A young Christian man named Charlie Kirk was shot—simply for speaking his mind. A husband, a father, a voice for the next generation. Lord, why did it happen this way? How dare they steal the breath from a faithful man?
Charlie was not a violent agitator, not a man bent on tearing down, but one who stirred the hearts of the young. He spoke boldly where others remained silent, reminding his peers that they were created for more. He gave them courage. And for that, he was silenced.
“How dare they?” we ask. Indeed. Yet the truth is more sobering: they dare because of the cultural environment we now live in—an environment shaped, in part, by radical ideologies that have seeped into our schools, our politics, and even our everyday conversations. And right here in Scottsdale, that environment has been nurtured by leaders like Superintendent Menzel, current and former board members, and others who have steered the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) away from academic excellence and into ideological experiments.
The Shift Away from Education
SUSD leaders claim to promote critical thinking, yet what they push is a one-sided agenda built on misinformation and half-truths. Instead of focusing on the basics—reading, writing, mathematics, science—SUSD has embraced policies that undermine families and confuse students. Here are a few examples:
Telling children they can change their gender without parental involvement.
Promoting Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in place of foundational academics.
Teaching that America is a fundamentally racist nation.
Undermining parental rights while telling families to “trust the experts.”
Blocking parents from curriculum discussions while approving controversial materials, sometimes in violation of state law.
Replacing qualified teachers with social workers and counselors.
Conducting constant student surveys on mental health, sowing confusion rather than providing clarity.
This is not the recipe for a high-achieving school district. It is the foundation of a crisis.
The Failed Promise of Social Emotional Learning
Superintendent Menzel and his allies argue that focusing on student “emotional well-being” will, in turn, unlock academic achievement. This theory, rooted in social-emotional learning, posits that removing a child’s psychological “barriers” will allow them to thrive in the classroom.
But does it work? The evidence suggests otherwise. Independent researchers, particularly outside the U.S. educational establishment, have found little to no link between widespread, non-targeted mental health interventions and improved academic outcomes. In fact, research shows these programs may worsen student mental health.
In medicine, the term for this is iatrogenic harm: unintended damage caused by treatments meant to heal. In mental health, it refers to harm that arises from interventions that destabilize rather than stabilize. The endless surveys, the focus on fragility rather than resilience, and the substitution of therapy for instruction can actually make students more anxious, less confident, and less academically capable.
If SUSD’s policies worked, our students would be excelling. Instead, they are struggling.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s look at the hard data under Menzel’s leadership.
Instructional spending: Down to 54.4% in 2024, compared to 54.6% in 2023, and trending toward a historic low. Over the past five years, instructional spending has dropped 1.7%.
Student support spending: Up 2.6% over the past 5-year period.
Administrative spending: 15% higher per student than peer districts.
Enrollment: Down 8.4% over the past 5-year period.
Staffing: In FY24, the district cut 59 instructional positions but added 71 student support staff and 44 administrative positions.
Test scores: Math proficiency fell from 57% in 2019 to 55% in 2024. Science dropped from 64% to 41%. English Language Arts rose slightly, from 56% to 61%, but overall performance represents a 12% decline since 2019.
So: fewer teachers, lower academic spending, higher administrative costs, declining enrollment, and worse performance.
SUSD recently held its second mental health fair and sponsored a suicide prevention event. After 125 years of SUSD history, why is it only now that we need districtwide events to address student mental health and suicide? Could it be that the very programs meant to fix mental health are feeding the crisis?
The Culture War in the Classroom
The failures of SUSD are not isolated. They are part of a broader cultural radicalization. Across the nation, schools are less focused on knowledge and more focused on ideology. Students are taught to distrust their parents, question their identity, and view their country as irredeemably broken.
We see the results not only in academic decline but also in growing instability—emotional, social, and even violent.
This instability was on display here in Scottsdale when conservative board member Carine Werner was allegedly overheard making a disparaging comment, and leftist groups who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death, seemingly collaborated to paint her in a bad light. Protesters immediately called for her resignation, parading signs that read “Protect Children: Werner Must Resign,” and “Ban Bigots, Not Books.”
But labeling Werner “ignorant” or “bigoted” ignores her record. As a state senator, she championed laws to make schools safer from predators and supported pay raises for law enforcement. As a board member, she pushed to remove sexually explicit material from schools, opposed social studies curricula that included anti-police rhetoric and glorified activism over academics, fought for stronger school security, introduced a common-sense policy that kept boys out of the girls’ bathroom, and even stood up to a transportation contractor after one of its employees sexually assaulted a student.
That’s not bigotry. That’s leadership.
The Consequences of Demonization
So how did we get here, where speaking truth—or even raising common-sense concerns—can cost you your reputation, your job, or even your life?
We’ve been told the problem is “radicalization on the dark web.” But you don’t need the dark web. Just watch mainstream media or scroll social media. From the highest levels of government on down, leaders tell us anyone who disagrees is a racist, a fascist, or a threat to democracy. Politicians openly encourage people to “get in their faces” and drive dissenters out of public life.
For someone already struggling with confusion, addiction, or emotional instability, this narrative can justify hostility—even violence—against those who dare to think differently.
That’s what happened to Charlie. He stood for free dialogue, for open exchange of ideas—values once core to American identity. For that, he was killed.
Diversity of Thought—or the Illusion of It
SUSD claims to celebrate diversity. But it is not diversity of thought. Instead, there is one sanctioned narrative: accept it, or be labeled hateful. We are told tolerance is a virtue, yet intolerance is practiced against anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy.
We cannot allow this inversion of truth. Lies are not compassion. Half-truths are not education. And intolerance cannot be the foundation of a healthy community.
A Call to Parents
Superintendent Menzel and the SUSD Governing Board may not be directly responsible for Charlie’s death in Utah, but their policies contribute to the kind of environment where such tragedies become possible.
Parents, it is time to wake up. Our children are not experiments. Our schools are not laboratories for ideological reprogramming. The mission of education must return to the basics: truth, knowledge, critical thinking, and resilience.
We must demand accountability from school leaders. We must replace ideologically driven programs with proven academic strategies. We must protect our children—not only from physical threats but also from the corrosive cultural forces undermining their mental, emotional, and intellectual well-being.
Charlie’s voice has been silenced. But ours has not. If we remain quiet, more voices will be lost. If we speak boldly—as he did—we can reclaim truth, restore education, and protect the next generation.
The question is: will we dare?
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Following multiple complaints regarding the social studies curriculum recently approved by the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board on May 13, the Arizona Department of Education launched a formal investigation. On Wednesday, June 11, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne held a press conference to announce the findings. He stated that he would report to the federal government that SUSD violated a statement they signed saying they would not teach Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) content.
Horne clarified that his comments were directed at what he called the three “woke” members of the SUSD Governing Board who voted in favor of the curriculum. Superintendent Scott Menzel responded to this characterization, arguing it was unfair and uninformed—particularly without a full review of the 1,250-page textbook. He called such labeling “a problem from his perspective.”
While finding a common definition of “woke” is a bit of a challenge, most would agree that it originally meant being aware of social injustices, particularly around race, and it was rooted in activism. The term has now evolved into a broader often vague term for hyper-awareness of social issues. Critics often say it is dogmatic overreach where someone pushes rigid beliefs or ideologies beyond reason, imposing them on others without flexibility or evidence.
So, is it fair to describe these board members as “woke”?
Board Members Past
When Member Sharkey first announced he was running for the board, he said it was because of the rise in the parents’ rights movement (rights codified in Arizona Revised Statues), which he blamed (without citing any evidence) for the issues plaguing SUSD. He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. 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.
Dr. Donna Lewis, SUSD Governing Board President, ran on her years of educational experience, including being selected as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District. Her academic record leaves a lot to be desired with 13% of her students proficient in ELA and 8% in math the year she was selected. 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.
Then there is Dr. Pittinsky, another education professional and an expert in public education with 25 years’ experience. Someone who only publicly revealed the conflict of interest with his business ties with SUSD after he was called out. Someone who thinks so highly of SUSD that he put his kid in a private school rather than SUSD.
All three of these board members ran on “protecting SUSD” and Menzel and his “woke” curriculum of DEI, SEL, and gender identity. So far, they have shown themselves to be a predictable rubber stamp for whatever Menzel wants.
Dogmatic overreach?
Superintendent Menzel’s Past and Controversial Remarks
Superintendent Menzel previously led Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District, where he emphasized equity, inclusion, and social justice. In an interview before leaving Michigan, Menzel described white supremacy as deeply embedded in the fabric of American society, stating that acknowledging it offers a chance to “dismantle, disrupt, and recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”
These comments drew sharp criticism from Arizona GOP legislators, who labeled his statements as divisive and inappropriate for someone in public education.
So, is it proper to label the three board members as “woke”?
I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.
Curriculum Content and Allegations of Bias
In addition to Horne, Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan also raised concerns about the new social studies curriculum and the anti-police messages they contain. Examples of anti-police rhetoric include textbook passages noting that “several police killings caused the nation to grapple with systemic racism,” and “Black Lives Matter activists and others argue that the deaths of many Black people were the result of institutional racism.” The text also mentions that Black men are statistically more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men.
Critics argue these lessons present a one-sided perspective and fail to encourage critical thinking. For example, the curriculum omits key facts in controversial cases, such as the Department of Justice findings in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, which concluded that Brown did not have his hands up and was engaged in a physical altercation with the officer trying to take his gun. Likewise, the curriculum does not mention a Harvard study that reportedly found no racial bias in police shootings after examining hundreds of cases.
Menzel has denied that the curriculum is anti-police or promotes indoctrination, insisting it encourages critical thinking and offers diverse perspectives. However, critics argue the content leans more toward ideological teaching than balanced education. Indoctrination, they argue, is defined by presenting only one viewpoint without room for discussion or dissent—contrary to the principles of real education, which promote inquiry and evidence-based analysis.
Again, don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:
Given the content of the curriculum, the past actions of the board members, and Superintendent Menzel’s own public remarks, it seems labeling the board members and even Menzel as “woke” is appropriate.
When Menzel tells you he would never use an anti-police curriculum or that he is promoting critical thinking among students, or there is no evidence to support any of the claims against the curriculum, don’t believe him. He is lying and trying to gaslight you.
It is incumbent on all of us concerned about the future of SUSD to contact the Governing Board members and tell them to withdraw the approval of this radical curriculum. Any purchase orders placed to procure the materials should be canceled.
SUSD is facing difficult financial challenges caused by declining enrollment, a result of Menzel’s failed policies. Continuing down the path of implementing this curriculum will not only serve to accelerate the declining enrollment but put millions of federal dollars at risk. With the loss of the federal money, can school closures be far behind?
Menzel can continue to lie and push back against the federal government, but he is playing a high-risk game, a game he is likely to lose. He is putting the future of SUSD in jeopardy to satisfy his own ego.
The Governing Board needs to seriously consider replacing Menzel before he completely destroys SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
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.
At the April 1 meeting of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, the main topic of discussion was once again the FY2025-2026 budget. As usual, SUSD Chief Financial Officer Shannon Crosier presented slides filled with numerous figures and did her best to put a positive spin on the information, carefully avoiding direct answers to the questions posed. At times, questions from Board Members Pittinsky and Sharkey seemed to include the answers, perhaps as a reminder of the narrative they were expected to follow.
However, the information presented made it clear that Superintendent Dr. Menzel is once again cutting teachers and instructional staff to deal with the financial impact of declining enrollment. Much of this decline can be traced back to his mismanagement of the district and the implementation of controversial policies like social-emotional learning (SEL), which critics argue undermine academic instruction and teacher morale.
Proponents of SEL, including Dr. Menzel, argue that by addressing students’ psychological challenges, academic achievement will follow. However, independent research, especially outside the U.S. teaching establishment, shows little evidence supporting this theory. You don’t need another study to confirm this; just look at the student proficiency scores in the Arizona Auditor General’s annual school district spending analysis report.
In FY24, SUSD spent 54.4% of its budget on instructional services, slightly below its peer group’s average of 55.2%. Over the past five years, spending on instruction in SUSD has dropped by 1.7%, while spending on student support has increased by 2.6%. During this period, SUSD’s enrollment has decreased by 8.4%, a trend that directly correlates with Dr. Menzel’s tenure. In the 2024 financial report, SUSD cut 59 instructional positions, added 71 student support positions, and increased the number of support and administrative roles by 44. As enrollment continues to fall, instructional spending declines, while support services and administrative costs rise. Yet, despite this shift in priorities, the effectiveness of SEL in improving academic performance has not been proven. Rather, the opposite is true.
For example, in FY24, in SUSD, only 55% of students passed the state math assessment, 61% passed English Language Arts (ELA), and just 41% passed science—an average drop of 12% since 2019. These results point to an inverse correlation between increased spending on support services and academic performance. This fact is well-documented in various unbiased studies.
Dr. Menzel, however, seems undeterred by the data, continuing his agenda of reducing instructional positions while increasing funding for social-emotional support services, including hiring more social workers and psychologists. All of this is happening despite clear declines in academic achievement.
At the meeting, it was apparent that Dr. Menzel has little regard for Board Members Carney and Werner’s requests for cost-cutting measures they made during the first budget meeting. In response to a question from Member Pittinsky about the possibility of future funding, Dr. Menzel stated, “There’s a path to land the plane to address those priorities of the board.” A “path” to address the Board’s priorities? The Governing Board is legally responsible for the district’s financial performance, and Dr. Menzel’s role is to present options that align with the Board’s priorities now, not at some unspecified future date based on potential additional funds.
Crosier claimed that the district had reviewed its costs carefully and had cut 13 positions from district-level departments. However, when questioned, she revealed that only one of those positions was not vacant and that no one had lost their job or experienced a reduction in force. So, how does this translate to cost savings?
When Member Carney inquired about her request for cuts to discretionary spending—such as travel, conferences, and consulting fees, Crosier had no answer. Carney also asked what steps she had taken to preserve the full-time assistant principal positions, which were requested by the Board, community members, and teachers alike. Once again, no answer.
Dr. Menzel’s disregard for the Board’s requests, coupled with his continued expansion of district staffing in non-instructional areas, raises serious concerns. One slide presented during the meeting, titled “Department Level Positions History – All Funds,” listed changes for FY25-26, but the data presented was incomplete and lacked the actual number of staff in each department. Showing the true staffing numbers would prompt uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why are these positions necessary?” and “Are they more important than keeping teachers in the classroom?”
According to the Auditor General, SUSD’s per-student administrative spending is 15% higher than the peer group average. Meanwhile, the public comment portion of the meeting included heartfelt testimonies from teachers, including the president of the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), who expressed the growing difficulty of teaching amid rising costs, particularly healthcare. Next year, the district plans to offer teachers only a 1% raise while shifting more of the healthcare burden onto the teachers.
We heard stories from teachers struggling to make ends meet, including one who is leaving the district after years of service, and others—one with 27 years of experience—facing insurmountable medical expenses.
Because state funding for education is based on enrollment, the root of the district’s financial troubles lies in the decline of enrollment, which has been exacerbated by Dr. Menzel’s policies and his focus on non-academic priorities. The Auditor General tracks school district enrollment and assesses the financial risks associated with declining enrollment. According to these trends, SUSD has been rated as “high risk” due to its decreasing enrollment numbers.
In FY24, while districts across the state facing declining enrollment worked to reduce operating costs, SUSD failed to make similar adjustments. The statewide average teacher salary increased by 34.6% between FY17 and FY24, reaching $65,113, while SUSD’s average teacher salary rose by just 27.7% to $63,151—$1,962 below the state average. This is a 1.5% decrease in the average teacher salary for FY24 from FY23. Moreover, the average base salary for teachers with less than three years of experience rose by 24.4%, while those with more than four years of experience saw an increase of less than 0.5%. This discrepancy is contributing to the loss of experienced teachers, many of whom are leaving the district. This creates a younger teacher population at SUSD. Recent teaching graduates are more likely to support Dr. Menzel’s policies than older graduates. This is what he wants.
Several speakers at the meeting called for more state funding to address these challenges. While their frustration is understandable, their anger is misplaced. The real issue, as outlined by the Auditor General, is not a lack of state funding but rather mismanagement by Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board, which has consistently approved budgetary decisions that prioritize administrative and support staff over instructional spending.
According to the Auditor General in FY24, statewide school district spending increased by over $500 million to $13.1 billion, with per-student increases, including instruction, over FY23. Despite this increase in funding, the district allocated a smaller portion of the increase in spending to instruction than in prior years. As a result, the FY24 instructional spending percentage is the lowest since the Auditor General started monitoring in FY2001.
The decline in enrollment, because of Dr. Menzel’s continued focus on implementing SEL and bloating administrative positions, will only worsen SUSD’s financial situation. The Governing Board will need to face this ongoing problem for years to come unless drastic changes are made.
Rather than calling for more state funding for education, the SEA should be calling for the removal of Dr. Menzel as the first step in making the changes needed in SUSD.
Unfortunately for students and parents alike, rather than “landing the plane”, what we are witnessing is a controlled crash of the SUSD plane.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
At the Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) meeting in February, Dr. Cindy Bochna, Director of Assessments and Accountability, and Ms. Lea Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services from Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) gave a presentation of the K-12 Statewide Assessments. You can view the video of the meeting here, SPC 2-19-25 Meeting.
A couple of interesting and somewhat disturbing points came out during the presentation and discussion.
One being how SUSD and most of the schools are “A” rated by the Arizona Department of Education.
For those of you not familiar with the AZ report card process, according to the Arizona Department of Education website, the
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-241 requires the Arizona Department of Education, subject to final adoption by the State Board of Education, to develop an annual achievement profile for every public school in the state based on an A through F scale.
The system measures year to year student academic growth, proficiency on English language arts, math and science. It also includes the proficiency and academic growth of English language learners, indicators that an elementary student is ready for success in high school and that high school students are ready to succeed in a career or higher education and high school graduation rates.”
To find out what grade your child’s school has been awarded, and how many points the school earned in each category, go to AZ Report Cards and search by the name of the school.
I understand that the Arizona Department of Education assigns the grades and SUSD didn’t establish the criteria, nor the weighted values assigned for the grading, but I think it is important that parents understand exactly what goes into the grades assigned and how to interpret them.
So, when you are looking at your child’s school to determine the assessment grade and detailed scoring, I encourage you to scroll down and look at the other information available, specifically the student achievement in state academic assessment reports.
These reports provide details on student proficiency rates for ELA, math, and science. By looking at previous years, you can see how the data is trending.
During the discussion at the SPC meeting, using Chaparral High School as an example, I asked Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell how Chaparral is given an A grade when across all three academic subjects, an average of only 53% of the students are proficient. I asked how a 53% could be an A, isn’t that more like an F?
What I found disturbing was the response I got from Ms. Mitchell. She explained that Stephen Curry and Steve Kerr, both NBA players, only made 45% of the shots they took yet they were rated as world champion basketball players.
So, Ms. Mitchell, are you saying 53% makes you a world champion in academics? Really?!?
Statements like this are silly and make me wonder just how serious they are about education. SUSD students and parents deserve better.
At one point during the meeting, I asked how Arizona compared to the rest of the country. I said that I thought we were somewhere around 48th or 49th. Both Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell said I was wrong, and that Arizona was somewhere around 30th or so in terms of ACT scores across the nation.
In a follow-up email, Dr. Bochna provided me with the following information:
When you look at the data and sort it from highest to lowest, Arizona is right where I said we are, tied with Mississippi and Hawaii for 47, 48, and 49th positions. Arizona is nowhere near the top 30 or whatever position Ms. Mitchell thought. If they were analyzing the data, they should know that. Being a top performer in a state that ranks at the bottom is nothing to brag about.
When you put this performance in some context, the 21.5 ACT score for SUSD is less than impressive. The average ACT score for incoming students at ASU is 26. While a score of 20-23 is considered competitive at many mid-tier colleges, a score of 24-28 is needed for more selective colleges. To get into a top engineering school, a student needs something like a 30 in math and 36 for a composite score. I’m sure there are a handful of students out of the 20,000 in SUSD who score that high, but to get an average of 21.5, many students do not.
While I certainly encourage you to listen to the entire meeting (Dr. Menzel responds to questions at the beginning of the meeting) the points I discussed here are found in the 44:00 to 1:00:00 portion and the 1:13:00 to 1:24:00 segment in the video. Listen for yourself.
For anyone that has been paying attention to what has been happening in SUSD over the past few years, it comes as no surprise that academic performance under Dr. Menzel has been terrible. Thousands of SUSD students each year are not proficient in ELA, math or science, yet over 92% graduate high school in four years. Remember, Dr. Menzel has never met any of his academic performance goals throughout his tenure at SUSD.
This academic record has contributed, in large part, to the steady decline in enrollment, leading to major financial issues the Governing Board is now struggling with. As has been his practice for the past few years, Dr. Menzel proposes cutting teachers and instructional staff positions and hiring more unlicensed social workers to solve the budget crisis, a crisis that his poor management has caused. Actions, if taken, will ensure the Governing Board will be dealing with the same problem again next year.
At the last Governing Board meeting, Member Pittinsky told Dr. Menzel he wanted to see a deep dive into causes of the declining enrollment. He wants to understand what parents are saying during exit surveys as they pull their children out of SUSD and see the data by site and grade level. All of us involved with SUSD would like to see that information.
I wish Dr. Pittinsky the best of luck as he tries to get this information from Dr. Menzel.
As I have said on multiple occasions, identifying the root cause of the problem and fixing it is the only way anything will change. Unfortunately, change takes time; time that thousands of SUSD students don’t have.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
