Arizona public schools rank among the worst in U.S. -- again 59%

By Morgan Fischer39%

7/20/2026, 12:10:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.1% saturation with 208 hits. Analysis detected 1,429 faulty-reasoning hits from 593 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.6% and a BS Rank of 59% (8,966 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.00% of the article peer group.

Good news: Arizona’s public school system improved in national rankings calculated by the financial site WalletHub. 
Bad news: The state’s K-12 public school system jumped only two spots, from fourth-worst to sixth-worst out of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
WalletHub based its ranking on quality and safety metrics. 
To determine quality, the site considered 15 measures, including dropout rate, test scores on Advanced Placement Exams, SAT and ACT scores and the share of high school graduates who completed either test. 
Pupil-to-teacher ratio, graduation rate among low-income students and number of public schools in U.S. 
News & World Report’s “Top 700 Best U.S. 
Schools” were also factored in. 
The site also considered 17 safety metrics, such as bully incident rate, disciplinary incident rate, youth incarceration rate and the share of high school students who have been threatened or injured at the state’s schools. 
WalletHub also graded the safety of the roads around the school, the share of high school students who have access to illegal drugs, those who participated in violence and reported carrying a weapon on school property. 
Public school advocates have consistently pointed to poor state funding as the root of the state’s education struggles. 
According to the U.S. 
Census, Arizona ranks 48th in per-pupil school spending, and last year, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the Arizona Legislature has underfunded state schools to an unconstitutional degree for years. 
Without adequate funding, schools are unable to pay teachers a competitive salary, often leading them to go elsewhere, which causes a shortage of high-quality teachers. 
A lack of funding has also led to cuts for support staff, such as counselors and teachers’ aides, affecting school safety, discipline and resources. 
Then there’s the issue of school vouchers  what the state calls Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or ESAs. 
The program, which provides taxpayer money for private school tuition or educational expenses for homeschooled children, has exploded in recent years since lawmakers opened up eligibility to any student in the state. 
(Previously, only special-needs students could use ESAs.) 
The program now costs taxpayers roughly $1 billion and benefits around 85,000 students. 
Republican supporters of ESAs and school choice argue that the program’s growth shows that parents are fleeing public schools that can’t adequately meet their needs. 
However, reporting has demonstrated that a disproportionate number of ESA families live in particularly wealthy areas and a disproportionate number of ESA students were already attending private school. 
Some account holders have used this taxpayer money to purchase luxury items like Lego sets and pricey musical instruments, while public school students go without basic supplies. 
Public education advocates feel that money would be more effectively spent bolstering public schools. 
There are efforts to rein in the program, which Republicans have resisted. 
The state teachers union and the education advocacy group Save Our Schools Arizona worked together to place a citizen initiative on the November ballot to impose guardrails on ESAs. 
The group’s petition signatures are in the process of being validated. 
Should the measure qualify, voters will have the opportunity to decide whether to impose an income threshold and other reforms. 
Republicans are pushing their own ESA ballot measure. 
Nominally about protecting military families who participate in the program, the measure contains poison pill language that would essentially cancel out the education groups’ measure. 
The state’s underperforming schools are also at the center of another election fight, with both Republicans and Democrats duking it out in primary races for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Morgan Fischer: 2.5%Phoenix New Times: 1.5%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 5.6%Morgan Fischer: 1.2%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.6%This article: 10.6%Morgan Fischer: 1.4%Phoenix New Times: 2.3%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 2.4%Morgan Fischer: 1.7%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Morgan Fischer: 5.5%Phoenix New Times: 3.5%Framing Effect24.6%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Morgan Fischer: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 2.8%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 1.9%Morgan Fischer: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 0.8%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 30.5%Morgan Fischer: 10.7%Phoenix New Times: 7.0%Negativity Bias30.5%This article: 6.6%Morgan Fischer: 2.2%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 7.3%Morgan Fischer: 1.1%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error7.3%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.8%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Morgan Fischer: 0.7%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.1%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 1.9%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Morgan Fischer: 2.1%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.2%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 2.7%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.2%Morgan Fischer: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Straw Man4.2%This article: 20.6%Morgan Fischer: 3.2%Phoenix New Times: 2.5%Appeal to Authority20.6%This article: 3.4%Morgan Fischer: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.4%Morgan Fischer: 3.6%Phoenix New Times: 4.3%Hasty Generalization8.4%This article: 7.1%Morgan Fischer: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Red Herring7.1%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.2%Phoenix New Times: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.4%Morgan Fischer: 2.5%Phoenix New Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion2.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.7%Morgan Fischer: 2.6%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.7%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.5%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.2%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.9%Morgan Fischer: 1.1%Phoenix New Times: 2.4%Anecdotal9.9%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.4%Morgan Fischer: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.1%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.7%Morgan Fischer: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%Unattributed Quote14.7%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.1%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 35.1%Morgan Fischer: 9.2%Phoenix New Times: 5.6%Biased Writer Voice35.1%This article: 2.9%Morgan Fischer: 0.5%Phoenix New Times: 2.0%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 2.2%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Fischer: 0.7%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Morgan Fischer: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

593 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech519writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWalletHub • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWalletHub • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSave Our Schools Arizona • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

WalletHub

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words61% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.1 ptsWriter: 40.1%WalletHub: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +20.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%WalletHub: 20.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%WalletHub: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%WalletHub: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.