Among many issues, the past two elections have been a referendum on the public school system throughout our country. And that’s especially true here in Arizona. The people have shown that they are tired of the leftist indoctrination, wasted taxpayer dollars on declining test scores, attacks on parental rights, and more.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump proved that cleaning up our schools wasn’t just a campaign talking point. He issued an executive order (EO) ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling, and the U.S. Department of Education took action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It’s been a breath of fresh air, frankly, but the woke crazies in our state are not going down without a fight.
Back in February, a teacher at Marana High School was suspended after he challenged President Trump’s denial of the existence of more than two genders during a classroom lecture. Then, in May, an advocacy group released audio from inside a Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) ninth grade health classroom where an alleged teacher gave a “lesson” on LGBTQ issues and criticized religious texts. What any of this has to do with “health” is beyond us, but it certainly shows the lengths these crazies are willing to go in order to push their radical message.
Not wanting to be outdone, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) also decided to get into the mix…
A stunning report of alleged whistleblower audio from inside a Catalina Foothills 9th grade health classroom in the Tucson area was released by the advocacy group ‘Save CFSD’ via X on Wednesday. In the audio recording, a voice alleged to be a Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) teacher criticized the religious texts of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, suggesting that “most parents aren’t understanding, aren’t accepting, or whatever.”
In the post to X revealing the audio, Save CFSD wrote, “We obtained this audio recording of a biased lecture in a 9th grade CFHS Health class on LGBTQ issues. You will hear the teacher encourage students to question what they’ve been told by their religious leaders and parents.”
We obtained this audio recording of a biased lecture in a 9th grade CFHS Health class on LGBTQ issues. You will hear the teacher encourage students to question what they've been told by their religious leaders and parents. pic.twitter.com/CFiYKZ19Gx
The voice heard speaking began by saying, “Now, the topic that we’re dealing with today stems with sexuality as well as LGBTQ. It’s a lot of information that we get regarding this discussion comes from our faith. A lot of people have very strong feelings. This group right here has open executions on the streets in some parts of the world where if somebody who’s identified as gay and they find them, they catch them, they chop their heads off. That still happens today. So that’s telling you that it’s a very strong belief that something is wrong or immoral, and so it’s critical for us to do our own research rather than just listening to what people tell you.”
The speaker zeroed in on religion almost immediately telling the students:
“The problem is when we go to houses of worship, when we hear people for over time, they can definitely influence us. And maybe we don’t realize it. Now, when we look at the different religions of the world, these are the different texts. The Bible and Christianity, the Koran. And then we got the Torah. And then we have other religious doctrines that many people trust and put their faith in. When we read these, okay, it’s important to understand that these originated thousands of years ago. What was the primary language that was spoken in those regions during that time? Was it English? No. So what are they: Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, alright? So, when English was developed, do you think they had to translate certain words into something that they thought it represented? Yeah.
“Now today, think of something that only you as teenagers are very familiar with. If you were talking about something specific related to that thing. And if I read it, could I be misinformed simply because I have no clue what you’re talking about? That can happen with translations as well. Now and so when you think of homosexuality, the word, that word did not come into play until the 1900s, so it does not appear in the Hebrew Bible and so forth. Lesbianism is not mentioned at all, so the word homosexuality itself is a modern term. And so, they had to derive it from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The meaning and application of these passages have been subject to different interpretations throughout history and continue to be debated today, so if you go to various places of worship and you talk to people that are there to lead their flocks, fifty percent will probably say it’s one way. Fifty percent will say it’s the other way. So, if people can’t even agree, how do we know which one is right?…One of the students mentioned last year that their pastor and their church said that anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. Should be herded up, and they should be executed.
“Then there’s some of you that might hear that in your own church, your own congregation, your own house of worship. And then there’s others that are affirming and accepting and loving. I’m not trying to preach or anything like that, so just understand this is for educational purposes.”
The alleged teacher then pivoted to transgenderism and proceeded to guide the students through the process:
“So, what does the term cisgender mean? It’s a new word. So, then we have transgender. There’s different ways you can transition when it comes to your sexuality. So, could you just come out and tell people that you’re transgender and you haven’t done anything different? You’ve just expressed to people that, hey, I’m born male, but I identify as female. Would that be one way of doing it?
“Alright, so first is just letting people know. What would be the next step in the process? So, taking a more about feminine name, starting to dress female rather than male. OK, excellent. What would be the next progression then? So, then starting alterations physically.”
He then turned to how parents react suggesting, “Yeah, they’re probably going to resist it. So that becomes definitely a challenge. Who do you go to talk to if you’re one of those that are struggling? If you went to your parents, and you told them you were struggling, would your parents reject you?”
Finally, the speaker established a fearful response with the students. “You know, most parents aren’t understanding, aren’t accepting or whatever, and so many teenagers are potentially at risk of STDs and STIs that could potentially cause infertility, could lead to an earlier death, simply out of fear.”
The alleged teacher concluded, “One of the students last period mentioned how some of their friends today have been threatened to be kicked out of their homes because of their choices they’re making when it comes to sexuality. My encouragement for you is to make sure you do your research. Make decisions that you feel are good for you. Don’t just base your decisions simply because you’ve been told something.”
Sharing the post from Save CFSD, Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA) commented, “THIS kind of discussion is NOT part of Catalina Foothills curriculum, which is why AZWOA suggests NOT opting into any class that teaches sex-ed/Comprehensive Sexuality Education.”
To make matters worse, the 2019 repeal of Arizona’s No Promo Homo law helped remove some of the barriers that were set in place, enabling AZ districts to align better with the FoSE standards which may enable discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity. 🤔
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) May 28, 2025
The AZWOA added, “The 2011 National Sexuality Standards were developed by the Future of Sex Education Initiative (FoSE), which is Advocates for Youth, Answer, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and SIECUS. YES, PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS IN OUR SCHOOLS. @nopinkschool has been exposing this.”
The group further noted, “To make matters worse, the 2019 repeal of Arizona’s No Promo Homo law helped remove some of the barriers that were set in place, enabling AZ districts to align better with the FoSE standards which may enable discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
• Contact the Catalina Foothills School board and Superintendent – share this information and voice your concerns – 520-209-7500 • Attend the next board meeting – 3435 East Sunrise Drive, Tucson, AZ, typically on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:30 pm
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) May 28, 2025
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill to provide restitution to individuals harmed by gender transitions they obtained as minors.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1586, sought to expand civil liability on health care professionals or physicians who provide gender transition or transition procedures.
Under the bill, health care professionals and physicians that provide gender transition procedures for a minor would have been strictly and personally liable for all costs associated with subsequent detransition procedures for that minor within 25 years after the gender transition procedure. Individuals who undergo a detransition procedure would be able to bring a civil action lawsuit against the health care professional or physician who provided their gender transition procedure before turning 26 years old.
The bill would have also prohibited the health care professionals or physicians from obtaining a contractual waiver of liability for gender transition procedures.
In her veto letter, Hobbs said the bill was redundant given present medical malpractice statutes, and she further stated the bill was not a priority compared to Arizonans’ current needs.
“Medical malpractice statutes currently exist to give patients a private right of action related to matters of informed consent,” stated Hobbs. “This bill will not increase opportunity, security or freedom for Arizonans. I encourage the legislature to join with me in prioritizing legislation that will lower costs, protect the border, create jobs, and secure our water future.”
The bill author, Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp, issued a press release accusing Hobbs of allying herself with “radical left-wing ideology” and ignoring harms endured by children who have undergone gender transition procedures.
“There have been many tragic stories about children who have submitted to life-altering surgeries to change their gender – only to experience awful repercussions later on when they mature,” said Shamp. “Unfortunately, Governor Hobbs and her band of Democrat allies would rather these children’s lives be forever changed in one of the worst ways imaginable to satisfy their extreme ideological lust. Republicans will not stand for this callousness and endorsement of defacto child abuse. We will continue to fight on behalf of our precious sons and daughters until these inhumane and ungodly practices are abolished.”
Shamp later indicated she would take another run at securing restitutions for individuals who underwent gender transition procedures while they were minors.
“I will never stop fighting for children who are being butchered by this ungodly and inhumane practice,” said Shamp.
Arizona law already bars health care professionals and physicians from providing gender transition procedures. The state legislature passed the prohibition in 2022. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, less than three percent of minors identify as transgender.
Although surgical procedures were prohibited, the law didn’t speak to the prescription of drugs impacting sex-based hormones. Health care providers continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormone replacements to minors. It wasn’t until earlier this year that providers known for these prescriptions, like Phoenix Children’s Hospital and Planned Parenthood of Arizona, ceased issuing them in order to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting gender transitions for minors.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
It was just about 2 years ago that a fury ran through the Mesa Public Schools community over a controversial document that had gone largely unnoticed. That document is titled “Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” (also called “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.”) This plan allows a student who “consistently asserts at school a gender identity that is different from the student’s sex assigned at birth” to “participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” (Notice there’s no mention of a parental consent requirement.) This means restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
There were multiple concerns raised to district leadership regarding the plan. How would non-transgender students be protected and affirmed when someone of the opposite biological sex is now allowed to enter their private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers?
Numerous stories surfaced reporting females were not eating or drinking during the day to avoid having to use the restrooms, which they were now compelled to share with biological boys. Why was their “safe space” suddenly being violated? Why were they suddenly denied any expectation of privacy that matched their values? Why is there allowance in the document for the district to conceal a student’s transgender ideation and the district’s course of action affirming that ideation from their parents? Does this concealment violate ARS 1-601, Parents Rights Protected? Does this plan amount to providing behavioral health services as defined by the Arizona Behavioral Health Board? District leadership has successfully danced around providing clear, unambiguous answers to these questions. Why? What are they trying to hide from parents?
Even though Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis issued carefully worded, yet vague assurances to the contrary, there still remains within the plan/guidelines, allowances to NOT notify parents of their child’s transgender ideations as the district personnel provide “gender affirming care” for the child. A Public Records Request in early 2023 exposed a school counselor who was maintaining a spreadsheet of trans students along with notation as to whether parents knew.
This counselor was informing other staff how to avoid “outing” students to parents when speaking with them. The plan originally included a checkbox for the student to indicate if their parents were to be told.
Additionally, the plan expressly states that although changes to the student’s “preferred name/pronouns” may be made in district records, “parental consent is not required.”
At the governing board meeting on May 9, 2023, (begin at 3:35:25), board member Rachel Walden asked leadership, “What is the criteria for a student to be put on this Transgender Support Plan?”
District general counsel, Kasey King, responded “…there’s not specific criteria. It’s a student who’s requesting to use the restroom of their choice or to designate the pronouns or names of their choice. Also, as a tool to help the student and the school process how that information is going to be shared, IF AT ALL!”
It is student-initiated, primarily. Notice the complete absence of any parental involvement or even notification here.
Mrs. King continued, “I’m thinking at the younger grades, it might be a situation where the student simply starts asking for some accommodations. And as a way to make sure everybody is on the same page, their teacher or counselor might suggest they put it into writing.”
Are you following this? A student at the “younger grades” might ask for transgender accommodations from the school, and the teacher or counselor will suggest putting that student on a Transgender Support Plan! No parental consent or notification required. Mrs. Walden continued to press for transparency into what is occurring: “There’s nothing in these guidelines about notifying the parents. Isn’t there an opportunity for parental notification process in this?”
Mrs. King: “Parents always have the right under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to inspect and review their child’s education records.”
Mrs. Walden responded, “How would they know to ask that?”
Then-board President Marcie Hutchinson chimed in, “I guess they would ‘check in’ with the school.”
So, moms and dads, the only way to know for sure if your child has been placed on a Transgender Support Plan at Mesa Public Schools is for you to “check in with the school.” Since you don’t know the day that this might happen, I suggest you “check in” every day. Don’t expect to be notified otherwise. This is akin to child abuse in many people’s minds, yet the district refuses to make suitable provisions for parental notification, even to this day.
There is, in the old version of the plan/guidelines, a provision for parental notification “if changes are made in Synergy.” But apparently otherwise, mum’s the word.
OLD VERSION
The district has since revised the wording to make sure staff inform students “…that IF they request to change information in Synergy, parent(s) will be notified.”
When I see this, I read “SHHHH! Nobody has to know. Just don’t request a change in Synergy, and it’ll be our secret.”
The other concerning change explicitly states that parental/legal guardian consent “is not required” for a student to request district personnel provide gender affirming care to them.
These changes occurred in July 2024.
NEW VERSION
In a further assault on parental rights, the district has modified the guidelines from the verbiage previously, which stated, “Disclosing confidential student information to others may violate privacy laws” to a more intimidating and yet ambiguous, “Disclosing confidential student information to…parents…may violate privacy laws.”
Are teachers or counselors more likely or less likely to notify parents with this threat of violating privacy laws looming over their heads? I say less likely.
OLD VERSION
NEW VERSION
Then, as if that is not sufficient means for the district to usurp parental authority, Dr. Fourlis and Kacey King have now decided that the transgender plan/guidelines, which have for years resided on the Legal Services webpage on the district website, should be moved to a private internal location, away from public/parent access. When I asked the Governing Board President, Courtney Davis, why the district would make such a move as to lessen transparency, her answer allayed no concerns. “It was moved because it is a tool for school personnel to use to work with transgender students.”
It was always that Mrs. Davis! The only difference is, the public, and more importantly parents, no longer have access to documents describing what could potentially be happening to their child at Mesa Public Schools without their knowledge or consent.
After calling them out on this, Dr. Fourlis and Mrs. King have restored the document to the website, with an interesting change in title. They went from “Guidelines” to “Guidance.” Why that subtle change? For the record, contrary to the wording of Dr. Fourlis’ email, I did not request anything. I simply noted that hiding the document from public view was a “terrible decision.” Apparently, she agreed.
Interesting to note, since this document is considered a “guideline,” or now “guidance” and not a policy, it has not gone before the governing board for approval.
In an attempt to restore parental rights as defined under ARS 1-601, board member Sharon Benson proposed a policy at the April 8, 2025 board meeting which would require parental notification anytime a student indicated to a district employee any transgender ideations. During public comment (starts at 1:59:30), dozens of trans activists showed up in protest. Their overarching message was along the lines of, “If you ‘out’ students, they will be victims of abuse from their parents,” and “School personnel are much better equipped to deal with these issues than parents,” and “It’s not necessary for parents to know about their child’s mental distress.” All patently false statements.
Now, self-proclaimed members of the Communist and Socialist parties weighed in, trying to advance the narrative that children belong to the state, not parents (i.e. parents have no need to know about their child’s mental or emotional distress because the school is taking care of it). This is happening in Mesa folks! Are you paying attention?
It’s time to get involved. Attend district governing board meetings and make your voice heard. It’s critical that we stand for students and for parents.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
