A Deer Valley USD (DVUSD) parent, referred to as “Amy,” contacted my organization to report that her children were questioned about their morning and bedtime routines. It turns out Stetson Hills School administrators had engaged students in an “Attendance Reflection Activity” during lunch on November 6, 2025. Parents weren’t notified about the event until the end of the school day.
“Our school utilizes a system called CUTS (Chronically Absent and Truant Students) to proactively identify students who are missing more than 10% of instructional days by the end of the quarter…During the session, students participated in fun discussions about:
Their current nighttime routines,
Their current morning routines [and]
Developing a goal or plan for one small, positive change they could make to improve their attendance moving forward.”
Walter ended the communication by thanking parents for their “partnership and support in encouraging consistent daily attendance.” In her zealousness to combat chronic absenteeism, I think Walter forgot that elementary students are not responsible for transporting themselves to school.
Stetson’s attendance survey can be viewed here. Note that in addition to answering questions about sleep schedules and household activities, students were required to sign the document as if it were a contract between them and the school district.
Amy said her kids were probed about their eating habits and family relationships, but those questions were not included on the survey. She also said her children described feeling anxious and “targeted” during the attendance reflection session.
According to Amy, her children haven’t missed more than a few days since the 2025 school year began, and every absence was excused due to illness or doctor’s appointments. Assistant Principal Walter confirmed that parents only need to notify the school, and doctors’ notes are not required in these instances.
Amy emailed her concerns about the district’s lack of transparency to DVUSD Superintendent Curtis Finch. Instead of responding to Amy, Finch forwarded her email to the School Operations and Safety Coordinator, Valerie Bullis. Bullis claimed the truancy probe was intended to be a “proactive approach in addressing student attendance patterns” and that school administrators were now “reviewing the process.” Meanwhile, Amy insisted that she and other parents she talked to were never informed about the student interrogation “process” to begin with. Amy also believes most parents are not aware of the CUTS program.
Screenshots from the Stetson Hills social media account show educators and other DVUSD schools engaging in attendance competitions. Amy said these activities promote unhealthy rivalry among students who are totally dependent on their parents for transportation and life decisions.
Deer Valley taxpayers are using their properties as collateral for failing schools. By passing the 15% override, constituents empowered government employees to keep pushing the boundaries of parental controls as they advance a State-sponsored agenda. “We got the override! We got your money!” was the overarching theme of the November 18 school board meeting.
The Glendale Star quoted Superintendent Finch, stating, “We’re pretty excited that we got the okay from the public to move forward.” When commenting on potential budget cuts, he said, “If it didn’t pass, I would be using a chainsaw, but now I can use the scalpel.” Finch also predicted “another explosion of enrollment in the next three to five years.” Wrapping up a discussion about DVUSD’s successful override campaign, he declared:
“The students are the winners when this happens. The community saw how far we’ve come and responded accordingly. It’s very gratifying for everyone involved.”
Cue the laugh track.
Finch’s million-dollar “scalpel” will never be used to dissect his compensation package, and most promises made during override campaigns are never kept. It’s no secret that Arizona public schools are losing students to the school choice movement. DVUSD’s decision to host intramural attendance games only proves that government education can’t compete with superior learning methods and institutions. Parents are waking up and moving on.
“The anti-public school movement is growing here in the state of Arizona, which is a crime against humanity. And it’s unfortunate that we’re caught in that web.”
— Superintendent Curtis Finch, ABC 15 News
For the record, there’s nothing inherently negative about finding creative and fun ways to encourage classroom attendance. The CUTS program mentioned in Assistant Principal Walter’s email may have attracted some families back to the district. Alas, the planning and execution were botched, and the interrogation activities left some parents feeling gaslighted.
I will never understand why school districts are so opposed to (or ignorant of) parental rights legislation. If you want students to enroll and attend, why wouldn’t you appeal to and listen to parents? If parents want a safe, academic-focused environment that’s free from politics, why not invest in that instead of engaging in a power struggle over their kids? In other industries, when a company loses business, board members and directors will research competitors and come up with ways to recapture the market by providing quality products and services.
This concept is simple when applied to education: If public schools don’t want parents to withdraw their children and go to private schools, then they should do what private schools do. Adopt their academic model and offer it at a lower cost. Stop waving rainbow flags and talking about gender and skin color. Stop asking intrusive questions and forming inappropriate bonds with other people’s kids. Give parents a reason to trust you. Or is that too much common sense for government folk?
School board elections are not magic. Ideally, we’d like to “get our guy in office,” trust that they have our best interests in mind, and carry on with our lives. This is not reality. More often than not, time reveals that “our guy” will say whatever needs to be said to gain our support and then turn on the dime of sleazy administrators, radical union leaders, and leftist community members. Unfortunately, this pattern emerges even in school districts that many consider as having a “conservative majority.”
Despite all the online drama that erupted over those attendance surveys, I was the only one who attended and spoke about it at the last Deer Valley school board meeting. Digital outrage accomplishes absolutely nothing in real time, and virtual group therapy has no power to shift this situation. DVUSD is corrupt. The school board is dysfunctional, the superintendent is shady, and educators are lacking real leadership. Now that they have your money, what’s their incentive to do right by your children? Who will hold them accountable, if not you?
Tiffany Benson is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education. Her commentaries on education, politics, and Christian faith can be viewed at Parentspayattention.com and Bigviewsmallwindow.com. Follow her on socials @realtiffanyb.
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.
Former University of Arizona (U of A) ethics professor Daniel Grossenbach is suing the school with the help of Liberty Counsel, after being fired for publicly advocating for his parental rights at Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) meetings.
Grossenbach, a CFSD parent and resident, is the founding member of ‘Save CFSD,’ a “non-profit organization focused on educating parents about school board policies and issues and fundamental parental rights.” According to the lawsuit, he was “unceremoniously terminated” by U of A leaders, “at the demands of internet trolls’ intent on silencing his speech.”
In a press release issued Friday, Liberty Counsel announced the lawsuit on Grossenbach’s behalf. The Christian legal ministry explained, “In 2023, Grossenbach spoke several times at school board meetings, which [were] attended by hundreds of concerned parents, and delivered two-to-three-minute, pre-written speeches. He routinely included a disclaimer that he spoke for himself and not for his employer, and expressed without hate, slander, or violence how the district’s policies violated parental rights.
“The lawsuit then states that ‘anti-religious zealots turned digital critics’ coordinated over social media to silence Grossenbach and SaveCFSD by getting him fired from his job. Subsequently, numerous anonymous complaints were filed against him with the University of Arizona encouraging the university to discipline him for speaking out about his rights and beliefs.”
Liberty Counsel revealed, “In November 2023, the university informed him that it would not be renewing his part-time teaching contract for the following Spring ethics courses citing it had received funding for a full-time faculty member. However, the university never hired a full-time professor nor offered his ethics course the following Spring. In fact, the university posted advertisements soliciting resumes for additional part-time professors meeting Grossenbach’s exact skills and experience to teach similar courses he had been teaching for years.”
👨⚖️ I was fired after speaking at my school board meeting, so I filed a lawsuit… https://t.co/agUPXo5qJV
The attorneys argue that despite Grossenbach’s good performance and positive reputation, U of A terminated his employment “after discovering that he was an outspoken Christian advocating for change within his local school board to protect his family.” They claim the university subsequently stalled the disclosure of public records regarding his termination for 239 days in violation of Arizona law.
“[The University of Arizona’s] actions have inflicted irreparable damage to Professor Grossenbach’s professional career and reputation, ended his academic pursuit of a doctorate degree, decreased his earning potential, and reduced his income,” wrote Liberty Counsel. “Further, when Professor Grossenbach was terminated, he lost a potential textbook publishing deal, furthering his financial loss and reputational damage.”
According to the lawsuit, Grossenbach was terminated on November 30, 2024, after serving in his role for over three years “on the basis of complaints lodged by anonymous online censors targeting his constitutionally protected speech regarding his sincerely held religious beliefs, in his private capacity, separate and apart from the workplace.”
The professor filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and obtained a Notice of Right to Sue on May 25, 2025.
“Professors at public universities and colleges do not shed their constitutional rights to free speech and religious exercise when they work for a university,” said Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver. “Professor Daniel Grossenbach engaged in constitutionally protected speech, religious expression, and religious exercise and was speaking on matters of public concern regarding his faith, morality, and the community. The University of Arizona cannot fire a professor for his protected speech. Viewpoint discrimination is unlawful and violates the First Amendment and religious discrimination violates Title VII.”
Liberty Counsel is seeking a permanent injunction to declare the university’s Nondiscriminatory and Anti-Harassment Policy and Statement of Professional Conduct illegal and unlawful, along with compelling U of A “to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of its employees.” The lawsuit also asks the court to reinstate Grossenbach to his former position, restore his benefits, and award damages.
Grossenbach’s efforts with ‘Save CFSD’ and exposure of controversial whistleblower audio released in May have been reported on by AZ Free News. The Professor also penned an op-ed on AZ Free News in October 2024 discussing his termination.
As with most things, asking the right questions is often more important than getting the answers. This is especially true for parents and grandparents who want to protect their children. We need to ask, then ask some more, to get to the truth at our kids’ school and public libraries.
If you value children, here’s what you should be asking, some important answers, good news of progress, and what YOU CAN DO to protect yours (and others’) kids:
4 Questions (with answers):
1 – Are there actually bad materials in schools and libraries, or is this just ‘pearl clutching’?
Besides the profits for activists and the porn industries, it’s ignorance. Common-sense people are not becoming aware. (This is a reason to subscribe to AZ Women of Action’s weekly Call To Action Update!) Most people have no idea what children see in schools or access in libraries, but we keep them informed.
3 – Isn’t this simply ‘sex-ed’? Is there evidence of the harm on kids when they see sexual material?
4 – Do parents have a say on what their kids see at public schools and libraries?
YES–but only if they speak up! Arizona has some of the strongest parent rights laws. (See ‘What You Can Do’ for specifics.)
Some Good News!
AZ Women of Action has made progress with Maricopa County Libraries: We asked questions of the MC Library office who told us that no one had ever complained about children’s books (obviously because nobody knew). So, we created a citizen petition, shared the facts with our followers, and presented hundreds of names to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. They listened. We emphasized that parents, not libraries, should have the ultimate authority over the type of content their children are exposed to. We argued that the current arrangement, where explicit books are freely available to children, violates parental rights and endangers children’s emotional and mental well-being.
We also met with Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and her team. Overall progress is being made, though slowly.
We’re seeing widespread support from parents, teachers, faith-based organizations, and local activists who share the same concerns. Our message is clear: books are not being ‘banned’ but moved to adult sections for parents to decide. It’s not about censorship but protecting childhood. It’s restoring the family’s role in deciding how to protect and nurture each child.
What YOU CAN DO:
1. Ask schools for their opt-out forms for any material you deem inappropriate for your child. Sex education is supposed to be opt-IN (meaning they require your permission before kids see it). Ask to see your school’s curriculum first.
2. Ask your local libraries for a form that limits what their child can check out or access online. If they don’t have one, contact the city, county, or state library office and file a request to change parent-rights policies.
3. Report any concerning material found in schools to the ADE Empower Hotline at 602-771-3500, or submit their online form.
5. Promote Cleaner, Safer Libraries. Join Arizona Women of Action for a fun, family story hour with positive, wholesome books for kids! We’ve partnered with Brave Books to host “See You At the Library Story Hour” on Saturday, August 16th from 1–2PM at the Phoenix Public Library – Mesquite Branch. Families will enjoy uplifting and wholesome stories read by Arizona Women of Action and special guest Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools Shelli Boggs. Click here to register.
Kim Miller is the President and Founder of Arizona Women of Action. You can find out more about their work here.
As schools across Arizona reopen for the fall semester, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is encouraging parents to be alert to classroom content they believe may conflict with their family’s values. His call follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming parents’ rights to withdraw their children from classes that conflict with their religious beliefs.
“The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that parents have the Constitutionally protected right to opt their children out of classes when their religious beliefs conflict with course material,” Horne said in a public statement. “As the new school year begins, I am urging parents to be aware they have the power to ensure their child’s school is concentrating on academics, not social indoctrination.”
Horne cited a case from earlier this year involving a Tucson-area teacher whose lessons, he claimed, undermined students’ religious beliefs and promoted gender ideology. According to Horne, the teacher has since retired, and the matter was resolved. “This is exactly the type of situation that was addressed in this recent Supreme Court decision,” he said.
To address concerns like these, the Arizona Department of Education operates an “Empower Hotline,” which allows parents, educators, and citizens to report what they view as inappropriate content in the classroom. Horne said the hotline has received complaints about lessons that focus on race, gender identity, or content perceived as deviating from traditional academic instruction.
“Students need education in reading, writing, math, science, history, and the arts,” Horne added. “The inappropriate lessons about which parents are complaining are a distraction from these crucial academic subjects. My principal goal has been to bring back academic focus into the classrooms.”
The Supreme Court decision referenced by Horne affirms long-standing interpretations of parental rights in education but has gained renewed attention amid ongoing debates over curriculum content in public schools across the country.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
