This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced that he was “making $40 million available to parents of elementary grade students to pay for free tutoring in reading, writing and math beginning October 2.”
Superintendent Horne is laser focused on raising academic outcomes for students. This new tutoring program will help our students learn! #EducationForAllhttps://t.co/ESOrPN9V8i
According to the release sent out from the Arizona Department of Education, the funding source for these re-allocated dollars originates from a federal government 2021 program, which allowed the previous Superintendent to distribute funds earmarked to help “overcome pandemic-related learning loss” to several organizations around the state. In August, Horne’s administration asked these organizations “to provide evidence of the academic impact of their work, and those who could not show reasonable impact for the money had their contracts cancelled or reduced.”
Parents will have options of public school teachers or private tutoring companies to assist with their children’s educational development under this program. The Department projected the $40 million would cover approximately 1.3 million hours of tutoring.
The schools chief explained his action, saying, “My first priority as Superintendent is to raise academic outcomes, therefore I am making $40 million available so parents whose children did not test as proficient can get free tutoring for students in first through eighth grades.”
Superintendent Horne is confident that his program will achieve results for Arizona children, promising, “If they cannot show increased academic outcomes, I will, with this massive tutoring program.”
Horne also discussed the impact this stream of funding would have on teachers who participated in this reimagined program. He said, “Public school teachers who tutor will be paid $30 an hour and will earn a $200 stipend for each student who shows a one-half year gain from the tutoring. A teacher who tutors the maximum amount would earn an extra approximately $8,000. I believe teachers deserve more pay, which is why I supported Rep. Matt Gress’s recent bill for a $10,000 raise. I was shocked to see that the Governor and teachers’ union opposed it. If they won’t help teachers get more money, I will.”
More details are expected to become available for this new program on September 15. Members of the public and interested parties can visit the Arizona Department of Education’s website to learn more after that date.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
An Arizona-based organization is going to court again to protect the interest of state voters.
This week, the Goldwater Institute announced that its legal team had filed a special action petition with the Arizona Supreme Court on behalf of four state voters, “urging the high court to strike down the current retention election system for Court of Appeals judges and ensure all voters have an equal say.”
The release from Goldwater makes the case that “all Arizonans periodically vote on whether to retain each of the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court,” but that “they cannot vote on the retention of all the judges on the Court of Appeals…whose decisions set statewide legal precedent.” The reason for this being that “a voter’s residency limits their choices to only those Court of Appeals judges who resided in a corresponding geographic area of the state when appointed.”
According to the Goldwater Institute, “approximately 60 percent of Arizona voters get to vote in retention elections for Court of Appeals judges residing in Maricopa County but only 10 percent of voters can participate in retention elections for Court of Appeals judges residing in the far smaller Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham, or Gila counties.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice and current special counsel for this case, Andrew Gould, said, “If a judge’s decision will affect the whole state, it shouldn’t matter where in the state he or she lives. The current system is unfair to the millions of Arizona voters who are bound by the decisions of the judges on the Arizona Court of Appeals, and it raises serious constitutional questions.”
There are four plaintiffs, who are all represented by the Goldwater Institute in this matter. The first is Bonnie Knight, who lives in Yuma County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of judges in Division 1 (which excludes Maricopa County). The second is Deborah McEwen, who lives in Santa Cruz County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of judges in Division 2 (which excludes Pima County). The third is Sarah Ramsey, who lives in Pima County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of Court of Appeals Judges in Pima County. The final plaintiff is Leslie White, who lives in Maricopa County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of Court of Appeals judges in Maricopa County.
The plaintiffs sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes “in his official capacity because under the state constitution the Secretary of State’s office receives judicial retention candidate declarations and certifies to the county boards of supervisors which candidates’ names shall appear on the ballot.”
The petition for special action makes two arguments for the state’s Supreme Court Justices to consider. First, that “the judicial retention provisions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 violate Arizona’s Free and Equal Elections Clause.” And second, that “Section 12-120.02 violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause because it discriminates among voters based on their residency, and therefore denies the right of all citizens to vote equally in judicial retention elections.”
In conclusion to their petition, the plaintiffs asked the Court to exercise its mandamus jurisdiction and “(1) declare the judicial retention provisions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 unconstitutional to the extent they prohibit statewide electors from voting in judicial retention elections for judges on the Court of Appeals, (2) enjoin those portions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 that prohibit statewide retention elections, and (3) order the Secretary of State to certify that the names of all Court of Appeals judges who declare their candidacy for retention in all future elections must be placed on the ballot statewide.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) is allegedly teaching nursing students to introduce preschoolers to transgenderism.
In two class slides obtained by Libs of TikTok, nursing students are told to ask pediatric patients aged three to 13 years old about their gender identity. The students are given a script to read, in which they advise the child that inside feelings determine gender and that objective truth doesn’t exist.
“Some kids feel like a girl on the inside, some kids feel like a boy on the inside, and some kids feel like neither, both, or someone else,” read the suggested script. “How do you feel on the inside? There’s no right or wrong answer.”
The second slide advised nursing students to begin asking patients about gender identity around the age of three years old, specifically.
Research indicates that children don’t begin to make clear distinctions between reality and fiction until after seven years old. Prior to that point and starting around the age of two, children begin to “play pretend.” This aspect of childhood is expressed through the belief in fantasy beings such as Santa Claus, invented entities such as imaginary friends, and storylines explored through play such as their role in a Power Rangers “battle.” One study found that four-year-old children believed Big Bird from “Sesame Street” was real.
Notably, researchers have found that children were more likely to accept information when they believed someone was an expert or credible source on a topic. This indicates a self-fulfilling prophecy: if a nurse tells a child to believe it’s possible to swap genders or be neither gender, and further tell that child that no objective truth about gender exists, then the child is more likely to believe and accept that as truth.
AZ Free News reached out to the nursing school for details on the slides, such as the class from which they came. They didn’t respond by press time.
SCOOP: University of Arizona nursing school is teaching future nurses that 3-year-olds can know they are transgender. They’re also being taught to start questioning patients as young as 3 about their gender.
UArizona still refers individuals seeking transgender procedures for minors to El Rio Health on its LGBTQ Community Resources page, describing the provision of “affirming, respectful, and quality healthcare to pediatric and adult transgender and gender non-conforming communities.” The listed services include hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and “sensitive referrals.” However, the link on the university page no longer exists, likely due to Arizona laws banning such procedures for minors.
El Rio clinic gender transitions for minors were provided by Andrew Cronyn for years prior to the recent changes in Arizona law. Cronyn initially turned away minors for gender transition procedures; by 2014, Cronyn said he relented and accepted his first minor patient.
UArizona hosted Cronyn as a guest speaker for his work on transitioning children.
Feb. 15: @UAhealthnet LGBTQ+ Interest Series presents "Transgender Healthcare." Dr. Andrew Cronyn will discuss the Transgender Youth Program at El Rio and the healthcare transformation to LGBTQ Affirming, patient-centered care. RSVP is requested. Info: https://t.co/vxrJujTQbqpic.twitter.com/Xvt9zXzqJZ
The American Nurses Association (ANA), which defines standards for nurses, issued a statement last October condemning restrictions and bans on gender transition procedures for minors. As of January, ANA’s president is Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, a UArizona alumna and, up until last year, an Arizona State University (ASU) nursing instructor.
In May, ANA issued another statement opposing restrictions and bans on gender procedures. Mensik Kennedy advocated for the unfettered right for patients to obtain “gender-affirming care” from health care providers.
“Discrimination does not belong in health care and has no place in nursing practice,” said Mensik Kennedy. “Unfortunately, people are dying from the lack of access to this critical care. The delivery of modern and culturally sensitive care requires that no patient be left without the care that they need, seek, and require.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A first-year mayor is getting recognition for his emerging leadership as a government official.
Late last month, the Arizona Capitol Times released its 2023 Leaders of the Year awards, highlighting Peoria Mayor Jason Beck as a winner for the “Government” category.
In addition to congratulating Mayor Beck and others who earned recognition under various categories, the Arizona Capitol Times wrote, “These individuals have demonstrated a commitment to serving their communities that are second to none. Their passion and talent have made Arizona a better place for all that live here.”
Since entering office at the beginning of this year, Mayor Beck has proven he is up for the task of leading his city forward, working with the council to keep several of the promises he made during his 2022 campaign. Beck made public safety a key focus of his campaign, and he has delivered on multiple fronts to increase funding and resources for Peoria’s police, fire, and school.
In July, Beck announced that there would be a police presence at all Peoria Unified School District schools during the 2023-2024 year. He added that there would be four new SLOs (School Liaison Officers) and rotating SLOs at every school, that this presence would be expanded to all elementary schools, and that there would be 22 Peoria schools with police coverage and an increase in SLO salary.
The action to provide additional school safety personnel for Peoria schools comes on the heels of an earlier announcement from Mayor Beck on funding for the city’s police pension funding. In a social media post, Beck noted that the Peoria City Council had moved $6 million to the police pension funding, which was now 80% funded – compared to 48% funded in 2020.
Earlier this spring, the mayor highlighted his vote “to approve the Peoria Police Association’s proposal for a wage increase for Peoria Police Officers.” His communication on March 16 stated that the Peoria City Council “unanimously voted to increase police wages by a 10% market adjustment and a one time lump sum payment of $2,500 to go in effect March 18th.”
Beck also revealed that his city had just arranged for the acquisition of land for a new, “state-of-the-art” police and fire station, which would ensure “efficient collaboration between the two crucial services in times of emergency.” Mayor Beck explained that he is “committed to ensuring that Peoria remains a safe and secure place for everyone,” and that he “understands the vital role that our police officers and firefighters play in maintaining this safety.” He expressed his pride in supporting the city’s first responders in “their tireless efforts.”
The mayor’s success at the helm of his city comes as no surprise to those who have interacted with him in the private sector before he entered the political realm. Before taking the oath as Peoria’s chief executive, Beck founded TYR Tactical, which manufactures police and military equipment. Beck has served as the company’s CEO since its inception in 2010, growing his operation into one of the city’s top businesses. In a letter posted on TYR’s site, Beck asserts that “protecting and serving the men and women of U.S. and Allied Armed Forces, as well as Law Enforcement and Federal Agencies, has always been my number one priority.”
At the beginning of March, Beck announced that he had been presented with the Patriotic Employer Award from the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. The honor is a recognition for “contributing to national security and protecting liberty and freedom by supporting employee participation in America’s National Guard and Reserve Force.” Beck wrote, “Those that have worked at TYR know the intensity in which we focus on perfection of the product and why we say every stitch matters. Every Police Office, Every Soldier and Every Life Matters! It’s what I am proud of TYR’s performance and we are proud of Renato and the many vests that have worked for us in the past and currently working for us now.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s most-recent Republican nominee for state attorney general is taking time away from his legal efforts over the previous election to praise the country’s former president for a major foreign policy success enacted under his administration.
Republican Abraham Hamadeh recently joined with Bryan Leib to co-author an op-ed in The Federalist entitled, “Three Years Later, Trump Deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for the Abraham Accords.” The piece has generated significant national attention – especially from those who are loyal to the former president and current candidate for the 2024 campaign, Donald J. Trump.
Hamadeh and his co-author first noted President Trump’s “bold decision to keep his campaign promise and move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem” – even when many naysayers doubted the rationale of this action. The writers pointed to those same doubters in the case of Trump’s announcement of the Abraham Accords framework, stating that “they were wrong once again.”
The Abraham Accords were issued in September 2020 by the United States, the State of Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. The agreement was forged with the belief “that the further development of friendly relations meets the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and that challenges can only be effectively addressed by cooperation and not by conflict;” and with the determination “to ensure lasting peace, stability, security and prosperity for both their States and to develop and enhance their dynamic and innovative economies.”
The parties agreed to multiple points as part of these accords – primarily to the establishment of “peace, diplomatic relations and full normalization of bilateral ties” between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel. In one of the most challenging years for the world in modern history, the Abraham Accords infused sorely needed hope and optimism into the international community at that point in time.
According to the Abraham Accords Peace Institute, trade between Israel and the UAE increased significantly in the aftermath of the 2020 agreement, skyrocketing 82 percent from 2021 to 2022 ($3.37 billion).
The two authors discussed their credentials amid the piece to give readers confidence that they had sufficient knowledge of the situation on the ground in the Middle East. Hamadeh boasted of his service as a U.S. Army Reserve captain and intelligence officer in Saudi Arabia when the countries made history with the accords. Leib shared that he is a Jewish American who “has enjoyed relationships and friendships with Arabs in America and throughout the Middle East.”
Hamadeh and Leib bemoaned President Joe Biden’s missed chance to build on the Abraham Accords, writing, “The Biden administration took great pains not to acknowledge the Abraham Accords in the first year of his presidency, and that has created a chilling effect in the Middle East.” They both predicted that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is most likely the next Arab-majority country to officially make a peace or normalization agreement with Israel.
They pumped the brakes on this potential accord coming to fruition during the Biden Administration, however, stating that “the leaders and people of Israel and Saudi Arabia may have to wait for Trump to get back into the White House to broker their peace agreement.”
The writers opined that if the American president overseeing the accords was Biden or someone else, “the Nobel Peace Prize Foundation would have already awarded its highest honor for the Abraham Accords,” warning that “its failure to reward these historic agreements and Trump with the honor only damages the credibility of the Nobel Foundation.” They argue that “peace shouldn’t be political, especially in a world where it’s hard to come by.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Last week, a superior court judge ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, enforced an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that ran afoul of voter signature verification law. The problematic EPM in question was crafted by Hobbs in 2019.
The ruling came in the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes. Contrary to the law, Fontes claimed to the court that the term “registration record” was ambiguous and up for interpretation — meaning, he could decide what constituted a valid signature record for the purposes of verifying the validity of a ballot signature. For that reason, Fontes said that the lawsuit against his administration should be dismissed.
Judge John Napper disagreed, rejecting the motion to dismiss last Friday; he stated that only a voter’s signature used to register to vote was valid. Napper ordered Fontes to adhere to the definition of “registration record” for the purposes of signature verification.
“Here, the langu[ag]e of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The statute requires the recorder to review the voter’s registration record. The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity,” wrote Napper. “No English speaker would linguistically confuse the act of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event [….] Applying the plain and obvious meaning of ‘registration,’ the legislature intended for the recorder to attempt to match the signature on the outside of the envelope to the signature on the documents the putative voter used to register.” (original emphasis included)
Fontes petitioned the court to interpret the law to mean that other documents could be included in the definition of “registration record” based on a change of the law from reading “registration form” to “registration record.” Fontes argued that “record” was a more expansive term meant to encompass a greater set of documents than “form.” Fontes also argued that the term was ambiguous and therefore up to interpretation.
Napper rejected these arguments. The judge explained that the term change only expanded the “volume of documents” for signature verification to allow for review of multiple forms comprising a registration record. Napper also declared that the statute wasn’t ambiguous at all.
“That limitation remains the same, documents are part of the ‘registration record’ only if they involved the voter’s ‘registration,’” stated Napper. “[T]he recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope to the voter’s prior registrations (the record).”
Napper also declared that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) correctly defined “registration record,” unlike Fontes and former Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (now governor) per her 2019 EPM. Napper ruled that Hobbs’ 2019 EPM violated the law.
“The 2019 EPM creates a process that contradicts the plain language of A.R.S. §16-550(A),” stated Napper. “Therefore, this portion of the EPM and the instruction from the Secretary do ‘not have the force of law.’”
Napper’s ruling acknowledges a major issue: in the four years of its use, Hobbs’ unlawful 2019 EPM signature verification instruction has carried “the weight of the law.”
Mi Familia Vota also intervened in the case and requested dismissal of AFEC’s lawsuit. They claimed that any real or existing issues with the EPM didn’t matter because Fontes would produce a new EPM this December that could potentially adhere to state law. Napper also rejected this argument. The judge pointed out that those in the executive branch, including Hobbs, have consistently failed to produce a valid EPM, including in 2021.
“While the production of a new EPM is statutorily required, the multiple offices of the executive branch have not consistently adhered to the statute’s dictates,” said Napper. “They were unable to produce an EPM in 2021. This is why the 2019 manual carries the force of law to this day. The Court has been unable to find any authority suggesting a case is not ripe for decision because a government actor may choose a different course of conduct in the future.” (emphasis added)
The case is ongoing, with a status conference scheduled later this month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
