by Mike Bengert | Oct 20, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Anyone who has watched Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board meetings over the past two years has likely noticed how often Member Pittinsky cites his business experience and expertise. He presents himself as a thoughtful decision-maker, especially when the board considers difficult choices such as closing schools.
Yet when the facts conflict or information is lacking to support what Menzel wants—or with what is right for SUSD students and parents—Pittinsky consistently abandons those concerns and votes in support of Menzel.
That is the pattern followed by the union-backed majority of education professionals on the Governing Board.
At the September 8th board meeting, Pittinsky asked how many students might leave SUSD if additional schools closed. Emphasizing his business background, he explained that businesses call this “churn.” Menzel and his staff agreed to provide the information.
At the October 6th meeting, when the board discussed and voted on the Phase II committee’s school closure recommendations, staff presented its “churn” analysis.
Notice that staff acknowledged receiving parental input, likely referring to surveys in which more than 160 families reportedly said they would leave the district if Laguna closed, but did not treat it as a “driving factor” in calculating churn. Instead, staff gave more weight to travel time, competition, and historical attrition.
Consider the contradiction: a district that says it values parents’ input discounted families who said they would leave and relied more heavily on other factors.
Menzel and his staff presented this as meaningful analysis for a critical decision about closing schools. That is difficult to accept.
The central problem is that closing four schools in two years, with more closures possible, is unprecedented in SUSD. Historical attrition is therefore an unreliable basis for estimating the effects.
Pittinsky’s response makes clear that he was dissatisfied with the analysis.
Pittinsky said:
“As I think it was noted, I’ve asked for this for a long time. I do need to say I am disappointed and frustrated that it came so late in the process. Not to be clear because I view it as like this point estimate. You know you could say 65,64,63. It’s all a function of the assumptions. But so, I think anyone who looks at these, my judgment at least, anyone who looks at this as a point estimate, I think that’s false precision.”
He continued:
“I think we can and need to do better in developing a much more multi-dimensional model for thinking about these kinds of enrollment dynamics.”
Although Pittinsky criticized the analysis and said the board needed a more sophisticated understanding of why families choose SUSD or a competitor, he nevertheless concluded that “it doesn’t block me from feeling like I can make a judgment tonight.”
In other words, Pittinsky acknowledged that the analysis was late, imprecise, and based on an incomplete understanding of declining enrollment, concerns many community members have raised for years, yet still felt prepared to vote on closing more schools.
Is that the way Pittinsky makes decisions in his business? Asking for data, not getting it, but proceeding anyway. The next time he says he needs data before making a decision, can we believe him?
The board and staff not only lack a clear understanding of declining enrollment, they have also declined to seriously examine alternatives to school closures, despite Member Carney’s repeated requests over the past two years.
Is the SUSD community comfortable with major decisions being made without adequate data and without considering all available alternatives?
As the October 6thmeeting moved to the proposed alternatives and the vote, the board discussed how Mesa Public Schools was addressing declining enrollment. The exchange between Members Pittinsky and Carney became heated.
Carney noted that, a year earlier, she had asked the board to create a long-range planning committee modeled on Mesa’s. She questioned why SUSD was not considering Mesa’s other strategies instead of focusing solely on school closures.
Although alternatives like Mesa’s were not on the agenda, and district counsel repeatedly warned Pittinsky to stop so as to avoid another open meeting law violation, he continued the discussion and more than likely committed another violation. SUSD had been cited in the past for a violation by the Arizona Attorney General for discussing non-agendized topics.
Pittinsky insisted that he had researched the issue and argued that Mesa was starting from a very different position than SUSD. The issue is not whether districts statewide are losing enrollment, that is well documented, or what is the root cause of the decline, which SUSD has yet to determine. The key question is how each district responds.
Pittinsky then said, “Mesa actually did close schools. They closed or repurposed three junior high schools and they did it very early in a way that our board has been less willing to do.”
Notice how Pittinsky shifted from the definitive claim that Mesa “did close schools” to saying it “closed or repurposed” them. He also distanced himself from prior decisions by referring to “our board,” even though he has served on it for the past two years.
The point Pittinsky, Sharkey, Lewis, and Menzel appear to miss, perhaps deliberately, is that Mesa developed a plan for declining enrollment rather than closing schools first and asking what to do afterward.
Pittinsky’s research also appears to have overlooked publicly available information showing that Mesa’s schools and governing board are pursuing strategic ways to create “vibrant and thriving” schools rather than “disrupting and dismantling” the district, the way SUSD is doing.
Here are some excerpts:
“Mesa Public Schools will offer more educational choices to families by transitioning an elementary school into an accelerated learning campus and launching two new high schools for the 2026-27 academic year.”
“Because of dropping enrollment, the district has to think strategically and creatively, Superintendent Dr. Matt Strom said, “Or we’re probably going to be moving to school closure within the next three to five years.”
“We were fortunate to receive a lot of feedback from parents and community members that were excited and eager for this change to happen,” said Jacob Martinez, vice chairman of the district’s Planning and Boundary Design Advisory Committee.”
I believe that last year Member Carney asked for this same committee to be formed in SUSD. But “our board” rejected the idea.
Here are some excerpts from an article by Rachel Walden, Mesa Public Schools Governing Board Member, on how their board has been addressing the issue of declining enrollment.
“We adopted a small school model that allows a school to stay financially viable and continue to operate. These schools have shared resources, shared staff, focused specials, and aides may be leveraged differently than at a comprehensive campus. The model provides the opportunity to specialize and meet student interests.”
“Financial uncertainty also means we must explore ways to bring in revenue, which is underway at MPS. Mesa fully welcomes ESA families. The Eagleridge campus offers three full days of educational programming for K-12 students from across the Valley. Ninety-five percent of Eagleridge is funded through ESA dollars. The MPS board approved a fee schedule allowing families to use ESA dollars to participate in classes at other campuses, which increases revenue to the district.”
“Responsible budgeting requires continual evaluation. Positions not related to the classroom and not required by regulation or law can be eliminated in many cases. Courses with low student interest should be removed, which will change staffing needs.”
“If enrollment continues to decline, the Board may eventually have to consider school consolidation or closure. Those decisions should come only after other strategies have been exhausted and after careful consideration of student outcomes, finances, facilities, transportation and community impact.”
Notice how rather than just blaming ESA for declining enrollment, like Menzel does, Mesa schools turns it into a revenue stream for the district.
Although there are several more stories like these, here is just one more.
“Faced with ongoing student loss, Mesa Public Schools is looking to reconfigure six of its campuses for the 2026-27 year instead of closing sites.”
The bottom line is that SUSD’s Governing Board, dominated by Menzel’s supporters, has failed its students, parents, and broader community. SUSD cannot continue electing board members who place Menzel’s agenda above students’ interests.
It is time for a change.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Sep 28, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
After investigating an Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint against the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) determined that Dr. Menzel and the SUSD Governing Board once again violated the rights of SUSD parents and the public. They were denied the opportunity to attend Phase II Design Team meetings and hear deliberations as the team developed recommendations on school closures and boundary changes for the Governing Board.
SUSD parents should be outraged that the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel denied them rights guaranteed by law while considering such impactful decision as closing schools.
And by “Governing Board,” I mean Members Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis. All three are union-backed Menzel supporters who consistently vote for his proposals, excuse the failures and consequences of his policies, and reward him with contract extensions and pay raises.
A.R.S. § 38-431.01(A), commonly known as the Open Meeting Law, states:
“A. All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be allowed to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.”
In its September 16 letter to the District, the MCAO stated:
“SUSD has already been warned by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that the Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by ‘informally’ forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public.”
Despite the Attorney General’s warning two years earlier, Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board disregarded it and again violated the public’s rights.
Any legal violation by SUSD is serious, but this one is especially egregious because it concerns perhaps the most consequential decision of Menzel’s tenure: school closures.
At the September 22 public hearing, parents described the profound effects the closures would have on their children and families.
Yet SUSD denied them the legal right to attend the meetings, hear the deliberations, and participate in the process. Had parents been allowed to attend, they could have raised questions and concerns for the board to address as the work proceeded.
The MCAO also stated in its letter:
“It is also advisable that the Governing Board acknowledge this investigation at the next public meeting and take steps to assure the constituents of SUSD that the intent of forming the Phase II Team was not to bar the public from the policy creating process.”
At what was the next meeting, held September 22, I was the only person to mention the OML violation. When I used that phrase, Dr. Lewis immediately interrupted and asked SUSD’s general counsel to stop the discussion, which she did. You can hear the exchange right here.
I understand why the Governing Board might hesitate to admit what it had done or try to assure parents that it never intended to exclude them and deny their rights.
At a December 2025 board meeting, the Board openly discussed how complying with the law, (i.e. posting an agenda in advance, keeping minutes, allowing public attendance, and enabling people to hear deliberations) would slow down the process, even if it was an acceptable alternative. Listen to the discussion here.
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that respects parents’ rights and will not sacrifice them for “flexibility and expediency” merely to allow the superintendent to be more “nimble.”
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that does not view a committee meeting behind closed doors as “much more interactive” than an open meeting where anyone who wishes to attend and listen to the deliberations can do so.
SUSD deserves a Governing Board that sees legal compliance not as a problem to solve, but as an opportunity to demonstrate they truly believe in the values of integrity, honesty, transparency, accountability, openness, and authenticity that SUSD espouses.
This is the kind of Governing Board SUSD parents should demand.
Unless the Governing Board fully understands and addresses the causes of SUSD’s declining enrollment and evaluates every viable option, it is unlikely to solve the problem. Closing schools under an ill-conceived plan, railroaded through behind closed doors, that fails to assess the full financial impact of the plan is irresponsible and will merely carry the district’s financial problems into the next budget cycle.
Parents, even if your child does not attend a school affected by this pending decision, do not assume you have nothing to fear. Menzel and his supporters on current and previous Governing Boards have repeatedly shown little regard for your rights. Without meaningful consequences, they will continue to ignore adverse legal findings and warnings and violate parents’ rights with impunity.
This Governing Board has failed the SUSD parents, and they must be held accountable.
Parents, will your school be next and your rights denied?
Attend the October 6 board meeting, voice your outrage, and urge the Governing Board to halt the school-closure process. Demand that it start over with a comprehensive plan that considers every option to deal with the declining enrollment.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Sep 22, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Dr. Jennifer Johnson is the union-backed, Menzel-aligned progressive candidate for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board in the 2026 election. A career educator, she campaigns on the slogan “Experience Matters.” That is true, but parents’ experience with a public education system led by professional educators, like Dr. Johnson, also matters.
Americans’ satisfaction with K–12 education has fallen to 32%, the lowest level in Gallup’s 27-year trend, while dissatisfaction has reached a record 67%; only 8% are completely satisfied. These figures point to widespread concern about public education and growing demand for reform and alternatives. The survey is consistent with the results shown in the 2024 National Assessment of Education Progress.
Similar concerns are evident in SUSD: academic performance has continued to decline under Menzel, parents are withdrawing their children, and the district is closing schools. Yet Dr. Johnson’s website states, “SUSD is already recognized as a leader in academic achievement, and I am committed to ensuring that success continues for all students.”
A leader in academic achievement? In FY2025, fewer than half of SUSD eighth graders were proficient in math (49%) or science (47%). Among 11th graders, 55% were proficient in math and only 22% in science. Despite these low proficiency rates, SUSD advances or graduates 98% of its students. SUSD high school teachers say incoming freshmen are unprepared for high school course work, and college professors report the same. How does graduating academically unprepared students prepare them for life after school?
If Dr. Johnson, an experienced education professional, considers these results evidence of leadership, that’s a problem.
On top of that, Dr. Johnson’s only ties to SUSD are her relationships with Dr. Menzel and other district staff. She became a Scottsdale “resident” only recently and was recruited to run for the Governing Board to act as another rubber-stamp vote for Dr. Menzel’s agenda. Like current Board President Dr. Donna Lewis, also an education professional, Dr. Johnson has no prior history, experience, or connection with SUSD. She would further weaken meaningful board debate and again deny SUSD parents and the public the opportunity to hear opposing views on district policies and decisions.
In June, Dr. Pittinsky explained his vote to extend Menzel’s contract and approve a raise by citing surveys that described SUSD as well run. However, the Arizona Auditor General reported that district data showed SUSD moving toward the high-risk category because of declining enrollment and other financial pressures, including the transfer of more than 36% of capital funds to operations. Keep that in mind.
Yes, experience matters. And for decades Americans have experienced a steady decline in public education, a decline we have seen firsthand in SUSD under the influence of teachers’ unions and so-called education experts, like Dr. Menzel, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Pittinsky, and Dr. Johnson.
Scottsdale residents, SUSD students, and their families cannot afford another Governing Board mistake.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Aug 31, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
At the June 23rd meeting, the three-member progressive majority of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUDSD) Governing Board approved a $20,000 raise and contract extension for Dr. Menzel. His annual salary, not including stipends, bonuses, or other benefits, is now $245,000.
Member Amy Carney voted no. Explaining her vote, she said:
“My vote for extending the superintendent’s contract through 2029 is based on performance, accountability, and the financial realities facing our district. Scottsdale Unified School District continues to face significant challenges. Enrollments declined by approximately 6,000 students over the past decade, resulting in ongoing budget pressures and difficult decisions about closing and consolidating neighborhood schools. And at the same time, district academic performance indicators, including ACT scores, are still declining. This year, the superintendent received a lower evaluation score from the board than he received in previous years. Despite that decline, the board majority has approved both a salary increase and a three-year contract extension. I believe contract extensions should be earned through demonstrated results. When academic goals have not been met over a long span of time and a district is operating in a season of budget deficits, extending a contract is wrong. In most organizations, declining performance would not earn you additional compensation or a lengthened contract. Given those realities, I don’t believe giving our superintendent a raise or long-term contract extension is appropriate. My responsibility is to exercise sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars and hold district leadership accountable for results. So, for those reasons, my vote is a no.”
With this statement, Member Carney again showed the principled leadership she has brought to the Board throughout her four years serving SUSD students and parents.
For those who have been paying attention, this is not surprising.
Over the years, Member Carney has consistently challenged Menzel’s radical and destructive policies. For the past four years, she and outgoing Member Werner were the only voices of reason and common sense on the Board. Despite attacks and ridicule from progressive members who backed Menzel, they refused to serve as rubber stamps and would not be silenced.
Now let’s compare what the Menzel-aligned board members said about his new contract.
Menzel’s Followers on His Leadership
Explaining his vote to approve Menzel’s raise and contract extension, Member Pittinsky said in part:
“I think under Dr. Menzel’s leadership, we’re in the midst of several critical initiatives, all of which are multi-year, and he deserves the opportunity and we need his leadership and his expertise to see them through.”
According to Pittinsky, SUSD needs Menzel’s “leadership and expertise” to carry out “several critical initiatives,” including closing and consolidating schools. Yet those initiatives stem from actions Menzel took, with support from the Board majority, as part of his effort to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Then came comments from Governing Board President Dr. Lewis, another public education expert and former superintendent of the year.
Explaining her yes vote, Dr. Lewis said:
“Menzel’s asked frequently to serve and guide other superintendents around the state and that’s a compliment and a badge of honor for this district.”
She conveniently left out that Menzel is paid for his involvement in the Superintendents Collaborative Network with Grand Canyon University.
Dr. Lewis went on to say:
“I appreciate that he symbolizes who we are and what we’re about and is very in touch with some of the points of disagreement. And that takes a sophistication and complexity to weather while leaning in and taking the risk of leading.”
I’m not sure exactly what this means, especially the last sentence. But since Lewis and the other Menzel supporters on the Board routinely approve what Menzel wants, one interpretation is that, if Menzel “symbolizes who we are and what we’re about,” they also support his effort to “disrupt and dismantle” SUSD.
Menzel’s Followers on Enrollment
Pittinsky continued:
“I would point out that if you look at retention, which is the number of students who are in our schools that continue in our schools, every single year that Dr. Menzel has been superintendent, our enrollment has grown. We’ve had more than 100% of our students renew, which means we are attracting more students. Our enrollment trends are a function of starting kindergarten classes that are much smaller than graduating senior classes and that is largely a function of demographics. That is simple math.”
To try and understand Pittinskys’ statements about retention and enrollment trends, I went to the various presentations used by Menzel at the Board meetings.
Member Pittinsky’s statement that enrollment has grown under Menzel is proven wrong by Menzel’s own chart. Go to the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session, slide #10, and see for yourself. From 2021 (21,455) to 2024 (20,930) enrollment has declined every year for a total of 525 (-2.4%) students. If you extend it to include 2025 (19,722) (from District Financial & Enrollment Overview 10/28/2025, slide #4) during period 2021-2025 the total drop in enrollment is 1,733, with 1,208 of that reduction happening between 2024 and 2025 alone. During Menzel’s tenure as superintendent the 1,733 enrollment reduction represents 29% of the total 6,032 between 2010 and 2025.
Again, using Menzel’s numbers, while SUSD enrollment was declining by 2.4% from 2021 to 2024, Great Hearts enrollment increased 5.6%. Must be demographics.
Pittinsky is arguing that Menzel should not be blamed for declining enrollment because kindergarten classes are smaller than graduation senior classes, due in large part to demographics. Yes, the math is simple, but it has followed the same pattern since 2010, with kindergarten enrollment lower than the number of graduating seniors every year by an average of over 500 students. But in the last five years under Menzel, we have graduated an average of over 700 more seniors than kindergarten students.
Explain again how we are attracting more students.
Menzel’s Followers on Capture Rate
During the February 11, 2025, board meeting, where the 2025-2026 budget was reviewed, Member Pittinsky commented that, due in part to demographics and the SUSD capture rate (currently 55%), the district would be “doing the same thing again in 12 months” without rethinking its expense structure.
At the February 2025 meeting, Pittinsky viewed the district low capture rate as a problem, but apparently now he views it as a positive while trying to defend his vote to give Menzel a raise and contract extension, he says:
“…if you look at our capture rate under Dr. Menzel, our capture rate has declined at the lowest rate of any of the recent superintendents.”
So, according to Pittinsky, while the SUSD capture rate under Menzel is bad and is declining, it is not as bad as other SUSD superintendents. This is the same logic Menzel uses when he says SUSD academic performance may be bad, but we still lead the state, a state where overall academic performance is a disaster.
I think this kind of logic is what they call spin.
Menzel’s Followers on Academic Goals
Pittinsky also notes that in this contract extension, the Board has set multi-year academic achievement goals for Menzel. But in his five years at SUSD, Menzel has not met a single academic goal. Why should this time be different? Goals may sound meaningful, but if they are repeatedly missed without consequences, they become little more than wasted time.
Menzel’s Followers on the State of the District
Pittinsky claims that according to surveys SUSD is a well-run district. Perhaps Pittinsky needs to review slides 30 and 31 from the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session. Those exit surveys identified parents’ concerns about academic rigor, technology overuse, discipline and policy enforcement, bullying and safety, and dissatisfaction with school leadership.
According to Arizona Auditor General, a “review of the District’s data indicates that the District may be moving toward the highest-risk category.” The Auditor cites five areas at SUSD as high risk, including the change in weighted student count (-7.19% in 4 years), and four critical financial measures. You can review the details here Scottsdale Unified School District Approaching Highest Risk.
The Scottsdale Unified School District Spending Report shows that the District FY2025 instructional spending percentage of 54.0% is near the 25-year low of 53.6%
This story from March 2024 talks about the poor performance of 8th graders on the math testing with only 54% being proficient on the standardized math test. Look at the FY2025 8th grade math test scores on the Arizona Department of Education website here. You will see that only 49% of all 8th graders are proficient in math.
Does this sound like a well-run district?
Here is the bottom-line.
This November we have a choice. We need principled leadership on the SUSD Governing Board. We can’t afford to elect another member with no ties to the district other than being a Menzel supporter. Do your homework.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Jun 16, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
I have opposed Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Superintendent Dr. Menzel and his Governing Board allies since his arrival, and for good reason.
For decades, progressive education experts have promoted policies they said would raise achievement, often without any evidence. Whatever their intentions, the results have been disappointing and well documented.
After years of weak results, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 brought accountability-focused reform. By raising standards, measuring results, and targeting low-performing schools, it helped improve outcomes. Over its first decade, nearly half the states gained in 4th-grade reading and almost all improved in 4th-grade math.
Despite that progress, the “experts” replaced NCLB with Common Core and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). According to numbers from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), that experiment has failed.
For 50 years, the National Center for Education Statistics has tracked performance through the NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card. The 2024 results reinforce concerns about the last decade of education policy and echo warnings first raised in 1983.
Let’s take a look at some of the key findings:
- Student proficiency has stagnated or declined since the early 1990s.
- Public school performance improved under NCLB, then stagnated after Common Core and declined under ESSA.
- From 2013 to 2024, charter schools were more stable across achievement levels.
- States with educator bargaining laws saw steeper reading declines, suggesting less instructional flexibility.
- Even with record per-pupil spending in some states, achievement remains low, showing funding alone is not enough.
One article summarizes it this way:
“The declines reflect the failures of more than a decade of educational policy—specifically, a retreat from expectations that began under the Common Core Standards and continued under the Every Student Succeeds Act.”
The data show that the pedagogies favored by education experts, including Dr. Menzel and the majority of the SUSD Governing Board, and have failed for decades.
Whole language failed as a reading method in the 1980s and 1990s. In its place, the Science of Reading emphasizes systematic, explicit phonics.
Common Core deemphasized cursive, and instruction declined after 2010 as its authors argued keyboarding mattered more. Another failure.
Was prioritizing laptops and keyboarding over handwriting the right choice?
Studies cited in Psychology Today say no.
“These studies show that handwriting is an essential cognitive process and a valuable intellectual activity that supports learning from the first day of school through advanced levels of education.”
“…children should first learn handwriting. Only after they become fully proficient—especially in complex narrative writing—should typing be introduced.”
One of the most consequential failures in recent U.S. education policy was the COVID-era closure of public schools, supported by education experts and teachers’ unions, which resulted in widespread learning loss. The shutdowns were not only costly and unnecessary but also lacked scientific support.
These are only a few examples of the failures of expert-led public education. In my view, the most damaging and still spreading nationwide, including in SUSD, is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).
In FY2020–2021, Dr. Menzel’s first year at SUSD, the Governing Board launched a future-focused strategic plan that made MTSS a key initiative.
In 2023, after a Scottsdale parent’s complaint, the Arizona Attorney General found that Menzel and the Governing Board’s strategic planning design team violated Open Meeting Law (OML). The AG did not punish the district or require rescission of the Strategic Plan, issuing only a warning, so the district still uses it today. Despite the OML training required by that finding, SUSD was hit with another OML complaint. Will Menzel ever learn?
MTSS began in the 1960s as a model for delivering mental health services in large urban areas. Schools later adapted it to identify students with special needs, and in the 2000s expanded it to all students.
MTSS requires schools to create support teams and policies that reshape how they handle behavior and learning. It has three tiers: tier one exposes all students to mental health awareness programs; tier two provides individual or group counseling for students identified by staff or self-referral; and tier three refers students needing more extensive services to outside professionals or clinics. In short, MTSS is designed to reshape school culture and organization around delivering mental health services.
Response to Intervention (RTI) focuses on academics, while Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) fits within MTSS on the premise that students cannot learn if social or emotional barriers block learning. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and RTI were originally developed for special education students but are now used schoolwide.
MTSS spread gradually through U.S. public schools over two decades, with wider adoption in the 2010s.
Under Dr. Menzel’s leadership, SUSD has implemented MTSS and integrated PBIS, RTI, and SEL across the district, describing them as research-based and effective. The district also describes itself as a national leader in RTI.
Despite SUSD’s claims that MTSS is research-based and improves academic and social outcomes, the objective data from multiple studies do not support the claims.
Since 2010, SUSD enrollment has fallen by more than 6,000 students. Nearly 29% of that decline occurred during Dr. Menzel’s tenure from 2021 to 2025, including more than 1,200 students in the 2024–2025 school year alone.
Arizona Department of Education data show that since 2021, SUSD students have averaged 60% proficiency in English Language Arts, 56% in math, and 40% in science, with little improvement.
These numbers do not support the SUSD claims of better academics, improved discipline, or a more positive school culture at SUSD. If the claims were true, why have proficiencies remained stagnant during Menzel’s tenure?
While MTSS is simply a means of organizing and providing mental health services in schools, programs like PBIS address behavior through encouragement rather than disciplinary policies. Revising disciplinary policies was one of Menzel’s early priorities after coming into office.
Follow this link to SUSD’s policies, and you’ll notice that the policies JK Student Discipline, JKD Student Suspension, and JKE Expulsion of Students and their related regulations and exhibits were all updated December 12, 2023, within Menzel’s first couple of years at SUSD.
In May 2024, the SUSD Code of Conduct Committee made a presentation to the Board. Two points stand out: the committee appears to classify bringing a loaded gun to school as “a minor aggressive act” (slide 5 and item #2 on this list of 24 Shocking Moments of 2024)
Slides 6 and 7 emphasize MTSS, SUSD’s core discipline framework.
While the entire 24 Shocking Moments of 2024 list is worth reading, pay particular attention to #3, #5, #9, #10, #13, #16, #20, and #21. They illustrate what Menzel calls better academics, improved discipline, and a more positive school culture at SUSD.
Consistent with that list, exit interviews show parents most often leave SUSD over weak academics, excessive technology use, poor discipline and policy enforcement, bullying and safety concerns, and dissatisfaction with leadership.
MTSS also carries costs: it requires more master’s-level non-teaching staff and uses class time for mental health programming. Along with PBIS, RTI, and SEL, it has shifted resources from classroom instruction to non-academic support services.
According to the AZ Auditor General’s SUSD spending report, SUSD academic instructional spending fell from nearly 64% of the operating budget in 2004 to 54% in 2025. In the five years since Menzel was hired, non-academic support spending rose 1.9% while instructional spending fell 2.3%—a swing of more than 4 points. In 2025, SUSD spent $1,449 per pupil on support services, about 21% of its instructional spending ($6,959), up from $871 and 16% in 2020.
For years, education experts have promoted school-based mental health programs and SEL as ways to improve academics. But multiple studies—including a 2024 long-term study of nearly 500,000 Minnesota students—found no meaningful gains in test scores, attendance, or other academic outcomes. Research from Europe, Canada, Australia, and Latin America reaches the same conclusion: SEL may help behavior or social-emotional skills in some cases, but it does not reliably raise academic performance. (For more, see here.)
Schools often use universal mental health screenings to identify students for intervention. But without adequate safeguards and expertise, these screenings can produce false-positive rates as high as 90%, with potentially lasting consequences.
SUSD says it uses universal screening. Arizona Revised Statutes 15-104 and 36-2272 require written parental consent before school mental health screening. If your child was screened without your consent, you should contact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and file a complaint.
Since March 2024, there has been no statutory exemption allowing school-based behavioral workers to practice behavioral health without a license. If you believe your child was subjected to behavioral health services at SUSD through MTSS or otherwise, you can file a complaint with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners here.
Dr. Menzel is on a mission to disrupt and destroy SUSD, and he should be stopped.
If you think things can’t get much worse in SUSD, or in public education more broadly, just wait until the experts implement AI in the curriculum. We should build real intelligence in students before turning to artificial intelligence.
Unfortunately, the SUSD staff recently attended a 2-day event to “level up” and attend 66 engaging learning sessions focused on innovative instructional practices, student support, technology integration, and more. I can’t wait!
After researching and writing this piece, I am more convinced than ever that focusing on and supporting truly evidence-based academics and fiscal responsibility in our schools, puts me on the right side of the issues.
Wherever you live and whatever school your children attend, if you care about your child’s education, please visit Restore Parental Rights in Education and support its mission to “awaken and empower everyday citizens who advocate for excellence in K-12 education.”
Reversing the decline of public education in America will require people to unite and act together.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
