Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
At the April 1 meeting of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, the main topic of discussion was once again the FY2025-2026 budget. As usual, SUSD Chief Financial Officer Shannon Crosier presented slides filled with numerous figures and did her best to put a positive spin on the information, carefully avoiding direct answers to the questions posed. At times, questions from Board Members Pittinsky and Sharkey seemed to include the answers, perhaps as a reminder of the narrative they were expected to follow.
However, the information presented made it clear that Superintendent Dr. Menzel is once again cutting teachers and instructional staff to deal with the financial impact of declining enrollment. Much of this decline can be traced back to his mismanagement of the district and the implementation of controversial policies like social-emotional learning (SEL), which critics argue undermine academic instruction and teacher morale.
Proponents of SEL, including Dr. Menzel, argue that by addressing students’ psychological challenges, academic achievement will follow. However, independent research, especially outside the U.S. teaching establishment, shows little evidence supporting this theory. You don’t need another study to confirm this; just look at the student proficiency scores in the Arizona Auditor General’s annual school district spending analysis report.
In FY24, SUSD spent 54.4% of its budget on instructional services, slightly below its peer group’s average of 55.2%. Over the past five years, spending on instruction in SUSD has dropped by 1.7%, while spending on student support has increased by 2.6%. During this period, SUSD’s enrollment has decreased by 8.4%, a trend that directly correlates with Dr. Menzel’s tenure. In the 2024 financial report, SUSD cut 59 instructional positions, added 71 student support positions, and increased the number of support and administrative roles by 44. As enrollment continues to fall, instructional spending declines, while support services and administrative costs rise. Yet, despite this shift in priorities, the effectiveness of SEL in improving academic performance has not been proven. Rather, the opposite is true.
For example, in FY24, in SUSD, only 55% of students passed the state math assessment, 61% passed English Language Arts (ELA), and just 41% passed science—an average drop of 12% since 2019. These results point to an inverse correlation between increased spending on support services and academic performance. This fact is well-documented in various unbiased studies.
Dr. Menzel, however, seems undeterred by the data, continuing his agenda of reducing instructional positions while increasing funding for social-emotional support services, including hiring more social workers and psychologists. All of this is happening despite clear declines in academic achievement.
At the meeting, it was apparent that Dr. Menzel has little regard for Board Members Carney and Werner’s requests for cost-cutting measures they made during the first budget meeting. In response to a question from Member Pittinsky about the possibility of future funding, Dr. Menzel stated, “There’s a path to land the plane to address those priorities of the board.” A “path” to address the Board’s priorities? The Governing Board is legally responsible for the district’s financial performance, and Dr. Menzel’s role is to present options that align with the Board’s priorities now, not at some unspecified future date based on potential additional funds.
Crosier claimed that the district had reviewed its costs carefully and had cut 13 positions from district-level departments. However, when questioned, she revealed that only one of those positions was not vacant and that no one had lost their job or experienced a reduction in force. So, how does this translate to cost savings?
When Member Carney inquired about her request for cuts to discretionary spending—such as travel, conferences, and consulting fees, Crosier had no answer. Carney also asked what steps she had taken to preserve the full-time assistant principal positions, which were requested by the Board, community members, and teachers alike. Once again, no answer.
Dr. Menzel’s disregard for the Board’s requests, coupled with his continued expansion of district staffing in non-instructional areas, raises serious concerns. One slide presented during the meeting, titled “Department Level Positions History – All Funds,” listed changes for FY25-26, but the data presented was incomplete and lacked the actual number of staff in each department. Showing the true staffing numbers would prompt uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why are these positions necessary?” and “Are they more important than keeping teachers in the classroom?”
According to the Auditor General, SUSD’s per-student administrative spending is 15% higher than the peer group average. Meanwhile, the public comment portion of the meeting included heartfelt testimonies from teachers, including the president of the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), who expressed the growing difficulty of teaching amid rising costs, particularly healthcare. Next year, the district plans to offer teachers only a 1% raise while shifting more of the healthcare burden onto the teachers.
We heard stories from teachers struggling to make ends meet, including one who is leaving the district after years of service, and others—one with 27 years of experience—facing insurmountable medical expenses.
Because state funding for education is based on enrollment, the root of the district’s financial troubles lies in the decline of enrollment, which has been exacerbated by Dr. Menzel’s policies and his focus on non-academic priorities. The Auditor General tracks school district enrollment and assesses the financial risks associated with declining enrollment. According to these trends, SUSD has been rated as “high risk” due to its decreasing enrollment numbers.
In FY24, while districts across the state facing declining enrollment worked to reduce operating costs, SUSD failed to make similar adjustments. The statewide average teacher salary increased by 34.6% between FY17 and FY24, reaching $65,113, while SUSD’s average teacher salary rose by just 27.7% to $63,151—$1,962 below the state average. This is a 1.5% decrease in the average teacher salary for FY24 from FY23. Moreover, the average base salary for teachers with less than three years of experience rose by 24.4%, while those with more than four years of experience saw an increase of less than 0.5%. This discrepancy is contributing to the loss of experienced teachers, many of whom are leaving the district. This creates a younger teacher population at SUSD. Recent teaching graduates are more likely to support Dr. Menzel’s policies than older graduates. This is what he wants.
Several speakers at the meeting called for more state funding to address these challenges. While their frustration is understandable, their anger is misplaced. The real issue, as outlined by the Auditor General, is not a lack of state funding but rather mismanagement by Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board, which has consistently approved budgetary decisions that prioritize administrative and support staff over instructional spending.
According to the Auditor General in FY24, statewide school district spending increased by over $500 million to $13.1 billion, with per-student increases, including instruction, over FY23. Despite this increase in funding, the district allocated a smaller portion of the increase in spending to instruction than in prior years. As a result, the FY24 instructional spending percentage is the lowest since the Auditor General started monitoring in FY2001.
The decline in enrollment, because of Dr. Menzel’s continued focus on implementing SEL and bloating administrative positions, will only worsen SUSD’s financial situation. The Governing Board will need to face this ongoing problem for years to come unless drastic changes are made.
Rather than calling for more state funding for education, the SEA should be calling for the removal of Dr. Menzel as the first step in making the changes needed in SUSD.
Unfortunately for students and parents alike, rather than “landing the plane”, what we are witnessing is a controlled crash of the SUSD plane.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
At the Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) meeting in February, Dr. Cindy Bochna, Director of Assessments and Accountability, and Ms. Lea Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services from Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) gave a presentation of the K-12 Statewide Assessments. You can view the video of the meeting here, SPC 2-19-25 Meeting.
A couple of interesting and somewhat disturbing points came out during the presentation and discussion.
One being how SUSD and most of the schools are “A” rated by the Arizona Department of Education.
For those of you not familiar with the AZ report card process, according to the Arizona Department of Education website, the
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-241 requires the Arizona Department of Education, subject to final adoption by the State Board of Education, to develop an annual achievement profile for every public school in the state based on an A through F scale.
The system measures year to year student academic growth, proficiency on English language arts, math and science. It also includes the proficiency and academic growth of English language learners, indicators that an elementary student is ready for success in high school and that high school students are ready to succeed in a career or higher education and high school graduation rates.”
To find out what grade your child’s school has been awarded, and how many points the school earned in each category, go to AZ Report Cards and search by the name of the school.
I understand that the Arizona Department of Education assigns the grades and SUSD didn’t establish the criteria, nor the weighted values assigned for the grading, but I think it is important that parents understand exactly what goes into the grades assigned and how to interpret them.
So, when you are looking at your child’s school to determine the assessment grade and detailed scoring, I encourage you to scroll down and look at the other information available, specifically the student achievement in state academic assessment reports.
These reports provide details on student proficiency rates for ELA, math, and science. By looking at previous years, you can see how the data is trending.
During the discussion at the SPC meeting, using Chaparral High School as an example, I asked Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell how Chaparral is given an A grade when across all three academic subjects, an average of only 53% of the students are proficient. I asked how a 53% could be an A, isn’t that more like an F?
What I found disturbing was the response I got from Ms. Mitchell. She explained that Stephen Curry and Steve Kerr, both NBA players, only made 45% of the shots they took yet they were rated as world champion basketball players.
So, Ms. Mitchell, are you saying 53% makes you a world champion in academics? Really?!?
Statements like this are silly and make me wonder just how serious they are about education. SUSD students and parents deserve better.
At one point during the meeting, I asked how Arizona compared to the rest of the country. I said that I thought we were somewhere around 48th or 49th. Both Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell said I was wrong, and that Arizona was somewhere around 30th or so in terms of ACT scores across the nation.
In a follow-up email, Dr. Bochna provided me with the following information:
When you look at the data and sort it from highest to lowest, Arizona is right where I said we are, tied with Mississippi and Hawaii for 47, 48, and 49th positions. Arizona is nowhere near the top 30 or whatever position Ms. Mitchell thought. If they were analyzing the data, they should know that. Being a top performer in a state that ranks at the bottom is nothing to brag about.
When you put this performance in some context, the 21.5 ACT score for SUSD is less than impressive. The average ACT score for incoming students at ASU is 26. While a score of 20-23 is considered competitive at many mid-tier colleges, a score of 24-28 is needed for more selective colleges. To get into a top engineering school, a student needs something like a 30 in math and 36 for a composite score. I’m sure there are a handful of students out of the 20,000 in SUSD who score that high, but to get an average of 21.5, many students do not.
While I certainly encourage you to listen to the entire meeting (Dr. Menzel responds to questions at the beginning of the meeting) the points I discussed here are found in the 44:00 to 1:00:00 portion and the 1:13:00 to 1:24:00 segment in the video. Listen for yourself.
For anyone that has been paying attention to what has been happening in SUSD over the past few years, it comes as no surprise that academic performance under Dr. Menzel has been terrible. Thousands of SUSD students each year are not proficient in ELA, math or science, yet over 92% graduate high school in four years. Remember, Dr. Menzel has never met any of his academic performance goals throughout his tenure at SUSD.
This academic record has contributed, in large part, to the steady decline in enrollment, leading to major financial issues the Governing Board is now struggling with. As has been his practice for the past few years, Dr. Menzel proposes cutting teachers and instructional staff positions and hiring more unlicensed social workers to solve the budget crisis, a crisis that his poor management has caused. Actions, if taken, will ensure the Governing Board will be dealing with the same problem again next year.
At the last Governing Board meeting, Member Pittinsky told Dr. Menzel he wanted to see a deep dive into causes of the declining enrollment. He wants to understand what parents are saying during exit surveys as they pull their children out of SUSD and see the data by site and grade level. All of us involved with SUSD would like to see that information.
I wish Dr. Pittinsky the best of luck as he tries to get this information from Dr. Menzel.
As I have said on multiple occasions, identifying the root cause of the problem and fixing it is the only way anything will change. Unfortunately, change takes time; time that thousands of SUSD students don’t have.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Can we truly take the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) seriously? They claim to be the premier association for school system leaders and the national voice for public education and district leadership. But do they speak for the majority of parents with children in public schools across America?
The AASA being the voice for public education on Capitol Hill might explain why public education has been failing our children for years. The education professionals who run the AASA and the Arizona School Administrators (ASA) seem more focused on promoting social-emotional learning, DEI, and gender identity rather than prioritizing academic excellence in public schools.
How else do you explain the prior selection of Dr. Donna Lewis as the superintendent of the year when she was the superintendent of a district where math and ELA proficiency were below 15%? And how do you explain the selection of Dr. Menzel as the 2024-2025 national superintendent of the year?
By selecting two failed superintendents for recognition, these organizations demonstrate that they are not concerned with academics.
Contrary to the Scottsdale Unified School District’s (SUSD) claims, Menzel has not enhanced educational outcomes; it is just the opposite. Last year, Menzel failed to meet his academic performance goals, and academic achievement in math, ELA, and science declined. In 2023, SUSD had over 8,000 students who were NOT proficient in ELA, over 9,000 who were NOT proficient in math, and over 12,000 students who were NOT proficient in science. Thirty-five percent of 3rd graders were not proficient in ELA in 2023. Being able to read by 3rd grade is critical to a student’s academic success. By continuing to promote them without being proficient, Menzel is setting them up for academic failure.
Despite these deficiencies, hundreds of SUSD students are promoted and graduate each year.
Under Menzel’s tenure, SUSD experienced a 10% drop in enrollment, with nearly half of the eligible students choosing not to attend SUSD. Additionally, the district has faced record staff turnover due to the fear-driven environment Menzel has created. Yet he is celebrated as the superintendent of the year.
Enough is enough. Scottsdale cannot afford another failed superintendent of the year.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
