MIKE BENGERT: SUSD Board Should Be Held Accountable For Violating ‘No DEI’ Statement

MIKE BENGERT: SUSD Board Should Be Held Accountable For Violating ‘No DEI’ Statement

By Mike Bengert |

Following multiple complaints regarding the social studies curriculum recently approved by the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board on May 13, the Arizona Department of Education launched a formal investigation. On Wednesday, June 11, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne held a press conference to announce the findings. He stated that he would report to the federal government that SUSD violated a statement they signed saying they would not teach Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) content.

Horne clarified that his comments were directed at what he called the three “woke” members of the SUSD Governing Board who voted in favor of the curriculum. Superintendent Scott Menzel responded to this characterization, arguing it was unfair and uninformed—particularly without a full review of the 1,250-page textbook. He called such labeling “a problem from his perspective.”

While finding a common definition of “woke” is a bit of a challenge, most would agree that it originally meant being aware of social injustices, particularly around race, and it was rooted in activism. The term has now evolved into a broader often vague term for hyper-awareness of social issues. Critics often say it is dogmatic overreach where someone pushes rigid beliefs or ideologies beyond reason, imposing them on others without flexibility or evidence.

So, is it fair to describe these board members as “woke”?

Board Members Past

When Member Sharkey first announced he was running for the board, he said it was because of the rise in the parents’ rights movement (rights codified in Arizona Revised Statues), which he blamed (without citing any evidence) for the issues plaguing SUSD. He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.

Dr. Donna Lewis, SUSD Governing Board President, ran on her years of educational experience, including being selected as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District. Her academic record leaves a lot to be desired with 13% of her students proficient in ELA and 8% in math the year she was selected. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.

Then there is Dr. Pittinsky, another education professional and an expert in public education with 25 years’ experience. Someone who only publicly revealed the conflict of interest with his business ties with SUSD after he was called out. Someone who thinks so highly of SUSD that he put his kid in a private school rather than SUSD.

All three of these board members ran on “protecting SUSD” and Menzel and his “woke” curriculum of DEI, SEL, and gender identity. So far, they have shown themselves to be a predictable rubber stamp for whatever Menzel wants.

Dogmatic overreach?

Superintendent Menzel’s Past and Controversial Remarks

Superintendent Menzel previously led Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District, where he emphasized equity, inclusion, and social justice. In an interview before leaving Michigan, Menzel described white supremacy as deeply embedded in the fabric of American society, stating that acknowledging it offers a chance to “dismantle, disrupt, and recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”

These comments drew sharp criticism from Arizona GOP legislators, who labeled his statements as divisive and inappropriate for someone in public education.

Read it for yourself:

So, is it proper to label the three board members as “woke”?

I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.

Curriculum Content and Allegations of Bias

In addition to Horne, Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan also raised concerns about the new social studies curriculum and the anti-police messages they contain. Examples of anti-police rhetoric include textbook passages noting that “several police killings caused the nation to grapple with systemic racism,” and “Black Lives Matter activists and others argue that the deaths of many Black people were the result of institutional racism.” The text also mentions that Black men are statistically more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men.

Critics argue these lessons present a one-sided perspective and fail to encourage critical thinking. For example, the curriculum omits key facts in controversial cases, such as the Department of Justice findings in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, which concluded that Brown did not have his hands up and was engaged in a physical altercation with the officer trying to take his gun. Likewise, the curriculum does not mention a Harvard study that reportedly found no racial bias in police shootings after examining hundreds of cases.

Menzel has denied that the curriculum is anti-police or promotes indoctrination, insisting it encourages critical thinking and offers diverse perspectives. However, critics argue the content leans more toward ideological teaching than balanced education. Indoctrination, they argue, is defined by presenting only one viewpoint without room for discussion or dissent—contrary to the principles of real education, which promote inquiry and evidence-based analysis.

Again, don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:

Conclusion

Given the content of the curriculum, the past actions of the board members, and Superintendent Menzel’s own public remarks, it seems labeling the board members and even Menzel as “woke” is appropriate.

When Menzel tells you he would never use an anti-police curriculum or that he is promoting critical thinking among students, or there is no evidence to support any of the claims against the curriculum, don’t believe him. He is lying and trying to gaslight you.

It is incumbent on all of us concerned about the future of SUSD to contact the Governing Board members and tell them to withdraw the approval of this radical curriculum. Any purchase orders placed to procure the materials should be canceled.  

SUSD is facing difficult financial challenges caused by declining enrollment, a result of Menzel’s failed policies. Continuing down the path of implementing this curriculum will not only serve to accelerate the declining enrollment but put millions of federal dollars at risk. With the loss of the federal money, can school closures be far behind?

Menzel can continue to lie and push back against the federal government, but he is playing a high-risk game, a game he is likely to lose. He is putting the future of SUSD in jeopardy to satisfy his own ego.  

The Governing Board needs to seriously consider replacing Menzel before he completely destroys SUSD.

Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.

Charter Revoked For Major Online Arizona Charter School

Charter Revoked For Major Online Arizona Charter School

By Staff Reporter |

The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS) revoked the charter for Primavera Online School, potentially affecting over 20,000 students enrolled.

ASBCS cited low academic results these past three years as the basis for their decision, unanimously made during Tuesday’s meeting. 

Primavera’s founder and CEO, Damian Creamer, maintains ASBCS incorrectly redesignated Primavera in recent years as a traditional school rather than its historical designation as an alternative school. Grading as a traditional school resulted in Primavera receiving failing grades — rather than the adjusted passing grades Primavera would have gotten had it continued its designation as an alternative school.

Alternative schools serve at-risk students, a status requiring annual application. 

ASBCS did acknowledge that Primavera could be classified as an alternative school. However, it was also discussed how Primavera officials hadn’t contacted state officials about its redesignation as a traditional school, let alone about the poor grades. 

Creamer had this to say in response to ASBCS’s decision: 

The Arizona State Charter School Board’s decision to uphold its plan to revoke Primavera’s charter is a grave injustice and a tremendous disservice to all of Arizona’s students, parents, and teachers. This reckless action threatens to dismantle a vital educational institution that has faithfully served our community, providing innovative, accessible, and high-quality education to hundreds of thousands of students since our inception. We are appalled that the Board denied our legal counsel an opportunity to address the allegations made or to address the multitude of factual inaccuracies on which the board members specifically said they were acting. They did not want to hear anything that was contrary to the factually incorrect narrative they created. This blatant disregard for due process is not only unfair but undermines the principles of transparency and accountability that the Board claims to uphold. The assumptions and conclusions reached by the Board are based on factually untrue and materially false information. These were obvious misrepresentations rather than data driven evidence. Primavera will not stand idly by while the educational futures of our students are jeopardized. We are prepared to take all necessary action to challenge this decision and protect the rights of our students, parents, and educators. The Board’s actions will not go unanswered, and we will fight tirelessly to ensure that Arizona families continue to have access to the exceptional education Primavera provides.

The state’s chief educational authority says he was powerless to stop the revocation process. Back in March, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said he lacked authority to meddle with the ASBCS decision in response to appeals to intervene from the charter giant and its allies. Horne said Primavera would have to appeal and present evidence to an administrative law judge as their next steps. Primavera has hearings on the matter scheduled for September. 

“The legislature chose to divide jurisdiction regarding charter schools between the Arizona Department of Education and the Charter Board,” said Horne. “The current issue is within the jurisdiction of the Charter Board. I have no power or influence over that. If I were to try to influence it, the Charter Board would resent the trespass on their turf, and it would do more harm than good.”

Horne also issued a statement supporting the ASBCS decision to seek charter revocation. 

Primavera did receive approval for alternative status for the 2025 fiscal year, and has its application for alternative status for the 2026 fiscal year pending before the Arizona Department of Education.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

Arizona Law Will Put More Armed Campus Officers In Schools

Arizona Law Will Put More Armed Campus Officers In Schools

By Matthew Holloway |

Arizona schools will be protected by more armed school campus officers, newly developed safety technology, and advanced training through a new bipartisan bill, just signed into law. The bill, HB 2074, was signed into law by Governor Katie Hobbs on Tuesday.

Sponsored by State Representative Matt Gress (R-LD4), the new law makes a massive expansion to the existing, already successful, School Safety Program and allows retired law enforcement officers to serve their communities again as school officers.

Speaking in support of the new law, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said, “I am very pleased that this bill has become law. There is a need for more armed officers in schools and expanding the pool of available law enforcement professionals to include those who have retired in good standing is a commonsense idea that will put more officers in schools, making campuses safer. The added training and technology will increase the value of this successful program that makes our students, educators and staff safer on campus.”

“Schools must be places where all students, teachers, and staff feel safe,” said Gress in a press release. “I’m proud that this bill has been signed—crafted through collaboration with educators, certified mental health professionals, law enforcement, legislators, and Superintendent Tom Horne—into law. This marks a major step forward in implementing meaningful, commonsense school safety enhancements.”

According to a statement from the Arizona Department of Education, the new law contains provisions for Arizona schools to install new safety equipment and infrastructure. School districts and charter schools will also have access to training for safety officers on interacting with special needs students in addition to civil rights, student privacy laws, and adolescent mental issues. Each of the districts and charters must also prepare and submit a campus emergency response plan.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Arizona Education Department Publishes List Of Schools Complying With Federal DEI Guidance

Arizona Education Department Publishes List Of Schools Complying With Federal DEI Guidance

By Jonathan Eberle |

The Arizona Department of Education has unveiled a new public webpage identifying which schools in the state are in compliance with the Trump administration’s recent directives targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The move comes amid national legal battles over DEI in public education.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance requiring schools to sign compliance letters affirming they do not engage in DEI practices that the administration deems discriminatory. Failure to comply could result in the loss of federal funding. In response, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced the launch of a tracking site aimed at promoting transparency around which schools have agreed to follow the guidance.

“I am committed to following the law and will abide by the latest guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to take no action against schools until further notice,” Horne said in a statement.

The federal guidance has sparked legal challenges and confusion across the country, with educators and administrators unsure what qualifies as a DEI program. Two federal judges have already intervened. In one case, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty of New Hampshire criticized the vague language in the compliance letters, noting that they fail to clearly define DEI initiatives or how they allegedly violate civil rights laws.

Despite the legal uncertainty, Horne has voiced strong support for the administration’s position. “Federal law and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are clear that no person shall be discriminated [against] because of race, skin color or ethnicity, and this guidance aligns completely with my philosophy,” Horne said. “By contrast, the use of DEI programs does just the opposite and promotes racial discrimination.”

Horne said he believes the current DEI restrictions will ultimately be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and encouraged Arizona school districts and charter schools to take the issue seriously.

The Arizona Department of Education’s DEI compliance page can be viewed here.

Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.