Arizona has approximately $29 million in unused federal funds for schools, which Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne seeks to recover.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) notified Horne of the unused millions last week. The $29 million in Title I funds were underutilized during the administration of Horne’s predecessor, Kathy Hoffman. This was reportedly the first notification of its kind submitted by ED to the state under Horne’s administration.
In a press release on Monday, Horne blamed the underutilization on incompetence.
“The under-utilization of about $29 million in federal funds began in Federal Fiscal Year 2020, but continued under the previous superintendent and the employee who incompetently handed these allocations no longer works at this department,” said Horne.
Horne rejected allegations by Governor Katie Hobbs that he was at fault for the mismanagement of these millions, which fell under his predecessor’s control.
“These dollars should have been sent to districts and charters years ago during the Hoffman administration, but they were allowed by previous staff to accumulate and potentially revert,” said Horne. “In reality she is asking to investigate Kathy Hoffman’s administration, but the problem is being corrected by my administration.”
Horne had clarified in a press release last week, responding to reporting by The Arizona Republic, that it was specifically one employee within Hoffman’s administration that was to blame. Horne claimed that the individual gave incorrect allocation totals to schools. Horne didn’t name that employee.
“The mishandling and failure to notify districts of correct allocations with time for them to properly plan and spend the money resulted from an error by an employee of my predecessor before I took office,” said Horne. “This person told the schools they had smaller allocations than they had. We were constantly on the phone urging districts to spend as much of the money properly as they could.”
The superintendent noted that the Arizona Republic was aware that oversight of the funds fell under Hoffman, but that they had “dishonestly withheld” that information from their reporting. Horne also demanded a retraction of their “false” reporting.
“The story is false, and the reporter responsible for writing it dishonestly and, apparently with intent, withheld information given to him in advance of the story that clearly shows the story is false,” said Horne. “This is unacceptable and cannot stand.”
KJZZ identified the former staffer as a current employee of the Pima County School Superintendent’s Office.
One member of that office, Peter Laing, their CFO, served as Hoffman’s policy advisor and oversaw the various federal funding programs during the pandemic.
Hoffman, in turn, told the Arizona Republic that Horne was to blame for not recognizing the missteps of her administration upon taking over.
“It was their choice to bring in their own leadership, so those people needed to figure out all the grant funding. It’s as simple as that,” said Hoffman.
On Monday, in response to the contested Arizona Republic reporting, Hobbs and six Democratic state representatives demanded the convening of a Joint Legislative Audit Committee to audit Horne and ADE over the Title I funds.
In a press release, Hobbs said Horne was to blame for the disappearance of the majority of those millions, around $24 million, which the governor deemed as lost.
“It is unconscionable that Superintendent Horne has let tens of millions of dollars disappear from our schools—critical federal funding that helps students succeed,” said Hobbs. “Our kids deserve better.”
An accompanying letter from the six Democratic lawmakers — Nancy Gutierrez, Lupe Contreras, Oscar De Los Santos, Melody Hernandez, Jennifer Pawlik, and Judy Schwiebert — argued against ADE’s refusal, per department policy, to release its data and formulas determining reduced Title I allocations.
The lawmakers alleged that it was current ADE practices that withheld federal funding from schools.
“School finance officers across the state have tried and failed to recreate the reductions generated by the Department, leading to confusion and doubt regarding the accuracy of those calculations,” stated the lawmakers.
In order to recoup the $29 million, ADE must apply for a Tydings waiver allowing excess funds accrued due to underallocations beginning with the 2020 fiscal year. Approval of the waiver will increase funding to districts and charters, per ADE.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A new leader has been selected for one of Arizona’s major universities.
On Friday, the University of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) announced that Dr. Suresh Garimella had been appointed as the school’s 23rd president.
Dr. Garimella is currently the president of the University of Vermont, and he was previously at Purdue University as its Executive Vice President for Research and Partnerships.
The incoming president’s career fate was sealed with a unanimous vote from the members of ABOR.
“I am honored to be chosen by the board as the next president of the University of Arizona,” said Dr. Garimella. “I have long admired the U of A and its stature in the state of Arizona and far beyond. The institution demonstrates the best qualities of a land-grant university with exceptional leadership in research and health sciences, highly acclaimed faculty and staff, and a diverse student population comprised of the best and brightest from around the world. There are tremendous opportunities in front of us and I look forward to collaborating with U of A students, faculty, staff and alumni to build upon our strengths as an institution and continue to lead in excellence here in Tucson and around the world.”
“Dr. Garimella is student-focused and considers himself first and foremost a faculty member. With a 35-year career in higher education, Suresh is engaging, a great listener and a collaborative leader,” said ABOR Chair Cecilia Mata. “Wildcats are part of our state’s DNA and Dr. Garimella has shown he is the right leader at the right time to heal and grow Arizona’s land-grant university.”
Dr. Robert C. Robbins currently serves as the university’s president, which he has held since 2017. Earlier this spring, Robbins announced his plans to step away from the school at the end of – or before – his term in office.
“I join our University of Arizona family in welcoming Dr. Garimella to Tucson,” said President Robbins. “His experience as a president at a public university and as an esteemed professor, researcher and published author will serve him well in his new role. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to partnering with Dr. Garimella and assisting him with the transition in any way possible. The U of A will be in good hands for years to come.”
According to the press release issued by the Arizona Board of Regents, “Dr. Garimella received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, his M.S. from The Ohio State University, and his bachelor’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A Phoenix public school district has come under fire after the Goldwater Institute revealed it’s Governing Board and Administrative Team were treated to a three-day $4,000 per person “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) conference at a Napa Valley wine country resort. The conference was hosted by the California Association of Black School Educators.
According to the report released by the Goldwater Institute, the “4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute,” was held at the posh Meritage Resort and Spa, where off-season rooms run about $400 per night between July 14 – 17. The Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board and Administrative Team reportedly enjoyed the offerings of the conference, which included, “a five-hour ‘Chairman’s Soiree’ at a local winery, where participants were bussed in to enjoy wine and haute cuisine.” According to a post on LinkedIn, registration for education leaders was $850 per person.
Taxpayer-funded wine tastings? School leaders splurge on glitzy DEI conference: https://t.co/M1o1FGTClt
The theme of the conference, “Black to Basics, Root Causes, Interventions” is an overtly race-driven plan to “foster collaborative action among California education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students.”
The agenda for the convention was conspicuously absent from the CABSE website, however, based upon the 2023 offerings we can glean an understanding of the likely content.
In 2023, the conference offered:
“A Whole Village Approach to Equity,”
“Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning,” and
“Equity in Mental Health.”
Images posted to X by the ‘UCLA Center for the Transformation of School’ taken at the conference showed presentations from CTS Project Director Dr. Stanley L. Johnson, Jr. entitled “What Are Your Basics For Black Students?” and “The Machinery of Improvement: Practices, Policies, and Advocacy”
Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board documentation located by AZ Free News confirmed that the Governing Board officially approved the trip during its April 16 Regular Board meeting. The document noted:
“Governing Board members and staff from the superintendent’s office are requesting permission to attend the 4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute to be held in Napa, California, July 14-17, 2024, at a cost of approximately $3,800-4,000 per person. The CABSE Institute Is a three-day convening designed to foster collaborative action among education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students. This conference is a unique gathering of board members, district superintendents, administration officials, teachers, leaders, and decision makers from across the nation. “
At the same meeting, the district’s personnel action report revealed that over fifty educators resigned effective May 24 with the vast majority described as for “personal” reasons.
During the August 6th Governing Board Meeting, Board Member Katie Gipson McLean reported on the conference, saying it was, “a cool, fun conference to go to,” and adding that “they’re encouraging people to be candid and open and honest and have these larger conversations among the group about issues that are impacting specifically black and brown youth.”
Board President Sophia Carrillo summarized the conference stating, “Their theme was ‘Black to Basics’ and it was just awesome to know that we were in a conference where that it was aligned with our goals. Right? One of our goals is our zero percent black students in grade will pass the math standardized test. And to be in a room full of doctors, educator professionals, Superintendents, school board members from California knowing that this is an issue that’s happening statewide. And they also are having these conversations in their local governing board meetings and making sure that our students that are, you know, that are most vulnerable are getting the attention and the resources that they need was just awesome. A lot of good networking from there to hopefully bring into the school district as well.”
The Goldwater Institute wrote “Plenty of unanswered questions about this year’s event remain. In a three-day conference, why was only 9.25 hours committed to substantive conference content (the sessions where one would qualify for continuing education credit), compared to 22.25 hours spent on ‘networking’ events like the winery soiree.
Why are officials from a Phoenix school district attending a California state education DEI conference with a clear California focus? And why is the district—in which 80% of students fail to meet proficiency levels in reading (across all races combined)—narrowly focusing resources toward a single racial demographic to the exclusion of others, while apparently deprioritizing the 80% of students who are Hispanic or Asian, for instance?”
The institute added, “The district should also produce a detailed conference agenda, a list of all persons attending the conference (the entire governing board and the superintendent’s cabinet were approved to attend), and receipts for all relevant travel expenses, in addition to divulging whether any attendees brought guests to enjoy this taxpayer-funded vacation.”
Parents and community members within the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) are petitioning for the removal of sexually explicit books from school libraries.
Last week, a coalition of parents’ rights and educational organizations submitted a letter to the SUSD governing board requesting the book removals. Nearly all of the books on their list were only offered at high school libraries, with the exception of one offered at a K-8 school library.
Parents and community members involved with Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, Arizona Women of Action, Restore Parental Rights in Education, Protect Arizona Children Coalition, A Legal Process, Not In Our Schools, EZAZ, SaveCFSD.org, KIDS FIRST, Mom Army, and Moms for Liberty submitted the request. Two individuals also joined the request, Shiry Shapir and Dan Kleinman.
The parents submitted their request to remove all “pervasively vulgar” or “educationally unsuitable” content from SUSD libraries to the Scottsdale Unified Governing Board, citing Arizona laws on furnishing harmful items to minors and the 1982 Supreme Court ruling recognizing that school boards maintain the authority to remove books determined to be vulgar or unsuitable for education.
The groups argued that the books don’t offer “serious educational value,” or any “serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.”
The parents and community members also requested that the district employ a book maturity rating system, and to prohibit future purchases of books rated not for minors or aberrant.
“This request is not to ban books,” said the parents. “All of the books mentioned in this letter are widely available in bookstores and other online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets. Schools have a limited amount of library budget and shelf space, thus the question we must answer is which books should be offered to minors and which should not.”
Per the groups, SUSD hasn’t responded to their request.
The sexually explicit books that parents would like to see removed were “A Stolen Life” by Jaycee Dugard, “Doomed” by Chuck Palahniuk, “Haunted” by Chuck Palahniuk, “Lucky” by Alice Sebold, “PUSH” by Sapphire, “Sold” by Patrick McCormick, “Tricks” by Ellen Hopkins, “Perfect” by Ellen Hopkins, “People Kill People” by Ellen Hopkins, “Identical” by Ellen Hopkins, “Icebreaker” by Hannah Grace, “A Court of Frost and Starlight” by Sara J. Maas, “Anatomy of a Boyfriend” by Daria Snadowsky, “Anatomy of a Single Girl” by Daria Snadowsky, “Breathless” by Jennifer Niven, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews, “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison, and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins.
One or more of the books were located at all five high schools: Arcadia, Chaparral, Coronado, Desert Mountain, and Saguaro.
Desert Canyon K-8 school was also on the list for one book included: “Sold” by Patrick McCormick.
These books not only contain sexually explicit material, they contain aberrant depictions of sexual activities such as child molestation, rape, bestiality, sexual assault or battery, incest, adult and child prostitution, and sodomy. The books also contain descriptions of the usage of drugs and alcohol by both adults and minors, as well as suicide and self harm.
Arizona law prohibits the distribution of harmful items to minors, which includes that which contains descriptions or representations of nudity, sexual activity, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse.
Parents cited the Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School No. 26 v. Pico to make their case that SUSD had full authority to remove the contested books immediately without review.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Democrats are hoping to gain a majority in the state legislature, in part, by picking up a seat that tends to favor Republican candidates.
John McLean is running for the state Senate in Arizona Legislative District 17. The district covers Pima County, north of Tucson, including Marana and Catalina.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post wrote a piece, entitled, “Forget the presidential race. Statehouses are where it’s at.” In that article, the reporters, Theodoric Meyer and Leigh Ann Caldwell, opined that “Democrats are trying to flip the state House and Senate in Arizona after Democrat Katie Hobbs won the governorship in 2022, giving the party control of state government.”
Word is spreading quick! #LD17 is THE state legislative battleground race to watch. Not just in Arizona, but across the country. https://t.co/51bwJKnu04
They added, “There are few places where the fights for control of Washington and state legislatures align more than in Tucson’s northern suburbs….Democratic Senator Mark Kelly and Hobbs carried the 17th District when they won in 2022, and Democrats are making it a top target this year. The party needs to flip only two seats in the state House and two in the Senate to win a trifecta (as it’s called when one party controls the governorship and the legislature).”
Kevin Volk, who is running alongside McLean for a seat in the state House of Representatives, told The Washington Post, “Arizona politically seems like the belle of the ball for the first time. And that’s translated to a lot of on-the-ground enthusiasm.”
McLean, a third-generation Arizonan shared on March 29 that he filed 1,369 nominating petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. He wrote, “To the army of volunteers who made this happen, I thank you. This campaign has only just begun!”
37 days ago, I announced that I was running for the Arizona State Senate to bring sanity back to the state legislature. Yesterday, I filed 1,369 nominating petition signatures. To the army of volunteers who made this happen, I thank you. This campaign has only just begun! pic.twitter.com/zEI0DS4OZJ
On his website, McLean lists endorsements from many left-leaning organizations, including Climate Cabinet, National Organization for Women Arizona PAC, Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, Save Our Schools Arizona, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC.
Last month, McLean also boasted about his endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign PAC.
Humbled to have earned the endorsement of the @HRC. I will fight for equality for all, without exception and without leaving anybody behind. #LD17pic.twitter.com/SoyQOpF7Ha
For candidates without a legislative or governing record for voters to research, these endorsements often provide an insightful window into how they might handle their potential roles as legislators or who they may be beholden to in office. For example, organizations like the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona are staunch opponents of the state’s school choice and educational freedom opportunities, including the historic Empowerment Scholarship Account program, which was expanded just a couple years ago. One of McLean’s top issues on his campaign website is “Quality Education For All,” yet he only refers to public schools in his subsequent explanation.
Additionally, McLean’s endorsements from National Organization for Women Arizona PAC and Human Rights Campaign PAC raise concerns about how he would vote in matters of life and family issues. For decades, Arizona has been one of the top states in protecting life and family values, which have come under assault from countless individuals and groups, including the two aforementioned organizations. Support from those two seem to indicate that McLean would be a reliable vote for their issues should he be entrusted with the levers of authority from Legislative District 17 voters in November’s General Election.
McLean lists “Reproductive Rights” – or abortion – on his website as another top issue, framing the argument as “Government should not interfere with anyone’s personal health care decisions which should remain between her and her doctor.”
Arizona Legislative District 17 is a Republican-leaning seat with an 8.3% vote spread between Republicans and Democrats in the past nine statewide elections, according to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Out of those nine elections, all nine contests have ended up in the Republicans’ column.
McLean ran unopposed in the Democrat primary on July 30. He obtained 23,312 votes, according to unofficial totals from the Arizona Secretary of State as of Wednesday afternoon. He will likely face off against Vince Leach, who was ahead of incumbent Justine Wadsack in the Republican primary by 943 votes as of Wednesday afternoon.
After emerging from the primary, McLean posted, “Thank you Legislative District 17 for choosing me as your Democratic nominee for state senate. Together, we’ll secure our water future, strengthen our school system, and build a stable economy. 98 days until Election Day. Let’s do this!”
Thank you #LD17 for choosing me as your Democratic nominee for state senate. Together, we'll secure our water future, strengthen our school system, and build a stable economy. 98 days until Election Day. Let's do this!
Leach told AZ Free News that, “John McLean is going to have to defend the actions of the Democrat party both at the state level and the national level. He owns the damage to the state of Arizona by Governor Katie Hobbs, and also the radical policies that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are inflicting on our country. If voters elect McLean to office, that will help the Democrats take over the state legislature, which means that taxes will increase, school choice will disappear, and commonsense election laws will be reversed. There is a clear divide between me and John on abortion, economic policy, border security, election integrity, and many other issues. I look forward to making this case to our district from now until the General Election.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
In the election for the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board, it appears that one campaign is playing by the rules while the other is not. And the City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Department has chosen to favor the side breaking the rules.
A concerned citizen contacted AZ Free News and provided photographic evidence that the campaign for candidates Donna Lewis, Matthew Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey, installed large street signs over a month before the allowed period, which begins on August 26.
Social media posts from the North Scottsdale Democrats and campaigner Shea Najafi indicated that the organization participated in installing the signs prior to the permitted date.
City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Officer Cathy Maldonado confirmed in correspondence provided to AZ Free News that the permitted date for school board campaign signage is Aug 26.
However, after multiple complaints, the city told the citizen that it is “unable to remove School Board election signs based off the time they are being placed,” unless “they are in a sign free zone, obstructing view / safety hazard, or if they do not have contact information.”
According to the City of Scottsdale’s Campaign Signs Guidelines and Regulations, “Campaign/Political Signs are allowed beginning 71 days before a primary election and ending 15 days after the general election.”
The document advises, “Candidates exceeding the permissible time limit will be subject to enforcement. Failure to comply with these guidelines and regulations may result in sign removal and other enforcement action.”
In a statement sent to AZ Free News, a supporter of conservative school board candidates Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley and Drew Hassler laid out the chain of events:
“On 7/23, the supporter was informed that the City removed the Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis school board candidate sign.”
“On 7/24, I then filed a second complaint for another sign. Richie from the City of Scottsdale went to the sign location, we spoke, and he confirmed in text that the city would contact the candidates and give them 24 hours to remove the signs.”
“Throughout the day, additional complaints were filed as more Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis signs were discovered by the community … but now the City is responding to complaints to deny them, claiming that school board signs cannot be removed, even though they are admittedly out early. It appears that management is telling Code Enforcement Officers that they can only enforce some rules (safe zones, yes; but timing, no).”
“On 7/25, Code Enforcement Officer Richie confirmed in text to me that the signs are out early, but that he will not be allowed to remove the signs as he had stated that he would.”
In an email provided to AZ Free News from Melanie Schwandt, an Administrative Secretary with the City of Scottsdale, our source was given an answer from the City’s Legal Department which had determined “the School Board signs could not be removed even prior to the 71 day mark.”
Arizona Women of Action posted to X regarding the signage violations in Scottsdale, writing, “Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.”
Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) July 27, 2024
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, reporting the same violations, wrote, “The @scottsdaleazgov confirmed that school board candidate signs may not be displayed until Aug 26th … but after democrat candidates installed signs more than 1 month early, the City has decided they will do …. exactly nothing.”
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) July 26, 2024
AZ Free News has reached out to ‘Protect SUSD,’ the campaign for Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis, North Scottsdale Democrats (NorScoDems.org), as well as the Scottsdale Code Enforcement, Legal and Communications Departments for comment. We received no responses by time of publication.
