I have sat at the desk where the reimbursement requests come in. I have reviewed the accounts flagged for misuse. I have personally picked up the phone and called parents when something did not look right. I ran Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program as its Executive Director, and I am here to tell you that the public conversation about this program is missing something critical: the truth about how it actually works.
You have heard the complaints. Fraud. Waste. No accountability. What you have not heard, because no one is saying it, is that robust accountability mechanisms already exist in this program and they are working. There have been plenty of op-eds, news reports, and counter-claims about ESA fraud. But very few of them come from someone who managed the program from the inside, day to day, and watched those guardrails operate in real time. I did. And this is what they look like.
Every parent who receives an ESA signs a legally binding contract. They must verify their child’s identity and their own Arizona residency before a single dollar is approved. Every purchase requires documentation: an invoice or a receipt. No documentation, no payment. If misuse is suspected, the account is immediately suspended and reviewed. If a parent attempts to bypass that suspension by going directly to the digital wallet vendor, that act is classified as fraud and results in immediate termination. Confirmed fraud is referred to the Attorney General for investigation and potential prosecution. And critically, all of that account holder’s ESA contracts may be terminated, not just the one in question. Misused funds must be repaid. Offenders can be permanently barred from the program.
The contract also prohibits account holders from concurrently accepting ESA funds and a School Tuition Organization scholarship in the same contract year. Reselling any item purchased with ESA funds is strictly prohibited. Tutors and instructional providers must have no disciplinary action pending before the State Board of Education for immoral or unprofessional conduct. These are not suggestions. They are enforceable contract terms with real consequences.
Every morning, an automated report runs at the Arizona Department of Education, cross-referencing every ESA student against public school enrollment rosters. Any student found enrolled in both loses their ESA account that same day. No warnings, no exceptions. Parents agree to cover core subjects: reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science. All school staff with unsupervised access to students must be fingerprinted. Cash withdrawals are prohibited. Televisions, video game consoles, and non-educational equipment are explicitly unallowable. Incomplete documentation triggers a formal audit. And any unused funds that roll over may only be used after graduation for post-secondary tuition, textbooks, and fees. Nothing else.
When I personally called parents about suspicious requests, the answer was the same every time: they had made an honest mistake. They did not know the rule. They were informed, they returned the funds, and they continued in the program. The guardrails caught it. The system worked.
The fraud rate in this program is among the lowest of any government program in Arizona. Every confirmed case of fraud has been referred for investigation or prosecution. The fact that you can find those cases in the news is not evidence the program is broken; it is proof the oversight is doing its job.
And beyond all of the formal protections sits the most powerful accountability of all: these are parents who chose to be here. They made a deliberate decision to take responsibility for their child’s education. There is no bureaucrat, no administrator, and no government program that will ever advocate for a child the way their own parent will. That is not a weakness in the program’s accountability. That is its greatest strength.
Arizona’s ESA students are thriving. The program is accountable, it is lawful, and it is working. Before you accept the narrative that it isn’t, ask yourself why you have never heard any of this before, and who benefits from you not knowing.
Christine Accurso is the State of Arizona’s former ESA executive director, a long time school choice advocate, and the leader of the very successful Decline to Sign movement when the parents won the ESA fight in 2022 ushering in the Universal ESA program for all AZ students.
Eight years ago, the United States Marine Corps moved my family to Arizona. Since then, my husband and I have used Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to help provide the education our three children need to succeed.
As both a mother and a teacher, I have seen firsthand the difference educational choice can make in a child’s life. That is why I oppose the so-called Protect Education Act.
Despite its name, this measure does not protect education. It limits educational opportunities and restricts parents’ ability to choose the learning environment that best fits their children’s needs.
My own children have benefited from ESAs, and many students at the high school where I teach attend through the program as well. These are real children with unique learning styles, goals, and challenges. The ESA program empowers parents to make decisions based on what is best for their child, not what is most convenient for a government system.
Critics often claim that ESA programs drain funding from public schools. The reality is that the typical ESA award is only a fraction of the combined state and local tax dollars spent on a student in the public school system. When a student leaves a public school and uses an ESA, the state generally spends less on that individual child.
Opponents also point to isolated examples of misuse within the ESA program. No government program is perfect, but the Arizona Department of Education reports that the overwhelming majority of ESA families follow the rules. State analyses have found that truly egregious fraud accounts for approximately 0.3% of ESA spending. By comparison, federal SNAP benefits experience improper payments and fraud estimated in billions of dollars annually, representing a far larger percentage of total program spending. Yet no one argues that food assistance should be eliminated because a small number of people break the rules.
The answer is accountability, not fewer choices for families.
Arizona has become a national leader in educational freedom because we trust parents. Whether a family chooses a public school, charter school, private school, homeschool, or another educational option, that decision should remain with the people who know the child best: their parents.
The Protect Education Act would move Arizona in the wrong direction. It would limit options, create new barriers, and make it harder for families like mine to access the educational opportunities our children need.
For the sake of educational freedom, parental rights, and student success, I encourage Arizonans to look beyond the title and reject the Protect Education Act.
The proposed ballot initiative would have required the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to establish an online marketplace payment system next year for all ESA purchases with approved vendors, and would have eliminated the current reimbursement and debit card system.
The initiative would also have further restricted allowable expenditures, and required valid fingerprint clearance cards for qualified tutors and school personnel. Any parents who intentionally misuse funds would have been disqualified permanently from the ESA program.
Under the canceled initiative, the ESA program would have had to submit quarterly reports addressing vendor payments, disqualifications, and recovered funds to the attorney general as well.
Fortify AZ was supported in its signature-gathering efforts with millions from the American Federation for Children (AFC). Arizona campaign finance records reflected $1.2 million to their political action committee, but AFC said they invested over $5.3 million into the ballot initiative.
AFC said the proposed reforms were aligned with best policy practices implemented in other states: Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Utah, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.
In a press release issued on Tuesday, AFC CEO Tommy Schultz said their organization backed the ballot initiative as the “best opportunity to save school choice in Arizona,” which they say is under threat by school choice opponents behind the other proposed ballot initiative which would end universal school choice, the Protect Education Act.
“After a small number of individuals acted to sabotage this chance for the school choice-gutting petition to be pulled and commonsense reforms enacted, we are evaluating our best next steps to ensure the union-backed petition does not rip school choice away from thousands of Arizona students overnight and fundamentally break the program for the rest,” said Schultz.
As the Arizona Agendareported, Republican lawmakers and the Arizona Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, nearly reached a secretive school choice reform deal to end both the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Reform and Accountability Act as well as the Protect Education Act.
However, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club raised concerns over the impact of the secretive deal on the ESA program.
Don't Cut a Deal that Kills ESAs — Lawmakers are negotiating a secret bargain with teacher unions tonight. Over 100,000 Arizona students hang in the balance. https://t.co/dToo9ac4uQ
— AZ Women of Action (@AZWomenofAction) June 12, 2026
Ultimately, lawmakers voted against the proposed deal.
Matthew Nielsen, founder of the Educational Freedom Institute, called the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Reform and Accountability Act an “ill-conceived, and now ill-fated […] waste.”
The other ballot initiative to end the universality of the ESA program will continue. The Protect Education Act would place a $150,000 income cap for ESA program enrollees.
Additionally, this initiative would not only require qualified tutors and schools to have valid fingerprint clearance, it would subject them to Arizona State Board of Education discipline and require them to pay a fee and register annually with ADE.
Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political action committee behind the still-active ballot initiative, has spent about $2.7 million of the nearly $4.6 million it has raised.
98% of those funds (more than $4.4 million) came from the National Education Association, a national teachers’ union and the largest labor union in the nation.
As of this report, the ESA program has over 100,700 students enrolled.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
For months, we have documented the pattern of errors, distortions, and outright fabrications that characterize the coverage of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program by Channel 12’s political reporter Craig Harris. Each new episode—the fabricated 20% fraud claim, the defiance in the face of correction by the Arizona Department of Education itself, the constant shifting of goalposts as each of his claims is debunked—seemed like it might result in Channel 12 taking appropriate corrective action.
But they never did.
Last week, at the Arizona Legislature’s final stretch of its 2026 session, the mask came off entirely.
While lawmakers debated a series of consequential ESA-related bills and resolutions on Thursday and Friday—including a constitutional amendment to protect military family scholarships—Harris was captured on camera doing something that no journalist who takes the job title seriously can explain away: coordinating, via text message, with members of Save Our Schools Arizona, the anti-school-choice advocacy group that is a principal sponsor of the Protect Education Now ballot initiative, about where they should position themselves inside the Capitol building for maximum political impact.
Text message conversation between Channel 12’s Craig Harris and anti-school choice activists.
Let that sink in. A reporter on the education beat, covering legislation in real time, was not observing the advocacy groups in the building. He was directing them.
The text exchange was visible on the screen of a Save Our Schools activist—readable thanks to a conspicuously large font and no privacy screen—and was flagged by our Heritage Foundation colleague Corey DeAngelis, who shared images of the messages on social media after receiving them from a local activist. Harris subsequently confirmed on X that the images of the group chat, named “ESA DDD Confidential 12News,” were real.
After Harris told the activist that he was in the state senate chamber as that is “where [the] bill will first get introduced,” Save Our Schools board member Kathy Boltz asked Harris for advice regarding where their team of activists should place themselves in the capitol building. “Should we be in the senate? Hmm,” she asked. Within a minute, Harris answered in the affirmative.
This is not ambiguous. This is not a misunderstanding. This is a journalist using his knowledge of the Arizona Legislature’s political process to provide tactical advice to an advocacy group that has a direct political stake in the legislation he is supposed to be covering neutrally.
Harris was no longer covering the news. He was helping to manufacture it.
But that wasn’t the worst of it.
The same captured text conversation revealed Harris mocking a local school choice supporter, asking whether the individual “stars in porn.”
This derision was not just a lapse in professionalism. This was contempt—contempt for the families, advocates, and ordinary citizens who show up at the Capitol to make the case for educational freedom, expressed in a private conversation with advocates on the other side of the issue.
Text message conversation between Channel 12’s Craig Harris and anti-school choice activists.
Multiple Arizona politicos were quick to call out the behavior publicly. State Senator Jake Hoffman called for Channel 12 to fire Harris and called on the station to “open an investigation into every story he was involved in and retract any instance of undisclosed coordination.” Hoffman observed that this coordination with activists is “precisely the kind of unethical behavior that has caused the majority of Americans to deeply distrust the media.”
Arizona Republic columnist and former State Senator Paul Boyer called it “a really bad look” for Channel 12 to have their reporter, “who is also reporting on these same groups” to be discovered “coordinating with them at the legislature to defeat the same type of legislation he’s myopically focused on.” Similarly, J.P. Twist, executive director of Citizens for Free Enterprise, called out Harris for “literally strategizing with a partisan union to undermine parents’ rights.”
The parent company of Channel 12 publishes a “Principles of Ethical Journalism” statement committing its journalists to the values of truth, independence, public interest, fair play, and integrity. It’s hard to see how coordinating with one group of political activists and crudely mocking the other side comports with those standards.
Sadly, Harris’s breach of journalistic ethics does not end there.
Later that night, in a hearing on legislation to protect military family scholarships, Harris took to social media to characterize two of the three supporting witnesses who testified as people “making money off ESAs,” implying their support was financially motivated rather than principled.
One of those witnesses was Kevin Biesty, spokesperson for the Arizona Christian Education Coalition. As Biesty detailed on X, he reached out to Harris privately and asked him to correct or remove the post. Harris declined. As Biesty observed, the logic Harris applied to him — that representing clients who are affected by ESA policy makes one a financially conflicted advocate — is never applied to the other side. The staff and lobbyists of Save Our Schools Arizona and the teachers unions, who are paid to oppose the ESA program, are never characterized by Harris as people “making money off” the issue.
Harris also claimed that no military family spoke at the hearing. That too was false. Biesty had personally presented a written statement from a military mother who could not remain for the late-night session, and referenced letters from other military families — all of this while Harris was in the room. At no point did Harris ask Biesty for that mother’s contact information or seek to include her perspective in his coverage. He was, however, apparently attentive enough to the gallery to communicate with his Save Our Schools contact — the same ESA mother and SOS board member who, Biesty observed, is never identified as such in Harris’s stories — while sitting at the press desk on the floor.
Indeed, when ESA students and their families share their stories, Harris is quick to dismiss them. Recently, a young ESA student with disabilities named Jordan Visser shared on video about the ways the Protect Education Now initiative would harm students like himself. Harris went on social media to dispute his account, claiming that the initiative would not affect students with special needs—effectively accusing a student with disabilities of lying about the impact of a ballot measure on his own situation.
He was wrong. As the student’s mother, Kathy Visser, and others documented, the text of the initiative itself bore out what the student had said—the ESA funds that the family had saved to continue providing him with services would be seized by the state if the Save Our Schools ballot initiative were adopted.
The irony of Harris’s posture—aggressively checking the credibility of a disabled student while coordinating inside the Capitol with the very advocacy group sponsoring the initiative in question—encapsulates the problem. It is not that Harris is a journalist who occasionally makes mistakes. It is that the mistakes run in one direction, consistently, and that when corrected, he doubles down rather than acknowledging any error. And it is now documented, on camera, that he was coordinating tactics with one side of the debate he was purportedly covering.
Arizona families with children in the ESA program deserve better than a reporter who coordinates with the opposition at the very hearings he is assigned to cover. Arizona viewers deserve better than a news organization that has allowed this pattern to continue unchecked. And the thousands of children—including those with disabilities—who rely on these scholarships deserve a press corps willing to represent their stories honestly.
Channel 12 has not issued a correction or a retraction of the false fraud statistics. It has not yet acknowledged Harris’s coordination with activists or the mockery of a school choice supporter.
Channel 12’s parent company should answer a simple question: Is the behavior documented at the Capitol last week consistent with its Principles of Ethical Journalism? If not, what will it do about it?
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow and Matthew Ladner is aSenior Advisor for education policy implementation at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
A staple of Arizona’s most conservative coalition of lawmakers is running to rejoin the state legislature.
Anthony Kern is seeking to once again represent the 27th legislative district, held by incumbent Republican State Sen. Kevin Payne. Kern and Payne are the only two Republicans in the race; three Democrats have filed statements of interest.
Kern last represented that district in the Arizona Senate from 2023 to 2025. Kern departed from the state legislature in order to make his unsuccessful run for the 8th Congressional District in 2024. Prior to the state senate, Kern represented the 20th legislative district in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2015 to 2021.
While in the legislature, Kern built a reputation as one of its more outspoken conservative members. This was reflected by his membership with the Arizona Freedom Caucus, and A-ratings for conservative lawmaking from the Conservative Political Action Committee, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union, National Rifle Association, and Keep Arizona Free.
Kern held a number of committee leadership positions, including chairmanships of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee and the House Rules Committee, and a vice chairmanship of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
President Donald Trump and Turning Point USA have been among a number of Republican powerhouses to take notice of Kern. Trump commended Kern as “an incredible fighter for election integrity,” and pardoned him from the 2020 Trump electors case put together by the Biden Department of Justice. Turning Point USA’s affiliate, Turning Point Action, has endorsed Kern.
Although the federal charges against Kern and other electors were dropped, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes has pursued her own case. A court of appeals ruled last month in a loosely related case that Mayes illegally withheld communications in which she conspired with States United Democracy Center to prosecute Trump’s allies.
Prior to joining the legislature over a decade ago, Kern worked in municipal code enforcement and other public safety roles in the West Valley.
It appears that this background — combined with his repeated public commitments to limiting administrative rulemaking and expanding legislative oversight of regulations — has influenced a take from Kern that puts him at odds with other Republican lawmakers, though not with fellow conservatives.
Kern’s platform includes an opposition to automatic license plate readers (APLRs), such as the Flock Safety cameras. Unlike Kern, Payne as chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee sponsored a bill in support of APLRs earlier this year, SB 1111.
Other aspects of Kern’s platform include healthcare reform, proposing health providers must offer one single price for products and services, and health insurance premiums and medical expenses must be tax-free; and private property protections, proposing a removal of certain alleged loopholes to squatter prevention laws.
Kern has described himself as pro-life, an election integrity advocate, an opponent to illegal migration, and a supporter of parental rights and school choice.
He has lived in LD27 for nearly 40 years and attends Fresh Start Church in Peoria.
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission is scheduled to host the LD27 primary debate on June 22.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
