I’ve looked in the face of many disappointed residents who told me they moved to the West Valley so their children could be educated in Peoria Unified School District (PUSD). To say these families are experiencing buyer’s remorse is an understatement. One wouldn’t have to search beyond PUSD’s current administration to grasp why the district is on a path of destruction.
For readers unaware, PUSD basketball coach and volunteer teacher Patrick Battillo—better known by his fanatic alter ego, Mr. ORNG—was recently arrested on allegations of soliciting lewd photos and videos from students with intentions to sell the images. Teacher Holly Holgate further betrayed the victims by tipping off Battillo after they came to her for help. Battillo, who pleaded not guilty to luring a minor for sexual exploitation and sex trafficking, was reportedly employed by PUSD for five years. Holgate, who’s charged with hindering prosecution and failure to report child abuse, has been employed for over 20 years.
Although the PUSD Governing Board voted unanimously to fire Battillo during the April 25, 2024, board meeting, it’s hard to imagine this wasn’t solely in response to public pressure. I say this because the NAACP descended upon PUSD at the April 11 board meeting. Not to mention press organizations have been crawling all over the district since Battillo and Holgate made headlines.
It’s no secret that Battillo replaced former employee William Roberts III, who was also charged with and pleaded not guilty to sex crimes against PUSD students. Unlike Battillo, Roberts was allowed to resign amid the controversy. Then, Roberts was acquitted after claiming he only had sex with a student after their 18th birthday. Battillo’s victims are said to be 17 and under. What are the odds that two men, who occupied the same role, were accused of sexually abusing students?
Board Member Heather Rooks formally apologized to the victims and their families. She also requested (but was not seconded) to have a closed discussion on why the principal of Peoria High School—where Battillo and Holgate worked—was quietly placed on paid administrative leave following the incident. Could it be PUSD is looking for someone to blame instead of owning its repeated failures to protect students from pedophiles on their payroll? Seriously, how many staff members knew something was “off” about Battillo, Holgate, and Roberts but an investigation was never launched? And where is the district sourcing its pool of applicants anyway?
Another red flag was raised when acting superintendent Kevin Molino unveiled 3D sketches of bathroom remodels for Cactus High School and Ironwood High School. Where there were once doors, there are no doors. Where there was once privacy, there is less privacy. Where there was once a clear distinction of boys’ and girls’ spaces, the district has revealed phase one compliance with the Biden administration’s illegal Title IX rewrite and the corrupt Ninth Circuit ruling.
Now you see doors:
Now you don’t:
Did you catch that urinals were removed from the boys’ bathrooms? Unless you’re going to allow girls inside, why would you eliminate that feature? There are also oversized service closets where a single-use bathroom should be, specifically for students who reject binary reality. In order to uphold the Department of Education’s erroneous interpretation of “sex” to mean “gender identity,” I wouldn’t be surprised if PUSD secretly plans to replace urinals with Tampon dispensers.
In PUSD’s current climate of sexual abuse, administrators are smart enough to sidestep any discussion on the dangers of transgender practices that leave female students vulnerable. So, the district’s official position is that the restrooms are being updated for “increased ADA accessibility” and “increased visibility and monitoring.”
During the April 25 board meeting, there was much talk about bullying, vaping, drugs, and fighting that allegedly reinforced the need for less privacy in school bathrooms. When I suggested disciplining problematic students before they enter closed spaces, Board Member Bill Sorenson said he didn’t agree with “targeting” students who are known to have behavior issues. This is typical, passive, “social emotional” language from Sorenson…whenever he cares to comment.
So, rather than enforce proper codes of conduct, the district’s solution is to have adults watch students go to the bathroom from the hallway. If this doesn’t make any sense to you, then you simply don’t know how to think like a leftist.
After attending the Listen, Learn & Lead event for the incoming superintendent, I was further convinced of how expendable PUSD constituents are to the district. During the breakout session, my table had the pleasure of hosting the presence of Chief Personnel Officer Laura Vesely. I held my tongue and conversations were all polite until a resident asked why “Community” was at the top of Molino’s updated organization chart, when it’s obvious the district doesn’t acknowledge concerns from the majority of the community.
Vesely said that “Community” was only at the top because they elect governing board members. Essentially, no other community input is required to run a school district. Consequently, when the same resident asked about Title IX compliance—and I finally spoke up to clarify that “sex” means biology, not gender identity—Vesely quickly shut down the conversation, stating that she, and the public relations representative at the table, weren’t responsible for answering those questions.
Well, I suppose PUSD constituents should just be grateful that rogue, unelected administrators are even letting them in on the discussion. Bless the voters’ hearts.
The last red flag I’ll mention is the district’s prejudice against Christians. Not only was Board Member Rooks censured for reading Scripture during her board comments, Board Member David Sandoval is inclined to outright discriminate against Christian students. Just like the extremists in a neighboring district, PUSD has shown a willingness to violate the First Amendment and, now, the 1984 Equal Access Act, which grants students (of any faith) the right to exercise religious freedoms on school campuses.
Sandoval’s statements were made during a podcast hosted by secularist Jeanne Casteen, who’s engaged in an imaginary fight against “the growing threat of white Christian nationalism in our state and our country.” Casteen is concerned about tax dollars funding religion in public schools. Notably, Christianity was the only objectionable religion throughout the discussion.
By Sandoval’s and Casteen’s logic, all government institutions that teach secular humanistic doctrines—such as evolution, climate change, and social justice—should be defunded. And perhaps Casteen is ignorant of the fact that her godless religion is protected under the First Amendment, and her belief system currently dominates every sphere of public education.
I’m glad to hear students are leaving PUSD. I hope enrollment continues to decrease as families take advantage of every opportunity to exercise their rights. As for the parents who can’t or won’t utilize alternative education, you need to show up for more than sporting events. The board members you elected, and the advocates you see in the boardroom and hear on the microphone every two weeks, are burning out fighting for your children.
Public education will never “get better.” I encourage every conservative, independent, and common-sense parent and teacher to find their voice, speak up, and take action before it’s too late.
Tiffany is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education, a grassroots advocate for families, educators, and school board members. For nearly two decades, Tiffany’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed most interests as she continues to contribute to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages everyday citizens to take an active role in defending and preserving American values for future generations.
A strong economy is a key piece of the foundation for any society. But while the Biden administration has been busy doing anything it can to destroy the economic climate in America over the past four years, Arizona is set up for success—not just for today, but for decades to come.
Last month, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released its latest “Rich States, Poor States” report, and the Grand Canyon State received the number three ranking for economic outlook among all 50 states. Such a high rank is impressive enough on its own, but when you consider that our state was ranked 13 back in 2021, Arizona’s dramatic rise up the chart especially shines. So, how did we get here?
Pro-Growth Policies Have Led the Way
Arizona’s high ranking is a direct result of significant pro-growth income and property tax reform that have supercharged our economy. In just the last decade, we have cut taxes on capital gains and drastically reduced the property tax burden on small businesses. Then, in July 2021, the Free Enterprise Club helped lead the charge as the Republican-led legislature passed a 2.5% flat tax, delivering historic tax cuts for every single Arizona taxpayer. And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans also included tax relief for Arizona’s families in last year’s state budget to help with the growing cost of gas, groceries, housing, and energy under the Biden administration.
Each of these pro-growth policies have set up Arizona as a leader in the country with many other states looking to mirror these reforms, but if the left had gotten its way, we never would have been here.
The community school model establishes school-based health clinics and is championed by entities such as the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, big pharma, and Community-Based Organizations. This model is rapidly being implemented nationwide, leaving no state untouched. It increases governmental and powerful non-government organization (NGOs) control in K-12 public schools while driving a wedge between parents and children.
Concerns surrounding school-based health clinics include adopting models like the Whole School, Whole Community, and Whole Child (WSCC). These “community schools” serve as conduits for expanding governmental control over children. Of particular concern are issues related to parental consent and notification rights, especially concerning Medicaid billing and medical procedures carried out without parental knowledge or presence.
A Kentucky mom recently told her story on social media after her child saw a school dentist without her consent. The school authorized her daughter to receive anesthesia for a procedure the mother never agreed to. The family dentist later stated that her teeth were healthy and did not need the school’s dental care. That’s bad enough, but these government-run school-based health clinics are far more invasive than this.
This sounds eerily like a socialist healthcare agenda, particularly the Whole Child-Whole Community model advocated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This model not only undermines parental authority but introduces socialized healthcare into schools. Concerns include the potential for these programs to expand Medicaid coverage under the pretext of health equity.
School-based health clinics are backed by federal grants and championed by government organizations like the CDC. They aim to offer comprehensive primary health services directly within school campuses, encompassing physical and mental health care. The allocation of federal grants, such as the $50 million earmarked for school-based health services, and philanthropic investments of $23 million from entities like Melinda Gates’ company and Mackenzie Scott into organizations like the School-Based Health Alliance fuel apprehensions about these programs’ growing influence.
Funding for full-service Community Schools in the 2025 U.S. Budget has intensified these concerns. Such initiatives can deepen the medicalization of K-12 education and extend Medicaid coverage under the guise of health equity, potentially entangling the government further in family affairs. Recent developments include Biden’s expansion of Obamacare and the integration of mental health services into schools. Might this include a surveillance system akin to China’s social credit system?
Meanwhile, the partnership between schools and HRSA-supported health centers seeks to enhance access to comprehensive primary healthcare services for students and communities. These collaborations assert that they exist to promote health equity for families without healthcare. Yet, recent national survey data show that the uninsured rate among children (ages 0-17) fell from 6.4 percent in late 2020 to 4.5 percent in the third quarter of 2022. In addition, it appears to justify significant government spending by pulling on heartstrings.
In Arizona, efforts to address students’ mental health needs directly on school campuses are underway through partnerships with organizations like Touchstone Health Services and Valle Del Sol. These services, also funded through tax dollars, cover a spectrum of mental health concerns, from anxiety and depression to social isolation and stress. In rural communities like Graham County, telehealth options like Dialogue by DialCare have been deployed to overcome shortages of mental health professionals, granting students access to licensed counselors through virtual or telephonic counseling sessions. These developments raise the red flag of school-based counselors engaging in conversations or therapy with students without parental knowledge or consent.
Then there are school-linked services, facilitated by school nurses and School-Based Health Centers (SBHCs), which aim to improve student and family access to health and human services by providing comprehensive, accessible, and coordinated care on and off school grounds. Again, these initiatives are touted as prioritizing students’ health and well-being. That sounds like the role of parents, not schools.
Arizona Women of Action is very concerned about the impact of Community Schools on families and education. These schools prioritize health-related issues over the traditional primary focus on academics in education. We encourage the ADE to reassess contracts with Medicaid and Public Consulting Group, considering the troubling implications of their equity-based approach.
In response to the growing presence of School-Based Health Clinics meddling in family affairs, one vigilant mother from X has issued a cautionary message and actionable steps for parents to take. She advises parents to request a comprehensive list of all personnel, including representatives from Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), who have access to students on school campuses and to actively engage in posing questions to school officials to monitor the funding sources entering their children’s schools closely.
Schools do not exist to function as health clinics, and parents should scrutinize the details of any forms or school registration documents, ensuring they understand the implications of granting access to various personnel and services regarding their child.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and currently with Arizona Women of Action.
In the corridors of education, a seismic shift is underway. Local superintendents, entrusted with shaping the educational landscape, are being influenced by a woke agenda that transcends their official roles. Behind this phenomenon lies the shadowy hand of leftist interests, channeled through national and state chapters of the School Superintendent Association (AASA), driving an agenda that reaches deep into the heart of public education.
Recent events in El Paso County, Colorado, underscore the extent of this influence. Allegations have surfaced of a superintendent employing intimidation tactics, supported by legal counsel, to suppress reports of a sexualized gender focus in classrooms. Such incidents reveal a troubling trend of silencing dissent and stifling transparency in the pursuit of ideological conformity.
At the national level, the AASA is actively seeking to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), often hailed as the Parents Bill of Rights (PBOR). While PPRA mandates parental notification of policies and surveys, the proposed amendments could erode parental consent requirements, potentially leading to increased control over data collection by schools, to the detriment of parental rights and oversight.
Arizona provides a stark example of the consequences of such ideological influence. In Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), Superintendent Scott Menzel’s equity-driven agenda has resulted in a dramatic reallocation of funds away from academics toward social support infrastructure. The repercussions are profound, with declining academic achievement, escalating violence, and growing student dissatisfaction.
Menzel’s emphasis on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has permeated every aspect of district life, reshaping classroom dynamics and disciplinary measures. Yet, amidst the proliferation of gender identity and sexuality clubs, concerns about academic focus and student safety persist.
Similar challenges echo across Arizona’s educational landscape. In Flagstaff, revelations about controversial sex education curriculum content have sparked parental concern, while in Mesa, allegations of clandestine aid to students undergoing gender transitions have led to legal battles and ethical scrutiny.
The reluctance of some superintendents to address concerns about new survey questions addressing social-emotional learning and sex education, further exacerbates tensions and raises questions about accountability.
Amidst these local debates, broader concerns loom about the influence of ideological agendas within educational institutions. The rise of what critics term the “Communist Whole/Community School philosophy” underscores the need for vigilance and a return to fundamental principles of education.
In this landscape of change, House Bill 2717 proposes a radical overhaul of the educational system in Mohave and La Paz County. Advocates argue for increased efficiency and cost savings, but questions linger about the potential concentration of power in the hands of county superintendents and its impact on local autonomy and accountability.
As parents and residents, it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant and hold school officials and school board members accountable. The future of education hinges not only on academic excellence but also on safeguarding the principles of transparency, parental rights, and proper legal oversight in our schools.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and currently with Arizona Women of Action.
Joe Biden loves to give away money, especially if it’s not his own. He has spent trillions of dollars for political benefit that didn’t need otherwise to be spent.
The recipients laud his compassion and generosity. Common Americans though are trapped in an inflationary spiral while our grandchildren face an unpayable bill.
Thus, in a recent presentation about his second attempt to forgive student loan debt, he actually bragged about the hundreds of billions it would cost. He twice mentioned the fact that many blacks would receive benefits.
He became so consumed in self-congratulation that he apparently lost awareness of how blatant his political pandering was. We know black voters are a key demographic in play in the upcoming election.
Biden’s sheer enthusiasm for spending again evidenced itself in his response to the Baltimore bridge collapse. His first reaction was to guarantee that the federal government would underwrite the entire cost of reconstruction. What a guy!
Neither offer made sense. Regarding the student loan debt, the Supreme Court had affirmed that the Constitution means what it says, that the power to initiate spending lies solely with Congress. Most public criticism focused on the obvious unfairness of the policy, how it would disadvantage those who had been responsible in favor of those who wished to renounce their legal obligations.
Biden’s bridge proposal was also nonsense. The bridge isn’t owned by the United States. There is no conceivable reason for the federal government to be deemed responsible for its repair. The bridge was demolished by a cargo ship, in an industry which insures heavily against such misfortunes. Other jurisdictions have also acknowledged partial responsibility.
Here’s the problem with the mindset that it’s okay to get involved with all these giveaways: we don’t have the money. We’re seriously in debt, with expenses vastly exceeding our income and no plan in place for repayment or even deficit reduction.
Biden is hardly the only politician who has deduced that spending other people’s money (OPM) can win elections. Even many Republicans, to their shame, support the spending juggernaut. The spenders are the moral equivalent of a wastrel with no money and no job, with bankruptcy looming, who continues to pick up tabs and buy pricey gifts with credit cards he has no intention of paying off.
Still, the spenders know that Americans have mostly normalized excessive spending even when unnecessary. So, Biden was able to propose a whopping $7.3 trillion budget for next year (up $500 billion in the last year alone) without provoking much outrage.
The $2 trillion spent on COVID relief accomplished nothing. It was mainly an excuse to push more money out the door. At least it was supposed to be temporary. Biden’s budget though would pocket the COVID bump and add yet more permanent spending, mostly on programs for “climate change” and other boondoggles. A $10 trillion budget by 2033 is projected.
What can’t go on forever won’t. Our present course is unsustainable. Income tax revenues are soaring, yet the debt continues to grow. We are using borrowed money to pay the debt interest, which has surpassed all budget items except entitlement programs.
How do we get out of this death spiral? The left’s favorite solution is to raise taxes. That doesn’t work. The historical record shows that tax increases put us further in the hole.
For example, the Obamacare tax increases raised $1.4 trillion but so hindered economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that the feds lost $3.8 trillion in revenues. In contrast, President Clinton signed the 1997 Republican tax and spending cuts. Four years of budget surpluses ensued.
It’s well known that reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is necessary for a balanced budget. Yet both parties are interested only in demagoguing the other if they catch them even considering the issue. If the politicians, including Donald Trump, continue to insist on prioritizing incumbent reelection, the only way out may be for the people to take matters into our own hands.
Anybody else interested in seriously revisiting the notion of amending the Constitution to mandate a balanced budget? Sure, it may (or may not) be difficult, but the consequence of doing nothing is surely worse.
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.
The whole “net-zero by 2050” narrative that cranked up in earnest in early 2021 has now become a public relations problem for the climate-alarm movement, according to a senior official at the United Nations.
Chris Stark, the outgoing chief executive of the UN’s Climate Change Committee (CCC), said as reported by the Guardian: “Net zero has definitely become a slogan that I feel occasionally is now unhelpful, because it’s so associated with the campaigns against it. That wasn’t something I expected.”
As seems to always be the case among the globalist sponsors of this government-subsidized rush to saddle the world with unreliable power grids and short-range electric cars, the conversation among the leaders of the movement immediately moves not to perhaps reconsidering the approach to address public concerns, but to rejiggering the narrative. Stark recommends shifting the label and the narrative to more of a focus on investment and how renewables and EVs somehow improve energy security.
“We are talking about cleaning up the economy and making it more productive – you can call that anything you like,” he said.
That would be a neat trick, inventing a narrative about benefits that don’t really exist. But it wouldn’t be the first time it’s been tried.
At last November’s COP 28 conference, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres floated the term “climate collapse” as a new name for what the climate alarmists have successively called “global warming,” “climate change,” “climate crisis,” and “climate emergency.” Each successive label has been replaced as its cache’ with the public has faded; and apparently the whole “climate emergency” has lost its punch, so another fright narrative must be concocted.
The trouble there, of course, is that the climate is not collapsing. But then again, it isn’t in any sort of an emergency, either, or a crisis.
The climate is always changing, though, so at least the long-abandoned “climate change” label had the ring of truth to it. Maybe let’s go back to that and try to deal with something that is at least a real thing? But, no, that would cut down on the alarm and make it harder for political leaders to enact bad “solutions” and subsidize them with debt combined with skyrocketing utility bills for average citizens.
So, as Stark says, call it anything you want, just so long as it is alarming. Stark’s boss at the UN, Guterres, used the term “global boiling” to describe the current climate situation. So, maybe we change “net-zero by 2050” to “no bubbles by 2050.” That would at least have the advantage of some semblance of consistent thought.
A colleague suggested that we simply change the problematic label to “Stone Age,” since that is where we are heading if the alarmists continue to get their way. She has a point.
The most amazing thing about Stark’s concerns is that anyone is really surprised that “net-zero by 2050” has become a problematic term. How else would officials at the UN and other governments expect the public to react to what has become the umbrella label for a set of authoritarian government actions that have destabilized power grids, caused the cost of living to rise rapidly, reduced consumer choice, and begun to rob citizens in nominally “free” countries of their individual rights?
The central problem today with this climate change narrative is that it has gone on for so long that is has become a bit of a joke with an increasingly aware and skeptical public. And the reason they’re skeptical is not due to any disbelief in science, as the alarmists invariably claim, but because they have seen nothing but bad outcomes and personal deprivations from the alleged solutions being subsidized into existence.
Stark assures us that, “the lifestyle change that goes with this is not enormous at all,” but painful results to date tell another story.
If Stark were truly thoughtful and serious about wanting to deal with the increasing unpopularity of the “net-zero by 2050” construct, he would suggest that everyone take a step back and re-evaluate the nature and effectiveness of the solutions being pushed.
By merely advocating for the concoction of yet another shift in the narrative, a troublesome lack of sincerity is laid bare.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
