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.
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.
