Mesa Public Schools (MPS) won’t allow military stoles to be worn by graduating students this year.
According to information provided by board membership, MPS defended the rule as a means of honoring their desire to maintain uniformity during graduation ceremonies. MPS policy does not explicitly bar military stoles from being worn, but it does not make an allowance for them, either.
However, MPS policy does allow students eligible to belong to or belonging to a federally recognized Native American tribe to wear traditional tribe regalia or “objects of cultural significance” at their graduation ceremony. The policy noted regalia could include eagle feathers or eagle plumes.
Additionally, students may wear pins or other “small symbol[s]” denoting their accolades related to scholastic or academic honors. These little accolades were allowed to be from “a city, county, state, or tribal government or its representative,” so long as they wouldn’t “detract from the unity achieved by graduates” uniformed in a common cap and gown. The district also drew the line at decorating caps and tassels, unless given permission by their school’s principal.
Governing Board member Rachel Walden opposed the policy and pledged to request Board President Courtney Davis to agendize graduation policy for amending.
“Military students at Mesa Public Schools must be allowed to wear their Military stole at graduation! Yet, students are forbidden to wear this symbol of commitment and achievement for their high school graduation. The community went through this last year and was able to get the ban lifted, yet here we are again,” said Walden. “I’m disappointed that this even needs to be said. To quote our enlisted National Guard student, not wearing the stole ‘disregards the values of honor and achievement that our school purports to uphold.’ There is also a link to his petition in the comments.”
Military students at Mesa Public Schools must be allowed to wear their Military stole at graduation! Yet, students are forbidden to wear this symbol of commitment and achievement for their high school graduation. The community went through this last year and was able to get the… pic.twitter.com/fcmbiHbxhy
As of this report, the petition to allow military stoles at Mesa graduations has reached 250 signatures. The student who launched the petition, Daniela Rascon-Rivas, is a student at Mesa High School and a National Guard member. Rascon-Rivas is also petitioning for the allowance of her to wear cords denoting her accomplishments through the East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT), a trade school in the area.
According to Walden, last year Red Mountain High School attempted to bar military stoles from their list of allowable graduation attire. Walden advised the board was able to overturn that policy.
The district’s policy on the display of military-related accolades caught the attention of state leaders.
Congressional candidate and former Arizona House Speaker Travis Grantham said allowing graduates to wear their military stoles was a “no brainer.” Grantham is a lieutenant colonel and commander within the Arizona Air National Guard.
“Hopefully the district does the right thing and changes their policy ASAP!” said Grantham.
👇🏻This is a “no brainer” and Mesa Public Schools should let these students wear their military stole. Hopefully the district does the right thing and changes their policy ASAP! https://t.co/gVWmsZDEaN
It was just about 2 years ago that a fury ran through the Mesa Public Schools community over a controversial document that had gone largely unnoticed. That document is titled “Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” (also called “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.”) This plan allows a student who “consistently asserts at school a gender identity that is different from the student’s sex assigned at birth” to “participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” (Notice there’s no mention of a parental consent requirement.) This means restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
There were multiple concerns raised to district leadership regarding the plan. How would non-transgender students be protected and affirmed when someone of the opposite biological sex is now allowed to enter their private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers?
Numerous stories surfaced reporting females were not eating or drinking during the day to avoid having to use the restrooms, which they were now compelled to share with biological boys. Why was their “safe space” suddenly being violated? Why were they suddenly denied any expectation of privacy that matched their values? Why is there allowance in the document for the district to conceal a student’s transgender ideation and the district’s course of action affirming that ideation from their parents? Does this concealment violate ARS 1-601, Parents Rights Protected? Does this plan amount to providing behavioral health services as defined by the Arizona Behavioral Health Board? District leadership has successfully danced around providing clear, unambiguous answers to these questions. Why? What are they trying to hide from parents?
Even though Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis issued carefully worded, yet vague assurances to the contrary, there still remains within the plan/guidelines, allowances to NOT notify parents of their child’s transgender ideations as the district personnel provide “gender affirming care” for the child. A Public Records Request in early 2023 exposed a school counselor who was maintaining a spreadsheet of trans students along with notation as to whether parents knew.
This counselor was informing other staff how to avoid “outing” students to parents when speaking with them. The plan originally included a checkbox for the student to indicate if their parents were to be told.
Additionally, the plan expressly states that although changes to the student’s “preferred name/pronouns” may be made in district records, “parental consent is not required.”
At the governing board meeting on May 9, 2023, (begin at 3:35:25), board member Rachel Walden asked leadership, “What is the criteria for a student to be put on this Transgender Support Plan?”
District general counsel, Kasey King, responded “…there’s not specific criteria. It’s a student who’s requesting to use the restroom of their choice or to designate the pronouns or names of their choice. Also, as a tool to help the student and the school process how that information is going to be shared, IF AT ALL!”
It is student-initiated, primarily. Notice the complete absence of any parental involvement or even notification here.
Mrs. King continued, “I’m thinking at the younger grades, it might be a situation where the student simply starts asking for some accommodations. And as a way to make sure everybody is on the same page, their teacher or counselor might suggest they put it into writing.”
Are you following this? A student at the “younger grades” might ask for transgender accommodations from the school, and the teacher or counselor will suggest putting that student on a Transgender Support Plan! No parental consent or notification required. Mrs. Walden continued to press for transparency into what is occurring: “There’s nothing in these guidelines about notifying the parents. Isn’t there an opportunity for parental notification process in this?”
Mrs. King: “Parents always have the right under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to inspect and review their child’s education records.”
Mrs. Walden responded, “How would they know to ask that?”
Then-board President Marcie Hutchinson chimed in, “I guess they would ‘check in’ with the school.”
So, moms and dads, the only way to know for sure if your child has been placed on a Transgender Support Plan at Mesa Public Schools is for you to “check in with the school.” Since you don’t know the day that this might happen, I suggest you “check in” every day. Don’t expect to be notified otherwise. This is akin to child abuse in many people’s minds, yet the district refuses to make suitable provisions for parental notification, even to this day.
There is, in the old version of the plan/guidelines, a provision for parental notification “if changes are made in Synergy.” But apparently otherwise, mum’s the word.
OLD VERSION
The district has since revised the wording to make sure staff inform students “…that IF they request to change information in Synergy, parent(s) will be notified.”
When I see this, I read “SHHHH! Nobody has to know. Just don’t request a change in Synergy, and it’ll be our secret.”
The other concerning change explicitly states that parental/legal guardian consent “is not required” for a student to request district personnel provide gender affirming care to them.
These changes occurred in July 2024.
NEW VERSION
In a further assault on parental rights, the district has modified the guidelines from the verbiage previously, which stated, “Disclosing confidential student information to others may violate privacy laws” to a more intimidating and yet ambiguous, “Disclosing confidential student information to…parents…may violate privacy laws.”
Are teachers or counselors more likely or less likely to notify parents with this threat of violating privacy laws looming over their heads? I say less likely.
OLD VERSION
NEW VERSION
Then, as if that is not sufficient means for the district to usurp parental authority, Dr. Fourlis and Kacey King have now decided that the transgender plan/guidelines, which have for years resided on the Legal Services webpage on the district website, should be moved to a private internal location, away from public/parent access. When I asked the Governing Board President, Courtney Davis, why the district would make such a move as to lessen transparency, her answer allayed no concerns. “It was moved because it is a tool for school personnel to use to work with transgender students.”
It was always that Mrs. Davis! The only difference is, the public, and more importantly parents, no longer have access to documents describing what could potentially be happening to their child at Mesa Public Schools without their knowledge or consent.
After calling them out on this, Dr. Fourlis and Mrs. King have restored the document to the website, with an interesting change in title. They went from “Guidelines” to “Guidance.” Why that subtle change? For the record, contrary to the wording of Dr. Fourlis’ email, I did not request anything. I simply noted that hiding the document from public view was a “terrible decision.” Apparently, she agreed.
Interesting to note, since this document is considered a “guideline,” or now “guidance” and not a policy, it has not gone before the governing board for approval.
In an attempt to restore parental rights as defined under ARS 1-601, board member Sharon Benson proposed a policy at the April 8, 2025 board meeting which would require parental notification anytime a student indicated to a district employee any transgender ideations. During public comment (starts at 1:59:30), dozens of trans activists showed up in protest. Their overarching message was along the lines of, “If you ‘out’ students, they will be victims of abuse from their parents,” and “School personnel are much better equipped to deal with these issues than parents,” and “It’s not necessary for parents to know about their child’s mental distress.” All patently false statements.
Now, self-proclaimed members of the Communist and Socialist parties weighed in, trying to advance the narrative that children belong to the state, not parents (i.e. parents have no need to know about their child’s mental or emotional distress because the school is taking care of it). This is happening in Mesa folks! Are you paying attention?
It’s time to get involved. Attend district governing board meetings and make your voice heard. It’s critical that we stand for students and for parents.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) faces a lawsuit for policies resulting in the secret transitioning of children’s genders and tracking their gender transition journeys while restricting parental knowledge or consent.
The amended lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by America First Legal (AFL) on behalf of MPS Governing Board member Rachel Walden and the mother of one alleged victim, accused MPS of unlawfully hiding policy and evidence of their transitioning of children from parents. Arizona’s Constitution and Parents’ Bill of Rights acknowledge that it is the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The amended complaint contained new information revealing that at least one MPS school maintained a “parent concealment cheat sheet”: a spreadsheet tracking the gender journeys of over a dozen students as well as information on which of their parents were supportive or needed to be kept in the dark.
/1 🚨BREAKING – America First Legal Sues Mesa Public Schools in Amended Lawsuit, Adding Mother Whose Daughter’s Gender Was Transitioned Without Parental Knowledge or Consent, and After Obtaining New Evidence Proving Scale of Deception
MPS policy of transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent, the Transgender Support Plan (TSP), dates back to 2015, according to the lawsuit. The policy asks the children for permission to notify their parents of their gender transition: should the child decline, MPS requires its employees to keep the transition hidden from parents.
MPS has long denied the allegations that TSP occurs without parental notification. Last June, MPS Superintendent Andi Fourlis dismissed the allegations in a public letter.
According to a once-public document students were made to fill out to initiate a TSP, the Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students, students were given the option to deny permission of disclosure of their gender transitions to their parents. MPS removed that support plan from public view following community outcry in 2022. The district then issued an updated version of the support plan with a loophole to parental disclosure: name and gender changes were to be requested through Synergy — the district’s online database — in order for parents to be notified. Should Synergy not be updated, parents would not be notified.
AFL noted that this loophole contradicted Fourlis’ claim, which ultimately resulted in the gender transition of the eighth-grade girl at the heart of AFL’s lawsuit, Megan Doe, to a male by school staff without the knowledge or consent of Doe’s mother, Jane.
“[S]chool employees encouraged Megan to lie to her parents and helped her to do so, which harmed the parent-child relationship and delayed Megan from receiving needed mental health counseling,” stated AFL.
Per the lawsuit, Jane’s attempts to learn of what had happened to her daughter were rebuffed by school staff and leadership in 2022. The principal at her daughter’s school refused to disclose further records or information about the conversations school staff had with her daughter, and refused to comply with Jane’s demand to cease referring to her daughter as a boy and by a boy’s name.
“The principal admitted that school personnel intentionally had not changed Megan’s name in the [Synergy] system to avoid any notification being sent to Jane and that there were no plans to change Megan’s name in the system,” stated the lawsuit. “The principal told Jane that even if Jane had asked to be notified about any name changes, pronoun changes, or other choices related to a transgender identity by her child, it was official MPS policy not to tell parents and that school personnel would not notify Jane about any further developments related to these issues.”
It was only after this ordeal that Jane discovered Megan’s struggles and, reportedly, was able to resolve them through conversations with her mother and a psychotherapist. The lawsuit stated that this maternal intervention resulted in Megan’s issues being “completely resolved” within a month.
“[Megan] is now very comfortable presenting herself as a female and using her given name and is thriving in high school,” stated AFL.
AFL claimed to also have discovered, upon information and belief, that MPS employees regularly ignored the requirement to notify parents after students began transitioning genders in school.
AFL further issued evidence of a school counselor, Emily Wulff at Kino Junior High, instructing school staff in an email last March to not disclose gender transitions to anyone outside those allowed within the support plan. Wulff’s email made no mention of parental notification.
In a follow-up email, Wulff clarified that the purpose of the nondisclosure policy was to “protect outing students who are not ready to come out to peers or family members.” Wulff specified that the support plan was designed to keep gender transitions a secret from certain families.
“The main takeaways would be to make sure when contacting home to use their preferred name home,” wrote Wulff. “For example, if I have a student that goes by Emily and she/her pronouns that I need to call home for, and in their plan it says to use their birth name and biological pronouns home, [be] sure you do not out the student by using their preferred name and pronouns they use at school.”
Last March, Wulff also directed school employees to keep up a spreadsheet tracking the gender transition journeys of 17 students, titled “Pronoun Preference,” with notes declaring whether a student’s parents and family were aware of their transition.
For three students whose parents were documented as “unaware,” Wulff’s spreadsheet directed school employees to hide their preferred names and pronouns. For another seven students whose parents were documented as somewhat aware or partially supportive, the spreadsheet instructed staff to use the students’ birth names and gender to mask the extent of their transition.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Many are surprised to learn that Mesa Public Schools (Unified District #4) has had a co-ed option for restrooms, locker rooms, and overnight facilities since 2015. The district leadership at the time quietly developed a Transgender Support Plan for children. This includes choosing which facilities the child wants to use along with a new name and new pronouns. This plan involves no parental consent or parental notification.
Due to public comment and internal questions, Board President Hutchinson, under the guidance of Superintendent Fourlis, asked for a legal opinion from the Board’s counsel, Udall Shumway. A brief memo was placed on the agenda for the meeting May 9, 2023, and Udall Shumway determined that the Transgender Guidelines stand.
In the meeting I asked about the criteria for a child to be placed on this plan. Kacey King, the district’s counsel said, “for younger children a teacher or counselor might suggest that they put it into writing.” I was shocked at this statement. This is absolutely not the role of teachers or counselors. I have been told that school counselors are simply there to determine what barriers exist that may prohibit classroom learning.
To have a counselor or teacher help put a child on a Transgender Support Plan is simply wrong, particularly without any communication with the parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that parents possess the fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and health care of their children. This right does not belong to any school or staff. Public school offers a service to the community—a service to teach children the academic standards to prepare them for a future to be able to be confident and self-reliant adults. Schools need to stay in their lane if they are going to retain public trust.
Opportunities exist for children to develop personal relationships with counselors and without parental consent. In one such example, the district had an elementary school student who was struggling in math. She would ask to see the counselor during the math lesson. Her mother was never notified because they weren’t official counseling sessions. The mother eventually found out when she confronted the school about her daughter’s below average math performance. No one previously told her that her daughter was behind in math or that she was visiting with a counselor.
Counselors may also have informal visits with children who don’t want to go to lunch or recess with their classmates and decide to visit with a counselor instead. Perhaps a child opens up about personal struggles, then the option exists for that trusted authority figure to guide the child to complete a private Transgender Support Plan. How would the parents know?
There is no other program or plan in the district that is comparable in secrecy or purpose to the Transgender Support Plan. Specialized learning plans, after school clubs, field trips, photographs, all require parental consent. Yet, a student can be given a new identity, and no one will notify the parents?
The main legal justification for these guidelines right now stems from the 9th Circuit case Parents for Privacy v Barr. The court ruled against parental rights, ruled against freedom of religion, and ruled against privacy. I have spoken to attorneys who believe this ruling will be overturned. In the meantime, one of the best courses of action is to make sure our parents are informed. There is no legal argument against notifying parents about a child discussing “gender identity” or any other such topics at school. In fact, the law is on the side of the parents. I will continue this fight for parental rights and transparency.
Rachel Walden is a member of the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board. You can follow her on Twitter here.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) appeared hesitant in a recent governing board meeting to discuss the secretive gender transition plan, which had been in place for years. Most parents were unaware of the plan until recently, which included an opt-out provision allowing the school to keep the plan secret from parents.
Governing board member Rachel Walden attempted to discuss this gender transition plan during Tuesday’s meeting. However, the district lawyer said that discussion of the plan constituted legal advice and would require the board to go into an executive session, out of the public’s view. The form’s promise of secrecy conflicted with Arizona’s parental rights laws.
“There is no other process that involves plans, paperwork for children without parental consent. But this issue can’t even provide parental notification?” asked Walden.
Teachers and Counselors should NOT suggest putting children on a transgender support plan but that is happening. Parents will not be notified. This is the meeting last night. I was prohibited from talking to the district lawyer under "legal advice." pic.twitter.com/qUPWZyCgAa
Walden clarified that, following discovery of the parental notification opt-out provision of the gender transition plan, MPS modified the form to strike the provision.
☝️That form was updated after it was discovered but it's clear there is no process on which the parents are involved
MPS has reportedly had the controversial gender transition plan since 2015. The original form asked students if their parents were aware and/or supportive of their gender transition. If either are answered in the negative, the form asks the student whether they give consent for the school to disclose their “transgender or gender nonconforming status” to their parents.
Arizona law states that parents have “a right to access and review all records relating to the minor child.”
The current version of the MPS gender transition plan looks virtually the same as the prior version, with the exception that parents or guardians will be notified of the plan if the student requests changes to Synergy, the online student information portal.
The MPS plan appears to be based on model documents. Chicago Public Schools issued a gender transition plan document with similar formatting and the same title.
Controversy over the gender transition plan surged last summer, after the district implemented new guidelines for handling transgender students. MPS defended its actions, arguing that their guidelines aligned with federal guidelines.
The guidelines included an assertion that students had the right to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns, regardless of whether they had their name legally changed. MPS further declared that students should be allowed to use facilities intended for the opposite sex, such as restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, and single-sex classes.
Students also aren’t required to provide proof that they underwent any kind of medical treatment for gender transition as a condition of this special treatment.
“A transgender student is not required to provide verification that the student is undergoing or has undergone medical treatment for the purpose of gender transition as a condition for changing a student’s name and/or gender markers in the District’s records,” read the guidelines.
MPS also asserted that students must be allowed to participate in physical education activities and sports in accordance with their gender identity, though they could not compete in teams designated for the opposite sex in accordance with Arizona law.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
