by Mike Bengert | Sep 23, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
by Tiffany Benson | Aug 1, 2025 | Opinion
By Tiffany Benson |
K-12 superintendents are the CEOs of public schools, spearheading a cabinet of professionals who manage district resources and implement safety and academic programs. Superintendent qualifications may include a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) or education (Ed.D.) and some experience in finance, communications, and organizational leadership.
Superintendents are paid exorbitant salaries topping close to $1 million, depending on the district size. This amount does not include performance bonuses, work vehicles, mobile devices, or lavish vacation packages—er, I mean, “out-of-state professional development conferences.” Whether superintendents do good or evil, employment agreements stipulate that they receive full compensation and benefits, largely at the taxpayers’ expense.
Arizona public schools are home to some of the most ethically challenged and morally questionable high-level administrators. K-12 superintendents across the Valley primarily care about aesthetics and the “business of the district.” Below is an incomplete list of superintendents with controversial reputations, alongside the elected officials who bow to their almighty paper-pushing agenda.
Newly hired Higley USD Superintendent David Loutzenheiser now sits on the dais with governing board members, leaving his cabinet on the floor. This arrangement was approved by the purple-haired board president, Amanda Wade, who once advocated for striking the word “immoral” from teacher-student communication policies. Radical board member Tiffany Schultz—who once declared that professional dress codes “sexualize children’s bodies”—backed Wade’s decision to disrupt the chain of command. No one but Loutzenheiser benefited from this stunt. He set a bad precedent for what’s to come. Read more in AZ Free News.
Earlier this year, a resident in the Cartwright Elementary School District sued two board members for nepotism, citing A.R.S. 15-421. Cassandra Hernandez (elected at age 19) is the daughter of board president and state representative Lydia Hernandez (D). Despite using different addresses on their campaign applications, constituents cried foul and called for their resignations. The Hernandezes led a charge to install the disgraced former Maricopa County Superintendent Steve Watson as district superintendent. Watson is accused of fraud and leaving behind an infestation of financial deficits, lawsuits, and dysfunction in the county office. Cartwright residents have no reason to expect Watson will leave their district any better than he found it.
Deer Valley USD residents constantly complain across social media about Superintendent Curtis Finch’s dismissive “leadership” style. Residents are also suspicious of Finch’s camaraderie with board president Paul Carver, who once told a room full of conservatives that Finch is the best superintendent in the state. Both men support a twice-failed ballot measure that would allow the district to exceed its budget. Finch defended the 15% override, stating: “The anti-public school movement is growing here in Arizona, which is a crime against humanity.” Whether or not good things are happening in DVUSD is up for interpretation, but declining enrollment numbers are the telltale sign of a district in freefall. Go Parents!
No list of sketchy superintendents is complete without Scottsdale USD’s Scott Menzel. He is a freak show in his own right, accounting for the majority of the district’s media exposure. Menzel is widely known for shaming white people who don’t feel guilty about their skin color. Before vacating their seats, debased board members Zach Lindsay, Libby Hart-Wells, and Julie Cienawski extended Menzel’s contract through 2025. Under his “leadership,” SUSD chartered more student-led sexuality clubs, adopted an anti-police curriculum, and circulated hundreds of pornographic books in school libraries. As a result, in 2024, the Arizona School Administrators organization proudly named Menzel the National Superintendent of the Year (this title must be reserved for clowns).
Peoria USD has a slightly better handle on its administration problem since board president Heather Rooks removed Superintendent K.C. Somers from the dais. This establishes a clear separation of employer and employee while respecting the expertise each brings to the district. Unfortunately, though, Somers is developing a reputation for operating in subtle forms of manipulation and subversion, as if he’s trying to sabotage the board members he can’t control. I once attended a meeting where Somers yowled at board members when they ripped off the COVID-19 funding band-aid. Interestingly, before coming to Arizona, Somers was the superintendent of a Colorado school district steeped in scandal and cover-up. He would do well to note that PUSD residents won’t sit for that.
(Dis)honorable Mentions: Tolleson Union HS Superintendent Jeremy Calles morally and financially bankrupted his district. Former Mesa Public Schools Supt. Andi Fourlis oversaw an untold number of social gender transitions without parental knowledge. Tucson USD Supt. Gabriel Trujillo encouraged and attended a student-led drag show on campus, even after one teen was sexually abused by a high school counselor who organized the opening event. Chandler USD Supt. Frank Narducci declared a “week of kindness” and distributed 9-1-1 stickers after unchecked bullying led to one student’s murder and another student’s suicide. There’s more, but we’re out of time.
Those who can’t get elected apply for high-power jobs. Most K-12 superintendents have no campaign grit and no winning personality. Thus, they depend on compromised board members to execute their agenda. Superintendents don’t represent the whole community—they represent the educated community. They may be intellectual experts, but they don’t swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and they are not the final governing authority.
The board of education—elected officials who report to taxpayers (that’s you!)—hires the superintendent, and they ultimately decide what to approve or reject. No one is demanding perfection. Arizona families simply want integrity, transparency, and common sense. K-12 community members who experience dissatisfaction with bloated, overcompensated administrative teams should call, email, request meetings, alert the media, and speak at school board meetings. When superintendents refuse to operate within the scope and ability of their job description, expose them.
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 on Facebook @TiffanyBenson and Instagram.
by Mike Bengert | Jun 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
Read it for yourself:
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:
Conclusion
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Jun 15, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced that his office will report Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) to the federal government for violating the “No DEI” pledge signed by district Superintendent Scott Menzel. The announcement came after SUSD adopted a DEI-oriented curriculum, despite objections from parents.
Horne explained, “Today I’m announcing that I will report to the federal government that the Scottsdale School District has violated the statement they signed that they would not teach DEI. They adopted a DEI-oriented textbook, or more than one book actually, over parental objections.”
The superintendent was joined by Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan who expressed major concerns regarding the objectively anti-police narrative that the text in question indoctrinates students with.
“At a time when law enforcement agencies are expanding their focus on community outreach and de-escalation of conflicts, it is counterproductive for schools to push a misguided and inaccurate narrative that will make students fearful or suspicious of their local law enforcement officers,” Sheridan said. “The men and women who wear the uniform in Arizona, are among the bravest and most noble public servants in this great state. Many are first responders, who put their lives on the line each day to keep our youth and our communities safe.”
Horne cited several examples of what he called the “unbalanced political propaganda” in the text: “U.S. History Interactive” by the Savvas Learning Company.
“At page 1033: ‘many people, including Black Lives Matter activists argued that these separate events as Well, as well as the death of many Black people in earlier years was the result of deeply embedded racism.’ Nothing was said about what other people may be saying. Other people do not believe that racism is deeply embedded in the United States.”
“On the same page referring to the 2020 riots: protest marches were generally peaceful Horne pointed out that ‘we’ve all seen the video on television of a reporter saying that surrounded by burning buildings and attacks on police cars.’”
“At page 1025, referring to the incident at Ferguson: ‘one witness claimed that before being shot, Brown had raised his hands and said ‘don’t shoot!’ Horne pointed out: ‘To his everlasting credit, Eric Holder, the first African American United States Attorney General in history, conducted an objective investigation, and concluded that officer Wilson shot Ferguson in self-defense. Limiting the discussion to what one witness said was extremely misleading.’”
“At page 1026: ‘a basic tenet of democracy is that power should belong to the people. But what can people try if they feel they’re not being heard or if they live under an authoritarian system? Civil resistance, encompasses a broad range of lawful and nonviolent action aimed at returning power to the people. Use this video as a brief introduction.’
Horne pointed out: “the United States is a Democratic Republic. We do not have a monarch. Officials are elected by a vote of the people. This gives everyone the opportunity, if they disagree with what the government is doing, to campaign for the election of someone else. That is the solution to disagree with government policy. Students are being encouraged by the video to engage in civil resistance to a democratically elected government. The suggestion in this quotation that the United States is an authority system is a woke lie.“
“From Page 167: ‘renovations and improvements conforming to middle-class preferences has driven up the demand for housing and the cost of living in these neighborhoods, making it difficult for less affluent more vulnerable LGBTQUI plus populations to live there’.” Horne replied: “I will not comment on what QUIA plus means, but the suggestion that LGBT people are financially oppressed is extremely misleading. Many LGBT People are quite prosperous. The median income for men in same-sex marriages is $149,900. The median income for men in opposite sex married couples is $124,900.”
Horne also cited issues with a human geography book also used by SUSD: “APHUG 5: Human Geography: A Spatial Perspective, Bednarz et al., Cengage, 2022”
The text states: “Republican lawmakers in some states have packed African-American voters into a single district or small number of districts thereby creating majority Republican districts in the rest of the state.’”
Horne’s response was incredulous: “This was a civil rights project of the Democratic Party. The goal was to assure minority representation in Congress. The Republican Party had nothing to do with it.”
According to AZFamily, Scottsdale Superintendent Scott Menzel rejected Horne’s assessment saying, “To label them woke without having ever read what was the 1,250 pages in the textbook is a problem from my perspective.” Horne replied to reporters that he had read all the passages he quoted. Menzel claimed that content experts reviewed the text and made an informed recommendation conforming to Arizona state standards.
“We would never adopt a curriculum that was anti-police,” Menzel told reporters. “We do have historically situations where some people argue that we should defund the police. Here in Arizona we had people who removed school resource officers. That’s not something that we would ever contemplate, but from a historical perspective our students should be able to wrestle with why someone might have made that argument.”
In a statement released SUSD said, “Horne’s claims of indoctrination and a so-called ‘leftist curriculum being imposed’ on students are simply untrue and unsupported by fact,” without refuting the examples cited by Horne.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Mike Bengert | May 16, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
I urge you to do your research on the curriculum and draw your conclusions. Follow Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity on X to see the specific examples taken directly from the textbooks, and watch the May 13, 2025, Board meeting on YouTube to see the discussion for yourselves.
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
