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.
The Goldwater Institute has filed a federal lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), demanding answers about an ongoing government case targeting a California-based moving company with a $15 million fine for alleged age discrimination.
At the center of the dispute is Meathead Movers, a family-owned business founded in 1997. The company has grown into California’s largest independently owned moving company, employing more than 300 workers. Its business model emphasizes physical endurance and customer service, with employees jogging to and from trucks when not carrying furniture.
The EEOC launched an investigation into Meathead Movers in 2017, accusing the company of discriminating against older applicants and using marketing materials that allegedly promote age bias. The case is unusual because it is an “agency-initiated” lawsuit—meaning the EEOC filed it without an official complaint from an alleged victim. The EEOC only pursues a small number of such cases each year.
According to the Goldwater Institute, that lack of a public complaint is precisely why the group is now suing the federal government. In March, the Institute submitted a public records request asking the EEOC to disclose whether any individuals had actually filed complaints against Meathead Movers and whether similar actions had been taken against other companies. The EEOC denied the request, citing privacy concerns.
The Goldwater Institute argues that the refusal to disclose this information violates federal transparency laws. “Privacy is for individuals, not government agencies,” the Goldwater said in a statement. “Transparency is a legal requirement, especially when taxpayer-funded agencies wield their power against private businesses.”
Critics of the EEOC’s case say the lawsuit defies common sense. Moving companies, by nature, require employees capable of lifting heavy furniture and working long hours in physically demanding conditions. The Goldwater Institute points out that Meathead Movers has employed workers of all ages and argues there is no evidence of systemic discrimination.
“This isn’t just about one company,” said a spokesperson for the Goldwater Institute. “If the government can pick a successful business, launch a multimillion-dollar enforcement action without an actual complaint, and then refuse to explain why, it sets a dangerous precedent for small businesses everywhere.”
As the lawsuit moves forward, the Goldwater Institute says it will continue to press for the release of records, arguing that public accountability is at stake.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Beard warned in his column that as we approach 20 years of the 2006 vintage Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), only 18 of the 35 projects promised to the taxpayers of Pima County have been completed.
He wrote, “The mismanagement is staggering. Tucson’s unfinished Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) projects are estimated to be $400–$600 million short. At the current pace—roughly $50 million in spending per year—completing the work would take at least eight more years. There’s one big problem, however: the sales tax that funds the RTA is set to expire in 2026, and time is running out. Tucson officials have responded by throwing up their hands and admitting defeat, postponing four projects for inclusion in a future ‘RTA Next’ plan.”
Beard directly attributes the RTA’s financial woes and lack of productivity to a series of economic factors, exacerbated by the City of Tucson’s project mismanagement, delays, and unwillingness to shoulder the added cost burden. He explained, “Every infrastructure plan faces risks, and Pima County’s strategy was no exception. The 2008 recession slowed tax collections, and inflation has since driven construction costs well beyond the 10% buffer allowed by law. Tucson, however, made matters worse by repeatedly altering project scopes to appease neighborhood groups, further delaying timelines and driving up costs. Each time, Tucson failed to take responsibility by allocating more supplemental resources. Instead, city leaders appeared to hope the problem would simply go away.”
He added, “Tucson’s leaders clearly misunderstand the purpose of the RTA, viewing it more as a construction manager responsible for overruns than a basic funding mechanism distributing tax dollars. Each city was responsible for designing and building its own projects. Any change in scope—additional lanes, neighborhood preferences, unforeseen costs—was theirs to fund, not the RTA’s.“
A bigger tax bill should mean better results… not a broken system. So why is Tucson’s transit still falling short?
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 11, 2025
Speaking with AZ Free News, Beard elaborated:
“I’m from Tucson. I grew up there, so this is a little personal for me. But there’s a history of kicking the can down the road by the community writ large, leadership, etc. A ‘Why deal with it today when we can postpone to tomorrow’ attitude. And it’s only when things truly reach a critical point that something happens politically.
“The powers that be down there would prefer to kind of maintain the status quo. They don’t want their boat rocked. They don’t want anybody coming in and potentially undermining their political power, so let’s maintain things as they are.
“To the point of the article, the problem fundamentally is two things. One, was it a failure to plan or a plan to fail? And number two, remember when voters vote on these long-term things, you always end up with a situation where the compromises politically that were made in order to get the thing past the voters that were approved in the beginning, political leadership that are elected further on into the cycle, they don’t believe that they are obligated to follow the wishes of whatever compromises were made in the first place.”
As for the political fallout, Beard predicted that an attempt from Tucson Mayor Regina Romero to extricate the city from the RTA, as she threatened in 2022, might not “end well for her politically speaking.”
He noted, “The problem is she is basically telling all of the voters across Pima County, not just the other communities, but the voters throughout Pima County, including her own voters, ‘eff you’. And I don’t think, given what happened with (Proposition) 414 a few months ago in the city of Tucson, I don’t think that will end well for her politically speaking.”
City voters soundly rejected Prop 414 or the “Safe & Vibrant City” proposition, which would have enacted a half-cent sales tax increase for the next 10 years to fund various city projects. City Manager Tim Thomure told AZCentral that the Proposition’s rejections sent city planners “back to the drawing board [to] sharpen our pencils and work it out so that we live within the budget that will be available to us.”
Beard continued saying that Romero, “is, of the opinion, and there are other people, including Supervisor Hines on the Board of Supervisors, of the opinion that the City can basically go its own way and make its own sales tax. They’re forgetting, of course, that if that happens, roughly… a third of the total revenue that would come to the region would disappear because it would revert back to the state legislature to determine whether or not those funds get distributed based on the regional planning that southern Arizona currently enjoys.”
He added that Tucson’s deviation from the RTA planning adopted in 2006 could leave the city open to legal consequences. He observed, “I’m not an attorney, so I don’t give legal advice, but I spent 30 years in the contracting world and I’ve read enough of the documents, the intergovernmental agreements, the procedures, policy procedures of the RTA that was adopted in 2006, all of them keep referring to voter language, you know, the amount of money that was set aside by the voters that could go to these projects.
“Under state law, you can vary that up to 10 % overrun, because it’s the vagaries of construction, that happens. But anything above and beyond that, you’ve got to go back to the voters in order to get their approval to make that kind of scope change. Again, I’m not an attorney, but I can read what’s in the language and it’s pretty clear.”
According to Beard, the RTA board did send its new legal counsel a question with the hope of getting an answer by the end of July at their next formal board meeting, asking: “What is the legal obligation of the RTA board to complete all of the projects if the revenue has not come in to satisfy all of the needs that the voters … determined 20 years ago?”
He concluded: “To be blunt, the city of Tucson’s got nobody to blame but themselves. You can point fingers at the RTA all you want to. You can point fingers to the leadership. The reality is in the numbers; the math is the math. And for all of these projects the City of Tucson kept postponing, it only dramatically increased the amount of money they would have to bring to the table, even assuming the RTA never had a revenue shortfall.
“Because the City of Tucson kept postponing these projects, the costs were going through the roof and there was no way legally for the RTA to step forward and say, oh yeah, we’ll cover those extra costs. That’s not possible.”
Although the causes are attributed to various factors by different sources, largely dependent on political leanings, one irrefutable fact emerged on Monday. During Governor Katie Hobbs’ tenure, Arizona has plunged from a ranking of 4th place in the nation in job growth, to 47th.
On Monday, Russ Wiles, writing for the Arizona Republic noted, “AZ no longer ranks near the top for job creation,” and asked rhetorically, “What went wrong?”
Citing figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Republic reported that Arizona now ranks in 47th place among the fifty states, just ahead of Massachusetts, West Virginia, and Iowa. The report cited a net loss of 1,900 jobs year-to-date in 2025.
In 2020, at the height of the first Trump Administration and under former Gov. Doug Ducey’s tenure, Arizona ranked third in the nation for economic momentum.
THIS JUST IN: The Phoenix metropolitan area ranked #1 in the nation for new jobs created last year. With 66,500 nonfarm jobs added (3.2% growth), #Arizona’s booming economy continues to grow at one of the fastest rates in the U.S.! #AZMeansBiz#AZAwesomehttps://t.co/pr093PEesc
— Arizona Commerce Authority (@azcommerce) July 3, 2019
In 2019, the Phoenix Metro area even beat out the largest cities in California, Texas, and Florida to take the #1 slot for job growth.
More recently, in a March 2024 statement, Hobbs touted that Arizona ranked 4th in job growth, and tripled the national average in workforce growth. In the pronouncement, which has aged quite poorly, the governor even dubbed herself “Governor Katie Jobbs,” and credited the “81,800 jobs created,” to “investments in housing, healthcare, infrastructure, childcare, and education.”
Meanwhile, a Goldwater Institute op-ed in January, predicting an acrimonious budget battle that materialized over the next five months, pointed out Hobbs’ askew priorities. While the beleaguered Democrat focused on defeating Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship Account program (ESA) and presided over a surge in crime, her failure to account for $800 million in statutorily required Medicaid spending and an affordable housing crisis represented “fiscal mismanagement at its worst.”
AZCentral’s Russ Wiles, in working to answer “What went wrong?” addressed one factor in the decline as “slowing migration, with fewer people moving here from other states,” which dovetails with the affordable housing issue and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) rule cracking down on new developments.
Lee McPheters, director of the Economic Outlook Center for Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, noted to the outlet, “With domestic migration trending down and international migration dropping off a cliff in 2025, the impetus for population growth has diminished and undoubtedly plays a role here.”
In May, Goldwater launched a legal battle against the Hobbs administration over the ADWR’s controversial new rule imposing the requirement of a 100-year “unmet demand” groundwater supply rule across wide swaths of the state, essentially choking out new housing development.
In addition, as Wiles notes, construction employment has been further weakened by rising material costs, with overall job growth stunted by tariff uncertainty and high interest rates.
Large scale layoffs, such as Nikola Corp.’s 855 jobs lost to its February bankruptcy and Joann Fabrics’ layoffs of 374 employees in January, also factored in heavily. While not directly attributable to Hobbs’ actions, the losses drew a spotlight to a lack of decisive action from Hobbs to attract new employers to Arizona in the short term.
Another factor, unmarked by AZCentral however, has been the $1.6 billion deficit under Hobbs which forced budget cuts, including Department of Economic Security layoffs that directly contributed to the 1,900 net job loss. As Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSIAZ) explained in June, rather than being caused by Arizona’s flat tax, the shortfall was caused by a massive increase in spending under Hobbs.
“If spending had followed historical trends, Arizona would have had a $4.3 billion surplus rather than a $1.6 billion cash shortfall last year,” CSIAZ wrote.
Hobbs’ vetoes could present the most egregious contribution she’s made. By vetoing 178 total bills in 2025, 73 in 2024, and 143 in 2023, totaling 424 to date, or approximately a third of all bills sent to her desk, Hobbs has prevented the implementation of a comprehensive policy for economic growth from either her administration or Republican leaders in the state legislature from materializing.
Ultimately, Hobbs’ unwillingness to work productively with Republican lawmakers and her active obstruction of legislation to reduce tax burdens, ease regulation, and stimulate job growth may have proven to be as prominent in Arizona economics as it has been in politics. And as prominent Democratic President Harry Truman famously said, “The buck stops here.”
As the City of Scottsdale stands poised to enact a staggering $2.2 billion budget, city leaders must now contend with a new lawsuit from the Goldwater Institute challenging the city’s controversial sales tax increase.
As of the council’s June 10th meeting, the city has reportedly agreed to spend up to $90,000 in taxpayer dollars on the outside law firm Osborne Maledon to defend it.
In June 2024, the Goldwater Institute challenged the newly approved 0.15% sales tax, which was pitched to voters as a “replacement tax,” for an unrelated, expired 0.2% Land Acquisition Tax.
Goldwater won that legal battle, “forcing the city to admit that it was raising, rather than lowering taxes,” according to a press release.
Under the Arizona Constitution, such a tax hike must be approved by at least 60 percent of voters, a threshold the city did not meet in the 2024 election. Scottsdale leaders, however, have enacted the tax.
MORE THAN A BILLION DOLLARS? Listen for yourself… 👇
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) June 5, 2025
On Friday, June 3rd, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit against the city, panning the tax as “unconstitutional.” It stated that, “Supermajority rules help protect minority voices, prevent special-interest-driven decisions, and force governments to clean up their budgets before reaching for more of your money. Just like any responsible household, city, county, and state officials should look at how they’re spending first—not just always demand more, regardless of what the law and economic commonsense demand.”
Scott Day Freeman, writing for Goldwater added, “Scottsdale is ignoring the state’s constitutional mandate—requiring us to go to court yet again.”
City Attorney Sherry Scott’s summary to the city council stated, “The budget implications of not defending this case are $25 million per year for the next 30 years.” The law firm, earning approximately $912 per hour at the taxpayer’s expense, is fighting the Goldwater Institute’s efforts to seek an injunction that would stop the tax from taking effect on July 1st, along with a declaratory judgment that the tax is unenforceable.
Freeman said, “Our clients seek only a declaration that the tax is unlawful and an injunction to stop it being enforced. Our clients do not seek a refund or damages.”
Scottsdale spokesman Kelly Corsette stated, “The city is confident its ballot item and election result comply with the Arizona Constitution and all applicable election laws.” He claimed that “the 60% tax approval threshold does not apply to local ballot measures: it is in a section of the constitution that regulates statewide initiatives and referendums, not in the separate section of the constitution applicable to city initiatives and referendums.”
In its press release, the Goldwater Institute maintained that, “In 2022, Arizonans strengthened those protections by amending the Constitution to require any tax passed through a citizen initiative or referendum receive at least 60 percent approval to become law—a requirement that applies not just to statewide, but also to local ballot initiatives.”
