Scott Glover, a progressive Democrat and former Higley School Board member from 2017 to 2020, is running for re-election. Voters should scrutinize his track record before considering him for another term. While Glover presents himself as a strong advocate for public education, his true priorities appear to align more closely with teachers’ unions than with the educational welfare of students and the community.
Glover’s background suggests a significant conflict of interest, as both he and his wife are educators, with Glover teaching in the Gilbert Public Schools system. This connection may bias his loyalty towards teachers rather than the parents and students he aims to represent. His social media activity further highlights his ties to teachers’ unions.
Having a teacher on the school board can compromise objectivity and accountability. Glover may prioritize his colleagues’ interests over those of students, parents, and the community, leading to decisions that favor reduced accountability for teachers rather than initiatives that enhance academic achievement and student well-being.
School board members are responsible for critical decisions regarding teacher performance, contracts, and discipline. A teacher on the board might struggle to impartially evaluate peers or administrators, diminishing the board’s independent oversight. To serve the community effectively, board members should avoid conflicts of interest and prioritize the needs of students and taxpayers.
Glover’s Facebook page highlights his participation in a training session advocating for teachers’ interests, with no mention of engaging parents or supporting student-focused initiatives. This prioritization of union advocacy over student welfare raises doubts about his commitment to the best interests of district students.
While supporting great teachers is important, Glover seems to misunderstand that his role as a board member is to represent the taxpayers’ interests.
This perfectly illustrates Glover’s bias. Glover supports giving children pornographic material and calls it a “publicity stunt” when parents share their concerns at board meetings and report law violations to the proper authorities. He compared the situation to North Korea.
First, holding teachers accountable and ensuring transparency in educational materials is not an attack on public education, nor is it about undermining teachers. Parents have a right to voice concerns, especially when it comes to the content their children are exposed to in the classroom. Dismissing these concerns as “bullying” or a “publicity stunt” undermines the very role of parents in the educational process. Schools are accountable to the community, and parents should feel empowered to question and engage in decisions that affect their children’s education.
It’s important to note that transparency and accountability often come with necessary discomfort. Change is hard, especially when it disrupts long-established norms that may no longer serve the best interests of students and families. Ensuring that teachers are not given unchecked authority over curriculum content is not an attack; it’s a measure to ensure that the educational system remains responsive to the community it serves.
The comparison to North Korea is extreme and unwarranted. In the United States, parents should have the freedom to raise concerns about curriculum content without being dismissed or labeled as harmful to public education. Dual Credit classes are an excellent opportunity for students, but that does not mean the curriculum should be immune from scrutiny, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.
During his previous tenure on the board, Glover demonstrated a disturbing pattern of behavior that should alarm anyone who cares about what’s in the best interest of district students. He voted to shut down schools and enforce mask mandates, all while he hypocritically sat unmasked on the dais. The message was clear: rules for thee, but not for me. This decision to close schools and enforce masking has had lasting, detrimental effects on students, many of whom are still struggling to recover academically and emotionally.
Glover’s social media activity also exposes his extreme partisanship. He praises figures like Tim Walz, a staunch progressive, while at the same time claiming that school board elections should be non-partisan. His words are nothing more than empty rhetoric. Glover struggles to address uncomfortable questions and resorts to censorship, effectively silencing the very people he is supposed to represent.
Glover’s campaign actions demonstrate clear laziness. His petitions reveal minimal effort in engaging with potential voters, as he collected only 18 signatures himself. This disregard for the process shows he isn’t serious about connecting with voters and is instead relying on the union and the Democratic Party to carry him through the race. Although 23 petitioners helped gather signatures for him, the fact that most were collected by Heather Balch, the secretary of the Higley Education Association (Union) should be a concern for all parents.
Glover’s support for bonds, overrides, and repeated tax increases is a clear warning sign. He seems more focused on burdening the community than on finding practical solutions that truly benefit both students and taxpayers.
Glover says he wants to make school board meetings “boring” again, which suggests he prefers no questions or challenges and wants the board to rubber-stamp decisions without scrutiny. This approach avoids accountability and keeps parents in the dark about what’s happening in their children’s schools.
In summary, Scott Glover’s previous time on the board was marked by damaging decisions and a clear prioritization of union interests over student needs. His record shows a concerning lack of integrity and fiscal responsibility. As Higley School Board elections approach, it is crucial to choose a candidate who genuinely prioritizes district students, parents and community members—not someone whose tenure has already left a lasting negative impact.