borrowings from Wilmington Trust. The brief explains that Cahill is a unique authority on this issue. Not only does Cahill reside in a community near the detention center, and she understands the legality and impact of the situation due to her real estate practice.
“Local government is in the best position to assess and safeguard such interests and the public has an interest in ensuring that its eminently reasonable determination not to allow such a location to be used as a detention facility should be respected,” wrote Cahill.
In her brief, Cahill cited correspondence from Wilmington Trust, which pointed out that Woodbridge Hospitality’s contract with the federal government to convert the hotel would convert it into a “low security prison on busy Scottsdale Road.”
Further, the brief noted that the hotel’s usage as a detention center violated Scottsdale’s zoning regulations. Cahill cited the property’s zoning designation, which was for travel accommodations for under 30 days.
“Detainees who are to be held indefinitely cannot satisfy the thirty-day requirement. Since detainees are to be held under guard, they also hardly qualify as guests. In addition, such use hardly conforms to the policy purpose of R-5 zoning, as expressed by the Scottsdale City Council, to ‘promote and preserve’ single-family residential development as well as to allow for uses ‘incidental’ to such development,” wrote Cahill.
ICE spokespersons told AZ Free News that the intent is to have each migrant out of the facility within 72 hours. In the event that a migrant tests positive for COVID-19, that individual would have to remain quarantined for 10 days. The spokespersons said that this amount of time allowed officials to process and establish the proper terms and conditions of release while the individual’s immigration proceedings continue.
Cahill added in her brief that the detention facility was contrary to the public interest. She emphasized the importance of honoring the balance of powers embodied by local elected representative’s local zoning and land use lawmaking.
“To allow a private company to violate the ordinances put in place by Scottsdale City Council at the behest of the executive branch of the federal government impermissibly violates the separation of powers,” wrote Cahill. “State and local powers cannot be ‘bargain[ed] away’ even when it is the state doing the bargaining, much less a private party.”
Property values, the local tourism industry, and public safety would all be jeopardized, in Cahill’s estimation. She explained that realtors such as herself would be mandated to disclose the detention center’s existence to potential buyers, thereby deterring buyers and depressing home values in the community. Cahill shared that at least one of her clients has already been harmed financially by the detention center because he can no longer sell his home.
Others within the community have responded negatively to the hotel’s usage as well. Following news of the hotel’s conversion into a holding facility for migrants, protesters showed up to the hotel in droves.
The hotel is currently contracted to operate as a detention center until the end of September, at least.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
The Scottsdale hotel converted into a migrant shelter seemingly overnight several weeks ago still has a working number – and the operator on the other end answers for “The Suites.” The facility has been closed to the public since May 24 to award short-term, emergency lodging to migrant families that ICE classified as “political asylum refugees.”
In our first call placed to the facility, the automated attendant didn’t directly identify the name of the building. Instead, the automated attendant said that we’d reached “the hotel” and could dial an extension or wait for an operator.
A woman answered, identifying the facility as “Suites on Scottsdale.” We asked if the facility was still the Homewood Suites.
“No ma’am, it is not. It is the Suites on Scottsdale,” said the operator.
We then placed a second call to the facility, but the operator never answered – and the mailbox was full.
It is unclear whether the facility is still using software associated with Homewood Suites, and if the current usage of the facility and systems is in line with the franchise agreement and Scottsdale zoning codes.
As AZ Free News reported, the facility is currently being operated by Family Endeavors, an organization awarded a no-bid contract by the Biden Administration shortly after the border crisis erupted.
The current website for the facility identifies it as the “Suites on Scottsdale.” All of the links for contacting the facility and booking a reservation were intact, at the time of this report. However, all of the rooms were listed as “Not Available” for the rest of the year.
In addition to contact information directly related to the Suites on Scottsdale, the site includes contact information for Ledgestone Hospitality.
ICE spokespersons didn’t tell AZ Free News why the surrounding communities weren’t given advance notice of the shelter being established. They also didn’t answer our question regarding how many other similar migrant hotels were established in the area. However, ICE did tell Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) that they’d established similar shelters in Chandler and Phoenix.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
Arizona’s wealthiest town has gained national attention over the last week, after it was discovered that a former hotel was covertly transformed into a migrant safe house almost overnight. A former Homewood Suites in Scottsdale has been converted to a makeshift migrant shelter closed to the public since May 24.
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have contracted “Family Endeavors” through September 30 to house over 1,200 migrants at a time in Arizona and Texas. They paid the company $86.9 million in a no-bid contract lasting 6 and a half months for a multi-state contract. Each bed totals over $352 daily. The ICE contract repeated that the “Government would be seriously injured” had they not awarded this no-bid contract to Family Endeavors to handle the migrant influx – an “unusual and compelling urgency,” as they described it. The contract also noted that the expected migrant influx would be the highest seen in over 20 years.
The contract didn’t speculate as to why this sudden, emergency-level influx was occurring.
One of the organization’s officials was reportedly on the Biden transition team: former ICE official Andrew Lorenzen-Strait. Ahead of the influx characterized as an “unusual and compelling urgency,” Family Endeavors announced on Inauguration Day that Lorenzen-Strait would become their government liaison as senior director for migrant services and federal affairs.
Soon after the $86.9 million contract, Family Endeavors received the $530 million no-bid contract for “emergency intake” and long-term care of migrant children.
Family Endeavors’ website describes the organization as assisting “vulnerable people in crisis” like veterans, disaster victims, the homeless, and migrants.
Family Endeavors wouldn’t answer questions from AZ Free News concerning whether they felt communities were owed an advance warning prior to sheltering migrants there. The organization directed AZ Free News to speak with ICE for further inquiries.
“We can confirm that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] has contracted with Endeavors to provide critical services to migrant families, which is a continuation of services we have delivered to the migrant population since 2012,” wrote the Family Endeavors spokespersons.
Officers at the shelter site shared that they were contracted with Law Enforcement Specialists (LES), a law enforcement contract service company. They also informed reporters that ICE and various state agencies were monitoring the hotel.
ICE spokespersons also didn’t answer questions from AZ Free News concerning why surrounding communities weren’t given advance notice of the shelter, why local officials lack authority to decline sheltering migrants, or if there were any other similar shelters currently or soon to be operating out of Scottsdale or the surrounding areas. Instead, they reiterated the same information given to other reporters concerning the holding times, COVID-19 testing protocols, and the quality and content of care of migrants.
According to court documents concerning a legal battle between the property lender and the borrower, the plaintiffs in the case, Wilmington Trust, note that the defendant and borrower, Woodbridge Hospitality, misleadingly referred to the ICE/DHS contract as “private lodging” rather than the reality of its current usage – an immigrant detention center. Wilmington Trust claimed that they issued the loan to Woodbridge Hospitality on the condition that the facility would be secured by rents, income, and underlying value of a Homewood Suites by a Hilton branded first-class hotel.
On Tuesday, the city of Scottsdale issued a press release explaining that they’d been notified last Friday about ICE’s plan to establish a migrant shelter at the Homewood Suites the next day. ICE officials reportedly told city officials that the hotel would serve as house intact families seeking political asylum. ICE assured the city that a “vast majority” of those migrants would travel outside of Arizona after processing, which would be short-term: 72 hours or less, on average. ICE also assured the city that these migrants would be tested for COVID-19 and receive health assessments.
“Scottsdale has no current authority to prevent the hotel from being rented for these immigrant families,” read the press release. “Immigration is a federal matter, over which the city of Scottsdale has no responsibility or oversight.”
The city officials told concerned citizens to contact their federal government representatives, and listed Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ-06), Senators Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and President Joe Biden.
Links to federal leaders weren’t enough for Scottsdale’s citizenry. On Wednesday, over 600 protesters showed up at the pop-up Paradise Valley migrant shelter. Scottsdale Mayor David Ortega reprimanded the protestors and concerned citizens in an email.
“Feds say they are recognized, asylum seekers, not illegal border crossers, [they are] COVID tested and to be accountable to ICE. Feds control the closed-use property. They are exhausted now,” wrote Ortega. “‘Remember you were once an alien.’ Anyone living, working, or visiting Scottsdale will be treated with respect and dignity[.]”
Schweikert sent a letter to ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, questioning how ICE planned on providing proper social services, security, boundaries, and first responder resources for the facility. Schweikert asserted that the area didn’t support a facility, logistically.
“I am concerned that this location lacks even the most basic resources needed for a migrant detention facility. I am also concerned about the effect this facility will have on the surrounding community,” wrote Schweikert. “Finally, and perhaps most troublingly, I am concerned that your agency made the decision to use this facility as a migrant detention center without properly consulting with the surrounding community.”
Neither Kelly or Sinema published any statements or remarks on the matter. However, both senators heavily criticized Biden’s handling of the border crisis.
The President hasn’t issued any statements, either; nor has White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on his behalf.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich submitted a letter as well.
“The President is using Arizona as an experiment with his reckless border policies,” wrote Brnovich. “All of us will pay the price, not only with our tax dollars, but also with our national security, and the safety of our families.”
At least one state-level representative has taken action, too. State Representative Shawnna Bolick (R-Phoenix) also submitted a letter to Johnson questioning why ICE would locate a migrant detention center near a public school and suburban neighborhood.
Today I sent a letter to the acting director at @ICEgov to get answers to questions I have about a migrant detention facility located in the suburbs near a public school and neighborhood. I cc’d other local officials on the letter, hoping to get all of our questions answered. pic.twitter.com/FfEBcicWSo
— Shawnna LM Bolick (@Bolick4Arizona) June 2, 2021
Concern for the quality of these migrant facilities – especially for children at the ages most vulnerable for trafficking – has been a long-time issue for Arizona legislators. Back in 2016, whistleblowers revealed that unaccompanied migrant children were vulnerable to coyotes. State legislators attempted to introduce legislation requiring that refugee facilities be state-licensed and inspected monthly; it died in chamber.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
