Three candidates for Higley USD's four-year seats answer questions

By Tom Blodgett
Mail |
X: @sp_blodgett

The Higley Unified School District has three open seats being decided in the November election, but under two different conditions.

Two full-term, four-year seats are open with the incumbents, President Amanda Wade and Board Member Anna Van Hoek, running for re-election, and challenger Michelle Morris also on the ballot.

The third seat is a write-in election to fill former Board Member Scott Glover's final two years on the board. However, because of the timing of Glover's resignation in July, it is a write-in election.

Independent Newsmedia sent a questionnaire to the six HUSD candidates. Five responded, including all three candidates for the four-year seat. Here is what the four-year respondents wrote.

Four-year candidates

Michelle Morris

Occupation: Retired CPA, CFO/controller of two small businesses

Anna Van Hoek

Occupation: Senior business analyst

Amanda Wade

Occupation: Stay-at-home parent

What do you believe are the priorities for the district during the duration of the term you seek?

Morris: The first priority I see for the district is fiscal responsibility. With the bond not passing, we face difficult decisions. We need to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, find efficiencies and protect classrooms and students.

The second priority is putting students first. Academic achievement matters, but so do art, music, theater, dance and special education services. Not everything that matters in a child's education can be measured by a test score.

The third priority is supporting and retaining teachers and staff. We need to make sure our educators feel valued, supported and heard. When we support them, we ultimately support our students.

Van Hoek: My priorities are to continue focusing on academic achievement, fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability, parental involvement, and strong independent Board oversight. With declining enrollment, unused facility capacity and continuing financial pressures, the district must make responsible long-term decisions about staffing, programs, facilities, and spending while protecting classroom instruction. During my first term, I have consistently scrutinized budgets and contracts, requested supporting documentation, challenged spending priorities, advocated for parental rights and pushed for measurable results. I will continue working to ensure students remain at the center of our decisions and taxpayer dollars are used responsibly.

Wade: Priorities should be to find long-term solutions to funding problems in Higley. Due to the sunsetting override, Higley has had to remove $15 million from their annual operational budget, which has resulted in deep cuts. These are cuts beyond the annual average daily membership loss and have resulted in the district having to change decisions due to limited funds. For example, instead of updating the ELA curriculum all at once they broke it up to save costs. Without a bond the district has had to repair HVAC units on our campuses instead of replacing due to lack of capital funds. Finding long-term financial solutions should be the priority.

What do you see as the state of the district at present — is it excelling or failing?

Morris: I believe Higley is doing very well when it comes to academic performance and teacher retention. Our district consistently ranks among the top-performing districts in Maricopa County, and our strong teacher retention reflects the great schools and educators we have in Higley.

At the same time, we can’t assume that what is working today will automatically work tomorrow. With the M&O override phasing out, the district faces difficult financial decisions. We need to look ahead, make smart decisions and address these challenges while protecting the programs, teachers and opportunities that make Higley a high-performing district. My goal is to help ensure Higley remains a district our community can be proud of.

Van Hoek: I would not characterize Higley as failing. We have excellent teachers and staff, talented students, successful programs, and schools producing strong results. However, an A rating does not mean every aspect of the district is excelling. Accountability requires looking beyond the headline: Are students proficient? Are programs producing measurable results? Are taxpayer dollars reaching classrooms? Are we transparent with parents and the public? Are expenditures receiving adequate scrutiny? During my first term, I have consistently asked those questions. Higley has a strong foundation, but excellence requires transparency, accountability, high expectations, and continually identifying where we can do better.

Wade: Higley is performing remarkably well. It has routinely and consistently exceeded the state average in tests. Last year, every single one of our schools received an A rating, with two of our schools earning schools to watch distinctions. Higley is doing things right, from its outstanding curriculum, extra-curricular opportunities, wonderful sports programs, to its robust CTE programs where students earn industry credentials. I think for any individual who says that Higley is failing, I would love for them to come and tour our schools, chat with our students and families, and sit with leadership to learn the many ways that Higley does things right.

Assuming no additional funding is coming from overrides or bonds, how do you propose to balance the district's budget, including what should be protected and what areas have potential for cuts?

Morris: I believe we need to protect the classroom first. That means prioritizing teachers, core academics, special education services, and programs that directly impact students. We also need to support the whole child by keeping opportunities in art, music, theater, dance, and other specials whenever possible. At the same time, we need to examine administrative costs, contracts and other spending to find savings without taking away from students.

Fiscal responsibility does not mean making cuts just to make cuts. It means asking hard questions, looking at the numbers, listening to teachers and our community, and making sure we get the most out of every dollar.

Van Hoek: We must budget based on the revenue we actually have, not assume voters will approve additional taxes. I would protect classroom instruction, effective teachers, core academics, special education obligations, and student safety. Before cutting those areas, I would continue scrutinizing district-level and non-instructional staffing, administrative expenses, travel, consulting and contracted services, discretionary spending, and programs that cannot demonstrate measurable results. We must also align staffing with declining enrollment and address the cost of significant unused facility capacity. Reserves can provide a responsible transition, but recurring expenses must ultimately align with recurring revenues. Protecting classroom dollars should remain the priority.

Wade: Without a new bond or override the district will have to make further cuts to programs it has worked hard to protect over the last few years. The district should continue to be creative to offset the lack of an override; such as the leasing of a partially used building and selling land that is currently unused. While that creativity has helped the district protect the student experience over the past few years there are fewer and fewer pathways to continue to protect the student experience. This means future cuts which will hurt students in terms of their classroom sizes, supports offered and ultimately programs offered.

Should the governing board allow educators to travel to conferences that have sessions on diversity, equity and inclusion if the educator agrees not to attend such sessions?

Morris: I believe our teachers should be able to attend professional conferences that help them grow as educators. If a conference has diversity, equity and inclusion sessions that do not align with district and state policies, teachers should still be able to attend as long as they agree not to attend those sessions.

Conferences offer valuable ideas, strategies and resources teachers can bring back to their classrooms. We should not prevent attendance because of a few sessions. At the same time, we have a responsibility to be clear about what professional development we fund, ensuring district dollars are used responsibly and support our students and district goals.

Van Hoek: Generally, no. Arizona law already restricts the use of public money for certain training involving race, ethnicity, or sex. Beyond legal compliance, if we have to restrict which portions of a conference employees may attend, we should first look for alternatives that better align with the district’s educational mission and provide taxpayers greater value. Professional-development dollars should support opportunities that improve instruction, academic achievement, student safety, or employees’ professional responsibilities, not ideological programming unrelated to those goals. If an educator personally wants to attend a conference that does not meet that standard, they are free to attend on their own time and at their own expense.

Wade: The board should allow educators to travel to professional development conferences, even if those conferences offer specific breakout sessions that discuss DEI. That is because education requires diversity, equity, and inclusion in every classroom every day. Teachers understand that their students are diverse, and those diversities will require their teacher to make efforts to be equitable in their teaching practices for all to succeed. The notion that an individual would not support staff professional development is concerning to me. Higley should work to attract and retain the best professionals into our schools, and we should have a commitment to continued education for those professionals.

The district has faced debates over allowing specific books in the curriculum with the option for parents to request an alternative assignment. Do you support maintaining an alternative-assignment policy for curriculum materials, and how would you balance parental input with academic standards?

Morris: I support having an alternative-assignment option for curriculum materials. I believe parents should have a voice in what their child is learning, and if a parent has a concern about a specific book, they should be able to request an alternative assignment for their student. At the same time, I think it is important that the alternative assignment still meets the same academic standards and learning objectives. This allows us to respect a parent’s decision while making sure the student is still receiving the education they need. I believe this is a reasonable way to balance parent choice, teacher instruction, and academic standards without taking an opportunity away from other students.

Van Hoek: Yes, but an alternative assignment should be a safeguard for parents, not an excuse for selecting inappropriate curriculum. The district must comply with Arizona law and federal constitutional protections, including Mahmoud v. Taylor, regarding parental rights and religious exercise. I have consistently opposed exposing students to sexually explicit material. If the same academic standards can be taught with rigorous, age-appropriate materials, we should make that better choice from the beginning. Parents may choose what materials are appropriate for their own children at home, but taxpayers should not fund sexually explicit content when high-quality alternatives accomplish the same academic objectives.

Wade: I support the district’s practice of providing alternative-assignments to individuals who are opposed to specific assignments while maintaining a competitive and challenging curriculum. I recognize and support the freedom of parent choice, but I will not support the limiting of parent choice for all based on the concerns of the few. Academic standards should always be at the forefront of any curriculum assigned and that challenge may not be desired for some parents. Teachers are required to collect permission slips for assignments that deal with sensitive material and provide alternative assignments whenever necessary, this process truly allows for parent choice.

Friday: Write-in candidates for two-year term.

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. Tom Blodgett can be reached by email at tblodgett@iniusa.org or follow him on X at @sp_blodgett.

Tom Blodgett
Senior News Editor | Gilbert

tblodgett@iniusa.org

Meet Tom
Tom Blodgett joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in 2022, when the company acquired Community Impact Newspaper's Phoenix-area properties. Raised in Arizona, he has spent more than 35 years in journalism in the state.

Community: He has served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication since 2005, and is editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet. He also is director of operations for an 18U girls fastpitch softball team from Gilbert.

Education: Arizona State University with a BS in Journalism. 

Random Fact: He lived in Belgium during his freshman year of high school.  

Hobbies: Tweeting enthusiastically about ASU softball (season-ticket holder) and grumpily about other local sports (pessimistic fan).