by Michele Hamer | Sep 30, 2022 | Opinion
By Michele Hamer |
If you’re confused about the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program expansion to all Arizona K-12 students, you’re not alone. The recent passing of HB 2853, gives parents and guardians who opt out of the public-school option, a portion of taxpayer funds to use for tutoring, private school tuition, home schooling, and special-needs therapies. Much of the confusion comes from advocates for and against this expansion by complicating the issue with opposing scenarios.
I believe both sides of the debate must begin under the auspices of Arizona law. Specifically, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, which states: “All parental rights are reserved to a parent of a minor child without obstruction or interference from this state, including the right to direct the education, upbringing, moral or religious training and make all health care decisions for their minor child.”
Opponents to Arizona’s ESA program expansion, like Save Our Schools and teachers’ unions, who have tried and failed to get enough signatures to stop HB 2853, feel parents are unqualified and can’t be trusted with these taxpayer funds to direct the education of their children. The Democrats of Greater Tucson take that mistrust of parents to a heinous level in a recent post. They write “With no accountability protocols, this creates an opportunity for extremist-xenophobic-homophobic-white nationalist-MAGA groups to develop their own little Hitler Youth Academies to indoctrinate impressionable minors.” The four false cheering points of the anti-ESA crowd can be easily debunked with facts:
- ESAs don’t siphon funds away from public schools: The inconvenient truth as explained by the Goldwater Institute is the “ESA program now gives back nearly $1,000 per child to the public school system each time a student switches to an ESA from a public school. This is because ESA students forfeit their funding from several pots of state taxpayer funded money (such as the ‘Classroom Site Fund’ and ‘Prop 123’ add-on revenues) when they leave their district or charter school, and all of that money gets redistributed back to the public school system instead. (For instance, for the 2022-2023 school year alone, the Classroom Site Fund raised $945 million dollars, with every one of Arizona’s 1.1 million public school students getting almost $900 each from it. ESA students, on the other hand, completely give up their claim to those dollars and instead send them back to their public-school peers, who end up with more money per pupil than they had before.” Read more here.
- ESAs do have monetary accountability and transparency: According to the Arizona Department of Education’s 2022/2023 ESA Handbook, when an Account Holder enters into an ESA contract with the Department, the Account Holder is required to report all expenses made with ESA funds. To maintain ESA program eligibility, debit card receipts must be submitted in the quarter that the transaction occurred. Complete invoices or receipts must be included when submitting expenses or making payments in the “Class Wallet” platform. All required credentials must be included when submitting debit card receipts or reimbursements.
- Parents can’t spend the ESA money on anything they want: The Arizona Department of Education’s 2022/2023 ESA Handbook is quite clear on their “Spending and Program Requirements” in Chapter 2. There are twenty-one out of seventy pages in this handbook explaining what is approved and unapproved spending. For instance, if your child needs a computer for online classes, you would think that is an approved expenditure, but it’s not.
- ESAs have academic accountability and transparency: I find the teachers’ union claim to the contrary laughable after the Arizona Department of Education’s recent release of the state’s assessment data. Overall, only 41% of students passed the English component, and a mere 33% passed the math portion. Where is the accountability for this disaster?
The biggest inconvenient truth is that home-schooled and private school students outperform public school students on state standardized tests and college entrance exams. As the number of homeschooled children in the United States grows, the statistics of student outcome cannot be ignored. According to Think Impact, homeschooled students score between 80% and 90% regardless of their parents’ level of education. On average, homeschooling one child costs the parent(s) between $700 and $1,800.
Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, reports a Back to School Survey shows 47% of parents are considering dropping school and going to homeschooling. Results from the EdChoice survey in 2020 showed that the top reasons parents had considered homeschooling before the COVID-19 shut down included freedom in exploring their child’s interests; safety concerns about schools; schools did not meet the needs of the children; and parents wanted to mold their children as per their own practices and beliefs.
Private schools have a long history of superior academic outcomes to public schools according to the National Center of Educational Assessment, but here’s another inconvenient truth the opponents of school choice via ESAs aren’t telling you; private schools deliver better family life outcomes than students who attend public schools. (See Figure 1)
Our education system has become a bloated, bureaucratic mess that is desperately trying to hang on to power over our children that is not legally theirs to have. Schools have one job, and that is to give our children a great academic education and they are failing. Compared to other nations, the United States fell to 24th in high school literacy in 2012 and continues to decline.
Parents, guardians, and concerned citizens are on the front lines, exposing the inconvenient truths regarding problems in our schools. We need to give them our support. I don’t believe the teachers’ unions, Save Our Schools, and their media cohorts are going to give up after their first defeat to stop ESA expansion.
Please contact your state representatives and tell them to uphold Arizona law which gives our parents the right to direct the education of their children.
Michele Hamer is a candidate for the Prescott Unified School District Governing Board. You can find out more about her campaign here.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Sep 28, 2022 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
What’s the difference between 141,714 and 88,866? Take a few seconds to do the math, and feel free to use a calculator if you’d like.
If you answered 52,848, you’re correct! Congratulations and give yourself a pat on the back because your math skills are far superior to those of Save Our Schools (SOS) and the rest of Arizona’s teachers’ unions.
On Friday, SOS Executive Director Beth Lewis boldly proclaimed—with all the confidence in the world—that the wall of boxes she was standing in front of contained the signatures of 141,714 Arizona voters who supported a ballot initiative aimed at overturning universal Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) in Arizona. She was giddy. Her supporters cheered. SOS declared blocking universal school choice for all a “historic victory.” And corporate media jumped on the opportunity to push their narrative, accepting everything SOS said at face value.
But there was a problem. And that’s where simple math comes into play…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Christine Accurso | Aug 22, 2022 | Opinion
By Christine Accurso |
Parents want options for their children’s education. That is why so many went to the legislature and the governor and asked them to pass the Universal Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program for all of Arizona’s students!
The ESA program has been around for 11 years, but it’s only been available for a limited number of students who have qualified under particular classifications. As a mother of a child who has qualified under the category of special needs, I have seen our son thrive with his education for the last 9 years on an ESA. The tax dollars that we have been able to draw down are completely accountable to the state. After submitting all the documentation for every purchase and having it all approved by the Department of Education, we can then have access to the next quarter’s funds.
There is no better advocate for a child than their parents. Public district and public charter schools are not for everyone. We need options for students and parents who don’t thrive in these settings. For our son, the public district school failed us, and the public charter schools disappointed us. That is why we left the “public system” of education. Every child is uniquely different and has different needs. ESAs simply ensure that each child’s needs can be met without significant financial sacrifices from their families.
The latest controversy now seems to be between the parents and the teachers’ unions. But it is not an EITHER/OR for public schools and ESAs. It really is a BOTH/AND. We need strong public schools, and we also need options for our children who don’t fit into that cookie-cutter style of learning. Children may be doing very well in a public school now and that is great, but their needs may change. Or the school may change and then, an ESA may be needed in the future.
If you read House Bill 2853, you will see that there is a significant amount of money that is allocated to the public school system. They also retain all federal and local tax dollars. A student on an ESA only receives 90% of the state per pupil funding. According to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, a public school child will receive approximately $14,326 in the coming school year, but an ESA recipient will receive $6,966. This is a win-win-win for the student, the public schools, and the taxpayers!
But right now, a group called Save Our Schools is out on the streets attempting to get the people of Arizona to sign a petition that could stop families from having the freedom of school choice. They’re trying to spread the false narrative that the new ESA law only benefits rich parents who want to send their kids to private school. If that were the case, you would expect to see a low demand for these ESAs. And yet, the new ESAs have been so popular with parents across all backgrounds and political spectrums that it has overwhelmed the Arizona Department of Education’s website!
It’s time for the people of Arizona to see through the lies. Save Our Schools wants to defund and deprive Arizona kids from receiving an amazing education. But thankfully, hundreds of parents have joined the Decline to Sign Movement. These engaged parents have been peacefully countering the Save Our Schools petition gatherers before a voter signs it to make sure that they understand what they are signing.
I encourage every voter in Arizona to Decline to Sign any petition from Save Our Schools. When our lawmakers put our children first, that is always a WIN! And that’s exactly what Governor Ducey did when he signed the new ESA law, making Arizona the gold standard for school choice laws in the country. Let’s leave this new law the way it is so that parents have full control over their children’s education. Our state and our kids will be better off if we fund students rather than systems.
Christine Accurso is a wife, mother, and ESA parent leading the charge for the Decline to Sign Movement. You can find out more about this effort here.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 26, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
President Joe Biden’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Phoenix-based attorney Roopali Desai, spurred Republican criticisms that her progressive activism throughout her career would result in judicial activism.
As AZ Free News reported, Desai has long defended and advanced Democratic Party interests. In addition to the nature of the cases she’s taken on over the years, Desai serves on a number of boards advancing progressive causes: Just Communities Arizona (JCA), which advocates for abolishing prisons; Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ), which advocates for an end to school choice; National Cannabis Roundtable, which advocates for federal marijuana legalization; and Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, which litigates to advance progressive initiatives. In the past, she served on the boards of New Pathways for Youth, ACLU of Arizona, and Arizona Family Health Partnership.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) cited Desai’s decades of championing progressive causes. He asked if her personal views would bleed into her judiciary rulings. Desai said there was a distinction in roles between lawyers and judges.
“No matter what matter I have in front of me, and no matter what my personal or political views may be, they will not play a role in any case or decision that comes before me,” insisted Desai.
Desai rejected characterization by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) that the bulk of her clients were Democrat-affiliated. She asserted that she’s represented corporations, small business owners, and even the government in a range of issues from business to constitutional law disputes.
“My work as a litigator for almost 20 years spans a much broader range of clients and matters than just the ones you’ve referenced,” said Desai.
At the opening of the hearing, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) offered a lengthy opening statement in favor of Desai. Sinema characterized Desai as a balanced arbitrator of the law. In the past, Desai served as legal counsel for Sinema’s campaign. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) also issued support for Desai’s nomination.
Like both of Arizona’s senators, the other Democratic senators didn’t venture an in-depth exploration of Desai’s views. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) used his time to heap praise and gratitude on Desai. His remarks echoed the remarks he issued during the confirmation hearings of now-Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) remarked repeatedly that Desai received bipartisan support among the likes of politicians, lawyers, and law enforcement. Desai explained that support for her nomination was rooted in her equal and fair application of the law.
“I would point to my respect for the rule of law. Our system of justice demands judges to apply the law objectively, fair-mindedly, and to honor the precedent of our courts,” replied Desai.
By contrast, the Republican senators were more direct about discerning the nature of Desai’s legal career and how it would relate to her appointment in the Ninth Circuit. Desai didn’t elaborate on the impetus of her legal work, instead recounting the basic facts of the cases in question and repeating that she would stand by higher court precedent.
Concerning elections, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Desai to explain why she opposed Arizona laws banning ballot harvesting. Desai explained that she believed in her case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that the two Arizona laws banning out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting, respectively, violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). She added that, although the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) didn’t agree with her argument, it did impose a test reviewing laws for discriminatory effects or results — guideposts that Desai pledged to follow if confirmed to the court.
Grassley then asked Desai whether she believed that Christians refusing services to same-sex couples such as wedding invitations constituted religious discrimination, citing her arguments in the case Brush & NIB Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix couldn’t compel businessowners to violate their religious beliefs by serving same-sex couples.
Desai didn’t answer Grassley directly, but said that she would uphold SCOTUS precedent on the matter.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Desai about her involvement in a 2016 case, John Doe, et al. v. Heritage Academy Incorporated, et al., which argued that the Heritage Academy charter schools were imposing a religious education. Desai represented the plaintiff in the case, which was ultimately instigated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization seeking to eradicate Christian religion from the public sector. Lee asked Desai to explain the legal standard supporting her argument in her case brief, which proposed that SCOTUS precedent in Sherbert v. Verner supported that the charter schools’ teachings imposed a burden on students who didn’t share the same beliefs.
Lee countered that the SCOTUS ruling didn’t contain any of the arguments she proposed in her brief. Desai said she couldn’t recall the details of the case, but insisted she would follow SCOTUS precedent.
“It does cause me some concern because the source of authority is one you can’t identify, I believe because it doesn’t exist,” said Lee.
There were several other legal endeavors of Desai’s not addressed at length in the Senate confirmation hearing.
Desai attempted to stop the State Senate’s Cyber Ninjas-led audit on behalf of the Arizona Democratic Party. Desai also intervened to help defeat the Arizona Republican Party’s challenge to the state’s mail-in early voting system, echoing Democratic Party sentiments that issues with mail-in voting were an infringement on voter rights.
Concerning schools, Desai served as counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). With her help, ASBA defeated the state’s mask mandate ban last November and overturned a number of laws tied to the state budget — including a ban on Critical Race Theory in K-12 classrooms. Desai also defended a challenge to Prop 305, a ballot initiative from SOSAZ. Shortly after, Desai joined their board of directors, where she remains at present.
Desai also served as counsel for Prop 208 and authored its summary: a ballot initiative to increase teacher funding through an additional income tax. If approved, that measure would’ve rendered Arizona the tenth-highest tax rate in the nation.
Additionally, Desai authored Prop 207’s summary: the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana for adults over 21 years old. Afterwards, the National Cannabis Roundtable appointed her to their advisory board.
Desai has also worked with the likes of pro-abortion organization Planned Parenthood, open borders advocates La Raza, globalist billionaire George Soros, and Russiagate hoax and longtime DNC lawyer Marc Elias.
In the wake of the latest confirmation hearing, Republicans have issued public criticisms of Desai. Mike Davis, founder of an organization that advocates for constitutional judiciaries called Article III Project (A3P), insisted to Fox News host Laura Ingraham that Desai was a “left-wing radical” and one of the worst Biden nominees.
“She also thinks that our criminal justice system is racist. She’s going to have a hard time doing her job,” claimed Davis.
A3P also issued several reports on Desai’s career and what that will mean for the Ninth Circuit.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
