Concerns over sexual grooming in Arizona schools and inappropriate educational agendas have intensified. The use of grooming materials and activities by teachers, the Arizona Education Association (AEA) agenda, and the damning Department of Education’s Enforcement Action report on sexual misconduct in schools are telling.
Not in Our Schools recently outlined concerns over reported misconduct and the promotion of LGBTQ and social justice agendas in Arizona schools. There are also concerns about the growing influence of LGBTQ and social justice agendas in Mesa Public Schools (MPS) through the actions of teachers and organizations like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network).
Some Mesa teachers reportedly use their roles to promote LGBTQ-related content and activities in the face of new district policies restricting teacher involvement in non-academic clubs. Activities cited by Not in Our Schools also reveal that Mrs. Tami Staas engages in “grooming” students for sexual behaviors and gender transitioning without parental knowledge, using platforms like Synergy to hide information from parents. Mrs. Staas is said to introduce pronouns and LGBTQ+ symbols in her classroom, causing concern among parents.
Not in Our Schools also reports that the AEA prioritizes social agendas over academic achievement and influences school board elections to further these goals. Allegations are made about the AEA’s involvement in supporting abortion access and pushing for laws that promote gender transitioning in schools. Parents must be cautious about the school system and the influence of organizations like the AEA, and should thoroughly research candidates before voting in the upcoming school board elections.
Another concern involves the social-emotional learning (SEL) framework, which is used to push LGBTQ agendas. Programs like “Everybody Matters” indoctrinate students into LGBTQ lifestyles, further eroding parents’ influence in the education system. Additionally, the involvement of organizations like GLSEN and the Arizona School Board Association (ASBA) promotes LGBTQ content and obscures it from parents. Finally, the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board has been called out for supporting programs that weaken family structures and increase LGBTQ influence in schools.
Not only are teachers identified as using sexualizing materials in school, but just a few years ago a flurry of news called out Aaron Dunton, a former teacher at Higley High School in Gilbert, Arizona, who was arrested after a months-long investigation revealed his alleged inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student. Dunton resigned after the allegations surfaced, having taught at the school since July 2021. During the investigation, another victim accused Dunton of inappropriate incidents in 2019 when he was a teacher at Power Ranch Elementary. The second victim was 11 years old at the time. Dunton was facing multiple charges, including aggravated assault, witness tampering, and contributing to delinquency and dependency, until the Maricopa County District Attorney dropped the charges. Speculation is that there was no law to convict Dunton at the time. Now, there is hope that the anti-grooming law will be implemented soon.
Dunton is just one teacher among many seeking to mistreat students sexually. The Arizona Department of Education 2023 Enforcement Action Report indicates an 184% increase in sexual teacher discipline-related cases from 2012 to 2023. Those are cases that were recognized and resulted in the discipline of perpetrators. Imagine how many more teachers, coaches, and other school officials may go unrecognized as sexual predators of students.
Some consider HB2310, referred to as the Child Enticement Bill or the anti-grooming bill introduced by Representative Travis Grantham, as a tool to prosecute sexual predators like Dunton. HB2310, which will go into effect next month, strengthens protections for children against enticement and grooming. Going into effect next month, the bill makes it a fourth or fifth-degree felony to intentionally lure, solicit, or entice a minor into committing illegal sexual acts or actions that could lead to sexual exploitation or abuse. It also includes provisions for offenses committed through electronic communications. The legislation increases penalties for these crimes, providing better legal protection for children in Arizona.
Beyond respect for this prosecutorial law, the governing boards in Arizona school districts and the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for ensuring guardrails and accountability in schools to protect children. But it doesn’t stop there. Parents are vital in guiding their children to make safe and responsible decisions at school and online. Parents can encourage their children to protect themselves and others, understand harmful behaviors, and report incidents to parents and school officials immediately.
Here are suggested steps parents can advise their kids to take at school:
1. Understand Consent and Boundaries: Encourage your child to be aware of the power they have not to consent and the legal consequences of inappropriate sexual conduct by an adult. Ensure your kids understand that boundaries matter in physical and digital communication. Reinforce this by having regular conversations about consent and why respecting their personal space and boundaries is essential.
2. Be Mindful of Online Behavior: Advise your child to think critically about how they interact online, particularly with social media or text messaging. Teach them never to share personal or explicit content with others and to be cautious when interacting with people they do not know well. They should also understand that even consensual acts, such as sharing inappropriate images, can have severe legal consequences. Parents can support this by discussing the real risks of digital communication and the importance of privacy.
3. Report Suspicious Behavior: Make sure your child knows that if they encounter inappropriate behavior, such as an adult or peer asking them to send inappropriate images or engage in risky sexual acts, they should report it immediately to a trusted adult at school, such as a counselor or teacher, or use an anonymous reporting tool if available. Reinforce that reporting these incidents is crucial for their safety and protecting others from potential harm.
4. Stay Informed About Friendships and Relationships: Parents should encourage their children to surround themselves with friends who respect boundaries and engage in safe, responsible behavior. Advise them to avoid risky situations or peer pressure and to feel confident in saying “no” to uncomfortable requests, whether in person or online. By fostering open communication with your child, you can help them navigate complex social situations and ensure they understand their rights and responsibilities in relationships.
5. Learn About the Law: Encourage your child to become familiar with the legal consequences outlined in the amended Arizona statutes, particularly regarding age differences in relationships and digital safety. Understanding the law can empower them to make responsible choices. Parents can help by discussing the specific legal consequences of child enticement, age proximity laws, and what qualifies as inappropriate behavior.
6. Practice Digital Safety: Advise your child never to share personal passwords, account details, or private information online. Reinforce that they should never engage with unknown people online, especially if the conversation turns inappropriate or uncomfortable.
By teaching children about consent, online safety, reporting suspicious behavior, and advocating for themselves, parents can help them align their actions with appropriate behavior and relationships and create a secure school environment that is in accordance with Arizona’s laws to protect minors.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She has worked at the senior director and advisor level for Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Moms for America, and pregnancy centers. Tamra currently directs SMART Families Network at Arizona Women of Action.
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interest groups spend millions of dollars in Arizona to buy their initiatives onto our ballot. It often takes just a couple million dollars—pocket change to California billionaires—to pay a few hundred circulators to collect signatures. And they usually flood the streets with paid circulators in just Phoenix and Tucson, stripping all other Arizonans from having a voice in the process.
Not every state has a citizen initiative process. In fact, less than half (20) allow for citizen initiative amendments to state law. Arizona is even more unique because in 1998, the Arizona voters amended the constitution with the “Voter Protection Act,” preventing the legislature from amending any measure passed on the ballot unless they obtain a ¾ majority and the amendment “furthers the purpose” of the initiative. In effect, this means that anything passed on the ballot must go back to the ballot for future changes, much like a constitutional amendment.
Of those 20 states with a citizen initiative process, 11 have a signature distribution requirement. This means that in those states, the signatures cannot all be collected in just one city or major county, like they currently can here in Arizona. Instead, initiative proponents need to gain support from diverse regions of the state.
A modern-day example of voter integrity is the picture of an Iraqi woman holding up her finger colored in purple indelible ink, indicating that she voted. In 2005, an Iraqi woman posed for an iconic picture after leaving a polling station in Southern Iraq in the country’s first free election in over a half-century. She did so in defiance of deadly suicide bombings and mortar strikes at polling stations.
The recorded history of democracy dates back to the 5th century in ancient Greece. The word democracy is derived from two Greek words – demos, which means people and kratos, which means rule. In the first elections in Athens, only the ruling class could vote.
Even though the United States of America is a democratic country, the path to “one person, one vote” has been a checkered one. In 1789, when the US Constitution was ratified, most states only allowed white landowners to vote.
The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1870, gave Black men the right to vote. It wasn’t until 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed that women in all states were allowed to vote. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put teeth in prohibiting racial discrimination when voting.
Though we have come a long way since the concept of democracy was born, voter integrity is still on the forefront. The recent phenomena of widespread mail-in ballots have created a whole new potential of voter fraud. Ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states, puts the concept of the secret ballot into question. Is the person filling out the ballot actually the person registered to vote?
Congress has recently passed the Safeguard American Voters Eligibility Act (SAVE). This bill is waiting to be heard in the Senate. The act requires that all people registering to vote provide proof of citizenship in federal elections. Though it’s already against the law for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, the National Voter Eligibility Act of 1993 prohibits states from confirming citizenship status in federal elections.
On August 1, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court put a stay on a recent Arizona law that required showing proof of citizenship in all elections including federal. In 2020, 11,600 individuals voted in Arizona on federal only ballots without showing proof of citizenship. The 9th Circuit Court decision is now being appealed to the US Supreme Court.
With the recent influx of undocumented individuals entering the United States, the importance of citizens only voting is a front burner issue that the SAVE Act might resolve. Just showing ID when registering to vote and casting your ballot at the polls will bring back a level of confidence in our elections.
With stronger legislation addressing voter integrity, Americans may have even more trust in our elections—akin to the Iraqis proudly holding up their purple-stained fingers.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
The people of Arizona deserve elections that are free, fair, transparent, and lawful. As the top election official in our state, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes should be working every day to ensure this happens. And he should be providing an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that gives impartial direction to county recorders to ensure uniform and correct implementation of election law.
This shouldn’t be that hard…or controversial.
But Adrian Fontes took it upon himself to produce one of the most radical EPMs in Arizona’s history. In fact, several of the “rules” in his EPM even go as far as to criminalize activity that is protected under the First Amendment—creating an unconstitutional chilling effect on protected political speech. Apparently, Adrian Fontes hasn’t read the United States Constitution or the Arizona Constitution.
Because of this illegal EPM, we sued him. And last week, a Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in our favor, finding that Fontes’ EPM contains speech restrictions that violate the Arizona Constitution, misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
So, how did Fontes respond? Did he realize the error of his ways? Will he now properly understand his role and amend the EPM to align with the law? No. Instead Adrian Fontes has responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He’s resorted to maligning our organization in the media…
America’s athletes once again excelled at the 2024 Olympic games. Without the benefit of massive government-controlled sports programs enjoyed by many of their competitors, they proved their superiority while representing their homeland with sportsmanship and respect.
It’s not jingoistic to point out that America, in spite of some worrisome decline, is still number one in many other spheres. In terms of military might, industrial capacity, and technological innovation, we enjoy preeminence.
Yet our educational system, which in the long run may matter most, is below mediocre. We consistently score below average in math and literary achievement tests versus students from other developed countries.
Worse, we are producing graduates with scant knowledge of their own history, ignorant of the political and economic principles that created their privileged world. Many seem emotionally fragile, enthralled with identity politics and unable to tolerate those with opinions different from their own.
The reason for this is no mystery. American education policymaking is dominated by the federal Department of Education (DOE). The department was created by President Jimmy Carter in gratitude to the teachers’ unions for their support in the 1976 election. It has been the gift that keeps on giving as the DOE has faithfully represented the unions’ interests ever since.
Unfortunately, the union/DOE priorities are more directed to sweeping left-wing political agendas than the education of America’s school children. For example, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona enthusiastically supports radical gender ideology.
At this year’s “Trans Day of Visibility,” he advised children that choosing and changing their own gender is expressing the “gift to see things as they could be.” Our chief educator would better serve children by encouraging them to see things as they are and avoid life choices they may bitterly regret later.
Cardona also has strong feelings that teachers, not parents, should direct children’s education, even where values and morals are concerned. “Teachers know what is best for their kids because they work with them every day,” he assured us in a since deleted tweet.
The two largest teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), exposed their near total disregard for the educational progress of their charges during the recent Covid epidemic. They refused to provide in-person teaching long after the scientific evidence was clear that no harm came to children from school attendance.
AFT President Randi Weingarten, in her address at its recent annual conference, didn’t bother to address the enormous educational deficiencies caused by the lockout or exhort her members to focus on the needs of students struggling to catch up academically. Instead, she ranted hysterically about the “violence and fascism” looming if Trump were to win the presidential election. The main obstacle to educational success she perceived was those who question the resource materials that her unionized teachers select for their students of any age.
These unions’ all-purpose remedy for academic shortcomings is more funding. Yet decades of funding increases have produced no positive results.
For example, the Chicago Teachers Union, holding that testing is “junk science rooted in white supremacy,” argued against reopening schools on the grounds that resuming teaching was mere “sexism, racism and misogyny.” Instead, they demanded a $51,000 salary increase, 45 additional days off, and more annual LBGTQ training.
The result: the district now spends $29,028 per student, a 97 percent increase since 2012. Yet during that time, proficiency in math has dropped 78 percent from an already low level and reading proficiency has declined 63 percent. In other words, Chicago public school students are being sent into the world illiterate and mathematically incompetent. But their teachers are well paid.
America has no prospect of improving our educational system until the DOE and the unions are stripped of their influence. It won’t be easy. Realistically this is totally impossible under a Democrat administration, given the strong bonds between the unions and their captive party.
In its 60 plus years of existence, the DOE has failed to provide any academic benefits for our students. The consequences are now becoming apparent. Somehow, we must find the will to eliminate the Department and move forward.
It’s for the children. And the future of America.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
In the evolving landscape of Arizona high school sports, one organization stands as a relic of a bygone era, clinging to monopolistic control and outdated practices: the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA).
The origins of the AIA are important to note due to the group’s strong initial connection with three of the most pervasive forces for the center-left in Arizona K-12 politics: The Arizona School Administrators, the Arizona School Board Association, and the Arizona Educators Association, the local teachers’ union affiliate. In addition to sharing space, it is apparent that the AIA shares similar views as these three organizations in the protection of its monopoly of Arizona high school sports.
Like its original policy partners, the AIA has become synonymous with overreach, authoritarianism, and a childlike resistance to change. As more Arizona athletes and their families opt for alternatives such as Canyon Athletic Association (CAA) schools and independent prep schools, the AIA increasingly finds itself at an existential crossroads.
Its response? Double down on draconian policies that dash the dreams of student-athletes and undermine the dedication of coaches who are often underpaid and overworked. The systemic problem of AIA overreach in the decisions of Arizona families is bad enough that there are lawyers in our state that specialize in AIA conflict and dispute resolution, a troubling realization for an organization that claims to work on behalf of Arizona kids.
A Culture of Overreach and Punishment
The AIA’s authoritarian style is most evident in its relentless enforcement of rules that punish rather than promote the best interests of student-athletes. Consider the tragic case of Desert Edge High School in Goodyear, where the football and track programs were placed on probation due to a social media post by a successful coach who dared to advocate for his school’s athletic and academic quality when asked by a parent that was already seeking a transfer for their child.
The incident led to a harsh punishment that barred Desert Edge from playoff participation in both football and track. It took two hard working and dedicated coaches to fall on their sword to assuage the feckless AIA amid complaints from neighboring schools, who embrace a robust and shameful snitch culture to make up for the inadequacies of their own teams.
Why should the coaches that pour their souls into their athletic programs be barred from advocating for their schools? What harm is done by high school coaches explaining to prospective student-athletes and families the benefits of their program and school amid a generational shift that poses a long-term threat to public school enrollment in Arizona?
This decision not only penalized the coaches and players who had worked tirelessly to excel but also showcased the AIA’s ruthlessness in quashing any perceived challenge to its control. It is the duty of the AIA and its senior leadership to explain what they are so afraid of when parents and student-athletes vote with their feet and elect to make moves in their best interests, as opposed to the members that make up the AIA’s Soviet-style politburo, who would prefer to handcuff each and every kid to their assigned school to preserve its membership base and grow its payroll with additional bureaucrats.
The AIA’s overreach was most recently witnessed in its unfair and controversial decision regarding the Williams Field High School boys’ volleyball team, which had its state championship vacated after the AIA deemed the team ineligible due to an unsanctioned scrimmage shortly before playoffs commenced.
Never mind the fact that these young men were challenging themselves by taking the time out of their day to train against a better team in preparation for the playoffs, the AIA’s Stalinist approach takes precedence. Even though Williams Field High School self-reported the incident, it still took a legal battle by parents to allow the players to compete.
By allowing Williams Field to play, the AIA wasn’t exhibiting any kindness. Instead they did so as a legal strategy, before ultimately deciding to strip the team of its well-deserved title and expunge the team’s participation from the record books. If that isn’t reminiscent of Stalin, what is?
Valley Christian High School has also found itself in the AIA’s crosshairs, with investigations into alleged bylaw violations concerning student-athlete participation in non-AIA activities. The school’s basketball and baseball programs were subject to scrutiny simply for engaging in activities that promote player development and community service, which included a single Valley Christian basketball player living his dream to try out for the Italian national team and the audacity of the young men of Valley Christian’s baseball program who dared to engage in community service during a mission trip to the Dominican Republic, where the AIA struck down the chance for the team to scrimmage against Dominicans. Unless you happen to be privy to the inside baseball of the AIA’s autocrats, the logic and transparency behind such decisions is sorely lacking.
What the examples of Desert Edge, Williams Field, and Valley Christian cumulatively demonstrate is the fact that if the AIA can’t put their fingerprints all over an event and milk it for money while offering their papal-like blessing, then we have evidently reached the Armageddon of amateur athletics.
A Monopoly Built on Exploitation
Beyond punitive actions, the AIA has exploited its position to secure financial gain at the expense of Arizona families and student-athletes. One glaring example is the AIA’s concessionary monopoly on photography at state tournaments, where it has barred local newspaper photographers from prime locations, instead reserving these spots for a single private company to dig deeper into the pockets of Arizona families. This coming from the same organization that dragged its feet for two years at the idea of children retaining the rights to their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL), a concept that should be automatically ubiquitous for all Americans of all ages without exception.
The association’s lack of care for student welfare was also evident in a 2012 lawsuit brought against the AIA under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit alleged that the AIA discriminated against a student-athlete with a disability by refusing to allow a sign language interpreter during tennis matches. The case was settled, with the AIA agreeing to policy changes and training to ensure compliance with the ADA. However, the incident underscores the AIA’s long history of prioritizing its rigid rules over the needs of individual students, even for common sense rights like the right of a deaf student-athlete to have access to a sign language interpreter.
With evidently little to do other than riding the coattails of the real legwork done by coaches and school athletic directors, the AIA generates its own work by targeting and investigating children and their families for making the best available choices to them. Is such an organization worthy of the voluntary participation of most Arizona schools?
The AIA has repeatedly targeted families and students who exercise their right to choose the best educational and athletic opportunities available. Longtime AIA Executive Director David Hines has been at the forefront of this campaign, having advocated for policies that would make student-athletes who dare to transfer schools ineligible for postseason play—a clear attempt to deter families from seeking better options for their children. Such policies punish students for seeking opportunities that align with their aspirations, while further entrenching the AIA’s fear-driven monopoly over high school sports in the state.
The AIA’s thirst for crony capitalism extends to its launch of AZPreps365, a news service it manages as part of its public relations strategy, as well as shady long-term partnerships it has entered with private entities. The fact that the AIA employs a Business Development Officer, in addition to a Chief Technology Officer, a General Manager of AIA Sports Properties, a Director of Media Services, an Account Executive, and 3 senior-level directors in the Executive Office tells Arizonans all we need to know about the “no-show job” racket that is the AIA.
A Monopoly on the Brink of Collapse
The AIA’s authoritarian grip on Arizona high school sports is not unbreakable. As more families and school districts explore alternatives, the organization risks becoming increasingly irrelevant. The growth of the Canyon Athletic Association is but one bright spot. The emergence of private, independent prep schools and specialized sports academies, particularly in soccer and basketball, offers a free-market alternative that prioritizes student-athlete development over bureaucratic control. Even football is not immune from a challenge by entrepreneurial Arizonans seeking to do right by kids instead of the system.
Indeed, the AIA’s monopoly could crumble with the exit of one major school district or a coalition of competitive districts seeking greener pastures. The defection of districts like Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, which frequently dominate in terms of their playoff appearances and championships in the AIA’s top-tier divisions, would suffice on its own to force the AIA to do an about-face. The departure of East Valley powerhouse districts from the AIA would reorient a significant amount of the talent outside of the scope of the AIA, rendering it less and less relevant for NCAA recruiting and hitting the organization’s purse strings directly.
The time is ripe for a new era in Arizona high school sports—one that values competition, opportunity, and the well-being of student-athletes over the preservation of an outdated and authoritarian institution.
As families continue to seek alternatives, the AIA must either reform or face obsolescence. Parents of AIA schools would be justified in contacting their school board members to contest their district’s future participation in a league that frequently puts the dictums of adults over the dreams of student-athletes.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizonan and is a former Student-Athlete, Teacher, Coach, Athletic Director, and Principal. His views are solely his own.
