A new Arizona Public Opinion Pulse (AZPOP) survey from Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) reveals that Arizona voters favor greater parental control over education and support restrictions on classroom discussions about race, gender, and sexuality.
However, the data reveals a striking trend: political affiliation, rather than parenting status, is the primary driver of these education policy preferences.
NPI conducted the survey from August 11-18, 2025, polling 948 registered Arizona voters with a margin of error of ±3.18%.
The survey found strong support for increased parental involvement in education, with 48% of voters believing parents should have more control over educational content, 30% saying current levels are appropriate, and 13% favoring less parental influence.
Parents with children under 18 (51%) and those with adult children (50%) show slightly higher support for increased control compared to non-parents (46%).
Political affiliation, however, reveals evident divides: 67% of Republicans advocate for more parental control, compared to just 30% of Democrats and 45% of Independents.
NPI Founder and CEO, Mike Noble, commented on these results, saying, “This data exposes a counterintuitive reality where partisan identity outweighs personal family circumstances in shaping education policy views.”
On the issue of limiting classroom discussions about race, gender, and sexuality, 50% of Arizona voters support restrictions, while 38% oppose them. Parents with children under 18 show stronger support (58%) compared to those with adult children (50%) or non-parents (45%), indicating a greater concern among parents with school-age children about exposure to sensitive topics in the classroom.
Political affiliation again proves to be the dominant factor. A striking 71% of Republicans favor restrictions compared to only 34% of Democrats. Independents are nearly split, with 43% supporting restrictions and 45% opposing them, reflecting broader ideological tensions.
The survey challenges the assumption that parenting status primarily shapes education policy views. Instead, partisan identity drives preferences, with Republicans prioritizing parental rights and limits on sensitive topics, viewing schools as potential sources of ideological influence.
Democrats, conversely, emphasize professional educator judgment and oppose restrictions they see as censorship. Independents remain divided, grappling with balancing parental authority and educational freedom.
“Arizona’s education debates have become a perfect storm of cultural anxiety and political division,” said Noble. “While parents naturally want influence over their children’s education, we’re seeing partisan identity increasingly drive policy preferences more than actual family experience.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A young Christian man named Charlie Kirk was shot—simply for speaking his mind. A husband, a father, a voice for the next generation. Lord, why did it happen this way? How dare they steal the breath from a faithful man?
Charlie was not a violent agitator, not a man bent on tearing down, but one who stirred the hearts of the young. He spoke boldly where others remained silent, reminding his peers that they were created for more. He gave them courage. And for that, he was silenced.
“How dare they?” we ask. Indeed. Yet the truth is more sobering: they dare because of the cultural environment we now live in—an environment shaped, in part, by radical ideologies that have seeped into our schools, our politics, and even our everyday conversations. And right here in Scottsdale, that environment has been nurtured by leaders like Superintendent Menzel, current and former board members, and others who have steered the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) away from academic excellence and into ideological experiments.
The Shift Away from Education
SUSD leaders claim to promote critical thinking, yet what they push is a one-sided agenda built on misinformation and half-truths. Instead of focusing on the basics—reading, writing, mathematics, science—SUSD has embraced policies that undermine families and confuse students. Here are a few examples:
Telling children they can change their gender without parental involvement.
Promoting Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in place of foundational academics.
Teaching that America is a fundamentally racist nation.
Undermining parental rights while telling families to “trust the experts.”
Blocking parents from curriculum discussions while approving controversial materials, sometimes in violation of state law.
Replacing qualified teachers with social workers and counselors.
Conducting constant student surveys on mental health, sowing confusion rather than providing clarity.
This is not the recipe for a high-achieving school district. It is the foundation of a crisis.
The Failed Promise of Social Emotional Learning
Superintendent Menzel and his allies argue that focusing on student “emotional well-being” will, in turn, unlock academic achievement. This theory, rooted in social-emotional learning, posits that removing a child’s psychological “barriers” will allow them to thrive in the classroom.
But does it work? The evidence suggests otherwise. Independent researchers, particularly outside the U.S. educational establishment, have found little to no link between widespread, non-targeted mental health interventions and improved academic outcomes. In fact, research shows these programs may worsen student mental health.
In medicine, the term for this is iatrogenic harm: unintended damage caused by treatments meant to heal. In mental health, it refers to harm that arises from interventions that destabilize rather than stabilize. The endless surveys, the focus on fragility rather than resilience, and the substitution of therapy for instruction can actually make students more anxious, less confident, and less academically capable.
If SUSD’s policies worked, our students would be excelling. Instead, they are struggling.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s look at the hard data under Menzel’s leadership.
Instructional spending: Down to 54.4% in 2024, compared to 54.6% in 2023, and trending toward a historic low. Over the past five years, instructional spending has dropped 1.7%.
Student support spending: Up 2.6% over the past 5-year period.
Administrative spending: 15% higher per student than peer districts.
Enrollment: Down 8.4% over the past 5-year period.
Staffing: In FY24, the district cut 59 instructional positions but added 71 student support staff and 44 administrative positions.
Test scores: Math proficiency fell from 57% in 2019 to 55% in 2024. Science dropped from 64% to 41%. English Language Arts rose slightly, from 56% to 61%, but overall performance represents a 12% decline since 2019.
So: fewer teachers, lower academic spending, higher administrative costs, declining enrollment, and worse performance.
SUSD recently held its second mental health fair and sponsored a suicide prevention event. After 125 years of SUSD history, why is it only now that we need districtwide events to address student mental health and suicide? Could it be that the very programs meant to fix mental health are feeding the crisis?
The Culture War in the Classroom
The failures of SUSD are not isolated. They are part of a broader cultural radicalization. Across the nation, schools are less focused on knowledge and more focused on ideology. Students are taught to distrust their parents, question their identity, and view their country as irredeemably broken.
We see the results not only in academic decline but also in growing instability—emotional, social, and even violent.
This instability was on display here in Scottsdale when conservative board member Carine Werner was allegedly overheard making a disparaging comment, and leftist groups who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death, seemingly collaborated to paint her in a bad light. Protesters immediately called for her resignation, parading signs that read “Protect Children: Werner Must Resign,” and “Ban Bigots, Not Books.”
But labeling Werner “ignorant” or “bigoted” ignores her record. As a state senator, she championed laws to make schools safer from predators and supported pay raises for law enforcement. As a board member, she pushed to remove sexually explicit material from schools, opposed social studies curricula that included anti-police rhetoric and glorified activism over academics, fought for stronger school security, introduced a common-sense policy that kept boys out of the girls’ bathroom, and even stood up to a transportation contractor after one of its employees sexually assaulted a student.
That’s not bigotry. That’s leadership.
The Consequences of Demonization
So how did we get here, where speaking truth—or even raising common-sense concerns—can cost you your reputation, your job, or even your life?
We’ve been told the problem is “radicalization on the dark web.” But you don’t need the dark web. Just watch mainstream media or scroll social media. From the highest levels of government on down, leaders tell us anyone who disagrees is a racist, a fascist, or a threat to democracy. Politicians openly encourage people to “get in their faces” and drive dissenters out of public life.
For someone already struggling with confusion, addiction, or emotional instability, this narrative can justify hostility—even violence—against those who dare to think differently.
That’s what happened to Charlie. He stood for free dialogue, for open exchange of ideas—values once core to American identity. For that, he was killed.
Diversity of Thought—or the Illusion of It
SUSD claims to celebrate diversity. But it is not diversity of thought. Instead, there is one sanctioned narrative: accept it, or be labeled hateful. We are told tolerance is a virtue, yet intolerance is practiced against anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy.
We cannot allow this inversion of truth. Lies are not compassion. Half-truths are not education. And intolerance cannot be the foundation of a healthy community.
A Call to Parents
Superintendent Menzel and the SUSD Governing Board may not be directly responsible for Charlie’s death in Utah, but their policies contribute to the kind of environment where such tragedies become possible.
Parents, it is time to wake up. Our children are not experiments. Our schools are not laboratories for ideological reprogramming. The mission of education must return to the basics: truth, knowledge, critical thinking, and resilience.
We must demand accountability from school leaders. We must replace ideologically driven programs with proven academic strategies. We must protect our children—not only from physical threats but also from the corrosive cultural forces undermining their mental, emotional, and intellectual well-being.
Charlie’s voice has been silenced. But ours has not. If we remain quiet, more voices will be lost. If we speak boldly—as he did—we can reclaim truth, restore education, and protect the next generation.
The question is: will we dare?
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Among many issues, the past two elections have been a referendum on the public school system throughout our country. And that’s especially true here in Arizona. The people have shown that they are tired of the leftist indoctrination, wasted taxpayer dollars on declining test scores, attacks on parental rights, and more.
Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump proved that cleaning up our schools wasn’t just a campaign talking point. He issued an executive order (EO) ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling, and the U.S. Department of Education took action to eliminate harmful Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It’s been a breath of fresh air, frankly, but the woke crazies in our state are not going down without a fight.
Back in February, a teacher at Marana High School was suspended after he challenged President Trump’s denial of the existence of more than two genders during a classroom lecture. Then, in May, an advocacy group released audio from inside a Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) ninth grade health classroom where an alleged teacher gave a “lesson” on LGBTQ issues and criticized religious texts. What any of this has to do with “health” is beyond us, but it certainly shows the lengths these crazies are willing to go in order to push their radical message.
Not wanting to be outdone, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) also decided to get into the mix…
The Arizona legislature passed a bill recognizing the existence of only two genders and defining sex-based terms.
The Senate passed HB 2062 on Tuesday along party lines.
The bill from State Rep. Lisa Fink established definitions for the two genders and all related gendered terms: “boy” defined as “a human male who has not yet reached adulthood”; “father” defined as “a male parent of a child or children as defined by law”; “female” defined as “an individual who has, naturally had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental anomaly or accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces ova”; “girl” defined as “a human female who has not yet reached adulthood”; “male” defined as “an individual who has, naturally had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental anomaly or accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces sperm for fertilization of female ova”; “man” defined as “an adult human of the male sex”; and “mother” defined as “a female parent of a child or children as defined by law.”
HB 2062 also defined “sex” to mean “a person’s biological sex, either male or female, at birth.”
Governor Katie Hobbs is unlikely to approve this bill. She vetoed similar legislation last year (SB 1628), writing in a brief explanation letter that she would not harm residents of the state.
“As I have said time and again, I will not sign legislation that attacks Arizonans,” wrote Hobbs.
Hobbs has declared that individuals become the gender they believe they are, as opposed to their biological sex.
On this International Women's Day I want to make it clear that trans women are women, they are welcome here, and any bill that harasses or threatens their safety will swiftly meet my veto stamp.
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) March 8, 2023
The Independent Women’s Network (IWN) — a grassroots activist group heavily involved in preserving sports participation based on biological sex — launched a campaign to urge Hobbs to go back on her past stances on transgenderism and sign HB2062 into law. One of IWN’s most prominent ambassadors is Riley Barker (nee Gaines), the collegiate swimmer turned political activist after losing to Lia Thomas, a male swimmer who identifies as a female.
“Call upon Governor Hobbs to sign this common sense, pro-woman measure into law to prevent sex discrimination in Arizona,” stated IWN. “We cannot fight sex discrimination if we cannot define ‘sex.’”
Senate Democrats argued for the reality of transgenderism. State Sen. Analise Ortiz said that males who believe they are females should be viewed as such.
“This should terrify us because trans women and girls are already a vulnerable population and this would only make them more vulnerable,” said Ortiz. “The explicit goal is to erase trans people from public life, including causing them to lose their jobs. It is wrong. We just need to respect people for who they are.”
"I want our trans community to know that we are not going to stop defending you against these horrific bills like HB2062. You belong, you belong as you are, and trans people will not be erased"
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) April 3, 2025
The bill passed out of the House in February, where it also passed along party lines.
State Rep. Stephanie Simacek called the reality of gender “narrow and outdated.”
WATCH: Rep. Stephanie Simacek explains her NO vote on HB2062. The bill passed with EVERY Republican voting yes. It is now on its way to the Senate. ❌ pic.twitter.com/2Dn0zdpRGj
State Rep. Lorena Austin cited “her lived experience” as a “nonbinary” and “gender nonconforming” to argue against the bill. Austin claimed Christians had no right to determine what constituted gender in the law.
Rep. @LorenaAustin4Az urges Republican lawmakers who continually push anti-trans legislation like HB2062 to try and understand the impact these bills — all bound for vetos — have on a community “that just wants to exist.” Watch: pic.twitter.com/wg3KP6AmKr
A bill requring schools to use students’ real names and biological pronouns is making its way through the Arizona legislature.
SB 1002, sponsored by Arizona Senator John Kavanagh (LD-3), would prohibit school districts, charter schools employees, or independent contractors from referring to any student by a pronoun differing from their biological sex or a name other than their legal name without parental consent. It also prevents a school district or charter school from requiring an employee or independent contractor to use a pronoun that differs from a person’s biological sex, if doing so is contrary to their convictions.
The bill has moved to the Arizona House of Representatives where it awaits approval by the caucuses and a final vote.
Explaining the bill in a video, Sen. Kavanagh said that his bill “has to do with school staff and teachers using a pronoun or a nickname for a student that is not aligned with that student’s biological sex. The bill says that no school personnel can call a student by such an inappropriate pronoun or nickname unless the parents consent. And in addition when the parents do consent, no school employee can be forced to call the person by the pronoun that does not align with their biological sex if it violates the employee’s religious or moral beliefs.”
He continued, “This is important because students that want to be called by a different name or pronoun than their biological sex, or so-called transgendered students, many of them have a condition called gender dysphoria, which causes a lot of anxiety, sometimes even suicidal thoughts. So, the parents may know about this and may have the child under psychiatric care and the child’s doctor may have told the parents do not entertain a different pronoun or name that’s different from the from the child’s real sex because it could harm the child. So, we certainly don’t want school personnel harming children and threatening their psychological well-being or driving them to suicide. So, we’re going to require parental permission because also it’s a matter of parents’ rights. Parents determine what’s good for their children, not a school staff member or a school teacher, however well-meaning they may be.”
As noted in the text of the bill, Arizona’s Parental Bill of Rights “reserves parental rights to a parent of a minor child without interference from the state, a political subdivision or other governmental entity or any other institution.” Among the rights enshrined in the laws A.R.S. §§ 1-601 and 1-602 are parental rights to direct their children’s “education, upbringing and moral or religious training,” and making healthcare decisions on their behalf.
