Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Safety Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge passage of Aaron’s Law mandating child personal‑safety instruction; committee did not vote
Summary
Advocates, survivors and parents testified in strong support of SB1528 (Aaron’s Law), a bill directing ADE and DCS to develop age‑appropriate child sexual abuse and assault awareness programs for K–12; the committee did not vote and sponsors said they are working on amendments.
Survivors and advocates told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 11 that Senate Bill 1528, branded Aaron’s Law in testimony, should be enacted to require statewide child personal‑safety education in public schools.
What the bill would do: SB1528 requires the Department of Child Safety, in coordination with the Arizona Department of Education, to identify or develop by July 1, 2026, a statewide child sexual‑abuse and assault awareness program that includes teacher modules, age‑appropriate student materials for K–12 and a uniform child abuse response policy and reporting procedure. The program would be optional for student participation and would require each public school to implement the program by Oct. 1, 2026; the bill designates the legislation as Aaron’s Law.
Testimony: Several survivors and advocates offered personal testimony. Erin Merritt, who has travelled nationally advocating for the measure, described her own childhood abuse and said mandatory lessons could have shortened her abuse by teaching children how to identify and report abuse. "We teach kids tornado drills and lockdown drills; why don't we teach them personal body safety?" Merritt asked. Other witnesses described trafficking, grooming and the long‑term trauma survivors face.
Agency comments and process: The Arizona Education Association urged inclusion of educators in stakeholder conversations and raised concerns about unfunded mandates and teachers’ time. Department of Child Safety officials said the department is willing to participate but described limits to their jurisdiction and recommended a broader stakeholder process. Sponsors said they were still negotiating amendments and would not take a committee vote at the Feb. 11 hearing; they said they expect to continue stakeholder meetings and plan a vote at a later date.
Outcome: The committee did not vote on SB1528 at the Feb. 11 meeting; sponsors said they will continue negotiations and anticipate a committee vote in the coming week.
