The steady decline of academic success and moral integrity is an undeniable reality in many Arizona school districts. K-12 libraries are plagued with sexually graphic novels. Science textbooks tout evolutionary theory and climate change nonsense. ELA assignments contain race-baiting themes and false social justice narratives. LGBTQ+ clubs are in full force, while private spaces still pose a safety risk to female students.
Do Christian/conservative teachers have any responsibility to restore order in our public schools? Aren’t they on the frontlines of steering young minds and upholding ethical standards in the classroom? Why don’t we see more exposure of subpar curricula and corrupt policies that fail to protect educators’ constitutional rights at work?
Will this school year be any different, or will Arizona teachers maintain the status quo?
Jessica Tapia’s Story
California educator and parental rights advocate Jessica Tapia
Jessica Tapia is an alumna and former employee of Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD). She graduated from Jurupa Valley High School, secured a full-time position in the district, and eventually landed her dream job as a high school P.E. teacher.
Tapia loved her career and her students, but she loved God foremost. And her faith would soon be tested.
Six years into her career, some JUSD students decided to research Tapia and discovered Christian/conservative posts on her social media page. The juveniles reported their findings to district officials, who conducted an internal investigation. Tapia was placed on administrative leave and admonished to hide her online profile. As a condition of employment, she would also have to agree to use students’ preferred names and pronouns, even without parental consent.
If Tapia complied with JUSD’s policies—including allowing boys to access girls’ locker rooms—she would keep her compensation package and enjoy acceptance among her peers. Otherwise, she faced serious and permanent consequences. Thankfully, Tapia not only believed in the unchanging truth that God created male and female, she was also willing to defend her faith and freedom of speech on school grounds.
Tapia was fired from her dream job, and the woke mob demanded her head on a platter. In a moment of truth, Tapia lost nearly everything she worked hard to achieve, and her reputation was now tarnished. JUSD reprimanded her for unprofessional conduct and accused her of publishing “racist, offensive, and disrespectful” content. No doubt, the most painful experiences came in the form of separating from her students and watching colleagues turn their backs.
This would be a sad story if it ended here.
Tapia knew her rights and filed a lawsuit against JUSD. Turns out, firing a teacher who refused to lie to students and families is not only morally reprehensible, but it’s also illegal. After a long battle with many ups and downs, stretching and testing her faith, Tapia finally won! JUSD settled with Tapia for $285,000 and another $75,000 for her attorney fees. She’s now one of America’s leading advocates for teachers and parental rights in education.
When JUSD violated Tapia’s First Amendment rights, she pushed back. When dangerous transgender policies contradicted her faith—and put female students at risk—Tapia refused to comply. When following orders suddenly meant hiding vital information from parents, she said no. Tapia didn’t cower in fear, take a bribe, or ignore the situation altogether. Instead, she chose to do the hard thing. The right thing.
What’s Your Story?
School board members are elected officials who swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Protecting teachers is their responsibility when it comes to drafting and voting on district policies. Administrators should not manipulate or control this process. Furthermore, school districts don’t have the legal right or moral authority to give ultimatums or blackmail employees into submission. It’s time teachers say, “Enough is enough.”
Transgender ideology is a dangerous lie and a mental illness that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone. Still, K-12 educators often conceal their Christian beliefs to avoid backlash and discrimination. These are the “don’t rock the boat” types. It’s also possible that some teachers are simply unaware or unbothered by high-profile issues on campus. These are the “ostrich” types. For the sake of moral clarity, consider the following real-life scenarios that also degrade our public education system.
We currently have teachers who, for whatever reason, purposely pass unprepared students on to the next grade level. Rebellious teachers hide inappropriate books in their classrooms and read filth to children behind parents’ backs. An increasing number are perpetrating or ignoring signs of sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Public schools are overflowing with activists disguised as teachers whose sole mission is to advance union agendas.
I say, enough is enough.
Of course, there are a host of problems that educators shouldn’t be blamed for, including:
overspending, mismanagement, and corruption at the district level.
excessive classroom sizes.
laxed or nonexistent disciplinary policies.
the expectation of training fellow teachers without compensation.
submitting to self-important, intimidating administrators (many of whom don’t even like children).
These hardships don’t go unnoticed by parents, community members, and board members who share educators’ concerns. Nevertheless, Tapia’s story is a prototype, a demonstration of boldness that highlights every teacher’s responsibility to always respond with moral integrity and conviction.
It’s simple: Set and keep professional boundaries. Respect students and safeguard their innocence. Be straightforward with parents and never lie to save face. Refuse to be intimidated or comply with unconstitutional policies. Don’t quit in the heat of the battle. Know your rights. If you experience legitimate discrimination on school grounds, consult legal counsel and file a complaint.
Teachers shouldn’t be discouraged when criticisms are ignored and questions go unanswered. Those with the most power are typically the least compelled to solve problems that don’t immediately affect them. Oftentimes, negative publicity is the only way to disrupt the status quo. To be sure, nothing will change if good teachers keep playing nice, remaining silent, or walking away. There’s no outrunning the madness in government schools—you must find the backbone to confront the madness head-on.
Tapia’s testimony aligns with a theme we see throughout the Bible: God rewards obedience and courage; He hates rebellion and cowardice. Tapia’s story is a provocation for teachers to blow the whistle and stand on truth regardless of the consequences. Even if you’re not particularly religious, your First Amendment rights don’t end where bad district policies begin.
This school year can be different than years past. It just takes one good teacher to find their voice and lead the way.
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.
