Supportive leadership, collaborative freedom, and safe campuses are the leading reasons why thousands of Arizona educators say they don’t quit education.
A new survey from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) polled more than 9,300 current Arizona teachers during the 2025-2026 school year on their reasons for staying in the profession.
More than 2,000 teachers (22%) completed the survey. ADE disclosed that it excluded the responses of approximately 170 teachers that were ultimately deemed ineligible upon further screening.
According to ADE interpretation of the data, a majority of these educators cited strong leadership support, the ability to collaborate with other educators, and safe campuses as among their highest priorities. Districts who meet these criteria for their teachers have better chances at higher rates of K-12 educator retention, they say.
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said the results of the survey confirmed his sentiments on the matter, which he has vocalized in interviews with the media and implemented through ADE policy. Horne said tapping into available state funds would alleviate one key issue raised by educators in the survey: teacher pay.
“This survey confirms what I have consistently said about educators needing support from their school leadership, a collaborative and safe workplace environment, and higher pay,” said Horne. “Arizona is facing a catastrophic teacher shortage, but this survey shows there are some answers that can be implemented immediately, although more effort needs to be made to raise teacher pay. That is something I have consistently fought for and can be done without raising taxes because there is money available in the state land trust.”
93% of responding teachers said they planned to return to a teaching position for the 2026-2027 school year. 7% said they did not.
Nearly 77% of respondent teachers collectively said they felt safe and supported at their school site. Nearly 75% said they felt their school fostered a positive and collaborative environment. Nearly 74% said they felt they had autonomy to make instructional decisions for their students. Nearly 71% said they felt valued and respected by school leaders. About 70% said they felt they had access to the instructional resources and materials they needed to be successful.
Class sizes at their school were manageable according to most (nearly 700 agreed), followed by a close-second majority who said they disagreed (nearly 400), and those who strongly agreed or were neutral were close in numbers (more than 300 respectively). Those who strongly disagreed with the sentiment totaled 160.
A strong sense of belonging in the school community was present for most (more than 700 who strongly agreed), followed by a close-second majority who said they agreed (nearly 700), then those who said they were neutral (nearly 300), then those who said they disagreed (about 150), and those who said they strongly disagreed (about 60).
However, teachers indicated that they had insufficient time during their work days to complete non-instruction tasks. Close to 600 teachers said they disagreed that they had sufficient time, followed by more than 500 who strongly disagreed. 360 teachers said they agreed they had sufficient time, nearly 300 were neutral on the matter, and 150 strongly agreed.
Teacher pay came a close second for highest levels of dissatisfaction among respondent teachers. Only 38% overall said they felt their salary was competitive with similar positions in the state.
More than 500 teachers said they agreed that their salary was competitive with similar positions in the state, and 190 said they strongly agreed. More than 400 were neutral or in disagreement, respectively. More than 300 said they strongly disagreed.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” no longer faces a court challenge following a Supreme Court ruling.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (inclusive of Little v. Hecox) that states have a constitutional right to enact laws restricting single-sex sports participation on biological sex. The court ruling affirmed that biology, not gender identity, defines sex when considering federal regulations on sex-based discrimination.
The Save Women’s Sports Act went into effect in 2022 under SB 1165. The law requires K-12 students to play on sports teams aligning with their biological sex.
The following spring, the families of two boys who identify as transgender girls sued State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne in Doe v. Horne. The boys who filed were, at the time, an 11-year-old middle schooler in Maricopa County identified as “Jane Doe” and a 15-year-old high schooler in Pima County identified as “Megan Roe.”
Roe, now identified as Grey Picciano, dropped out of the case upon graduating high school, and until this week only Doe remained in the case.
The two youths had alleged the law was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act since they had either not undergone puberty or were taking puberty blockers.
The Tucson division of the Arizona District Court blocked the state law in July 2023, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2024.
Horne celebrated the lawsuit’s dismissal in a press release announcement, bringing to close a three-year court battle in which Horne ultimately held the line on Arizona’s law.
“There had been numerous articles about girls who worked hard on their sports, hoping to make the team, or even get a college scholarship or compete for the Olympics. Then they had to compete with a biological boy who was bigger, stronger and faster from birth,” said Horne. “They could not compete. Their dreams were shattered and they were devastated. They no longer need to fear those outcomes.”
Horne also pointed out that, of all those named as defendants in the original lawsuit, only his office remained three years later. Attorney General Kris Mayes reportedly declined to represent Horne in the case. Horne contracted the services of Wilenchik Law Firm to represent him.
An attorney behind the lawsuit to stop Arizona’s law, Rachel Berg, senior staff attorney with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), told Capitol Media Services that it was Doe’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
“[O]ur client has decided for personal reasons that she does not want to continue with the litigation,” said Berg.
In a statement last week responding to the Supreme Court ruling, Berg claimed state laws restricting participation in single-sex sports based on biological sex would lead to institutions checking the gender of participants should they appear to be physically above average.
“Blanket bans on transgender girls playing school sports invite anyone to call for a ‘gender check’ on any girl who wants to play sports if they think she is ‘too tall’ or ‘too strong,’” said Berg. “Local schools and sports associations should be handling this issue, not politicians.”
Including the dismissed case, NCLR has filed five cases challenging Arizona laws and policies which allegedly impose unlawful discriminations against individuals who identify as transgender.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Goldwater Institute has filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to intervene on behalf of two Air Force veterans in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect certain scholarship funds for children of military families.
The motion was filed on behalf of Nickolas Kupper and Robert Figueroa, whom Goldwater identified as Air Force veterans whose children currently participate in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The proposed intervenors are seeking to defend House Concurrent Resolution 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which the Legislature recently referred to the November 2026 ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona, and voter Linda May Lyon against the State of Arizona and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. According to Goldwater’s motion to intervene, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block HCR 2048 from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona's military families don't deserve to have their children's educational opportunities ripped from their hands. That's why we're stepping up to defend them. https://t.co/ayRcX5JbBE
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 2, 2026
Goldwater said in a July 2 announcement that Kupper and Figueroa are seeking to defend the measure because their families have used ESA funds for years and have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
“Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as Defendants to defend the constitutionality of House Concurrent Resolution 2048 (‘HCR 2048’), the ‘Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,’ which is a legislative referral passed to protect the educational stability of military families,” the motion states.
HCR 2048 proposes adding a new section to Article XI of the Arizona Constitution. Under the measure, the state could not confiscate funds from the scholarship account of a child of a military family if the account is maintained under a state program that designates such students as eligible and allows the funds to be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student who is the child of a person serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, who was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or who was killed in the line of duty.
The proposed amendment also contains a nonseverability provision. If a future law or voter-approved measure violates the military-family scholarship protection, the entire conflicting law or measure would be void, and a court could not sever only the offending portion.
The House passed HCR 2048 initially on March 2, the Senate passed it on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote, and the House passed the final reading on June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
Goldwater’s motion argues that Kupper and Figueroa have a right to intervene because the lawsuit directly threatens their ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s education funding.
“By seeking to keep HCR 2048 off the ballot, Plaintiffs directly threaten to block Proposed Intervenors’ ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s educational funding,” the motion states.
The filing also argues that the existing government defendants cannot adequately represent the families’ specific interests. Goldwater said Fontes is defending the measure as a neutral election administrator, while Kupper and Figueroa are defending the substantive validity of the proposed amendment because their children rely on ESA funds.
In its July 2 statement, the Goldwater Institute said, “The Arizona Constitution is clear: Arizona voters have the right to amend the state constitution, and the Military Families Protection Act would trump the activists’ efforts to cripple the scholarship opportunities currently afforded to Arizona military families and others.”
The lawsuit comes as ESA opponents are also seeking to place the Protect Education Act on the ballot. Save Our Schools Arizona says the proposal is intended to “reform Arizona’s universal ESA voucher program” and increase transparency and accountability.
The Protect Education Campaign announced last week that it submitted 421,451 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The Protect Education Act proposal would require unused ESA money to revert to the state and be directed to public schools, and it would bar families making more than $150,000 annually from joining the program. It would also ban ESA spending on non-educational or luxury items and require the Arizona Department of Education to report how much voucher funding each school receives.
HCR 2048 could conflict with the Protect Education Act because the proposed constitutional amendment would block future laws or ballot measures from changing the protected scholarship-account funds for military families.
Goldwater argued in its motion that the litigation is directly tied to that conflict, saying an adverse ruling could remove HCR 2048 from the ballot and leave the families’ ESA accounts vulnerable to “regulatory and financial rollbacks” under the competing Protect Education Act.
“Without HCR 2048, Proposed Intervenors’ educational accounts will remain highly vulnerable to systemic legislative and political volatility, including the exact regulatory and financial rollbacks slated under Plaintiffs’ competing ‘Protect Education Act,’” the motion states.
Kupper and Figueroa are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants, either as a matter of right or by permission. They also said they intend to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim rather than expand the litigation with counterclaims.
The case is assigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer.
Arizona families using the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program will no longer be required to submit curriculum documentation when purchasing general educational supplemental materials, such as basic school supplies, under a settlement agreement announced by the Goldwater Institute.
The agreement resolves a lawsuit brought by ESA parent Velia Aguirre against the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), and Superintendent Tom Horne over the documentation requirements.
The settlement, which took effect July 1, states that ESA families “shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document” when purchasing items identified as “general educational supplemental materials” in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook.
After pushing this bureaucratic abomination for 2 years, the office of Attorney General Kris Mayes has walked back its unlawful demands. No more permission slips needed to buy pencils and children's books:
The dispute began after Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office sent a 2024 letter to the ADE opening a public monies investigation into ESA spending approvals. The Attorney General’s Office said at the time that ADE guidance appeared to allow expenses beyond the statutory framework for the ESA program, including the approval of supplementary materials without documentation demonstrating a curricular connection.
In the letter, Mayes’ office asked the ADE to “promptly cease approving supplementary material expenses without the requisite documentation of a curriculum nexus,” and requested information on ESA spending for supplementary materials, curriculum materials, and textbooks from the 2019–2020 school year through the 2023–2024 school year.
The Goldwater Institute, which represented Aguirre, said in a September 2024 press release that the directive forced parents to justify purchases of basic school supplies and educational books. Goldwater said Aguirre had purchases such as “Where the Red Fern Grows,” a periodic table poster, and pencils rejected for failing to satisfy the curriculum documentation requirement.
Arizona law allows ESA funds to be used for several categories of educational expenses, including tuition at qualified schools, textbooks, tutoring, curricula, and supplementary materials.
The law defines “curriculum” as “a course of study for content areas or grade levels, including any supplemental materials required or recommended by the curriculum, approved by the department.”
After Mayes’ 2024 letter, the ADE posted guidance stating that supplementary materials, including common school supplies such as pencils, paper, glue, and crayons, required curriculum support. The ADE’s ESA support page stated that items previously allowed without curriculum documentation “now do require a curriculum.”
Goldwater filed suit in September 2024 on behalf of Aguirre and Rosemary McAtee, arguing that the documentation requirement imposed new burdens on families buying ordinary educational materials. Goldwater said at the time that parents were being required to show that each purchase was explicitly called for in a curriculum, including items such as pencils, erasers, flashcards, and children’s books.
Under the settlement, ESA families purchasing general educational supplemental materials must attest that the items are intended to support a curriculum or course of study for the qualified student and are not being purchased for another purpose. The agreement also requires ESA holders to indicate the curriculum or course of study the materials support by selecting categories such as reading or grammar, social studies, science, mathematics, physical education, art, vocational instruction, or other.
The agreement states that the ADE will not require a specific curriculum document as a prerequisite for approval or processing of general educational supplemental material purchases. It also provides that the ADE may require an ESA holder to enter the name of the curriculum or course of study in a text box when selecting “Other,” once technologically feasible or no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2027.
The settlement does not eliminate the ADE’s oversight authority. Rather, it states that nothing limits the ADE’s ability to review or audit individual expenditures or ESA accounts, disallow expenses, seek repayment, or report an ESA holder to the Attorney General’s Office for investigation of fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures.
The agreement also preserves the Attorney General’s authority to investigate or enforce the law in cases involving fraud, misuse of funds, or unlawful expenditures, and to request information in specific cases where there is a reasonable basis to believe a violation occurred.
The State disputed in the settlement agreement that the ADE enforced the alleged documentation policy and maintained that the ADE has the authority and obligation to confirm that ESA expenditures are allowable under statute and rules. The parties agreed to resolve the case to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation.
Goldwater characterized the settlement as a victory for ESA families.
“ESA holders shall not be required to submit a specific curriculum document when purchasing items identified as ‘general educational supplemental materials’ in the 2025–2026 ESA Handbook,” Goldwater wrote, quoting the settlement agreement. The organization said the change means families will no longer have to provide individualized curriculum documentation for ordinary educational purchases such as pencils and children’s books.
In a press release on July 2, Matt Beienburg, Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute, summarized the legal victory:
“This means no more manufactured paperwork from parents simply to appease the bureaucratic whims of politicians. No more wasted hours explaining why hundreds of individual items, like pencils or children’s literature, are necessary for a child’s education.
“Instead, parents will simply acknowledge via a single check box for a purchase order or reimbursement request that the purchases are intended to support the course of study for an ESA student. What was once the needless compounding of minutes into hours to comply with the attorney general’s demands will now be two clicks of a mouse.”
The parties agreed to file a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice within 10 days of executing the settlement.
Activists reported that they have turned in more than 420,00 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universality of Arizona’s school choice program.
Supporters wearing red shirts reading “Public School Proud” affiliated with Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSA) gathered outside the secretary of state’s office to watch the box truck delivery of the boxes containing the signatures for the ballot initiative. Both SOSA and the Arizona Education Association (AEA) were behind the initiative.
SOSA and the AEA contend the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program diverts far too much in funding away from public schools. Families within the program don’t have to depart their public schools; however, since the expansion of the ESA program to all students in 2022, enrollment in public schools has declined. Defenders of the ESA program counter that per-pupil spending in the program costs less than in public schooling.
ESA program funds may be used for private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, homeschool curriculum, educational therapies, textbooks, educational software, testing fees, and college courses.
The Protect Education Act (PEA) would impose income restrictions on the ESA program.
Estimates show that approximately 20,300 current students in the ESA program would be disqualified under the PEA initially, though that number would grow to exclude more than half of Arizona’s families with school-aged children due to inflationary impact on incomes outpacing the income cap adjustment.
The act would also impose accreditation requirements and further restrictions on spending.
The ESA program has reported the enrollment of more than 100,000 students. More than 8,200 were listed as new students enrolled for the next school year.
Those who support keeping the universality of the ESA program have been maneuvering to preserve protections for some member families.
The Republican majority in the state legislature passed a ballot measure of their own last month: HCR 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the confiscation of ESA program funds from students belonging to military families.
Should voters approve both the lawmakers’ measure and PEA, it is likely the latter would be voided under language included in the former.
In addition, Doug Ducey, the former governor who signed universal school choice into Arizona law, made an announcement Thursday of a political action committee dedicated to securing school choice protections for military families. Ducey was announced as the chairman of the Protect Military Families PAC.
“Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families,” said Ducey.
Serving alongside Ducey on the political action committee is Ashley Ragan, president of InCompliance AZ.
Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families.
That is why today, we are proud to launch Protect Military Families PAC @ProtectMilFam.
The Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank and litigation organization, filed a motion in the Maricopa County Superior Court earlier this week on behalf of two military families involved in the ESA program.
The organization said that about 1,000 other military families stand to be disqualified from the ESA program should the universalization end.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws barring males from competing in female sports, even if they identify as female. The ruling drew praise from Arizona’s Republican leaders.
In its opinion in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (inclusive of Little v. Hecox), the high court declared that biology defines sex, not gender identity, when considering federal regulations on sex-based discrimination.
“The term ‘sex’ […] cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” stated the ruling.
Arizona participated in the lawsuit through its leaders in the Republican-led state legislature: Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (LD14) and Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro (LD29). The pair filed an amicus brief last September.
Petersen hailed the Supreme Court decision as a “landmark ruling.” In a press release responding to Tuesday’s ruling, Petersen said the ruling represented a win in both the intellectual and moral sense, calling it common sense justice for women and girls.
“Every young woman deserves the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and earn a roster spot, a championship, a record, or a scholarship based on her hard work. Girls shouldn’t have to lose those opportunities because adults are afraid to acknowledge biological reality. That’s not fairness, and it’s not what Title IX was created to do,” said Petersen. “Arizona has been leading on this issue for years, and we were proud to stand with West Virginia and Idaho before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend girls’ sports. Today’s decision makes it clear that states can continue protecting the integrity of women’s athletics and the opportunities generations of women fought so hard to secure. This is a victory for every girl who dreams big, works hard, and deserves the chance to compete fairly.”
Arizona Superintendent of Schools Tom Horne — the lone elected leader to defend in court Arizona’s law prohibiting biological males from participating in female-only sports — declared the ruling a victory for female success and safety in competition. Attorney General Kris Mayes refused to defend the law in court (Jane Doe v. Warren Petersen).
“The news has been full of stories about girls who worked hard on their sports, hoping to make the team, or even earn a college scholarship or qualify for the Olympics. But then they had to compete against biological boys and their advantages in birth in size, speed and strength. The girls’ dreams were shattered and they were devastated,” said Horne. “Girls have also been injured, including a brain injury, from having to compete against larger and stronger males. I am committed to making sure that Arizona schools follow state law protecting girls’ sports.”
Former Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, passed the “Save Women’s Sports Act” under the Republican-led state legislature in 2022. In a letter approving the legislation, Ducey called it fair and common sense.
“This legislation simply ensures that the girls and young women who have dedicated themselves to their sport do not miss out on hard-earned opportunities including their titles, standings and scholarships due to unfair competition,” stated Ducey. “This bill strikes the right balance of respecting all students while still acknowledging that there are inherent biological distinctions that merit separate categories to ensure fairness for all.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
