by Mike Bengert | Oct 23, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is entering a period of upheaval, one that is very concerning to parents, teachers, and taxpayers. Superintendent Dr. Scott Menzel recently announced that the district staff will bring forward proposals for consideration by the Governing Board to deal with the impact of declining enrollment in SUSD, which will reshape several campuses and alter the educational landscape of Scottsdale for years to come.
The first recommendation by district staff under consideration is for Echo Canyon K–8, Pima Elementary schools, and Desert Canyon Elementary and Middle Schools to be repurposed. Dr. Menzel has not made clear exactly what repurposing means. The official explanation for this is straightforward: declining enrollment and a need for “operational efficiency.” But as anyone who has followed SUSD’s trajectory over the past several years knows, declining enrollment is not isolated to a few schools. It is a district-wide problem — one that has deep roots in leadership decisions, cultural conflicts, and misplaced priorities.
A District in Decline
Beyond these four schools, six others have been placed on a “watch list.” These campuses, too, are being monitored for potential closures or repurposing as enrollment continues to fall. Since Dr. Menzel’s arrival in July 2020, the district has lost more than 2,500 students, dropping from over 22,300 to 19,700, an 11% decline in just five years. This decline represents not only a fiscal crisis for the district but also a crisis of confidence among Scottsdale parents.
So, how did we arrive here?
The Menzel Philosophy: Disrupt and Dismantle
If you want to understand how we got here, you need to understand Dr. Menzel’s philosophy of education. In a 2019 interview titled “Public Schools and Social Justice: An Interview with Dr. Scott Menzel,” he explained that understanding how systems operate gives leaders “the opportunity to dismantle, disrupt, and then recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”
This wasn’t a throwaway line. It was a mission statement.
Since arriving in Scottsdale, Menzel has followed this blueprint:
- He has recommended firing respected teachers while hiring unlicensed social workers and “wellness” staff.
- He has proposed cutting classroom budgets while expanding administrative overhead.
- He has recommended reducing opportunities for public comment at board meetings.
- He has directed teachers not to inform parents about students’ gender transitions unless asked directly.
- He has consolidated power and minimized accountability, all while using district communications, podcasts, and social media to promote his leadership as a success story.
- He has championed the elimination of valedictorian honors and class rank.
Unfortunately for the students and parents, the board has approved every recommendation made by Dr. Menzel.
At board meetings, Menzel regularly dominates the discussion, often interacting with the board president as though he were chairing the meeting himself. He highlights a few exceptional student achievements as evidence of district success, perhaps a few hundred students out of nearly 20,000, while ignoring the systemic academic underperformance that affects the majority.
The Illusion of Success
The numbers tell a sobering story. In 2024, SUSD reported a 92% graduation rate (down from 94% in 2022) and a 98% promotion rate. Yet proficiency in core academic subjects remains around 52%. In other words, nearly half of all students graduate or advance to the next grade level without mastering reading, writing, math, or science at grade level.
When questioned about these numbers, Menzel points out that SUSD still outperforms the statewide average of roughly 30% proficiency. But comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel isn’t a standard of excellence — it’s an excuse for mediocrity.
Despite this record, the Governing Board continues to reward Menzel with pay raises, bonuses, and contract extensions. Two successive boards have failed to impose any meaningful accountability or measurable academic goals.
The “Woke” Agenda and Its Consequences
In Scottsdale, Dr. Menzel’s leadership has been defined by his emphasis on Social Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), gender identity programs, and related “woke” initiatives, all fully endorsed by the leftist majority on the current Governing Board. These programs were sold as a way to build empathy, inclusion, and belonging. Instead, they have deepened division, distracted from academics, and driven families out of the district.
At the same time, the district has invested heavily in administrative roles tied to “behavioral health,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” while cutting classroom teaching positions. This inversion of priorities is not only financially unsustainable, it’s academically disastrous.
Parents Are Walking Away
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne recently provided a candid explanation for the declining enrollment. In a public statement, he argued that “the promotion of woke ideology is a significant reason behind potential school closures in several school districts,” explicitly calling out SUSD’s efforts to promote gender ideology among elementary and middle school students.
He went further:
“This happens because of the expenditure of a large amount of campaign funds to elect woke school board members who do not represent their communities. Parents have a choice, so they move their children. The school boards in these districts have no one to blame but themselves for allowing the classroom to be corrupted from a place of learning to a venue for indoctrination in woke principles.”
Love him or hate him, Horne’s diagnosis resonates with many SUSD parents who feel that the district has prioritized social engineering over education.
The Voter’s Responsibility
While Dr. Menzel and the Governing Boards are directly responsible for what has happened to SUSD, the truth is that Scottsdale voters bear responsibility as well.
In the last election cycle, three board seats were up for grabs, an opportunity to shift power away from the progressive bloc that rubber-stamps every one of Menzel’s initiatives. Instead, voters elected candidates who reinforced the status quo: one a former superintendent from a failing Phoenix district, another who told parents to effectively butt out and leave education decisions to “experts,” and another whose own child attends private school, since it was a “better fit.”
Can SUSD Be Saved?
It’s a painful question to ask, but one that must be faced honestly: Can SUSD be saved under current leadership?
Dr. Menzel has shown no willingness to shift his priorities. The Governing Board has shown no appetite for holding him accountable. Parents are leaving, teachers are demoralized, and the district is closing schools while insisting that everything is fine.
The future of Scottsdale’s public schools doesn’t depend on clever slogans, glossy podcasts, or PR campaigns. It depends on leadership that values education over ideology and on citizens willing to demand it.
Scottsdale’s parents, taxpayers, and voters have few options. With the three progressive members’ terms extending to 2028 and the remaining two members up for re-election next year, the balance of power will remain firmly in Menzel’s camp for the foreseeable future. The progressive board members will allow Dr. Menzel to continue “dismantling and disrupting” SUSD until there’s little left to rebuild.
If we want to restore SUSD to its rightful mission, educating children in reading, writing, math, science, and the arts, parents need to speak up, and demand change now. Waiting for an election in 2028 will be too late.
You can start by attending the public meeting scheduled for November 13, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Governing Board Room located at Coronado High School. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain public comment regarding the potential closure and repurposing of Echo Canyon K-8 School and Pima Elementary School. Each speaker will be given two minutes to voice their opinion on the closure/repurposing of the schools. Don’t feel constrained; you can also voice your opinion on Dr. Menzel and the board members’ actions that have led us to this point.
All SUSD parents should attend the meeting, even if their child does not attend Echo Canyon or Pima. Remember, as enrollment continues to decline, these schools are just the beginning; your child’s school may well be next.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Ethan Faverino | Sep 1, 2025 | Education, News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is under criticism from parents and community members over a BrainPOP lesson taught to elementary students that compares the struggles of the Tuskegee Airmen, the first African American military aviators, to those of LGBTQ+ service members.
The lesson, part of BrainPOP’s supplemental curriculum, has sparked significant backlash due to its inclusion of a call to action and a cartoon depiction of a newspaper headline reading “LGBT Welcome in the Military,” showing protestors with a rainbow banner outside the White House.
In the video, it states, “Thanks to pioneers like the Red Tails, the armed services integrated shortly after the war. It was an early victory for the budding Civil Rights movement. In the decades to come, the federal government would expand its role in protecting the rights of African Americans and the rights of other marginalized groups. Injustice never ends overnight. It takes brave people to challenge it and show everyone else that there’s another way.”
People in the community have raised an alarm about SUSD’s approval of hundreds of supplemental resources, like BrainPOP, without any committee review or community input.
The online nature of these platforms allows publishers to update content at any time, limiting transparency. For example, in a course given to 2nd graders, a search for “gender” on BrainPOP yields topics such as Pride Month, personal pronouns, sex determination, women’s suffrage, and feminism, which push ideological agendas over academic focus.
BrainPOP, hosting over 1,000 animated films for K-8 students, has been controversial since introducing LGBTQ+ content in 2017 following the Pulse nightclub shooting.
Additional concerns stem from lessons like “Black Lives Matter Protests,” which discuss racism and cite the deaths of George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, ignoring essential facts, such as the reality that each of the men acted as the main aggressor in the events leading to their deaths. The character in this lesson speaks on the Black Lives Matter Movement, saying, “The protests we’re seeing today aren’t really about that sort of thing. They are about structural racism in our society. A built-in system of bias that makes life easier for white people and more difficult for black people and other people of color. It puts them at greater risk for poverty, unemployment, and disease.”
The growing dissatisfaction with these lessons taught to K-8 students has led to the creation of the Empower Hotline, a platform for reporting lessons that deviate from academic standards by focusing on race, ethnicity, gender ideology, social-emotional learning, or inappropriate sexual content.
The hotline’s goal is to empower parents to ensure education prioritizes individual merit and academic rigor.
Arizona law prohibits sex education before fifth grade, and the 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor mandates parental notifications for materials addressing gender identity or sexual orientation.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Mike Bengert | May 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.
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.
by Staff Reporter | May 5, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) may soon adopt a new American history curriculum rooted in social justice.
The SUSD Social Sciences Curriculum Adoption Committee recommended for American and Arizona History the textbook “US History: Interactive” by Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner, Peter B. Levy, Randy Roberts, and Alan Taylor from the Savvas Learning Company. This textbook, parents argue, reinvents modern American history through a social justice lens.
Parents took issue with the portrayal of complex issues in recent history, such as race relations in America. The textbook conveys that racism against Black Americans remains an ongoing problem.
“Although Barack Obama’s election as president showed that real racial progress has been made, other events during his presidency suggested that racism remained a problem in the country,” states the textbook.
The textbook also states that law enforcement killed George Floyd in 2020. Their coverage of this pivotal incident omits critical context to include the medical examiner’s office autopsy report, which cited Floyd’s heart problems exacerbated by regular drug use as well as the presence of “a fatal level” of fentanyl (along with the presence of other illicit drugs) in his system as contributors to his death.
“If Mr. Floyd were found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” stated notes from the prosecution’s interview with Baker.
During the trial of the police officer charged with Floyd’s death, Derek Chauvin, the medical examiner behind Floyd’s autopsy, Andrew Baker, concurred that Floyd’s corpse bore no evidence of asphyxiation — consistent with his autopsy findings. Baker’s autopsy report didn’t attribute law enforcement actions to Floyd’s cause of death; Baker only added that connection after watching videos of law enforcement restraining Floyd.
The textbook also characterized Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as an offshoot of the Civil Rights Movement and described BLM protests as “generally peaceful”; the book distanced the riots that occurred from BLM activism.
“[D]estructive riots did break out in some cities at night, often after an announced curfew. During this nighttime rioting, people burned buildings, looted stores, and clashed with the police. Innocent people were harmed. It was unclear in some cases, however, whether or not the rioters were associated with the protests,” stated the textbook.
During a board meeting last month, the committee explained they recommended this and the other four social sciences textbooks based on alignment with course descriptions, comprehensive resources, support for diverse learners, online platforms, print and online access, and competitive pricing and staff development.
Parents and community members opposed to the textbook issued written comments to the committee arguing it was filled with “biased narratives” on critical topics in modern American history.
“This is exactly what parents do not want for their children and is why they are moving out of the public school,” stated one community member.
The controversial textbook would cost the district about $146,000 out of the $674,000 total requested purchase.
The curriculum committee members are SUSD teachers Ashley Crose, Daniel Hyman, Arianna Fiandaca, Brittany Case, and Chris Haak; SUSD administrator Chad Johnson; and community member Brian Cieniawski. Committee support members included SUSD Director of Teaching and Learning Kimberly Dodds-Keran, Social Science Academic Coach Dylan Bullard, and Instructional Materials Specialist Dede Johnston.
The SUSD Governing Board will vote on the curriculum during its May 13 board meeting.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by W.H. Williams | Oct 10, 2024 | Opinion
By W.H. Williams |
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
Page 1 of 2312345678910...20...»Last »
