OPINION

Chandler SpeakUp: School lunches, vouchers, industrial park, pet welfare, library signs

Chandler voters will see multiple bond proposals on the ballot this November. One comes from the city of Chandler and the other from the Chandler Unified School District.

Both bonds possess very different rationales and each proposal took a very different route in making their case to the public. As a result of these differences, each proposal deserves distinct treatment by voters.

The city’s bond process was a master class in accountability and deserves praise for its transparency. Following last November’s defeat of the CUSD bond, the city bond committee had the foresight to reflect and trim its initial wish list.

The city’s 2025 bond was the result of a year-long process led by a 31-member Resident Bond Exploratory Committee, each of whom are publicly listed on the city’s website, with agendas and minutes from their meetings routinely made available online throughout the yearlong process.

In stark contrast, CUSD sought another bond request almost immediately following the loss in November 2024, culminating in this year’s request for $271.5 million.

Despite the “lower” sticker price, it is important to note this year’s bond request is spread across 3 years for a total of $90.5 million spent per year. In comparison, the 2024 failed bond request for $487 million was spread across 5 years, which would have provided $97.4 million in annual spending.

Thus, the difference between the two bonds is far smaller than their respective price tags would imply.
This contrast in transparency between the City of Chandler and CUSD is concerning. The City of Chandler welcomed community input and operated in full public view.

CUSD placed its bond in the hands of an entirely anonymous 20-member advisory committee that CUSD refuses to release the names of, citing its policy of not disclosing any members of its advisory groups — which may be a valid excuse for student-led committees — but certainly not for an advisory group of adults responsible for pitching 9-figure bond proposals using taxpayer money.

Furthermore, CUSD has not addressed the core concerns raised by voters raised last year about conflicts of interest and the district’s litany of “re-imagine” projects that will saddle Chandler taxpayers with unnecessary debt and limit CUSD’s ability to invest in personnel or boost teacher compensation in the future.

For years, CUSD stakeholders have been made aware of the eight CUSD elementary schools that are significantly under capacity. The 2024 bond defeat should have prompted a serious conversation about consolidating campuses and restructuring district operations to reflect demographic trends.

Instead, CUSD leaders continues to embrace the “build and they will come” approach — a tired and irrational strategy considering other funding streams for K-12 education, notably at the federal level, remain in limbo.

And while Chandler’s population continues to grow, the same cannot be said for CUSD’s enrollment. In fact, beginning with high school seniors in the class of 2026, the country will collectively see its population of high school graduates shrink for decades to come.

The funding behind CUSD’s bond campaigns also deserves scrutiny. In 2024, over 90% of contributions to the “Yes for Chandler Students” committee came from architectural and construction interests. These companies are neither neutral observers nor overenthusiastic public education advocates, but special interests who stand to profit directly from bond-funded projects.

This kind of vendor-funded campaigning for school bonds may be legal, but it undermines public confidence in the integrity of the process.

The role of the Chandler Education Association, the district’s teacher union, also warrants attention. The CEA, along with its parent organizations, the Arizona Education Association and the National Education Association, have traditionally offered automatic support for every school bond based on the misconception that all funding is positive for students and teachers.

But CEA members may soon find themselves in an awkward position. When the inevitable reduction-in-force, or RIF, process begins in CUSD as it has in neighboring districts — and it will if the district does not trim its operating expenses — CEA members will begin to ask why their union expended so much time, energy, and resources in backing bonds that prioritized the upkeep of underutilized real estate over the livelihoods of their dues-paying colleagues and their families.

If voters approve this CUSD bond, it will become politically and fiscally improbable to close under-enrolled schools that receive multimillion-dollar renovations. As a painful example, Galveston Elementary’s $32 million facelift has not materialized into an enrollment boom, and Galveston’s enrollment remains under pre-pandemic levels.

There is little evidence to suggest that completing the remaining renovation projects in CUSD will lead to different results.

This is not an argument against investment in public schools. It is an argument for strategic, transparent and responsible investment based on observable facts: CUSD’s bond was crafted in a private, opaque process and ignores the very real concerns and conditions that compelled Chandler voters to reject it last year.

As a fellow Chandler resident and CUSD alum, I intend to vote NO on the CUSD bond and vote YES on the authorization of bonds issued by the City of Chandler for the reasons listed above.

Unlike CUSD, the City of Chandler’s bond request is justified by population growth and is the product of thoughtful planning, transparent communication and the legwork needed to earn the public’s trust and the taxpayer’s dime.

NOTE: Sidhu is a Chandler resident, an alum of two CUSD schools and a professional educator. His views are entirely his own.

 Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.