by Mike Bengert | Apr 21, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
During the most recent election for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, one slate of candidates campaigned on fiscal responsibility, academic excellence, parental rights, school safety, and a simple message: Just be honest.
That vision sounds appealing, but it doesn’t reflect where things stand today. For students and parents in SUSD, the reality has fallen short.
Unfortunately for the SUSD community, the three board members elected in the last election have lived up to their promise to “protect SUSD,” meaning protect Superintendent Scott Menzel.
Look at the records of Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis. What meaningful policy or solutions to any of the issues in SUSD have they offered? They haven’t. They only attack Member Carney and Member Werner when they make a proposal. Dr. Lewis is basically useless letting Menzel run the show. Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis don’t seem to understand that Menzel works for them, and they work for the SUSD community.
SUSD is close to reaching a point of no return. And it may not survive another year of Menzel and this governing board.
Elections have consequences.
A review of the past few months shows just how bad things have gotten in SUSD.
Despite repeated assurances about transparency, open communication, and a willingness to listen, Dr. Menzel has failed to consistently follow through. Keeping the community fully informed and being honest with the SUSD community when it matters most, has often been lacking during Dr. Menzel’s tenure as superintendent.
It’s also worth remembering that during his tenure at SUSD, Dr. Menzel has been cited by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for multiple violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law. For those who want to review it themselves, see Az Attorney General Opinion I24-004.
As a recent example of Menzel struggling with the truth, during the SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 1/6/2026 (@1:23:53 – 1:24:13), explaining what he had said to parents at Copper Ridge and Cheyenne, Dr. Menzel said, “…it made sense to move quickly to get feedback… [Emphasis added]”
Fast forward to SUSD Governing Board Meeting 3/10/2026 (@1:32:20 -1:32:41), where Dr. Menzel told the board that at the meetings with the Phase II families, “…the surveys would go out after we identified the three options to get feedback on what’s possible. So that would likely be late May, early June after the committee gets the chance to do its work [Emphasis added].”
Not only did Menzel tell two different stories about what he told the parents, but he conveniently left out that once the committee completes its work on May 7th, the community will be surveyed, and that feedback will then be filtered and evaluated by District team members. (See slides 6 & 7 SUSD Phase II Design Advisory Team Meeting 1 March 26,2026.)
The results will then be presented to the Governing Board in October for a final decision. By that point, after the District staff has “vetted” the input, it’s hard not to expect recommendations that align with Menzel’s stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” and reducing the footprint of SUSD.
The discussion at the board meeting on December 9, 2025, offers a revealing look at the kind of leadership guiding SUSD. The SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 12/9/2025 is particularly informative if you want to understand who sits on the board and how they approach transparency and community input. While I’ve highlighted a few key moments below, it’s worth listening to the full exchange on forming advisory committees, from the 1:12:36 mark to 1:32:26.
It’s also important to remember that the three newest board members were elected on the strength of their professional backgrounds and extensive experience in public education. The current board president has even been recognized as a superintendent of the year. Yet, based on this discussion, there are questions about their grasp of core aspects of Arizona law and parental rights in education.
Dr. Menzel, for his part, brings a long career in public education. He is clearly experienced in navigating these conversations, often speaking at length while offering few direct answers to the concerns raised by the community. Menzel is much more of a politician than a school superintendent.
The last time Dr. Menzel appears to have spoken most candidly about who he is may have been during his tenure as superintendent of Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District. On May 14, 2019, he participated in an interview with WISD employee David Spitzel titled, Public Schools and Social Justice: An Interview With Dr. Scott Menzel, which was published on June 7, 2019, about a year before the SUSD Governing Board hired him in 2020.
It’s worth reading that interview. It provides insight into his views on equity, inclusion, and social justice, and offers context for his stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” SUSD.
That interview was available to the Board prior to his hiring. Either it wasn’t carefully reviewed, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process, or it was reviewed and aligned with what the Board was seeking at the time. Based on the Board’s actions since Menzel’s hiring, the latter seems more likely.
As if his focus on gender identity, social emotional learning (SEL), DEI and the lack of attention to academics haven’t done enough damage to SUSD with its declining enrollment resulting in a $8M-$9M budget shortfall, now he is, with the full support of the progressives on the Board, closing schools.
Elections have consequences.
On April 29, 2025, SUSD staff presented to the Governing Board, reporting a continued decline in district enrollment, which they attributed to factors outside of the district’s control, while at the same time ignoring the feedback from parents who have left the district citing issues that are within the control of the district but are not being addressed (Strategic Enrollment Planning Study Session, slides 29 – 31).
Based on this trend, they projected a budget shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2026–2027. This meeting also marked the first time the Governing Board formally discussed the potential need to consider school closures.
Despite the commitments Dr. Menzel made in his message on the SUSD website titled School Repurposing and Enrollment Review, the process has not unfolded in that manner.
He stated:
“As we work through this process, it is important to remember that while district leadership may bring forward recommendations, the Governing Board makes the final decisions. We are committed to keeping you informed, listening to your input, and ensuring transparency every step of the way.”
— Dr. Scott A. Menzel, Superintendent
Follow the link to the site and note how, even after months, significant portions still read “coming soon.” The page continues to state that a Phase II Design Team is being developed, even though the team has already met multiple times. Under Community Engagement, the site highlights a “commitment to transparency and open communication,” which raises an important question: why were so many parents, and even Board members, surprised by the proposed closures of Echo Canyon and Pima schools?
Listening to comments from parents of those schools during fall Board meetings, it is difficult to reconcile their experiences with claims of transparency and meaningful engagement.
On October 7, 2025, the Board voted to schedule the legally required public hearing on school closures for November 13, 2025. Then, on December 9, 2025, the Board narrowly approved, by a 3–2 vote, the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima Schools as Phase I of the District’s plan to address the projected budget shortfall.
On November 18, 2025, after the public hearing and less than 30 days before the vote to close two schools, Dr. Menzel presented his vision for a “vibrant and thriving SUSD,” outlining a two-phase approach (and a potential Phase III) to addressing the deficit. Phases I and II are focused on reducing the SUSD footprint. Phase I included the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima. Phase II proposed additional closures, including Redfield and Laguna, along with boundary and school reconfiguration changes involving Cheyenne Traditional School, Copper Ridge, Desert Canyon ES and MS. The presentation, A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact, is available for review.
During the Board meeting on December 9, 2025, (SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 12/9/2025), prior to the vote on school closures, Member Carney stated:
“So, on October 7th, I voted no to scheduling the public hearing regarding the potential closure repurposing of Echo and Pima because I believe that one of the things we should have done first before going down that road or this road of closures and repurposing was to create a board advisory oversight committee to gather data, have community input and weigh in on solutions.”
Her full comments can be heard from 1:12:36 to 1:15:25.
The Board then continued its discussion, with Member Sharkey asking at approximately 1:16:34 what Member Carney was requesting. He stated:
“It’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, if this is a board committee that really limits the communication, it’s subject to open meeting law the same as we are as opposed to a much more interactive committee, so I just want to make sure what I’m hearing [Emphasis added].”
This raises an important question: what does “much more interactive” mean? A board committee that operates under Arizona Open Meeting Law, where meetings are publicly noticed and open to attendance, or a superintendent-appointed committee operating outside that structure? Member Carney clarified her concerns at 1:16:58 –1:17:32:
“I’m asking for a board advisory committee. We’ve had superintendent committees that came to this conclusion tonight and we don’t even know who was on them or what work was done on them. I’m asking for a board advisory committee that the public is also asking for so that everyone can be involved, everyone has input and we can come to solutions together.”
Dr. Menzel then responded, explaining the distinction between committee types at 1:17:49–1:18:14:
“…that any committee established by the Board is subject to open meeting law, which means all of the agendas have to be posted 24 hours in advance, it’s got to follow all of those rules in terms of reporting of the minutes and that process. It is perfectly acceptable as an alternative, but it slows the process down in part, you can be more nimble with the superintendent-appointed committee [Emphasis added].”
When asked about transparency differences between the two models, he added at 1:18:50–1:19:17:
“So, all of the information that’s collected is still subject to public records request, so that would be available to the public.”
However, access through public records requests is not the same as attending meetings, hearing deliberations in real time, or participating in an open process.
Board President Dr. Lewis then suggested a possible “solution” to the problem. The problem she is trying to solve is whether or not to meet their legal obligations and responsibilities under the open meeting law or continue has they did in Phase I and hide what they are doing from the public. Listen to her comments at 1:19:20–1:19:38:
“So, in the name of flexibility and expediency, and being able to work as a superintendent’s committee keeping minutes and expressing those minutes more transparently might be the solution [Emphasis added].”
She continued at 1:20:58–1:21:17:
“…so, if committees are formed at our suggestion for the work to be vetted and we say it’s a superintendent’s committee, and there’s a posting of welcome … please try and get on this committee with us, we could help advocate for committee members without it blurring the lines.”
Later in the discussion, Member Werner noted at 1:24:26–1:25:35 that:
“Clearly, our community and families and staff have been blindsided, and this process has not been effective…”
Member Pittinsky also acknowledged confusion about the committee distinctions but stated:
“…do I believe that we should have more mechanisms for the community to be involved in the decisions that will follow tonight’s vote, whichever direction it goes as well as the decisions that are ahead? Absolutely.”
That comment can be heard at 1:26:00–1:26:39.
Pittinsky always talks but he does nothing to make anything happen. Rather than offering any kind of ideas to turn his words, (“more mechanisms for the community to be involved”) into action, he just pushes back on Member Carney.
Elections have consequences, and the current direction of SUSD reflects the outcome of those choices.
The governing board now operates with a progressive majority that has supported Superintendent Menzel’s approach to restructuring the district and closing schools. A Phase II Design Committee has already begun meeting outside of public view, with its findings expected to be reviewed by district staff before being presented to the Board in October.
Those recommendations are anticipated to align with the Phase II framework outlined in Menzel’s presentation, “A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact.”
At the same time, recruitment is underway for a second committee, the Coronado Learning Community Design Team. Its stated purpose is:
“This team will guide the development of a comprehensive strategic plan designed to increase enrollment across all CLC schools and strengthen academic outcomes for all students. The work of the Design Team will help ensure that the Coronado Learning Community remains strong, sustainable, and focused on student success.”
This raises a broader question: if increasing enrollment and strengthening programs across CLC is a goal, why not make it a goal for the entire district? Why were proposals centered on school closures and consolidation prioritized before broader district-wide alternatives were fully explored?
Members Carney and Werner have argued that school closures should be a last resort and have advocated for earlier, more inclusive evaluation of alternatives, including district-wide strategies to increase enrollment and stabilize schools.
For many in the community, that contrast highlights a concern about process and priorities, particularly whether all viable options are being fully considered before decisions are made.
Elections have consequences, and those consequences are now playing out in how these decisions are being shaped and implemented.
SUSD needs a change in leadership.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Mar 19, 2026 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
When Dr. Menzel was hired as Superintendent of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), he arrived with a stated goal: to disrupt and dismantle what he believed were systems denying access and opportunity to students of color, students in poverty, and students with IEPs.
But was that truly the reality in SUSD before his arrival?
Regardless, Menzel has moved forward with exactly that approach, disrupting and dismantling the district. His emphasis on initiatives like gender identity and social-emotional learning, often at the expense of academic performance, has produced troubling results: school closures, declining academic outcomes, falling enrollment, record levels of non-classroom spending, teacher layoffs, and increasing staff turnover.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At the November 18, 2025, board meeting, Menzel outlined reductions in FTE staff at the district office over the past three years, arguing that all reasonable cost-cutting measures have been exhausted, leaving school closures as the only remaining option.
But is that really true?
When board members Amy Carney and Carine Werner raise concerns about wasteful spending or request detailed financial information, they are often ignored or told that staff are too busy to provide answers. Meanwhile, the expenditures they question are dismissed as not necessarily wasteful just because they disagree with them.
Not only has Menzel shown little interest in cutting favored programs or non-essential spending unrelated to improving academic performance, but he has also failed to address concerns raised in exit interviews, concerns that could help slow declining enrollment.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At a recent board meeting, it was announced that more than 130 applications had been submitted for the Phase II Design Team. Selections are underway, with the first meeting scheduled for March 26.
Menzel noted that Matt Pittinsky was the only board member to suggest closing more than two schools in Phase II. When asked by Menzel for input from the board about additional closures, Mike Sharkey responded that if the committee recommends closing three schools instead of two, “that’s great”—despite having campaigned on not closing schools. He added that committee members can “feel it out as it goes along” and gauge community reaction afterward.
Carney argued that school closures should be a last resort; Pittinsky disagreed, despite also campaigning against closures. He now claims more schools must be closed to maintain a “quality student experience.” But is this the same “quality” that has coincided with declining enrollment and revenue losses?
Carney pressed for early parent input through surveys, with Werner agreeing that community feedback should come at the beginning, not the end, of the process. Menzel, however, stated surveys would occur only after the committee completes its work, likely in late May or early June. Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis supported that timeline.
While district leadership claims to value community input, their actions suggest otherwise. The committee is not being asked to explore solutions to the budget shortfall; they are being steered toward a predetermined outcome: closing schools.
For those who haven’t followed closely, the public comments from last fall’s board meetings tell the story. Parents from schools like Pima and Echo Canyon described being blindsided by closures, with little to no input. Even some board members indicated they were excluded from meaningful involvement.
According to the district, the Phase II Design Team members will “help inform discussions about enrollment trends, school facilities, and long-term sustainability through respectful, student-centered collaboration.”
But what does that actually mean?
A small group, selected by Menzel and guided by a district-paid consultant, is expected, over just a few weeks, to analyze years of enrollment data, financial trends, and demographic projections, and then “inform” district decisions.
Is that realistic?
So, what will this design team actually do?
In all likelihood, it will just validate decisions that have already been made by Menzel.
Over recent meetings, Menzel has presented Phase II “repurposing solutions.” One proposal involves relocating Cheyenne Traditional School (CTS) to Copper Ridge. He describes this as an opportunity to place a high-demand program in an underutilized facility with room for growth.
However, what goes unaddressed is the likely impact on enrollment. Moving CTS to the northernmost part of the district could drive families away, not attract them. CTS draws students from across the district, many within walking or biking distance of its current location. Relocating it would add significant travel time, potentially up to 20 extra miles per day for some families.
How many parents would make that commute? How many would instead leave CTS or SUSD altogether?
Similarly, how many Copper Ridge families would choose CTS or be willing to move to the Desert Canyon schools, or simply leave SUSD? These are critical questions, but they remain unanswered.
They could be answered now through parent surveys. Instead, feedback is being delayed until after decisions are effectively finalized.
If enrollment drops following a relocation, as seems likely, the result could be the eventual closure of CTS, the district’s last remaining traditional school, which could lead to even further declining enrollment and financial shortfalls for SUSD.
And that would align with Menzel’s stated goal: disrupt and dismantle.
Parents at Phase II schools should make their views known by contacting the Board and Menzel, using Let’s Talk, writing opinion pieces, participating in PTO meetings, and sharing information with parents through newsletters and social media. Don’t wait until decisions are final; speak up now. Community input is important.
Don’t let Menzel continue to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
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 Mike Bengert | Sep 23, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
by Mike Bengert | Jun 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
Read it for yourself:
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:
Conclusion
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.
