When Dr. Menzel was hired as Superintendent of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), he arrived with a stated goal: to disrupt and dismantle what he believed were systems denying access and opportunity to students of color, students in poverty, and students with IEPs.
But was that truly the reality in SUSD before his arrival?
Regardless, Menzel has moved forward with exactly that approach, disrupting and dismantling the district. His emphasis on initiatives like gender identity and social-emotional learning, often at the expense of academic performance, has produced troubling results: school closures, declining academic outcomes, falling enrollment, record levels of non-classroom spending, teacher layoffs, and increasing staff turnover.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At the November 18, 2025, board meeting, Menzel outlined reductions in FTE staff at the district office over the past three years, arguing that all reasonable cost-cutting measures have been exhausted, leaving school closures as the only remaining option.
But is that really true?
When board members Amy Carney and Carine Werner raise concerns about wasteful spending or request detailed financial information, they are often ignored or told that staff are too busy to provide answers. Meanwhile, the expenditures they question are dismissed as not necessarily wasteful just because they disagree with them.
Not only has Menzel shown little interest in cutting favored programs or non-essential spending unrelated to improving academic performance, but he has also failed to address concerns raised in exit interviews, concerns that could help slow declining enrollment.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At a recent board meeting, it was announced that more than 130 applications had been submitted for the Phase II Design Team. Selections are underway, with the first meeting scheduled for March 26.
Menzel noted that Matt Pittinsky was the only board member to suggest closing more than two schools in Phase II. When asked by Menzel for input from the board about additional closures, Mike Sharkey responded that if the committee recommends closing three schools instead of two, “that’s great”—despite having campaigned on not closing schools. He added that committee members can “feel it out as it goes along” and gauge community reaction afterward.
Carney argued that school closures should be a last resort; Pittinsky disagreed, despite also campaigning against closures. He now claims more schools must be closed to maintain a “quality student experience.” But is this the same “quality” that has coincided with declining enrollment and revenue losses?
Carney pressed for early parent input through surveys, with Werner agreeing that community feedback should come at the beginning, not the end, of the process. Menzel, however, stated surveys would occur only after the committee completes its work, likely in late May or early June. Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis supported that timeline.
While district leadership claims to value community input, their actions suggest otherwise. The committee is not being asked to explore solutions to the budget shortfall; they are being steered toward a predetermined outcome: closing schools.
For those who haven’t followed closely, the public comments from last fall’s board meetings tell the story. Parents from schools like Pima and Echo Canyon described being blindsided by closures, with little to no input. Even some board members indicated they were excluded from meaningful involvement.
According to the district, the Phase II Design Team members will “help inform discussions about enrollment trends, school facilities, and long-term sustainability through respectful, student-centered collaboration.”
But what does that actually mean?
A small group, selected by Menzel and guided by a district-paid consultant, is expected, over just a few weeks, to analyze years of enrollment data, financial trends, and demographic projections, and then “inform” district decisions.
Is that realistic?
So, what will this design team actually do?
In all likelihood, it will just validate decisions that have already been made by Menzel.
Over recent meetings, Menzel has presented Phase II “repurposing solutions.” One proposal involves relocating Cheyenne Traditional School (CTS) to Copper Ridge. He describes this as an opportunity to place a high-demand program in an underutilized facility with room for growth.
However, what goes unaddressed is the likely impact on enrollment. Moving CTS to the northernmost part of the district could drive families away, not attract them. CTS draws students from across the district, many within walking or biking distance of its current location. Relocating it would add significant travel time, potentially up to 20 extra miles per day for some families.
How many parents would make that commute? How many would instead leave CTS or SUSD altogether?
Similarly, how many Copper Ridge families would choose CTS or be willing to move to the Desert Canyon schools, or simply leave SUSD? These are critical questions, but they remain unanswered.
They could be answered now through parent surveys. Instead, feedback is being delayed until after decisions are effectively finalized.
If enrollment drops following a relocation, as seems likely, the result could be the eventual closure of CTS, the district’s last remaining traditional school, which could lead to even further declining enrollment and financial shortfalls for SUSD.
And that would align with Menzel’s stated goal: disrupt and dismantle.
Parents at Phase II schools should make their views known by contacting the Board and Menzel, using Let’s Talk, writing opinion pieces, participating in PTO meetings, and sharing information with parents through newsletters and social media. Don’t wait until decisions are final; speak up now. Community input is important.
Don’t let Menzel continue to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Over 1,500 individuals want the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) to remove one of its board members for criticizing an overweight health official.
Board member and state senator Carine Werner made the comments during a presentation by Nutritional Services Director Patti Bilbrey at a board meeting last month. It appears Werner intended to make the comments to herself, but her remarks were caught on a hot mic. Werner was attending the meeting remotely.
“This is what I have to listen to,” said Werner. “She’s in nutrition services and she’s like morbidly obese.”
Werner also uttered the comment “chub” amid some indiscernible audio.
General Mills Foodservice has recognized Bilbrey as the only “trayblazer” in Arizona — one of around 40 nationwide — for her innovative approaches to feeding students.
A coalition of mainly progressive parents and community members say Werner, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, had committed fat-shaming in conflict with board policy. Werner has previously caught the ire of this coalition of parents for pushing to rid SUSD of books advancing DEI and LGBTQ+ ideologies.
An organization, Swing Left, organized a protest to demand Werner’s resignation during the September 9 board meeting. Around 50 individuals showed. Werner was absent, as was board president Donna Lewis.
Public comment focused on Werner’s remarks from last month’s meeting.
Shea Najafi, an SUSD parent and progressive activist organizer who founded Scottsdale Women Rising, has led efforts to recall Werner. Najafi is gathering signatures to hold a recall campaign, which would require around 4,000 signatures.
“It was deplorable. We couldn’t believe she called a beloved district employee ‘Chubs’ during a presentation in which she was speaking about how we can feed kids during the summer,” said Najafi.
Najafi and others seeking Werner’s recall plan to attend the October 7 meeting with TV crews in tow.
“You’re f****d, Werner,” wrote Najafi in a Facebook post.
SUSD governing board vice president Mike Sharkey, who Najafi and other progressives support, disclosed that he asked legal counsel whether Werner could be censured over the remarks. According to Sharkey, counsel advised the board couldn’t act in that manner.
Sharkey then read aloud a pre-written statement to the protesters.
“I do not condone the conduct of the board member given what I heard at the board meeting on August. 5. I know what I heard, but only the speaker can know why she said what she said,” said Sharkey during the September 9 meeting. “This behavior does not reflect the board member ethics as adopted in policy nor is it representative of SUSD’s core values.”
Yet, Sharkey later admitted in a statement to The Progress that he didn’t hear what Werner said at first. It was only after he reportedly received an email containing Werner’s remarks that he understood what had been said.
“I heard crosstalk at the original August 5 meeting but didn’t comprehend what was said,” said Sharkey.
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity stated that an AI analysis of the board meeting audio compared to prior board meetings indicated the audio had been enhanced to make Werner’s comments audible. Those who attended the meeting in person reported not hearing Werner’s commentary.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
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:
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.
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. 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.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. 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.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
In a heated board meeting on September 10, 2024, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Board President Libby Hart-Wells declared that a “supermajority” of parents are against removing certain library books with explicit adult content. This bold statement was a direct response to a letter sent to the board on July 31, 2024, by 13 concerned organizations, with backing from former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas.
The letter spotlighted several books in SUSD libraries rated 4 (Not for Minors) or 5 (Aberrant Content) by BookLooks.org. Among these was “PUSH” by Sapphire, available at Arcadia High School. “PUSH” is notorious for its explicit content and frequent use of strong language. The book’s movie adaptation is rated R, which would be banned in SUSD classrooms under current board policy.
An excerpt from “PUSH” vividly describes incest and sexual abuse, sparking outrage among parents and community members who question its suitability for school libraries. Critics argue that Hart-Wells’ stance is at odds with Arizona laws and SUSD policies, which prohibit providing harmful materials to minors and emphasize parental rights in education.
In response to Hart-Wells’ claim, the X account @ALegalProcess posted:
“If she has a “supermajority” of Scottsdale parents that approve of “Daddy…slap my face, pump my pussy…orgasm in me, call me Fat Mama…my pussy popping like grease…” Then we’re done here. ESAs for everyone.” – ALegalProcess
If she has a "supermajority" of Scottsdale parents that approve of "Daddy…slap my face, pump my pussy…orgasm in me, call me Fat Mama…my pussy popping like grease…" Then we're done here. ESAs for everyone. pic.twitter.com/QxvsDuZMOj
— TheLegalProcess (v3.0 | Instruction Not Therapy) (@ALegalProcess) September 16, 2024
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 13-3506 and 13-3501 strictly regulate the distribution of harmful items to minors, while A.R.S. 1-602 and 15-711 grant parents significant control over their children’s upbringing and sex education. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Island Trees Union Free School No. 26 vs. Pico supports the removal of books from school libraries for non-discriminatory reasons, such as vulgarity or educational unsuitability.
SUSD’s own policy IJL requires that library materials enrich the curriculum and uphold ethical standards, adding another layer of complexity to the board president’s controversial position.
SUSD has previously removed the books “Milk and Honey” and “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” due to their mature sexual content.
SUSD school board candidate Mike Sharkey appears to be part of Hart-Wells’ “supermajority” that supports providing children with inappropriate content. Sharkey launched his campaign on LinkedIn, criticizing parents who advocate for educationally valuable books in school libraries, divisively labeling removal as “book bans.”
In addition to publicly influencing the district’s library book review process, Hart-Wells also interfered with a district committee by repeatedly emailing them to remove “navel” from the list of body parts that children must cover at school.
Outgoing SUSD board president Hart-Wells has not clarified her recent actions; however, critics see the push to allow sexualized clothing and for the availability of hypersexual and vulgar books in school libraries as a concern that parents should be aware of. “This is why it is so important that parents know what their school board candidates stand for,” said an SUSD parent who requested to remain anonymous for concern of retaliation.
