Recently, the Peoria Unified Governing Board made a necessary correction: They removed the superintendent from the dais, restoring a clear boundary between the elected and the employed. While some saw this as dramatic, the only real surprise was that the line had been blurred for so long.
Unfortunately, the Higley Unified School District went the opposite direction, and they did it quietly.
At what should have been a routine meeting last week, Superintendent David Loutzenheiser, attending his very first meeting as head of Higley Schools, took a seat on the dais without any board vote or public discussion. And unfortunately, his first moves were not in line with what he promised when interviewed.
Immediately after the meeting began, Board Member Anna Van Hoek read a detailed statement opposing the new seating arrangement. Her opposition was not just personal, it was procedural. According to Van Hoek, she learned about the change via email, without any discussion or vote among the five board members. She stated: “The dais represents the authority entrusted to us directly by the voters.”
Van Hoek is absolutely correct.
Per Arizona Statute §15-503, governing boards in Arizona are responsible for hiring and evaluating the superintendent. When an employee sits on the dais as if equal to the officials tasked with his oversight, it blurs the lines of authority. That distinction may be lost on those with long careers in education, but in the private sector, these boundaries are well understood. There is a reason the CEO does not share the boardroom table with the board of directors. It is not about ego, it is about structure, accountability, and ensuring each role is properly respected.
Employees, even highly paid ones, are assigned responsibilities, expectations, and standards of behavior. If a superintendent is perceived as a peer rather than an employee, will board members evaluate him objectively when the time comes? That is not a rhetorical question as it became reality just minutes into the meeting when Board Member Scott Glover asked the superintendent if it was “okay” to table the vote on his dais placement. That single moment flipped the chain of command upside down.
Superintendent Loutzenheiser oversees a district with a budget exceeding $100 million and is responsible for hundreds of employees. He will hold meetings with principals, department heads, and administrators to carry out the board’s direction. Will any of them be invited to sit beside him at his desk? Of course not. And yet, some expect him to sit shoulder to shoulder with his bosses. It is not just improper, it is dysfunctional.
According to Van Hoek’s statement, the superintendent requested to move to the dais, and Board President Amanda Wade approved the request entirely on her own. When Van Hoek received the email, she immediately requested the seating change be added as an action item for the July 8 board meeting. Had she not spoken up, the change would have gone forward without any transparency, just Wade’s quiet approval. That would have set a dangerous precedent.
While Loutzenheiser initiated the request, the greater failure lies with President Wade, who acted without board consensus. Tiffany Shultz, another board member, responded to Van Hoek’s concerns by claiming the new arrangement promotes collaboration and a “united front.” Yet collaboration was not on display in that email from the superintendent to board members. And the role of an elected official is not to present uniformity, but to represent the full range of community concerns, especially when those views differ.
There is no legal or ethical requirement for a school board to look united. In fact, the opposite is true. Voters should expect to see board members raise concerns, challenge decisions, and vote independently. When votes are unanimous and debate is absent, the public should worry, not applaud. Disagreement is not dysfunction. It is how oversight works.
Sadly, the obsession with unity and harmony is a symptom of a broader trend in public education, one fueled by Social Emotional Learning (SEL). SEL prioritizes emotional well-being and interpersonal bonding over academic rigor and role clarity. This focus has blurred the lines between teachers and parents, students and staff, and now board members and the superintendent. Meanwhile, test scores fall and academic achievement stalls.
The confusion SEL has introduced into the system is precisely why the Arizona Legislature passed laws like the Parents Bill of Rights, to restore proper authority to parents. In the same way, this dais debacle exposes a need to restore proper authority and boundaries at the board level.
President Wade claims she values her fellow board members. If that is true, why didn’t she involve them in the decision? Her words and actions while sitting on the dais say otherwise.
It is important that the public can identify district staff in their designated spaces. I have attended many board meetings and am shocked at the whispers and private conversations happening on the dais between board members. Now, the same thing can happen between the superintendent and whichever board member is seated beside him. That is a problem.
Superintendent Loutzenheiser is under a three-year contract with a base salary of $210,000, not including perks and bonuses. With that kind of compensation comes an obligation to honor the governance structure. If he wants to begin his tenure with integrity, he should respectfully return to his proper seat off the dais at the next board meeting.
It may seem like a small gesture. But it would speak volumes.
Because the dais is for the elected, and it must stay that way.
Peggy McClain is a concerned citizen who advocates for accountability in Arizona’s schools. You can follower her on Twitter here.
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.
Every election for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA) teachers’ union endorses candidates. This year is no exception. But this time they may have outdone themselves with this slate of unqualified, activist candidates.
None of these SEA-endorsed candidates feels the need to make any changes in SUSD. In fact, according to their campaign website, they are running to, in their words, “protect” the district. From whom? You, of course, and anyone else who might point out declining enrollment, declining proficiency scores, increasing ESA participation in a run for the exits, and, of course, increasingly dissatisfied parents and students who stay behind.
From August 2021 to August 2024, SUSD lost over 2,200 students, nearly 10% of the enrollment. In 2023, SUSD had over 8,000 students who were NOT proficient in ELA, over 9,000 who were NOT proficient in math, and over 12,000 students who were NOT proficient in science. Dr. Menzel failed to meet even one of his academic performance goals last year. But he got a raise.
How can any reasonable, objective observer who cares about the quality of education in Scottsdale see these metrics and decide, I will run for school board to ensure more of the same for my kids? How can any reasonable, objective voter support this?
One of these SEA-endorsed candidates, Mike Sharkey, seems to be against parents having rights when it comes to educating their children. He wants parents to step aside and leave it up to the experts and trained professionals who know better.
In announcing his candidacy, he said:
“Over the last few years, there’s been an uptick in the ‘parents rights’ movement….This is the notion that parents are best situated to make educational and healthcare decisions for their kids.”
He doesn’t want parents involved in healthcare decisions for their children, one of the most fundamental duties of a parent. Mr. Sharkey says to leave that to the professionals as well.
Of course, after a major outcry on social media, he removed those words. But don’t be fooled. As we all know, someone’s first comments are what they truly believe.
Another SEA-endorsed candidate, Donna Lewis, has an abysmal record of academic achievement in a district of less than 25% the size of SUSD when she was superintendent and has a reputation as a bully. Listen for yourself.
Great choice SEA.
The final candidate, Matt Pittinsky is the CEO of a company (Parchment) that provides transcript services to SUSD. Click here and see for yourself.
It gets better. Parchment is part of a larger organization that provides educational software to schools and professional development training for teachers and school administrators. Will we see new contracts in the future?
As a candidate who professes to respect parents and the community, it would be nice if he would disclose this potential conflict upfront, so the voters know before they vote.
We deserve better than a governing board committed to “protecting” Dr. Menzel with his dismal academic record at SUSD and his failed policies. This November let’s start building a “strong” SUSD focused on academic achievement, fiscal responsibility, parental rights, and the safety of all our students and staff.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
In the corridors of education, a seismic shift is underway. Local superintendents, entrusted with shaping the educational landscape, are being influenced by a woke agenda that transcends their official roles. Behind this phenomenon lies the shadowy hand of leftist interests, channeled through national and state chapters of the School Superintendent Association (AASA), driving an agenda that reaches deep into the heart of public education.
Recent events in El Paso County, Colorado, underscore the extent of this influence. Allegations have surfaced of a superintendent employing intimidation tactics, supported by legal counsel, to suppress reports of a sexualized gender focus in classrooms. Such incidents reveal a troubling trend of silencing dissent and stifling transparency in the pursuit of ideological conformity.
At the national level, the AASA is actively seeking to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), often hailed as the Parents Bill of Rights (PBOR). While PPRA mandates parental notification of policies and surveys, the proposed amendments could erode parental consent requirements, potentially leading to increased control over data collection by schools, to the detriment of parental rights and oversight.
Arizona provides a stark example of the consequences of such ideological influence. In Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), Superintendent Scott Menzel’s equity-driven agenda has resulted in a dramatic reallocation of funds away from academics toward social support infrastructure. The repercussions are profound, with declining academic achievement, escalating violence, and growing student dissatisfaction.
Menzel’s emphasis on Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) has permeated every aspect of district life, reshaping classroom dynamics and disciplinary measures. Yet, amidst the proliferation of gender identity and sexuality clubs, concerns about academic focus and student safety persist.
Similar challenges echo across Arizona’s educational landscape. In Flagstaff, revelations about controversial sex education curriculum content have sparked parental concern, while in Mesa, allegations of clandestine aid to students undergoing gender transitions have led to legal battles and ethical scrutiny.
The reluctance of some superintendents to address concerns about new survey questions addressing social-emotional learning and sex education, further exacerbates tensions and raises questions about accountability.
Amidst these local debates, broader concerns loom about the influence of ideological agendas within educational institutions. The rise of what critics term the “Communist Whole/Community School philosophy” underscores the need for vigilance and a return to fundamental principles of education.
In this landscape of change, House Bill 2717 proposes a radical overhaul of the educational system in Mohave and La Paz County. Advocates argue for increased efficiency and cost savings, but questions linger about the potential concentration of power in the hands of county superintendents and its impact on local autonomy and accountability.
As parents and residents, it is incumbent upon us to remain vigilant and hold school officials and school board members accountable. The future of education hinges not only on academic excellence but also on safeguarding the principles of transparency, parental rights, and proper legal oversight in our schools.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government. She’s served at the director level at Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, FreedomWorks, and currently with Arizona Women of Action.
The gender support plan, filled out by school staff, caregivers, and students, allows schools to hide students’ identification as transgender from their parents.
The purpose of the document is to “create shared understandings about the ways in which the student’s authentic gender will be accounted for and supported at school.”
The district’s plan to support a minor’s transgender status despite parent support or knowledge appears to be in direct violation of the Arizona Parents’ Bill of Rights, which states that parents have the “right to make all health care decisions for the minor child.”
The form asks for the name the student uses, the name on their birth certificate, their gender identity, and so-called assigned sex at birth.
The “Parent/Guardian Involvement” section on the form measures parent knowledge of their child’s “gender status.” The form asks if parents are aware of the child’s gender status, then offers a scale of 1 to 10 to denote the student’s parents’ level of support.
“If support level is low, what considerations must be accounted for in implementing this plan?” the form asks.
The “Student Safety” section of the form establishes a “go to adult” at the child’s school, and asks “if this person is not available, what should the student do?”
In the “Privacy: Names, Pronouns and Students Records” section, the plan asks, “How will instances be handled in which the incorrect name or pronoun are used by staff members?”
The document asks for the “name/gender marker” on the student’s identity documents and entered into the Student Information System, as well as the name and pronouns to be used when referring to the student.
The form asks about what adjustments need to be made to protect the student’s privacy and who will be the point person for ensuring the adjustments are made.
Scottsdale also uses the document to denote what bathroom the student will use and where they will change clothes, demonstrating that the district would allow biological male students to share rooms, bathrooms, and changing rooms with females.
“What are the expectations regarding rooming for any overnight trip?” the form asks.
The district, which educates 22,000 students, also suggests that biological male student athletes would be allowed to play in girls’ sports.
“In what extracurricular activities or programs will the student be participating (sports, theater, clubs, etc.)?” asks Scottsdale Unified School District.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
