As Scottsdale parents, grandparents, community members, and taxpayers evaluate their choices for school board, it’s important to remember that your vote reflects not just your choice of a candidate, but also the values and policies they represent.
One group of candidates—Michael Sharkey, Donna Lewis, and Matt Pittinsky—are endorsed by the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), which is affiliated with the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) teachers’ unions. Their campaign suggests they aim to “protect SUSD,” implying they will defend and uphold current policies. This includes supporting Superintendent Dr. Menzel’s agenda, which focuses on “dismantling and disrupting” SUSD to promote social justice and equity.
While Dr. Menzel emphasizes social emotional learning (SEL), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and gender identity, academic performance in SUSD has declined. Teacher and principal turnover are at an all-time high, and Dr. Menzel’s performance evaluation shows he has failed to meet any of the district’s academic achievement goals. For instance, only 60% of 3rd graders are proficient in English Language Arts (ELA), 46% of 8th graders in math, and just 34% of 9th graders in science.
Michael Sharkey, one of the SEA-endorsed candidates, claims one of his priorities is “Represent With Integrity,” pledging respect, honesty, and transparency. However, his LinkedIn statements suggest a dismissive attitude toward parental input on educational decisions, which raises concerns about his commitment to academic integrity. He says:
“So why am I running? Over the last few years, there’s been an uptick in the ‘parent’s rights’ movement. This is the notion that parents are best situated to make educational and healthcare decisions for their kids. While I am 100% in support of parents working WITH teachers and doctors, I reject the premise that parents know better than experienced/trained professionals.”
Once Sharkey received significant pushback on his post, he quickly rewrote it.
Remember the saying, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Dr. Donna Lewis, another SEA-endorsed candidate, highlights her being selected as the 2020-2021 Arizona National Superintendent of the Year while serving as Creighton Superintendent. That year, only 13% of the students enrolled at Creighton were proficient in ELA and only 8% in math. Not exactly superintendent of year numbers.
Her tenure at Creighton School District saw her implement so-called innovative approaches like dual-language, multi-age, and constructivist learning. However, even two years after the COVID-19, union-driven school shutdown, academic proficiency rates at Creighton remained dismally low, raising questions about the effectiveness of these innovations. In 2023, ELA proficiency was 17% and math 12%. So much for the innovative approaches.
Why would SUSD parents and Scottsdale community members vote to elect someone to the school board with this less-than-impressive past performance as a superintendent and no past or present ties to SUSD? How long has she even lived in Scottsdale or the SUSD?
Matt Pittinsky, the third SEA-endorsed candidate, says he supports neighborhood schools yet chose to send one of his kids to Brophy, which could indicate a lack of commitment to improving SUSD from within.
The SEA-backed candidates often promise to engage with parents respectfully and transparently but simultaneously criticize those who express concerns or exercise their legal rights in education. This disconnect between their promises and actions reflects a broader trend of undermining parental involvement and accountability. The Scottsdale community has resisted SEA-endorsed candidates, with two other candidates winning the last election.
At the last SUSD Board meeting, a Board member read a Let’s Talk message from a Scottsdale Unified employee revealing the employee’s fears about speaking out against current administration policies:
“… in light of the current climate where many of us feel apprehensive about speaking out. It’s become increasing evident that dissent with the current administration may result in severe consequences.”
So much for the SUSD value of inclusion, where “we create an equitable environment where everyone is respected, is treated with dignity, and has a sense of belonging.”
We cannot afford to elect a slate of SEA-backed progressive candidates who will only continue to “protect” Dr. Menzel and his failed policies.
We need a Governing Board dedicated to academic excellence, parental rights, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler, the Just Be Honest team, would provide that for the SUSD Governing Board.
Their campaign website is SUSD Strong. They don’t want to “protect” the status quo. They want to change it.
They care about the district and have a plan to focus on academics over activism, be honest with parents, respect their right to have a primary role in their child’s education, be good stewards of taxpayer money, bring fiscal responsibility to the district, and improve safety and security for all students and staff, not only on campus but whenever they are involved with a district event or service.
If you want to see a Strong SUSD, Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler will make this a reality.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
In a recent opinion piece, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Superintendent Scott Menzel highlights what he considers a long list of accomplishments. According to Superintendent Menzel, the “2023-2024 school year has been marked by significant progress and achievements as we continue to implement initiatives aligned with our Strategic Plan to improve academic achievement and outcomes and prepare students for real-world opportunities in an ever-evolving landscape.”
Let’s delve into the statistics.
Nearly 1,800 seniors graduated from SUSD on May 23rd. During the May 14th Governing Board meeting, 11 seniors were recognized for their academic excellence. In his column, Dr. Menzel highlighted that 51 graduates had received math and science diplomas. While these acknowledged students have rightfully earned praise for their hard work and accomplishments, including receiving various scholarships, what about the remaining 1,800 graduates? How have they fared after receiving a purportedly “world-class, future-focused” education from SUSD?
According to the Arizona Department of Education’s comprehensive school report card system, the overall performance isn’t encouraging. In 2023, when these graduating seniors were juniors, their proficiency levels were assessed, yielding the following results:
Only 63% demonstrated proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA), leaving 37% (or 666) lacking proficiency.
Math proficiency was even lower at 55%, indicating that 45% (or 810) were not proficient.
Science proficiency was the lowest, with a mere 25% demonstrating proficiency, leaving 75% (or 1,350) lacking in this area.
On average, only 48% (or 858 students) of the 1,800 graduates were proficient across all three academic subjects.
Given these outcomes, it seems apt to reconsider the SUSD slogan “Because kids,” as it appears the district may not adequately prioritize the needs of all students. Perhaps it should be restated as “Because some kids.” A school district’s quality should be judged by how well it supports its lowest-performing students.
Yet, despite this concerning academic record, three outgoing members of the current governing board decided, without public input or feedback from district stakeholders, to extend Superintendent Menzel’s contract by two years and grant him a 4% raise.
Dr. Menzel’s emphasis on using class time for destructive “Social Emotional Learning,” “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion,” and gender identity at the expense of teaching academics appears to be falling short for SUSD students, parents, and taxpayers. It’s perhaps unsurprising that parents are increasingly withdrawing their children from SUSD, and staff turnover, including principals, is at an all-time high.
If you share my frustration with the Governing Board’s apparent rubber-stamping of Dr. Menzel’s failing agenda and believe our children deserve better, I urge you to vote for change this November. Let’s elect Jeanne Beasley, Drew Hassler, and Gretchen Jacobs to the SUSD school board. These candidates are committed to academic excellence, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Any sensible person can see that there is something seriously wrong with many American universities.
For several decades many of our most prestigious seats of learning have become hostile to free speech and genuine inquiry. Speech codes have been introduced to prevent so-called ‘microaggressions.’
Speakers that do not subscribe to ‘woke’ orthodoxies have been ‘de-platformed.’ Those that do get invited on to campus risk being mobbed, as recently happened to a federal judge at Stanford and Riley Gaines at San Francisco State.
Intellectual inquiry, too, has narrowed. Anyone presenting ideas outside the approved parameters risks having their career terminated. (See what happened to Harvard’s then-president, Larry Summers, in 2006 when he suggested that genetics might help explain why there are more male than female scientists.)
Then on October 7th, Hamas slaughtered over a thousand Israelis, most of them civilians. Far from condemning the massacre, student groups at Harvard, Cornell and other universities rushed to issue statements attacking Israel.
Anti-Israel protesters on campus made statements and chanted slogans that went beyond being merely rude or unpleasant. Some seemed antisemitic. Others sounded like they were calling for a Jewish genocide.
How come those campus speech codes suddenly no longer applied? Having spent years policing what could be said to avoid ‘microaggressions,’ where were the university authorities when Jewish students faced actual aggression?
Giving evidence before a Congressional committee the other week, Claudine Gay of Harvard appeared to suggest that however unpalatable the protesters might be, it was all part of their right to freedom of speech. “Our university embraces a commitment to free expression” she said. Both she, and Liz Magill of Penn, failed to confirm that calls for genocide of Jews violated the university’s code of conduct.
Free speech appears to apply at these universities when you want to call for genocide, but not if you want to talk about genetics.
Watching both Gay and Magill give evidence, they both appeared out of their depth. I may not have been the only person left wondering how either of them was appointed to their respective roles in the first place. (Some have unkindly suggested it may have something to do with ‘woke’ hiring practices.)
The problems at US universities run deeper than just a handful of poor appointments.
Many US universities, including some right here in Mississippi, have DEI, or Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, programs. This needs to stop. Now.
DEI can sound entirely harmless. Who could possibly be against supporting different groups of individuals, including people of different races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, genders, and sexual orientations? Pretty soon, however, DEI proves to be something much more sinister.
In the name of diversity, some US universities have been systematically discriminating against some Americans on the basis of their race, limiting admissions to ‘overrepresented’ groups. In the name of equity, US universities have set out to address structural inequalities – historic and current – that advantage some and disadvantage others. In the name of inclusion, those with the wrong views are excluded.
DEI is flawed because it demands we think in terms of groups of individuals, rather than just individuals. Universities that apply DEI no longer treat everyone on campus equally, but on the basis of their immutable characteristics. DEI is a fundamentally un-American ideal.
DEI is also a formula almost guaranteed to produce institutional incompetence. Imagine, for a moment, that your favorite football or basketball team was to be run on the basis of DEI. If they recruited players on the basis of something other than their ability to play the game, they would lose. It makes no sense to run a public university that way.
What is to be done?
Last week, the Governor of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt, showed the way. He issued an executive order banning DEI programs in public universities. Mississippi needs to do something similar.
An executive order in Mississippi could prohibit public universities from using state funds, property or resources for DEI initiatives.
To be sure, if the Governor was to do this in Mississippi there would be howls of protests. Various pundits would whine. It is what pundits do. Some will scream “supremacist!” There is nothing supremacist about insisting every American is treated equally. Others will warn that unless we continue to pay DEI staff six figure salaries Mississippi will somehow regress.
I suspect most Mississippi parents wanting the best for their children would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that the sort of scenes we witnessed at some of those so-called ‘elite’ institutions never happen here.
If we want to stop the ‘woke’ takeover of our institutions, we need to act now.
Northern Arizona University (NAU) will play a key role in an effort to validate indigenous knowledge as scientific knowledge using millions in federal funding.
Ora Marek-Martinez, NAU’s associate vice president of the Office for Native American Initiatives and assistant professor of anthropology, will be part of the University of Massachussetts’ newly-established Center for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science (CBIKS). Marek-Martinez will serve as the CBIKS Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & Ethics Co-Lead for the center’s Southwest Hub.
Biden’s National Science Foundation (NSF) gave $30 million to CBIKS, a grant lasting five years. CBIKS may qualify for additional federal funding come 2028.
CBIKS researchers will focus initially on collaborating with indigenous Nanwalek Alaskans to study their traditional methods of salmon population preservation, indigenous Hawaiians to study their agricultural and food waste practices, and indigenous Australians to study environmental signs of climate change. Sonya Atalay, CBIKS Director and UMass Amherst Provost Professor of Anthropology, said that current scientific approaches were limited.
“CBIKS is about recognizing that Indigenous knowledge systems carry tremendous information and value, and it’s shortsighted to think that current research practices founded on Western knowledge systems are the only or ‘right’ approach,” said Atalay.
In one of CBIK’s initial postings, Atalay gave credence to the belief that rocks are alive, per indigenous knowledge.
Atalay criticized Michigan archaeologists for “disregard[ing] Native understanding of the rock as an animate being.” The rock in question bears Native American petroglyphs.
The rock wasn’t available for comment.
In order to obtain more indigenous knowledge beyond the consciousness of rocks, CPIKS will interact with 57 indigenous communities through its eight regional hubs across the country and in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The initiative is part of a larger effort by the Biden administration to prioritize “indigenous knowledge” into “research, policies, and decision making,” as noted in a memo from the Office of Science and Technology Policy issued last November. The office, newly assigned cabinet-level status by the Biden administration, further declared indigenous knowledge to be “an aspect of the best available science” and directed its inclusion in “Highly Influential Scientific Assessments.” Those assessments directly shape costly federal policies.
The Biden administration wasn’t the first to attempt to assign parity to indigenous knowledge in scientific inquiry: as Washington Free Beacon reported, Canadian researchers reported adverse results after their country incorporated indigenous knowledge into policymaking, ranging from counterproductive at best to dangerous at worst.
“[T]he acceptance of spiritual beliefs as ‘knowledge’ by governments was dangerous because it could be used to justify any activity, including actions that were environmentally destructive,” stated a 2006 academic assessment.
One apparent outcome of catering to indigenous knowledge occurred when Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) deputy director M. Kaleo Manuel, a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner, delayed the release of water to combat the Maui fires because he insisted that officials obtain permission from a local taro farm. Taro is integral to Native Hawaiian agriculture and tradition.
Washington Free Beacon also reported some of the early fruits of the Biden administration’s indigenous knowledge labors: reinterpreting time as cyclical rather than sequential, entertaining proposals to pay tribal elders to assist in federal rulemaking, scrapping peer review processes, acknowledging alleged interdimensional relations between animals and humans,
NAU’s involvement in the Biden initiative aligns with the university’s policy of prioritizing Native American individuals in admissions and employment.
In February, NAU established a program providing free tuition regardless of income to Native Americans while requiring a financial threshold for students of all other races. They also pledged $10 million to “indigenous,” or prioritize indigenous people, in their curriculum. The equitable treatment of Native Americans resulted in a boost to the university’s enrollment.
The Office for Native American Initiatives, which Marek-Martinez helps lead, played an integral role in these equity efforts.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The assistant dean of University of Arizona (UArizona) law school admits that they have an ongoing system in place that effectively curtails the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling prohibiting affirmative action.
The SCOTUS ruling ended race-based admissions in June, requiring colorblind criteria. Cary Lee Cluck, UArizona James E. Rogers College of Law assistant dean for admissions and financial aid, admitted that they still factor race in admissions during last month’s Association of American Law Schools (AALS) conference on affirmative action. Cluck was a key panelist tasked with discussing how law schools can achieve diversity without affirmative action.
Cluck shared that UArizona’s law school relies on a “holistic review” of applicants. In defining what a holistic review entails, Cluck explained that their admissions team reviews college transcripts and resumes to better understand what an applicant is all about, within the context of meeting the law school’s diversity goals. Cluck added that applicants who volunteer more information about themselves in their application are more likely to benefit, specifically citing race.
“When I say ‘holistic file review,’ we’re looking at all of those little pieces of things that we’ve asked you to give us and, some that are optional, that you can give us to get a fuller picture of who you are as a person,” said Cluck. “[I]ncluding other types of diversity beyond or alongside, you know, talking about your racial background is a good thing because it gives us, like we’ve been talking about, another piece or many more pieces of the puzzle to consider who you are in a holistic manner and trying to make a decision about you.”
Cluck said that they don’t proactively ask for a diversity statement, but do consider them when they’re submitted by applicants.
“It’s another piece of the puzzle […] that we take into consideration, when we are reading the application,” said Cluck. “They’re not always about racial discrimination or gender discrimination, but they can be a diversity statement about a lot of different things. They are very useful in the application process.”
It’s likely that applicants include a diversity statement into either materials containing their personal statement or “other considerations.” The law school requires applicants to submit a personal statement concerning personal characteristics and qualities, education and work experiences, talents and special interests, socioeconomic background, involvement in community affairs and public services, and “any other circumstances that have helped shape your life or given it direction.” The law school admissions team also reviews an unspecified slew of “other considerations.”
Both UArizona College of Law students and faculty sit on the admissions committee, but Cluck is the final arbiter.
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, UArizona issued a press release noting that Arizona law has already prohibited the consideration of race or ethnicity in university admissions since 2010. It appears that the university and its law school have had 13 years to find a workaround to the prohibition.
Watch the AALS conference below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
