The academic success of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) students over the past five years is shockingly low. Science scores have plummeted by 24% since 2019. Less than 50% of eighth grade students are proficient in math. In the Coronado Learning Community, that number shrinks to 12%. Yet, the district graduates 94% of students. How is this preparing students for success?
Most would think that SUSD, an organization with nearly a half billion-dollar annual budget, would be laser focused on the root cause of academic decline, but we would be mistaken. The simple fact is that SUSD has not prioritized academics. This can be attributed directly to Superintendent Scott Menzel. Since his tenure started in 2019, Dr. Menzel has implemented his stated plan to “disrupt and dismantle systems,” while academics suffer.
Hired by the decidedly “progressive” school board led by disgraced Jann-Michael Greenburg, the intent of finding a Menzel-like superintendent was clear. That board prioritized a candidate in Menzel who would promote “social justice” and DEI over academic achievement, and we are seeing the results. Class time is spent on shaping students’ feelings and framing a political narrative as opposed to reading, writing, and math.
Under Menzel’s watch, spending on student instruction is at an all-time low as a percent of the district’s budget, dropping 9.1% from 2004 levels of budget allocation. For a point of reference, based on the 2023-2024 budget of $458 million, the redirection of funds away from academics represents a $41.7 million loss to teachers, curriculum, and items that have a direct impact on academics.
Spending on social workers and support staff has increased to historical highs, while teaching positions and academic specialists have seen cuts. The 2024-2025 budget shows spending on support staff has increased as a percent of overall budget by 2.6% over the past five years, including an additional 4.5 social workers in this year alone. At the same time 20 teaching positions, 7 reading specialists, and 4.5 math specialists have been eliminated. How does this lead to providing the “world class education” that SUSD claims?
Recognizing the academic decline, parents are finding alternatives to SUSD schools. Enrollment has decreased by over 2,200 students in the past four years, reducing the federal, state, and local funding allocation by more than $17 million per year. SUSD now serves less than 54% of school-aged students in Scottsdale. Instead of correcting the problems to regain the trust and confidence of the community so that families actually want to send their kids, SUSD continually campaigns for additional funding through bonds, overrides, and new taxes, ignoring the reasons for the shortfalls.
We cannot afford another rubber stamp board for Menzel, who ignores academics and imposes his social justice priorities on our kids.
Instead, we need school board members like Jacobs, Beasley, and Hassler who are focused on improving academic outcomes, supporting teachers, and respecting the voice of parents. If we truly want to see improvements in our school district, let’s make it happen this November.
Rich Hoffecker is a parent and Scottsdale resident.
The Corporation Commission recently unanimously voted to support Tucson Electric Power’s (“TEP”) Midtown Reliability Project (“Midtown”). The Midtown project is a much-needed improvement for the City of Tucson’s antiquated and overloaded 46kV sub-transmission system. The equipment will be upgraded to a 138kV system in the area adjacent to the University of Arizona and Banner University Medical Center. The project would also replace a portion of the 4kV distribution lines located in the Midtown neighborhoods. These systems are over 50 years old and no longer meet the needs and demands of the area as the system has become increasingly overstrained and unstable.
Fragile wooden poles that are susceptible to damage will be replaced with larger capacity metal poles and more powerful transmission lines. Up to eight 46kV existing substations and 19 miles of current 46kV line will be removed, resulting in a reduced number of substations and overhead power lines in Midtown Tucson. The upgrades will benefit all of TEP’s customers; the transmission lines will improve system redundancy and grid resiliency, allowing power to bypass lines and areas that might be down or overloaded. In supporting the proposal, the Commission rejected calls by the City of Tucson leadership and neighborhood groups who demanded the new lines be “undergrounded” as opposed to the standard more affordable above ground installation.
Tucson voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop 412 in March 2023, which was supported by Tucson’s Mayor and TEP. The proposition would have extended TEP’s franchise agreement with the city, and in return would have established additional fees to fund the undergrounding of the Midtown project and establish a “Climate Action Fund.” The defeat left the franchise agreement renewal in limbo, but it also required TEP to move forward with an alternative plan to complete the needed and already delayed improvement. City leaders continued to call for the undergrounding of equipment, a beautification effort where costs would have been picked up by all TEP ratepayers, not just the customers who will benefit from the Midtown project improvements.
During the Commission proceedings, some claimed the incremental cost difference between underground and above ground lines was negligible, and that the historic nature of the area and neighborhoods called for a greater standard of beautification. There are two important responses to those viewpoints. First, the region already has above ground power lines. Any sort of undergrounding would be a luxury the area currently doesn’t enjoy. And as previously noted, the above ground upgrades will actually reduce the total number of transmission lines and substations. Second, there is a huge price difference. Project estimates for the cost difference between underground and above ground are $64 million dollars. An additional $64 million that would have to be funded by all TEP ratepayers, the far majority of whom live nowhere near Midtown.
Last year, the Commission adopted a transmission line policy statement that utilities under the Commission’s jurisdiction should avoid incurring higher costs from underground installation of transmission lines unless it was necessary for reliability or safety purposes. Undergrounding lines for purposes such as stakeholder or community preferences are not valid reasons on their own. And concerned third parties such as cities or neighborhood groups can still seek to cover the cost difference to underground through other means such as forming an improvement district.
With most rate design, there’s a degree of “subsidization” that exists, wherein equipment upgrades or power line installations are spread out across an entire ratepayer base for that utility’s customers. However, when a project or proposal clearly only benefits a small subset of customers, it is our duty as a Commission to look out for all ratepayers. We must ensure the desires of a few do not adversely impact the pocketbooks of the many.
It’s not uncommon for the Commission to review proposals that subscribe to what some refer to as “luxury beliefs.” Ideas and opinions that benefit a group of people who are better off while often inflicting greater costs or more harm on less fortunate classes. We see this most frequently amongst climatism promoters, who advocate to end the use of hydrocarbons and rapidly transform our electric grid, with no concerns for the price tag to ratepayers. It’s akin to advocating for ratepayers to subsidize electric vehicle charging stations that benefit a small set of utility customers, while the far majority of other customers either do not want an electric vehicle or can’t afford one.
During the hearing, proponents of line undergrounding attempted to rationalize the cost increase due to the unique history and beauty of the area. They argued the monthly cost to underground the Midtown project is negligible when spread out across the entire customer base. While I am sympathetic to the preferences of property owners, how can I as an elected official possibly rationalize to ratepayers in South Tucson that their neighborhood isn’t worthy of receiving the same special treatment?
With this vote, the Commission honored the will of Tucson voters and protected the pocketbooks of TEP ratepayers. We also took big steps to improve the long-term reliability and durability for all TEP customers in the Tucson area.
Kevin Thompson was elected as a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission in 2022. He previously served as a member of the Mesa City Council for eight years, representing the fastest-growing area of the city.
When you hear Ruben Gallego’s Senate campaign ads, you might think he’s an outsider taking on the Biden-Harris administration’s policies. In reality, Gallego has been in Congress for ten years, fully backing the Biden-Harris agenda. Over the last four years, he voted with them 100% of the time.
Gallego is now trying to reposition himself for the general election, just like Harris, by running away from his record. But don’t be misled. He is a radical progressive with strong support from Alex Soros, the son of billionaire George Soros.
Gallego shares Soros’s radical views, including being anti-police and soft on crime. He’s even praised those wanting to defund the police, abolish ICE, and eliminate cash bail.
Gallego calls the border wall “stupid” and “useless,” and he mocks those of us who are concerned about 11 million illegals entering our country. According to Gallego, we shouldn’t worry about the hundreds of thousands of drug overdose deaths, the increase in violent crime, sex trafficking, and threats from potential terrorists allowed to enter America. We should look the other way when illegal violent gangs take over apartment buildings and terrorize American citizens in major U.S. cities.
While he decries “right-wing policies” for separating families at the border, Gallego backs Biden-Harris policies that have lost track of over 300,000 unaccompanied minors, with many likely falling into sex trafficking, child labor, or even killed. The Biden-Harris administration has no idea where they are.
Gallego says while in Congress, he has been at the forefront of sensible, comprehensive immigration reform. He claims several bills have passed the House only to be blocked by Senate Republicans. He fails to mention that he voted against H.R.2 – Secure the Border Act of 2023, which passed the House only to be blocked by Schumer in the Senate. He voted for mass amnesty for millions of illegals and for federal funding for sanctuary cities, and Gallego opposes the Remain in Mexico policy.
Ruben Gallego supports the Harris plan to extend Social Security and Medicare benefits to illegal immigrants, which would cost taxpayers millions.
He has had years to address these issues in Congress, but his record shows a consistent push for policies that have worsened the problems. Now he promises change, but with his track record, why should we believe him?
On the economic front, Gallego voted for the Biden-Harris administration’s trillions in reckless spending that fueled inflation and rising prices. Under Biden-Harris, overall inflation is up 19.2%, average gas prices are up 46.6%, grocery prices are up 20.9%, electricity prices are up 29.6%, and real hourly wages are down 2.2%.
Now, despite this record, while running for the Senate after four years of voting for massive spending and billions in higher taxes, he promises to tackle cost-of-living issues and empower workers.
Gallego’s campaign ads say he has pushed back against his own party and has plans to fix all the problems caused by his continued support of the Biden-Harris administration. Does anyone believe that a former congressman, who would be the junior Senator from Arizona, with a track record of voting 100% in support of radical Democrat policies, will somehow become transformed and now vote against the Harris agenda? Not likely.
Just like Harris, the radical Gallego will say anything to get elected.
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a change. Voting for the same people who caused the problems and expecting things to change is foolish.
Radical Ruben Gallego is wrong on the economy and taxes, wrong on crime, and wrong on the border.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Human nature always seems to make most people want something for very little, if any, effort. When someone comes along and makes promises that seem to be able to relieve pains or struggles to make ends meet or to gratify our desires for the comforts of life, we somehow don’t think of the cost in dollars—or in our liberty. We just want it and wanting it makes us feel good about the magical future. People who want to get people to believe this way and to vote accordingly are sometimes called Marxists.
Marxism is the belief that the accumulation of capital is evil and that capital and property is what makes the wealthy take advantage of those who have less than the so-called capitalists. The whole effort of Marxists, then, is to convince the “laborers” that they deserve their fair share of the wealth and that the force of government should be employed to make it happen, so that all are equally enjoying prosperity and the comforts of life. It is a gross deception.
Sadly, we have recent historical examples of how this Marxist philosophy works in real life. There’s the Marxist Vladimir Lenin taking over Russia, or the Marxist Mao Zedong taking over China, or the Marxist Fidel Castro taking over Cuba.
Cuba had been the sugar-producing capital of the hemisphere, with huge farms and mechanized equipment to be able to provide millions of Cubans with employment. Then, along came the Marxist Fidel Castro who promised each worker their own plot of ground to do as they wished. What a dream! When the government was overthrown and Castro was in charge, they began to distribute the land equally. But the people soon realized they could not afford to buy the equipment necessary to keep up the production as before, so they had to work their two acres of ground by hand to survive. They had been deceived. But it was too late. The Marxists, in whom they had great hope, were now in charge, and the only ones living comfortably were the Marxists – the Deceivers. Russia and China had already experienced the same Marxist fate.
Now comes 2024, and another candidate in Kamala Harris who sounds a lot like the three Marxists noted above. She wants to create an “Opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed.” She wants to lower costs for middle class Americans for everyday needs like health care, housing, and groceries. She wants to give homebuyers $25,000. Where is she going to get the money to pay for all this?
The answer is simple. She is going to confiscate the capital from those who have it through higher taxes on income, property, and yes, even unrealized gains! Apparently, it sounds so good to those who want to live by the sweat of another man’s brow. But, as history teaches us, it is only a deceptive dream. It is against the laws of nature. It will end in disaster for America. And by the way, just like the case of Lenin, Mao, and Castro, Kamala Harris has never built a business and created jobs for anyone outside of government. She has no idea of how to build a lasting economy. It is no wonder that she falls in line with the thinking of her Marxist father. She was trained that way. Her theme is “A New Way Forward.” Mao’s theme was a “Great Leap Forward.” It is gross deception.
America was redeemed from the tyranny of Europe by the shedding of blood. If America ever loses the fragile freedoms we now have by embracing the deceptive, failed system of Marxism, who knows what it will take to get it back?
Arizona voters should be able to have complete trust in their elected officials to conduct themselves honorably, ethically, and lawfully in every matter concerning our sacred elections.
Too bad Secretary of State Adrian Fontes never got the memo.
In the midst of firing off baseless attacks against our organization after a court ruled in our favor against his radical Elections Procedures Manual, Fontes found a new way to violate the ethics of his office…and maybe the law.
Last week, in an unexpected, politically motivated, and potentially unlawful use of taxpayer dollars, Fontes filed a brief at the Arizona Supreme Court in an effort to ensure that votes for Prop 140 are counted in the November General Election—regardless of its eventual legality.
Think about that for a moment. By filing this brief, Adrian Fontes—the top election official in our state—unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Prop 140. In short, this means that for Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona adopts a California-style election scheme that includes ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. But that shouldn’t come as much of surprise…because it’s exactly what he’s been working for…
“I am not a charter school fan,” Joe Biden declared in his 2020 presidential campaign. That’s disappointing, but not surprising, coming from the self-declared “most pro-union president” in history.
His would-be successor, Kamala Harris, claims to still be equivocating, as is her wont, over her position on charter schools. But she has the enthusiastic support of the teachers’ unions, so that’s a bad sign too.
Her dilemma is that the teachers’ unions, the political partners of the Democrats, are dead set in their opposition to charter schools for two reasons. They expose the education failures of the union-dominated district schools, and most charter school teachers aren’t unionized and therefore don’t pay union dues.
Charter schools, first created in the 1990s, are publicly funded but independently administered. They don’t charge tuition and aren’t allowed to “cherry-pick” the best students.
Charter school opponents once could claim that charter schools “don’t work” to improve academic outcomes. But we know now that this is simply not the case.
Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) released a 2023 report tracking charter school outcomes over 15 years. The study covered 2 million charter school students in 29 states with a control group in district schools. It is arguably the most comprehensive, credible study ever done of charter schools.
The conclusion was decisive. Most charter schools “produce superior student gains despite enrolling a more challenging student population.”
CREDO’s first study in 2009 showed no improvement in student outcomes from charters, a result still cited as evidence that charters fail to help those deemed “uneducable” by some. But each subsequent CREDO report has shown improvement and superior performance overall.
New York charter school students gained 75 days reading improvement and 73 in math each year compared with traditional schools. In Washington state, the numbers were 29 days in reading and 30 in math. In Illinois, it was 40 in reading, 48 in math.
The recent study also showed that black and Hispanic students achieved disproportionately large gains. A section in the CREDO report described several “gap-busting schools” which educate students from underprivileged backgrounds to perform at the same level as white peers. So much for the myth of “uneducable” students.
The overall statistics would be even better if not for the 15% of charter schools that underperform their local district schools. The telling difference is that failing charter schools can be and are closed. Failing district schools just keep on failing year after year.
There is even more good news. Charter schools benefit even those students who do not attend them. According to an analysis by the Fordham Foundation, at least 12 studies indicate that the scores for all publicly enrolled students in a geographic region rise when the number of charter schools increases. Moreover, neighboring schools which don’t experience academic improvement often showed progress in school attendance and behavioral problems due to competing with charters.
The reason is obvious. The mere presence of choices for parents breaks the district school monopoly. Competition brings more accountability and a “customer orientation” that benefits everybody.
It’s no coincidence that, while traditional public schools have lost students, charter schools have gained over 300,000 students over the last five years. But the institutional opponents of the charter schools are unmoved by the good news. The growth of charters would undoubtedly be even greater if not for the relentless opposition of the teachers’ union/Democratic Party axis.
Ironically, for charter school opponents, charters are highly popular with the working class, ethnic minority constituencies they claim to champion. A poll this May by Democrats for Education Reform found that 80% of black parents and 71% of Hispanics had a favorable view of charters, as well they should.
But the teachers’ unions don’t give away their formidable political support, and they clearly dominate educational policy making with today’s Democrats. The Biden/Harris administration has continued a program of budget cuts and onerous regulations for charter schools, including a proposed reduction for the Charter Schools Program, which provides grants and was even supported by the Clinton and Obama administrations.
The Democrats – and all of us – have a clear choice to make between the needs of students versus the demands of the teachers’ unions.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
