Have you heard the charge that Arizona families are using Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) for babysitting? Or that ESA families are sitting on millions of dollars that they’re using for expensive, overseas vacations? Or that the ESAs only benefit wealthy families who live in high-performing school districts?
These claims range from “lacking key context” to “lacking any evidence whatsoever.” The main source of these and other horror stories that school-choice opponents tell is reliably left-leaning Arizona media outlets such as Channel 12 and the Arizona Republic.
It’s no surprise. Reporters at these outlets, such as Craig Harris, have a history of inaccurate agenda-driven “reporting” on Arizona’s school choice policies. Recent articles and “news” segments from these and other outlets are in keeping with this history.
Award-Winning Errors
In 2018, the Republic released a series criticizing Arizona’s charter schools. The series won the paper a Polk Award. The only problem is that it was riddled with errors.
For example, the Republic claimed that Arizona’s traditional district schools outperformed the state’s charter schools as measured by the state’s A-F school grading system and graduation rates. Both these claims were demonstrably false, but the Republic never ran a correction.
Matthew Beienburg of the Goldwater Institute detailed at length the numerous errors the Republic made to reach those incorrect conclusions, describing the story as “astonishingly deceptive.” For example, they counted one charter school as having a graduation rate of 0% when the school only offered instruction through 9th grade. Two more schools that supposedly had 0% graduation rates had closed years earlier. Another charter school with a low graduation rate was an alternative school that operated under the Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center—hardly an apples-to-apples comparison for typical district schools.
In 2019, the Republic released an above-the-fold, front-page story claiming that 100 of Arizona’s then 544 charter schools were in imminent danger of closure. The report said it was a “near certainty” that at least 50 would close “in the near future.” You’d think such a sensational claim would warrant a healthy dose of skepticism, but the Republic was more than happy to breathlessly repeat the claims nearly unchallenged.
Six years later, 580 charters operate in the state, defying predictions of a mass extinction. In fact, on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, Arizona’s charter school students scored over two grade levels higher than district students on 8th grade mathematics and by almost two grade levels on 8th grade reading. The state’s charter school students also scored higher than any other statewide average on both subjects.
You won’t see those facts reported by Arizona’s legacy media.
Journalism’s Credibility Crisis
For careful journalists concerned with their personal credibility and the declining credibility of their profession with the American public, these embarrassing errors might have sparked some self-reflection upon their sources and practices. For the Republic, it was merely a warmup for more of the same.
Author Amanda Ripley, interviewed for a book she wrote on deep problems of journalism, noted the “strange and insular world of journalism prizes,” which encourage simplistic “us versus them” stories. “This adversarial model that we’ve got going in education, journalism, and politics no longer serves us. There’s a good guy and a bad guy and everything’s super clear, it just breaks down. And we keep awarding prizes in that model. But 99 percent of stories are not that clear-cut,” Ripley noted.
In other words, as if journalism did not have enough problems amid a pronounced decline in public confidence, journalism awards—like the Polk Award given to the Republic team for their inaccurate and ideological anti-charter school series—encourage advocacy-style journalism.
There Is No Evidence Families Used ESAs for Babysitting
Channel 12’s recent anti-choice crusade involves a series of clumsy attacks on Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program.
One myth Channel 12 has been attempting to spread is the notion that participants in the ESA program are using their accounts to pay for “babysitting.” In fairness, this claim is based upon a since-corrected misstatement by a representative of the Arizona Treasurer’s Office. The ESA program, however, has a list of allowable uses for accounts, and babysitting is not now—nor has it ever been—an allowable use.
Despite the correction by the Treasurer’s Office, some in the media are still spreading the claim. Asked about this on KTAR days after the correction, reporter Craig Harris of Channel 12 (who authored or co-authored the erroneous Republic articles described above) artfully claimed that the Arizona Department of Education’s use of risk-based auditing on low-dollar purchases means that we really don’t know whether parents are using ESA accounts for babysitting or not.
We can likewise state that we really don’t know whether any random person has cheated on his or her federal income taxes. After all, the IRS does not audit every single income tax return—instead they use a technique known as “risk-based auditing” to detect and deter fraud. This is the same technique that Arizona law established to ensure accountability in the ESA program, as recommended by the Arizona Auditor General, and it is used by numerous government agencies.
Journalists have no evidence that anyone has ever used the ESA program for babysitting. But if it happened and they were caught, just like the hypothetical tax cheat, the hypothetical ESA offender would face fines or even jail time. The combination of risk-based auditing and consequences for fraud is why the United States has one of the highest tax compliance rates in the world.
ESA Parents Are Not Really “Subsidizing Vacations”
Channel 12 is likewise playing fast-and-loose with the facts when they claim that Arizona parents are “using education tax dollars to subsidize their vacations.” That phrasing gives the impression that ESA funds are being used for flights, food, or hotel stays—none of which are allowable expenses under the ESA statute.
The reality is that families are using ESA funds to buy tickets to museums, zoos, aquariums, and other educational venues that are—appropriately—allowable expenses under the ESA statute, and which public schools regularly purchase as well.
ESAs Expand Educational Opportunity
Stories from the same outlets also claim the ESA is “hurting high-performing public districts.” Even setting aside that such statements treat children as mere funding units for district schools, reporters’ use of the term “high-performing” is out of step with what most parents think it should mean.
The article notes that the “top five school districts losing students who left for [ESAs] are: Mesa, Deer Valley, Chandler, Peoria and Scottsdale,” and that all these districts received an “A” letter grade from the state except for Mesa, which received a “B.”
But are Arizona’s school letter grades a reliable indicator of quality? Absolutely not.
In the 2023-24 academic year, Arizona awarded 677 schools “A” grades, while only four schools “F” grades—yet only a third of Arizona students passed the state math exam.
By contrast, GreatSchools is a much harsher grader than state bureaucrats. In Maricopa County, the state awarded 325 “A” grades and only two “F” grades, while GreatSchools gave 49 “A” ratings and 111 “F” ratings. For obvious reasons, parents trust GreatSchools more than they trust state bureaucrats.
In the five districts that parents are fleeing most for ESAs, the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or higher on the state math test ranges from 30% in Mesa to 58% in Chandler. Fewer than half of students scored proficient in Deer Valley and Peoria as well.
Reporters who are hostile to parental choice in education might call that “high performing,” but most parents don’t.
Arizona families deserve accurate reporting on education policy, not sensationalized narratives built on flimsy foundations. Arizona media’s pattern of misrepresenting school choice programs—from the error-ridden charter school series to unfounded attacks on ESAs—undermines the public’s understanding of legitimate educational options.
While parents increasingly turn to alternatives like ESAs and charter schools that demonstrably outperform traditional districts, journalists have a responsibility to report these developments fairly, not perpetuate myths that serve no one except those invested in maintaining the status quo. Arizona’s children benefit when families have genuine choice in education, and they deserve journalism that illuminates rather than obscures the facts about their options.
Matthew Ladner is a Senior Advisor for education policy implementation and Jason Bedrick is a Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
Since taking office in January, President Trump has worked hard to restore sanity in America. While the wins have been stacking up in many areas, perhaps his administration’s most notable efforts have been in its pushback against the junk science driving the climate agenda.
Along with executive orders in January and April to unleash American energy, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would be reversing a Biden administration regulation that held Arizona accountable for the eighty percent of emissions in the Maricopa County nonattainment area that emanated from outside of the state—primarily from China and Mexico.
While all that is good news, the Trump administration delivered quite possibly the best news yet for American energy last month when the EPA released its plan on rescinding the Endangerment Finding. And it has the climate cult drowning in their tears.
What is the Endangerment Finding?
Back in 2009, the Obama administration declared carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant that threatens public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. Of course, this ignored the fact that CO2 is one of the most important ingredients for building and sustaining life on Earth. But the Obama administration was never known for exercising commonsense, so it gave birth to this controversial policy by relying on cherry-picked scientific data to justify a vast expansion of regulatory power at the EPA.
Since its inception, the Endangerment Finding has been used as the basis for many of the green scam regulations impacting Arizona’s economy. During both the Obama administration and the Biden administration, the EPA passed new regulations on vehicles, factories, power plants, and other mobile sources all based on the alleged dangers of CO2. These mandates have cost the U.S. economy over a trillion dollars, and here in Arizona, they have been responsible for higher energy prices and higher utility bills.
But if the climate cult gets its way, it wouldn’t stop there…
As with most things, asking the right questions is often more important than getting the answers. This is especially true for parents and grandparents who want to protect their children. We need to ask, then ask some more, to get to the truth at our kids’ school and public libraries.
If you value children, here’s what you should be asking, some important answers, good news of progress, and what YOU CAN DO to protect yours (and others’) kids:
4 Questions (with answers):
1 – Are there actually bad materials in schools and libraries, or is this just ‘pearl clutching’?
Besides the profits for activists and the porn industries, it’s ignorance. Common-sense people are not becoming aware. (This is a reason to subscribe to AZ Women of Action’s weekly Call To Action Update!) Most people have no idea what children see in schools or access in libraries, but we keep them informed.
3 – Isn’t this simply ‘sex-ed’? Is there evidence of the harm on kids when they see sexual material?
4 – Do parents have a say on what their kids see at public schools and libraries?
YES–but only if they speak up! Arizona has some of the strongest parent rights laws. (See ‘What You Can Do’ for specifics.)
Some Good News!
AZ Women of Action has made progress with Maricopa County Libraries: We asked questions of the MC Library office who told us that no one had ever complained about children’s books (obviously because nobody knew). So, we created a citizen petition, shared the facts with our followers, and presented hundreds of names to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. They listened. We emphasized that parents, not libraries, should have the ultimate authority over the type of content their children are exposed to. We argued that the current arrangement, where explicit books are freely available to children, violates parental rights and endangers children’s emotional and mental well-being.
We also met with Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and her team. Overall progress is being made, though slowly.
We’re seeing widespread support from parents, teachers, faith-based organizations, and local activists who share the same concerns. Our message is clear: books are not being ‘banned’ but moved to adult sections for parents to decide. It’s not about censorship but protecting childhood. It’s restoring the family’s role in deciding how to protect and nurture each child.
What YOU CAN DO:
1. Ask schools for their opt-out forms for any material you deem inappropriate for your child. Sex education is supposed to be opt-IN (meaning they require your permission before kids see it). Ask to see your school’s curriculum first.
2. Ask your local libraries for a form that limits what their child can check out or access online. If they don’t have one, contact the city, county, or state library office and file a request to change parent-rights policies.
3. Report any concerning material found in schools to the ADE Empower Hotline at 602-771-3500, or submit their online form.
5. Promote Cleaner, Safer Libraries. Join Arizona Women of Action for a fun, family story hour with positive, wholesome books for kids! We’ve partnered with Brave Books to host “See You At the Library Story Hour” on Saturday, August 16th from 1–2PM at the Phoenix Public Library – Mesquite Branch. Families will enjoy uplifting and wholesome stories read by Arizona Women of Action and special guest Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools Shelli Boggs. Click here to register.
Kim Miller is the President and Founder of Arizona Women of Action. You can find out more about their work here.
As Americans enjoy their freedom — as they have a God-given right to do — they drive where they want in privately owned cars (gas powered, hybrid, or electric), live comfortably in heated-and-air-conditioned homes, and spend their evenings cooking dinner on gas (or electric stoves), and watching whatever television program or sporting event they choose. All of it brought to them by virtue of abundant and affordable energy.
According to 2024 data published by the U.S. Department of Energy, 82.16 percent of the energy consumed in the United States came from fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum and natural gas. Another 8.67 percent came from nuclear power plants.
In other words, more than 90 percent of the energy used in this country last year came from these sources.
Only 1.64% came from windmills; and only 1.17 percent came from solar panels.
As this nation’s economy and population has grown, so too has its power needs. Since 1960, in fact, the consumption of energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power has more than doubled.
But the consumption of nuclear energy peaked in 2019 — and has stagnated since then — while facing a campaign of opposition from liberal environmental groups.
This is ironic, however, because as the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power increased in recent decades, greenhouse gas emissions declined. From 1990 to 2022, for example, fossil fuel consumption increased by 8.64 percent, according to the Department of Energy. But during that same period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas emissions declined by three percent.
Nonetheless, groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the National Resources Defense Council have sought not merely to stop the growth of this type of energy production, but to roll it back. In theory, they would replace the production lost from nuclear power and fossil fuels with energy produced from “renewable sources,” including windmills and solar panels.
They are particularly opposed to the development of nuclear power — even though nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases.
“The Sierra Club,” says its website, “continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants.”
350.org also opposes the construction of new nuclear plants. “New nuclear,” its website says, “is a dangerous distraction in the race to solve climate change.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that “expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution.”
However, some progress has been made recently in resisting this campaign to foist renewable energy development upon the United States. In 2021, some of this nation’s largest banks — including Wells Fargo, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America — joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. This alliance, said the Sierra Club’s magazine, “signaled a commitment by member institutions to develop voluntary targets that support a climate goal of 1.5C above preindustrial levels.” Since then, however, each of these banks has dropped out of the alliance.
Unfortunately, the ”renewables only” advocates have also achieved some victories in recent years.
Since 2001, the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign has supported the closing of more than 300 coal-fired power plants in this country. In 2021, construction of a liquid natural gas export terminal in Oregon was also canceled. Then, in 2023, a proposed gas-fired power plant in Connecticut was canceled, too. These groups also pressured California into nearly shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which provides 9% of the state’s electricity, before state energy commissioners voted to extend its operation to 2030.
The relentless campaign to force America away from fossil fuels and nuclear power and towards wind and solar is also driving America toward energy dependence on the People’s Republic of China.
The Heritage Foundation published a report last year by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Miles Pollard that showed how this is happening. “China has succeeded in dominating the world’s supply chains in green energy products and components,” it said. “If America continues to require the use of these green energy products, it will cede economic power to China, giving China control of American energy security.”
Limiting how we produce energy in the United States will, as a matter of course, impose limitations on our freedom. Reliance on China for our energy supply chain will make our country susceptible to economic coercion. Limiting how we produce energy, means less of it and fewer choices about how to use it. This is of course baked into the climate activists’ view of world, one where experts tell us we must drive EVs, use electric stoves, and eat less meat, so that even the smallest of life’s details are predecided.
To preserve freedom, we must unfetter ourselves from ideologically driven restrictions on fossil fuels and overcome decades of naysaying about nuclear power. In so doing we can ensure a future where abundant affordable energy gives every American real choice, which is the heart of freedom.
Seven months into Trump’s return to office, the wreckage of the Biden administration continues to surface—especially in America’s transportation infrastructure. Previously, we highlighted the troubling impact of Pete Buttigieg’s tenure as Secretary of Transportation. His legacy of failure is becoming increasingly clear and public as new coverage reveals how his ideological grant programs, neglect of core responsibilities, and blatant mismanagement have damaged our economy, harmed communities, and sabotaged our personal freedoms.
As covered by the New York Post, Buttigieg, who was charged for four years to oversee the world’s most significant infrastructure network, instead made it his mission to “reimagine” the entire system, framing it as irredeemably racist and in need of dismantling as he famously told Al Sharpton in his “roads are racist” interview. Buttigieg funded his radical agenda through a series of state and local grants. Programs like “Reconnecting Communities” funded the removal of functional highways based on the claim they were originally designed to displace minority neighborhoods, even though those highways are used today by people of all races.
These weren’t transportation programs—they were anti-transportation programs. They prioritized “road diets,” bike lanes, and leveling roads in the name of equity while Americans sat in traffic and airports collapsed under system failures.
The AZ Free Enterprise Club was one of the only organizations sounding the alarm about the ideological hijacking of the USDOT which even despite mainstream knowledge of the corrosive teachings of critical race theory in k-12 education brought to light after COVID, seemed far-fetched to many. We documented how seemingly harmless programs like Vision Zero and the Safe Systems Approach—heavily funded through federal transportation grants—were actually vehicles for social engineering.
Now it is clear how thoroughly he indoctrinated the administration…
Every year, a horde of school district officials and their lobbyists come before the state legislature, rattling their tin cups, begging for more money for their supposedly underfunded schools. They tell sob stories about crumbling buildings and underpaid teachers who had to pay for school supplies from their own pockets. Their schools, they say, are financially starved.
Hogwash.
School bureaucrats don’t want you to know it, but school spending is at an all-time high, and Arizona’s school districts are sitting on more than $20 billion in cash reserves and buildings they don’t need while student achievement craters. A new report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) reveals the shocking scope of waste plaguing our traditional public school system, and it’s time taxpayers demanded answers.
The numbers are staggering. As has been documented, Arizona’s school districts are already hoarding $7.8 billion in cash reserves, up $1 billion since the prior fiscal year. Now we learn they’re also sitting on $12.2 billion worth of excess real estate—78 million square feet of unused and underutilized space that could house 630,000 additional students. Combined, that’s over $20 billion in resources that could be put to better use serving Arizona’s children.
Since 2019, district school enrollment has declined 5% statewide, yet these same districts increased their building space by 3% and boosted capital spending by a jaw-dropping 67% to $8.9 billion. As CSI has documented, districts have added 499 new buildings while losing 47,500 students. This isn’t just inefficient, it’s fiscally reckless.
The massive spending on new buildings might be justifiable if schools were overcrowded or expecting a huge influx of new students, but they’re not. In fact, Arizona’s district schools are already significantly overbuilt, operating at just 67% capacity while charter schools run at 95% capacity and private schools at 75%. CSI estimates that the excess space in district schools could accommodate 630,000 additional students—nearly half the current statewide district school enrollment.
The excess capacity comes at an enormous cost. CSI estimates that the market value of excess district space alone—$12.2 billion—could fund a decade of capital expenditures. Alternatively, eliminating maintenance costs for unused space would save taxpayers $1 billion annually. That’s real money that could reduce taxes, improve education, or address Arizona’s other pressing needs.
There are plenty of willing buyers. Indeed, the fastest-growing school systems—charters and private schools chosen by increasing numbers of Arizona families—struggle to find adequate facilities. Yet school districts often go to incredible lengths to avoid selling buildings to them, such as when Tucson Unified School District sold an unused building for 25% less than what a Christian school had offered, just so that a “competitor” wouldn’t have it.
In response to such cases, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a law requiring school districts to sell buildings to the highest bidder, even if it’s a private or charter school. Now, rather than comply, school districts are just letting their underutilized space languish and forcing the taxpayers to pay the bill.
The wastefulness is also a slap in the face to teachers and students alike.
As we noted previously, the districts have enough cash reserves to raise the average teacher pay from $64,420 to more than $80,000 for 10 years and still have funds left over. If they sold off all their underutilized space, they could raise the average teacher pay to $100,000 for a decade and still have billions left over.
There is no evidence that spending on buildings is contributing to student learning. As the buildings have gone up, math scores have gone down, plummeting 25% since 2019. As CSI documents, the lowest-performing schools have the most excess space, operating at just 19% capacity, while high-performing schools run at 70% capacity.
This isn’t about helping kids learn; it’s about protecting a bloated bureaucracy that puts institutional self-interest above student needs.
Fixing the problem will require realigning incentives. CSI recommends more transparency—including a “Facilities Condition Index” that would give policymakers and the public objective information about the quality of existing school facilities—and more state oversight of severely underutilized facilities. In the meantime, any funding requests from the school districts should be greeted by state lawmakers with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Arizona’s children deserve better than a $20 billion monument to government inefficiency. They deserve a system that puts their education first, not one that hoards resources while performance plummets. If local officials can’t or won’t deliver, then state lawmakers will have to step in.
Jason Bedrick is a Research Fellow and Matthew Ladner is a Senior Advisor for education policy implementation at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
