In a previous op-ed, I argued that Arizona’s district school system is no longer failing quietly or at the margins; it is failing in concrete, measurable ways that any citizen can see. Districts are sitting atop tens of millions of square feet of unused facilities, fleets of underutilized buses, and continued academic declines, even as families vote with their feet for charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling. I suggested that this mismatch between assets and enrollment is not primarily a failure of effort by teachers or even of management by principals and superintendents. It is, rather, a structural failure—a failure of the political governance model that was built for a different age and has now grown badly out of step with a landscape defined by choice and specialization.
That first piece only sketched the deeper questions. If Arizona’s district schools are governed by locally elected boards precisely so that they can respond to the public interest, why do they so consistently struggle to respond to the public itself? Why do boards that are supposed to safeguard public funds preside over billions of dollars in underutilized assets? Why does a structure designed to protect the common good now preside over persistent scandal, fiscal mismanagement, declining enrollment, and widespread frustration among teachers, administrators, and parents alike? To answer those questions, we must look beyond current headlines and follow the longer arc of how we came to equate “public” with “politically governed” in the first place.
A Short History
The political governance model that structures Arizona’s districts did not descend from heaven fully formed. It emerged in the early twentieth century as a particular way—one way—of securing community oversight of local schools. The assumption was simple: if citizens chose board members at the ballot box, then “the public interest” would be represented in school decisions. Over time, that prudential, albeit contingent, arrangement hardened into dogma. Political representation came to be treated not only as a means of protection, but as the necessary and exclusive guardian of the public good, public funds, and the formation of the next generation. To question the structure itself began to sound, in some ears, like questioning public education altogether.
Yet a careful look at both history and experience suggests that this is far too narrow a view. Arizonans know as well as anybody we must distinguish between the health of a society and the reach of the state. Our southwestern culture has long insisted that families, churches, associations, and voluntary institutions represent the public and serve the common good, often more effectively than formal political bodies. We know that political power is not the sole guardian of the public interest; it is one instrument among many and must be judged by its fruits. Therefore, we also know that if a particular form of political governance routinely frustrates educational excellence, wastes public resources, and subjects schools to the whiplash of partisan cycles, it is not sacrilege to reconsider it. It is an act of enlightened stewardship.
Arizona did not begin with today’s sprawling unified districts and five-member boards. In the territorial period, the basic unit of public education was the local school district, often consisting of a single schoolhouse serving one community. Territorial law in the late 1860s and 1870s required each district to elect a small board of three trustees, who oversaw the teacher, maintained the building, levied modest local taxes when necessary, and kept a simple census of school-age children. Early political governance of schools in Arizona was rudimentary and intensely local. The trustees were neighbors, the school was usually the only option for miles, and the questions before the board were concrete: hire a teacher, repair the roof, stretch a short budget a little further. And parents were close and connected to every operation of the school.
With statehood in 1912, the picture began to change. The Arizona Constitution established a State Board of Education and charged the new state with maintaining a system of common schools, while statutory law gradually formalized local districts as political subdivisions of the state. Over time, those simple boards of trustees evolved into today’s “governing boards,” recognized in Title 15 of the Arizona Revised Statutes as the governing body of each school district, typically consisting of three or five members serving staggered four-year terms and elected on the regular general-election ballot. What began as lay oversight of a single schoolhouse was thus absorbed into the broader machinery of state and county elections and invested with a much wider portfolio of powers.
Through the middle of the twentieth century, Arizona followed the national trend toward consolidation and unification. Numerous small districts were merged into larger common and unified districts, each with a single governing board responsible for K–8 and high school operations across multiple schools and neighborhoods. State law now gives these boards dozens of specific powers and duties—from hiring and evaluating the superintendent to adopting curricula and policies, issuing bonds, and managing the district’s substantial real estate portfolio. In effect, and by necessity, school boards shifted from being small committees of trustees to quasi-legislative bodies whose decisions shape complex organizations serving tens of thousands of students and stewarding hundreds of millions of public dollars. With this growth, parents became more like mere bystanders.
Political = Public?
From a legal standpoint, Arizona’s embrace of political representation as the default mode for “real” public education is baked into its constitutional and statutory architecture. Article XI of the Arizona Constitution charges the Legislature with creating a “general and uniform public school system” and vests the “general conduct and supervision” of that system in a State Board of Education, a state superintendent, county school superintendents, and locally established governing boards. District governing boards are thus conceived, from the outset, as political bodies—public offices filled by election, exercising delegated authority from the state to manage schools, steward funds, and set policy. Over the twentieth century, this framework was reinforced as boards took on larger consolidated districts, wider fiscal responsibilities, and explicit policy-making roles. In practice, “the public school system” came to mean the system supervised by these constitutionally recognized, electorally chosen officials.
Culturally and politically, this legal design was then wrapped in a powerful democratic narrative. State and national advocacy groups routinely describe elected school boards and district schools as the “cornerstone of democracy” and the essential vehicle for citizen oversight of government. In Arizona, governing-board candidates and education associations explicitly frame district schools—not charters—as the institution that embodies this democratic ideal and warn that parental-choice policies “attack public education” and threaten that cornerstone role. The result is that, in both rhetoric and policy debates, “public education” is habitually equated with electorally governed districts, while other public schooling arrangements (charters, open enrollment, and yes ESAs) are treated as exceptions or threats. Political representation by board election is no longer presented as one prudential way to secure the public interest; it is treated as the litmus test for whether a school is truly public at all.
The Results
Measured against its own stated aims, Arizona’s district governance model is not delivering. Start with the most basic metric of public confidence: whether families actually use the system they are taxed to support. Since 2011, district school enrollment in Arizona has fallen about 8 percent while charter enrollment has grown 87 percent; nearly all net growth in public-school enrollment over the past decade has come from charters, not districts. A recent analysis estimates that roughly 27 percent of Arizona’s 5- to 17-year-olds now do not attend a district school, and that close to 40 percent of incoming kindergarteners bypass their assigned district campus for charter, private, or home- and micro-school options. In other words, under the very governance structure meant to embody the “public interest,” a steadily shrinking share of the public is choosing the product offered—even before one considers the additional 7 percent (and growing) of students now educated via ESAs outside the district and charter systems altogether.
The picture is no more reassuring on fiscal stewardship. Arizona’s Auditor General recently warned that dozens of districts are on the verge of serious financial distress, and state financial investigators fielded 102 fraud-related allegations involving school districts and other public entities in 2024 alone. In the Isaac Elementary School District, mismanagement and budget overruns became so severe that the district could not meet payroll, prompting the State Board of Education to place it into formal receivership and triggering investigations by the Auditor General and Attorney General. The Nadaburg Unified School District has likewise drawn public accusations of “gross financial mismanagement” from the state treasurer, who urged an audit and potential receivership. All of this is happening in a system that, even as enrollment declines, continues to accumulate physical plant and capital costs: between 2019 and 2024, district enrollment fell 5 percent while gross square footage rose 3 percent, capital spending rose 67 percent, and square feet per student rose 9 percent, leaving districts operating at roughly two-thirds of their capacity while charter schools operate at about 95 percent. A governance model that presides over shrinking usage, growing fixed costs, and periodic fiscal crisis is, at a minimum, not obviously safeguarding public funds.
Nor is the system maintaining the confidence of its own professionals. A 2024 study from Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute found “deep dissatisfaction” among K–12 educators statewide, with nearly two-thirds reporting that they have considered leaving the profession. Separate reporting notes that more than half of Arizona’s public-school teachers say they may leave within two years if working conditions do not improve. Meanwhile, the Department of Education’s most recent survey shows the teacher shortage remains at a “catastrophic” level: since July 2025, more than 1,000 teachers have quit, over 4,000 positions are being filled by long-term substitutes or other stopgaps, and nearly 1,400 positions are entirely vacant. These are not merely human-resource headaches; they are evidence that the governance structure is failing at the elementary work of sustaining a stable, dignified professional environment for the adults on whom student learning depends.
Finally, academic results under this model are stubbornly mediocre. On Arizona’s 2024 statewide assessments, close to 60 percent of students were not proficient in English Language Arts and 67 percent weren’t proficient in math, essentially unchanged from the prior year despite significant pandemic recovery spending. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Arizona’s eighth-grade math score in 2022 was lower than in 2019 and not significantly different from its score in 2000; barely 18 percent of students reached “proficient,” and the share below “basic” was alarmingly high. Reading scores for fourth and eighth graders declined again in 2024, with only about a quarter of students proficient. After more than a century of elected-board oversight, the system is educating barely one in three students to grade-level standards in core subjects.
Taken together, these facts are not the story of a governance model quietly doing its job in a difficult environment. They are the record of a structure that has failed to retain families, failed to steward assets, failed to sustain its workforce, and failed to secure strong academic outcomes—even as alternative, non-political public models have expanded alongside it.
Beyond the Political Governance Model
The political cycle all but guarantees that Arizona’s district schools cannot build the kind of stable, long-horizon strategy that genuine educational excellence requires. Board elections, party primaries, and shifting legislative coalitions continually reset priorities, rewarding short term gestures that energize a partisan base rather than quiet, steady investment in students, families, and faculty. The incentives are clear: politicians and would-be board members gain more by fighting over the latest cultural controversy or signaling loyalty to party talking points than by aligning curriculum, staffing, facilities, and budgeting to a coherent, decades-long vision for student formation. In this environment, strategic plans are drafted to placate interest groups, messaging is crafted to survive the next news cycle, and superintendents are hired and fired according to political winds rather than educational competence. The result is a political strategic governance model, in which schools are treated as stages for ideological contest, rather than an educational governance model, in which decisions are anchored to evidence about what helps children learn, what sustains excellent teachers, and what builds strong, enduring school communities.
It is therefore time, not out of hostility to public education but out of love for it, that we rethink the political governance model that currently defines Arizona’s district schools. The interests of students, families, faculty, and staff are too precious to be chained to a structure that persistently frustrates their flourishing. If public education is truly a public good, then it must be governed in a way that safeguards that good by honoring scarce resources, attracting and retaining excellent educators, and treating children as persons to be formed rather than as data points in a political contest. Structures exist for the sake of these ends, not the other way around. To ask whether elected boards and partisan incentives remain the best guardians of our schools is not an act of heresy; it is an act of stewardship and, in a self-governing republic, a moral duty. A people that refuses to examine its institutions when they fail to serve their purpose is not defending the common good. It is neglecting it.
Erik Twist is the Principal Partner and President of Arcadia Education. He served as President of Great Hearts Arizona from 2017 to 2022.
The nation’s biggest union overseeing educators is prioritizing trainings to advance LGBTQ+ justice and defeat white supremacy as student outcomes continue to decline.
The National Education Association (NEA) plans to train educators on these topics through the 2025-26 Focus Academy schedule. Affiliate staff and member teams attend these academies to develop and implement issue organizing campaigns, per the NEA.
The NEA will kick off the holiday season with a three-day training on “Advancing LGBTQ+ Justice and Transgender Advocacy” the week after Thanksgiving.
The training is exclusive to members and allies of the LGBTQ+ community. It seeks to harmonize the LGBTQ+ ideology and strategize to defeat other ideologies opposed to it:
“With partners from the Center for Racial Justice, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and other experts participants will learn how to: establish common understandings about the identities under the LGBTQ+ community umbrella; develop a shared understanding of the anti LGBTQ+ policy landscape and how to develop counter narratives of inclusion and equity; deepen skills and strategies to confront implicit bias, micro-aggressions and stereotypes in the LGBTQ+ community; [and] develop a toolset of tactics for dismantling systems of privilege and oppression as it relates to LGBTQ+ educators and students.”
Academic achievement scores across the nation are dismal, yet the National Education Association teachers' union is focusing an upcoming training on pronouns, gender transition plans, rejecting parents' rights and effectively painting conservatives as "villains". pic.twitter.com/r96uCXqxwE
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) November 20, 2025
Within this academy, educators are trained on defaulting to the pluralization of genders, using pronouns, transitioning genders, and implementing the Gender Unicorn.
Then, to kick off the New Year, the NEA will train educators on “address[ing] white supremacy culture.” The NEA emphasized a need for individuals “highly skilled” in handling “white fragility and interpersonal oppressions.” Leaked materials show a term that seems to have fallen out of the wayside in public commentary: Critical Race Theory (CRT).
“Recently, [Republicans] have paired these attacks with fear-mongering about Critical Race Theory, mobilizing their base with a potent mix of racist and transphobic tropes,” stated the training materials.
This focus academy training will have educators complete a campaign plan that details what racial justice looks like:
“Participants will learn how to help themselves and others: establish a common language for talking explicitly about white supremacy culture in a campaign cycle; deepen skills and strategies to confront implicit bias, microaggressions, and stereotypes; develop a shared understanding of the levels of racism with a focus on a power analysis required to make changes at various levels; [and] develop a toolset for dismantling systems of privilege and oppression.”
Defending Education published leaked materials from these academies. Per these materials, NEA leadership harmonizes and equates the issues facing the advancement of LGBTQ+ ideology and Critical Race Theory.
The materials show that the NEA blamed the lack of public support on transgenderism for minors on the political right having “exploited” general ignorance of LGBTQ+ ideology.
“Over the last ten years, Republicans in state legislatures have increasingly turned to anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation as a powerful complement to their arsenal of racist dog whistles used to whip up fear and consolidate power,” said the materials.
The latest Nation’s Report Card by the National Assessment of Educational Progress yielded additional declines in scores across the board for math, reading, and science.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Department of Education (ED) announced a significant new investment in school choice.
On Monday, ED pledged “historic” investments into charter schools, American history and civics programs, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs).
The department repurposed funding from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs to fund these investments.
ED Secretary Linda McMahon said the funds were reserved for programs “which support student success.”
“The Department has carefully scrutinized our federal grants, ensuring that taxpayers are not funding racially discriminatory programs but those programs which promote merit and excellence in education,” said McMahon. “The Trump Administration will use every available tool to meaningfully advance educational outcomes and ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed in life.”
ED also pledged over $160 million to the American History and Civics Education National Activities — Seminars for America’s Semiquincentennial program. 2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.
ED will award American history and civics grants for seminars that “directly commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Founding of the United States.” Eligible seminar programming must make a feature study of American political tradition: the ideas, institutions, and texts instrumental to this nation’s constitutional government and history. The seminars must also be based on “the first principles of American founding.” Eligible seminars must include the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
$500 million in grants will be distributed to charter schools for the 2025 fiscal year. Another total of nearly $500 million collectively will be sent as one-time investments to HBCUs and TCCUs.
As justification for the reallocation of millions in government grants, ED cited the poor student outcomes exhibited by the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores released earlier this month. Student NAEP scores reached “historic lows” throughout K-12.
Nationally, average NAEP scores were lower across all three assessments: science at grade 8, mathematics at grade 12, and reading at grade 12.
Arizona students scored lower across the various subjects than the average national scores for both fourth and eighth graders. Fourth grade math scores averaged 232, compared to the national average of 237; fourth grade reading scores averaged 208, compared to the national average of 214; and fourth grade science scores averaged 149, compared to the national average of 153.
Eighth grade math scores averaged 270, compared to the national average of 272; eighth grade reading scores averaged 254, compared to the national average of 257; and eighth grade science scores averaged 148, compared to the national average of 153.
McMahon called the NAEP results “devastating,” and indicative of a trend of generations unprepared for adult life. McMahon questioned the spending of billions annually with such dismal results, and pledged to claw back some of those funds to invest in individual states and educational choice.
“At a critical juncture when students are about to graduate and enter the workforce, military, or higher education, nearly half of America’s high school seniors are testing at below basic levels in math and reading. Despite spending billions annually on numerous K-12 programs, the achievement gap is widening, and more high school seniors are performing below the basic benchmark in math and reading than ever before,” said McMahon. “If America is going to remain globally competitive, students must be able to read proficiently, think critically, and graduate equipped to solve complex problems. We owe it to them to do better.”
In May, ED pledged to increase charter school funding by $60 million for a program budget total of $500 million.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The U.S. Department of Education released the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, known as the Nation’s Report Card, revealing historic lows in academic performance for eighth and twelfth-grade students in science, mathematics, and reading.
The data highlights persistent post-pandemic challenges and a widening achievement gap, prompting U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to call for a transformative shift in education policy.
“Today’s NAEP results confirm a devastating trend,” said Secretary McMahon in a statement released by the U.S. Department of Education. “American students are testing at historic lows across all of K-12. At a critical juncture when students are about to graduate and enter the workforce, military, or higher education, nearly half of America’s high school seniors are testing at below basic levels in math and reading. Despite spending billions annually on numerous K-12 programs, the achievement gap is widening, and more high school seniors are performing below the basic benchmark in math and reading than ever before.”
The 2024 NAEP results show significant declines in average scores compared to 2019:
8th Grade Science: The average score for eighth graders dropped for the first time since 2009, with 38% performing below the NAEP Basic level, a five-point increase from 2019. Only 31% scored at or above the Proficient level, down four points from 2019.
12th Grade Mathematics: The average score hit its lowest point since 2005, with 45% of twelfth graders scoring below Basic, a five-point increase from 2019. Only 22% achieved Proficient or above, which is down two points.
12th Grade Reading: The average score fell below all previous assessments since 1992, with 32% of twelfth graders below Basic, up two points from 2019, and 35% at or above Proficient, down two points again.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2020-2021 school year, the United States (between local, state, and federal governments) spent $18,614 per student enrolled. This totals $927 billion in expenditures between public elementary and secondary schools.
Secretary McMahon added, “The lesson is clear. Success isn’t about how much money we spend, but who controls the money and where that money is invested. That’s why President Trump and I are committed to returning control of education to the states so they can innovate and meet each school and student’s unique needs.”
The data highlights a growing achievement gap, with lower-performing students at the 10th and 25th percentiles showing significant declines, while scores for the highest performers remained stable.
The report also reveals a rise in absenteeism, with 31% of twelfth graders missing three or more school days in the past month, up 26% from 2019. Additionally, only 33% of twelfth graders were deemed academically prepared for college in mathematics and 35% in reading, down from 37% in both subjects in 2019.
The NAEP assessments, conducted from January to March 2024, involved approximately 23,000 eighth graders in science and 43,600 twelfth graders in mathematics and reading. The results provide a snapshot of student performance across public and private schools.
Secretary McMahon emphasized the need for action across the U.S., saying, “If America is going to remain globally competitive, students must be able to read proficiently, think critically, and graduate equipped to solve complex problems. We owe it to them to do better.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
