“I am not a charter school fan,” Joe Biden declared in his 2020 presidential campaign. That’s disappointing, but not surprising, coming from the self-declared “most pro-union president” in history.
His would-be successor, Kamala Harris, claims to still be equivocating, as is her wont, over her position on charter schools. But she has the enthusiastic support of the teachers’ unions, so that’s a bad sign too.
Her dilemma is that the teachers’ unions, the political partners of the Democrats, are dead set in their opposition to charter schools for two reasons. They expose the education failures of the union-dominated district schools, and most charter school teachers aren’t unionized and therefore don’t pay union dues.
Charter schools, first created in the 1990s, are publicly funded but independently administered. They don’t charge tuition and aren’t allowed to “cherry-pick” the best students.
Charter school opponents once could claim that charter schools “don’t work” to improve academic outcomes. But we know now that this is simply not the case.
Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) released a 2023 report tracking charter school outcomes over 15 years. The study covered 2 million charter school students in 29 states with a control group in district schools. It is arguably the most comprehensive, credible study ever done of charter schools.
The conclusion was decisive. Most charter schools “produce superior student gains despite enrolling a more challenging student population.”
CREDO’s first study in 2009 showed no improvement in student outcomes from charters, a result still cited as evidence that charters fail to help those deemed “uneducable” by some. But each subsequent CREDO report has shown improvement and superior performance overall.
New York charter school students gained 75 days reading improvement and 73 in math each year compared with traditional schools. In Washington state, the numbers were 29 days in reading and 30 in math. In Illinois, it was 40 in reading, 48 in math.
The recent study also showed that black and Hispanic students achieved disproportionately large gains. A section in the CREDO report described several “gap-busting schools” which educate students from underprivileged backgrounds to perform at the same level as white peers. So much for the myth of “uneducable” students.
The overall statistics would be even better if not for the 15% of charter schools that underperform their local district schools. The telling difference is that failing charter schools can be and are closed. Failing district schools just keep on failing year after year.
There is even more good news. Charter schools benefit even those students who do not attend them. According to an analysis by the Fordham Foundation, at least 12 studies indicate that the scores for all publicly enrolled students in a geographic region rise when the number of charter schools increases. Moreover, neighboring schools which don’t experience academic improvement often showed progress in school attendance and behavioral problems due to competing with charters.
The reason is obvious. The mere presence of choices for parents breaks the district school monopoly. Competition brings more accountability and a “customer orientation” that benefits everybody.
It’s no coincidence that, while traditional public schools have lost students, charter schools have gained over 300,000 students over the last five years. But the institutional opponents of the charter schools are unmoved by the good news. The growth of charters would undoubtedly be even greater if not for the relentless opposition of the teachers’ union/Democratic Party axis.
Ironically, for charter school opponents, charters are highly popular with the working class, ethnic minority constituencies they claim to champion. A poll this May by Democrats for Education Reform found that 80% of black parents and 71% of Hispanics had a favorable view of charters, as well they should.
But the teachers’ unions don’t give away their formidable political support, and they clearly dominate educational policy making with today’s Democrats. The Biden/Harris administration has continued a program of budget cuts and onerous regulations for charter schools, including a proposed reduction for the Charter Schools Program, which provides grants and was even supported by the Clinton and Obama administrations.
The Democrats – and all of us – have a clear choice to make between the needs of students versus the demands of the teachers’ unions.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Every election for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA) teachers’ union endorses candidates. This year is no exception. But this time they may have outdone themselves with this slate of unqualified, activist candidates.
None of these SEA-endorsed candidates feels the need to make any changes in SUSD. In fact, according to their campaign website, they are running to, in their words, “protect” the district. From whom? You, of course, and anyone else who might point out declining enrollment, declining proficiency scores, increasing ESA participation in a run for the exits, and, of course, increasingly dissatisfied parents and students who stay behind.
From August 2021 to August 2024, SUSD lost over 2,200 students, nearly 10% of the enrollment. In 2023, SUSD had over 8,000 students who were NOT proficient in ELA, over 9,000 who were NOT proficient in math, and over 12,000 students who were NOT proficient in science. Dr. Menzel failed to meet even one of his academic performance goals last year. But he got a raise.
How can any reasonable, objective observer who cares about the quality of education in Scottsdale see these metrics and decide, I will run for school board to ensure more of the same for my kids? How can any reasonable, objective voter support this?
One of these SEA-endorsed candidates, Mike Sharkey, seems to be against parents having rights when it comes to educating their children. He wants parents to step aside and leave it up to the experts and trained professionals who know better.
In announcing his candidacy, he said:
“Over the last few years, there’s been an uptick in the ‘parents rights’ movement….This is the notion that parents are best situated to make educational and healthcare decisions for their kids.”
He doesn’t want parents involved in healthcare decisions for their children, one of the most fundamental duties of a parent. Mr. Sharkey says to leave that to the professionals as well.
Of course, after a major outcry on social media, he removed those words. But don’t be fooled. As we all know, someone’s first comments are what they truly believe.
Another SEA-endorsed candidate, Donna Lewis, has an abysmal record of academic achievement in a district of less than 25% the size of SUSD when she was superintendent and has a reputation as a bully. Listen for yourself.
Great choice SEA.
The final candidate, Matt Pittinsky is the CEO of a company (Parchment) that provides transcript services to SUSD. Click here and see for yourself.
It gets better. Parchment is part of a larger organization that provides educational software to schools and professional development training for teachers and school administrators. Will we see new contracts in the future?
As a candidate who professes to respect parents and the community, it would be nice if he would disclose this potential conflict upfront, so the voters know before they vote.
We deserve better than a governing board committed to “protecting” Dr. Menzel with his dismal academic record at SUSD and his failed policies. This November let’s start building a “strong” SUSD focused on academic achievement, fiscal responsibility, parental rights, and the safety of all our students and staff.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Tonight, the presidential candidates will have their first debate. But there is one critical election issue the American people are not debating at all. They agree that non-U.S. citizens should not vote in U.S. elections.
This is a convenient opinion for Americans to hold as it is also the law.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and other federal codes and state constitutions require that only citizens vote in our elections. This is unequivocal. It is in writing. It is common sense.
The problem with laws is that people break them — including noncitizens who commit one federal crime by registering to vote and then another by actually voting. But because federal statutes are silent on requiring documentary proof of citizenship for either step, states have not demanded citizenship proof for voter registration on federal forms.
These registration forms are provided to people applying for a driver’s license or state ID with no consideration to whether that person is a citizen or not. And the entire citizen “confirmation” process is an innocuous checkbox on the federal form that many registrants fill in just because it’s there.
For noncitizen newcomers not proficient in English, all they know is that a government official handed them a form to fill out with a box to check — or that a liberal activist group told them to check it.
Election at Risk
Earlier this year, Tea Party Patriots commissioned a poll of citizens who vote regularly and found that 86 percent believe “proof of U.S. citizenship should be required to register to vote in American elections” and “only U.S. citizens should vote in elections in America.”
Who is the clueless other 13 percent? Leftwing political elites, their friends in the deceitful media, and the current occupants of the White House and vice president’s mansion, that’s who.
How do we know this? By following the SAVE Act and seeing who opposes it.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July, hung out for a while in the do-nothing Senate, and may now bounce back to the House as an add-on to a must-pass bill.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans acknowledge that noncitizens are registering to vote in numbers not seen before — and those illegal votes, cast in specific cities or counties, could sway the entire federal election.
The SAVE Act closes federal loopholes that allow noncitizens to register to vote by requiring election officials to ask about citizenship during registration, and potential registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship. It gives states unfettered access to existing federal databases to check citizenship status against voter rolls.
It is a “must pass” all by itself — to protect our constitutional republic where the people’s will should matter most.
SAVE the Vote
Noncitizens aren’t the only ones paying consequences for unlawful registration and voting. Punishments include jail, fines, and immediate removal procedures. Naturalization is also permanently denied for applicants who show up on voter rolls, and they are subject to deportation.
Then there’s the American voter. Every time a noncitizen illegally votes — intentionally or unknowingly — a citizen’s ballot is removed from the count. Americans have clearly signaled they know this is happening, they don’t like it, and they do not want to pay that price.
But there is nothing in law allowing action against election officials who fail to uphold laws on citizenship requirements, or DMV bureaucrats who knowingly hand voter registration forms to noncitizens. The SAVE Act will empower citizens to bring civil suits in these cases and includes penalties for those enabling or encouraging noncitizens to register and to vote.
Progressive politocrats and their media friends offer two deceptive talking points about noncitizen voting.
One is “It’s against the law anyway.” It is also against the law to steal a car, commit murder, and jaywalk. But perhaps worse is their casual quip, dripping with moral relativism, that illegal immigrants voting “is not widespread.”
Both these ridiculous notions can be easily repudiated.
Proof
The federal government recently indicted a group of noncitizens from 15 countries on federal voting charges. Virginia recently purged 6,500 noncitizens from its voter rolls. Texas removed 6,300 people — 30% of whom had voting records. A 2014 academic journal reported that 6.4% of noncitizens voted in 2008.
There are about 24 million noncitizens currently in the U.S. If they voted only at the same rate of 6.4% this year as they did in 2008, they would account for 1.5 million votes.
Within 39 months of the Biden/Harris administration (including our “border czar”) coming into office, the foreign-born population of our nation increased by 6.6 million; at least 4.6million of those are illegal immigrants.
Flyers have been found being widely distributed on the Mexican side of the U.S.\Mexican border encouraging illegal immigrants to vote for Biden in 2024. Biden issued Executive Order 14019 in March 2021, demanding anyone approaching the federal government for services (with no citizenship caveats) be provided a voter registration form. The Biden/Harris administration officially opposes the SAVE Act. Is all of that coincidence? And what could possibly go wrong?
If we learned nothing else from the presidential election of 2020, we know Americans of both political parties are profoundly disturbed by foreign interference of any kind in our elections.
Noncitizen voting is foreign influence.
We live in a representative republic. It’s beyond time our representatives listen to what we are telling them about the sanctity of our elections. Let’s get on with ensuring that only Americans vote in American elections.
Kerri Toloczko is the executive director of Election Integrity Network and senior advisor to the Only Citizens Vote Coalition. Both of these nonprofit organizations are dedicated to protecting all ballots and ensuring that elections follow the law. They are also leading organizers of the 2024 Only Citizens Vote Week, which runs from September 15 to September 21.
Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) provides just one more example of the radical transformation in school counselors. Once known as the go-to for college and career decisions, the woke movement has leveraged the influence and presence of counselors as tools of indoctrination. I’m sure that sounds harsh and judgmental. And I wish it weren’t true, but it is. Many school counselors include in their approach the sexualization of kids, effectively driving a wedge in families between parent and child by introducing alternative values and morality.
In PUSD, let’s look at Ironwood High School counselors. Ironwoodcounselors is an account on Instagram. These are counselors talking to PUSD kids who attend Ironwood High School. The pictures and related posts are included here, too, unless they get taken down after this is published. If those who impose this stuff on your kids don’t want you to know about it, that is a tell.
Counselors, along with teachers and other school officials, have a decisive influence on students. Parents generally encourage their kids to trust them. Kids typically believe that these people have important things to teach them. This is a blatant abuse of influence and power in the lives of other people’s children.
Take note of the American School Counselor Association logo in the graphic above. Yep. This is not just happening in a few one-off schools. It is a national agenda.
One of these counselors at Ironwood is Paige Carpenter-Swaim. The image below is a screenshot from Instagram; though I cannot find this account now, it is a real picture of a reel.
On February 13, 2024, Ms. Heien, a high school library paraprofessional, emailed Ms. Carpenter-Swaim asking about the Rainbow Library and whether it has been approved for counselors or can be added to the “actual library.” She was told she could apply.
Paige received the email below while procuring the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) Rainbow Library. GLSEN has an agenda to get these books in the hands – and hearts – of your kids in public school.
In another email, we find not only another school counselor expressing an interest in getting the GLSEN books, but also an English Literature and Language Arts Teacher from Peoria High school.
So, what is in this Rainbow Library created by GLSEN? Their stated mission is to “ensure that LGBTQ students are able to learn and grow in a school environment free from bullying and harassment.” Doesn’t that language seem inflammatory and defensive? I think so.
Over 6,700 schools in 33 states participate in GLSEN’s Rainbow Library, reaching over 5 million students. Deep in the GLSEN site, you can find the Rainbow Library “bookstore,” including “The Lesbiana’s Guide to Catholic School”, which is described here:
Sixteen-year-old Yamilet Flores prefers to be known for her killer eyeliner, not for being one of the only Mexican kids at her new, mostly white, very rich Catholic school. But at least here no one knows she’s gay, and Yami intends to keep it that way.
After being outed by her crush and ex-best friend before transferring to Slayton Catholic, Yami has new priorities: keep her brother out of trouble, make her mom proud, and, most importantly, don’t fall in love. Granted, she’s never been great at any of those things, but that’s a problem for Future Yami.
The thing is, it’s hard to fake being straight when Bo, the only openly queer girl at school, is so annoyingly perfect. And smart. And talented. And cute. So cute. Either way, Yami isn’t going to make the same mistake again. If word got back to her mom, she could face a lot worse than rejection. So, she’ll have to start asking, WWSGD: What would a straight girl do?
Told in a captivating voice that is by turns hilarious, vulnerable, and searingly honest, The “Lesbiana’s Guide to Catholic School” explores the joys and heartaches of living your full truth out loud.
And then there is “Beyond the Gender Binary”.
In “Beyond the Gender Binary,” poet, artist, and LGBTQIA+ rights advocate Alok Vaid-Menon deconstructs, demystifies, and reimagines the gender binary. Pocket Change Collective is a series of small books with big ideas from today’s leading activists and artists. In this installment, “Beyond the Gender Binary,” Alok Vaid-Menon challenges the world to see gender not in black and white but in full color. Taking from their own experiences as a gender-nonconforming artist, they show us that gender is a malleable and creative form of expression. The only limit is your imagination.
These are merely a few examples among hundreds of books.
So, what is the impact of the GLSEN Pride Library in Arizona schools? Just last year, Fox News reported that its “Rainbow Library program has encouraged kids to ‘come out’ to teachers: ‘They trust’ them.” That is spin, plain and simple. Consider the dynamics here. Trusted adults are encouraging kids – directly or indirectly – by providing the Rainbow Library. Kids are naturally curious, and the books look enticing, so why not read them, correct? Presto. Kids are trying out the things in the books with the same sex, etc. Any run-of-the-mill psychologist can explain these grooming dynamics. Then, when a student tells their teacher about their “newfound gender” identity, and that teacher affirms them, they are potentially afraid to say to their parents, yeah “they trust” their complicit teachers.
This suggestive agenda to introduce impressionable minds to sexualized information that can lead them down a path that is not in line with their family’s values is unacceptable. Taxpayers pay for public education.
To my point, the Fox News report states that the Rainbow Library program intro on YouTube asserts that they “have the guidance from the safe space kit on what to do when a student comes out to you. We hear time and time again, especially in places where there really are not that many LGBTQ+ supports for youth already, including more rural locations and more conservative areas that, when a teacher or a librarian rolls out the rainbow library in their location, students start coming out to them because they see that adult as someone that they can trust,” Michael Rady, a GLSEN member and educator, said in the video.
Public education aims for kids to become proficient in core academics, not to be indoctrinated in woke cultural ideologies. These books do not belong in schools, and these discussions do not belong in front of the proverbial chalkboard but rather around the family dinner table.
Correction: A previous version of this op-ed stated that another school counselor got the GLSEN books, but this school counselor simply expressed an interest in getting the books. The article has been updated.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She has worked at the senior director and advisor level for Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Moms for America, and pregnancy centers. Tamra currently directs the SMART Families Network at Arizona Women of Action.
Throughout history, we have witnessed the horrors that unfold when societies dehumanize entire groups of people. In the era of slavery, Black people were considered less than human—mere property to be bought, sold, and exploited. During the Holocaust, Jews were labeled as “subhuman” and systematically exterminated. Today, we look back on these atrocities with disbelief and sorrow, wondering how such inhumanity could have ever been justified. And yet, in our current era, we face a similar moral crisis with abortion—a modern-day holocaust where the humanity of unborn children is denied, and their lives can be murdered right up to the moment of birth.
Proposition 139 is not just another policy debate—it is a question of life and death. If passed, this proposition would permit the killing of unborn children until birth. The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that the term “unborn human being” will remain in the ballot language for this proposition. This decision challenges us to face the uncomfortable truth: the lives at stake are not mere “fetuses” or “clumps of cells” but human beings in their most vulnerable form.
The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign, which claims to stand for “truth,” has fought fiercely to exclude the term “unborn human being” from the language of Proposition 139. Why? Because they understand that words matter—words shape perceptions. If voters are confronted with the reality that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, they might see through the euphemisms of “reproductive rights” and “women’s health” to the brutal truth.
Yet, the scientific truth is clear. According to Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed., 1998), “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” From conception, a developing life in the womb carries its own unique DNA—a distinct genetic blueprint that is undeniably human. To deny this is to deny biological reality in favor of a narrative that serves a political agenda.
Consider the parallels. In both slavery and the Holocaust, those in power used language and rhetoric to strip away the humanity of their victims. Slaves were considered property, not people. Jews were referred to as “vermin.” These labels made it easier to carry out heinous acts without facing the moral consequences. Today, the abortion industry reduces the unborn to “fetuses,” distancing from the murderous act of abortion and its reality—the ending of a human life.
Despite this, Dawn Penich, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access, argued that the court’s decision to use the term “unborn human being” would prevent voters from understanding the ballot in a “fair, neutral, and accurate way,” claiming they would be “subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation.” But isn’t it more manipulative to hide the biological reality of what abortion truly involves?
The irony is staggering.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to allow the term “unborn human being” on the ballot forces us to confront what is truly at stake. This is not just a matter of “reproductive rights”—this is about whether we, as a society, will sanction the destruction of human life up to the point of birth.
History has taught us the catastrophic consequences of dehumanization. In every era, from slavery to the Holocaust, society’s refusal to recognize the humanity of its victims has led to unspeakable horrors. Today, abortion stands as the latest chapter in this tragic story—a chapter that will be judged by future generations. Will we turn a blind eye, or will we stand for the truth that every human life, born or unborn, deserves recognition and protection?
As Arizona voters head to the polls in November, they must decide whether they will be complicit in this modern-day holocaust or whether they will choose to defend the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to life. The fight over language is a fight over truth, and truth, once revealed, compels us to act. Let us not be found on the wrong side of history.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
The Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), known for endorsing school board candidates who want to “throat punch” parents, has once again proven it is out of touch with the community. This year, the SEA is backing the divisive “Protect SUSD” team, who apparently wants to “protect” the district from parents who are involved in their kids’ lives.
First up on team “Protect SUSD” is Mike Sharkey, who announced his candidacy on LinkedIn by proclaiming that parents should take a back seat to the “experts.” Despite Arizona law that gives parents the final say in their children’s education, Mr. Sharkey plans to work against parents and defer to SUSD administration who prioritizes social justice over academics.
Then there’s Matt Pittinsky, who is so impressed with SUSD, where he wants to govern, that he sends his own kids to private school. Pittinsky is also the CEO of a company that SUSD uses for student services, a clear conflict of interest.
And finally, we have Donna Lewis, who believes children can have multiple genders and is a failed superintendent from Creighton Elementary School. According to former colleagues, Lewis created a toxic environment, and under her leadership, only 17% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA). Lewis is also conducting research on “political extremism” in schools.
These are not serious people.
Citizens of Scottsdale cannot afford four more years of a hyper partisan agenda that brings politics and sexualized curriculum to our children. Our kids need a serious school board focused on improving academic achievement.
Thankfully, the “Just Be Honest” team of Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler provides a distinct alternative to “Protect SUSD.” These three candidates are focused on bringing common sense back to the district while improving academic outcomes, supporting teachers, prioritizing school safety, and respecting the voice of parents in the education and upbringing of their children. If Scottsdale’s schools are ever going to improve, they’re exactly who we need leading the charge.
Patricia Pellett is a mother of a special needs boy in SUSD. She became active in 2021 in fighting for students after SUSD failed her son’s transportation needs.
