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.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
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.
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) may soon adopt a new American history curriculum rooted in social justice.
The SUSD Social Sciences Curriculum Adoption Committee recommended for American and Arizona History the textbook “US History: Interactive” by Emma J. Lapsansky-Werner, Peter B. Levy, Randy Roberts, and Alan Taylor from the Savvas Learning Company. This textbook, parents argue, reinvents modern American history through a social justice lens.
Parents took issue with the portrayal of complex issues in recent history, such as race relations in America. The textbook conveys that racism against Black Americans remains an ongoing problem.
“Although Barack Obama’s election as president showed that real racial progress has been made, other events during his presidency suggested that racism remained a problem in the country,” states the textbook.
The textbook also states that law enforcement killed George Floyd in 2020. Their coverage of this pivotal incident omits critical context to include the medical examiner’s office autopsy report, which cited Floyd’s heart problems exacerbated by regular drug use as well as the presence of “a fatal level” of fentanyl (along with the presence of other illicit drugs) in his system as contributors to his death.
“If Mr. Floyd were found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” stated notes from the prosecution’s interview with Baker.
During the trial of the police officer charged with Floyd’s death, Derek Chauvin, the medical examiner behind Floyd’s autopsy, Andrew Baker, concurred that Floyd’s corpse bore no evidence of asphyxiation — consistent with his autopsy findings. Baker’s autopsy report didn’t attribute law enforcement actions to Floyd’s cause of death; Baker only added that connection after watching videos of law enforcement restraining Floyd.
The textbook also characterized Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement as an offshoot of the Civil Rights Movement and described BLM protests as “generally peaceful”; the book distanced the riots that occurred from BLM activism.
“[D]estructive riots did break out in some cities at night, often after an announced curfew. During this nighttime rioting, people burned buildings, looted stores, and clashed with the police. Innocent people were harmed. It was unclear in some cases, however, whether or not the rioters were associated with the protests,” stated the textbook.
During a board meeting last month, the committee explained they recommended this and the other four social sciences textbooks based on alignment with course descriptions, comprehensive resources, support for diverse learners, online platforms, print and online access, and competitive pricing and staff development.
Parents and community members opposed to the textbook issued written comments to the committee arguing it was filled with “biased narratives” on critical topics in modern American history.
“This is exactly what parents do not want for their children and is why they are moving out of the public school,” stated one community member.
The controversial textbook would cost the district about $146,000 out of the $674,000 total requested purchase.
The curriculum committee members are SUSD teachers Ashley Crose, Daniel Hyman, Arianna Fiandaca, Brittany Case, and Chris Haak; SUSD administrator Chad Johnson; and community member Brian Cieniawski. Committee support members included SUSD Director of Teaching and Learning Kimberly Dodds-Keran, Social Science Academic Coach Dylan Bullard, and Instructional Materials Specialist Dede Johnston.
The SUSD Governing Board will vote on the curriculum during its May 13 board meeting.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) parents are attempting to reverse the relaxation of the district’s dress code.
SUSD surveyed Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) members about the district’s dress code, which parents criticized for failure to indicate a requirement for students to cover their midriffs.
The survey, shared by Scottsdale Unites For Educational Integrity (SUFEI), only included “genitals, buttocks, chest, and nipples” in its description of “private body parts” in a question to parents about appropriate student clothing.
SUFEI urged parents to respond to the survey in opposition to the question of appropriate student clothing and to leave a comment explaining their support for qualifying the midriff as a private body part.
Current SUSD dress code does not require students to cover their midriffs. However, the dress code does prohibit students from wearing anything deemed “hate speech,” along with any clothing depicting profanity, nudity, or pornography.
In 2022 emails reported by the Arizona Daily Independent last fall, the governing board’s then-vice president Libby Hart-Wells reportedly pressured SUSD administration to override the district’s Code of Conduct to allow girls to wear clothing that exposed the midriff.
SUSD Residents- help 🛑 the sexualization of Scottsdale Unified students!
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) April 22, 2025
Hart-Wells, who presided over the board last year, no longer serves on the board.
Most other districts around the Valley do not allow midriffs and have maintained the traditional set of dress codes, but several have begun to loosen their dress codes as well.
In 2023, Higley Unified School District (HUSD) removed policy language prohibiting clothes which “immodestly exposes the chest, abdomen, midriff, genital area, or buttocks,” instead reducing the prohibition to clothing exposing “undergarments [or] undergarment areas.”
Last year, Tucson Unified School District revised its policy citing concerns of sexism and equity, effectively allowing students to expose most of their breasts along with their entire torsos and buttocks.
Scottsdale parents concerned with the relaxed dress code are also coming off of other, more significant concerns with the district. Last year, the governing board approved a bonus to Superintendent Scott Menzel despite lower test scores. Menzel earned the bonus based on meeting several nonacademic achievement goals over the course of a year, not any of the academic ones: increased attendance rate, increased student extracurricular and cocurricular activity participation, increased certified staff retention, an established baseline for work-based learning opportunities and hours, and the production of a decision making matrix and proposal.
Under Menzel’s leadership for the past four years, SUSD enrollment dropped by over 1,500 students and science scores dropped 24 percent. Less than 50 percent of 8th grade SUSD students were proficient in math, despite 94 percent of students graduating.
Menzel has been a proponent of more progressive ideologies, such as those behind critical race theory and LGBTQ+ lifestyles. Menzel has defended the inclusion of sexualized discourses and subject matter on campuses as protected under Civil Rights law.
Menzel came to SUSD in July 2020 amid the racial reckoning sweeping the nation following George Floyd’s death in police custody. The year before, while still a superintendent in Michigan, Menzel gave an interview calling the white race “problematic” and meritocracy “a lie.”
“[White people] should feel really, really uncomfortable, because we perpetuate a system by ignoring the realities in front of us, and living in a mythological reality,” said Menzel. “In this country it’s about meritocracy. ‘Pull up yourself by your bootstraps, everybody has the same opportunity.’ And it’s a lie.”
The discovery of these past remarks prompted Scottsdale lawmakers to advocate for Menzel’s removal.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne also advocated against Menzel’s contract renewal last fall.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
At the April 1 meeting of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, the main topic of discussion was once again the FY2025-2026 budget. As usual, SUSD Chief Financial Officer Shannon Crosier presented slides filled with numerous figures and did her best to put a positive spin on the information, carefully avoiding direct answers to the questions posed. At times, questions from Board Members Pittinsky and Sharkey seemed to include the answers, perhaps as a reminder of the narrative they were expected to follow.
However, the information presented made it clear that Superintendent Dr. Menzel is once again cutting teachers and instructional staff to deal with the financial impact of declining enrollment. Much of this decline can be traced back to his mismanagement of the district and the implementation of controversial policies like social-emotional learning (SEL), which critics argue undermine academic instruction and teacher morale.
Proponents of SEL, including Dr. Menzel, argue that by addressing students’ psychological challenges, academic achievement will follow. However, independent research, especially outside the U.S. teaching establishment, shows little evidence supporting this theory. You don’t need another study to confirm this; just look at the student proficiency scores in the Arizona Auditor General’s annual school district spending analysis report.
In FY24, SUSD spent 54.4% of its budget on instructional services, slightly below its peer group’s average of 55.2%. Over the past five years, spending on instruction in SUSD has dropped by 1.7%, while spending on student support has increased by 2.6%. During this period, SUSD’s enrollment has decreased by 8.4%, a trend that directly correlates with Dr. Menzel’s tenure. In the 2024 financial report, SUSD cut 59 instructional positions, added 71 student support positions, and increased the number of support and administrative roles by 44. As enrollment continues to fall, instructional spending declines, while support services and administrative costs rise. Yet, despite this shift in priorities, the effectiveness of SEL in improving academic performance has not been proven. Rather, the opposite is true.
For example, in FY24, in SUSD, only 55% of students passed the state math assessment, 61% passed English Language Arts (ELA), and just 41% passed science—an average drop of 12% since 2019. These results point to an inverse correlation between increased spending on support services and academic performance. This fact is well-documented in various unbiased studies.
Dr. Menzel, however, seems undeterred by the data, continuing his agenda of reducing instructional positions while increasing funding for social-emotional support services, including hiring more social workers and psychologists. All of this is happening despite clear declines in academic achievement.
At the meeting, it was apparent that Dr. Menzel has little regard for Board Members Carney and Werner’s requests for cost-cutting measures they made during the first budget meeting. In response to a question from Member Pittinsky about the possibility of future funding, Dr. Menzel stated, “There’s a path to land the plane to address those priorities of the board.” A “path” to address the Board’s priorities? The Governing Board is legally responsible for the district’s financial performance, and Dr. Menzel’s role is to present options that align with the Board’s priorities now, not at some unspecified future date based on potential additional funds.
Crosier claimed that the district had reviewed its costs carefully and had cut 13 positions from district-level departments. However, when questioned, she revealed that only one of those positions was not vacant and that no one had lost their job or experienced a reduction in force. So, how does this translate to cost savings?
When Member Carney inquired about her request for cuts to discretionary spending—such as travel, conferences, and consulting fees, Crosier had no answer. Carney also asked what steps she had taken to preserve the full-time assistant principal positions, which were requested by the Board, community members, and teachers alike. Once again, no answer.
Dr. Menzel’s disregard for the Board’s requests, coupled with his continued expansion of district staffing in non-instructional areas, raises serious concerns. One slide presented during the meeting, titled “Department Level Positions History – All Funds,” listed changes for FY25-26, but the data presented was incomplete and lacked the actual number of staff in each department. Showing the true staffing numbers would prompt uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why are these positions necessary?” and “Are they more important than keeping teachers in the classroom?”
According to the Auditor General, SUSD’s per-student administrative spending is 15% higher than the peer group average. Meanwhile, the public comment portion of the meeting included heartfelt testimonies from teachers, including the president of the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), who expressed the growing difficulty of teaching amid rising costs, particularly healthcare. Next year, the district plans to offer teachers only a 1% raise while shifting more of the healthcare burden onto the teachers.
We heard stories from teachers struggling to make ends meet, including one who is leaving the district after years of service, and others—one with 27 years of experience—facing insurmountable medical expenses.
Because state funding for education is based on enrollment, the root of the district’s financial troubles lies in the decline of enrollment, which has been exacerbated by Dr. Menzel’s policies and his focus on non-academic priorities. The Auditor General tracks school district enrollment and assesses the financial risks associated with declining enrollment. According to these trends, SUSD has been rated as “high risk” due to its decreasing enrollment numbers.
In FY24, while districts across the state facing declining enrollment worked to reduce operating costs, SUSD failed to make similar adjustments. The statewide average teacher salary increased by 34.6% between FY17 and FY24, reaching $65,113, while SUSD’s average teacher salary rose by just 27.7% to $63,151—$1,962 below the state average. This is a 1.5% decrease in the average teacher salary for FY24 from FY23. Moreover, the average base salary for teachers with less than three years of experience rose by 24.4%, while those with more than four years of experience saw an increase of less than 0.5%. This discrepancy is contributing to the loss of experienced teachers, many of whom are leaving the district. This creates a younger teacher population at SUSD. Recent teaching graduates are more likely to support Dr. Menzel’s policies than older graduates. This is what he wants.
Several speakers at the meeting called for more state funding to address these challenges. While their frustration is understandable, their anger is misplaced. The real issue, as outlined by the Auditor General, is not a lack of state funding but rather mismanagement by Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board, which has consistently approved budgetary decisions that prioritize administrative and support staff over instructional spending.
According to the Auditor General in FY24, statewide school district spending increased by over $500 million to $13.1 billion, with per-student increases, including instruction, over FY23. Despite this increase in funding, the district allocated a smaller portion of the increase in spending to instruction than in prior years. As a result, the FY24 instructional spending percentage is the lowest since the Auditor General started monitoring in FY2001.
The decline in enrollment, because of Dr. Menzel’s continued focus on implementing SEL and bloating administrative positions, will only worsen SUSD’s financial situation. The Governing Board will need to face this ongoing problem for years to come unless drastic changes are made.
Rather than calling for more state funding for education, the SEA should be calling for the removal of Dr. Menzel as the first step in making the changes needed in SUSD.
Unfortunately for students and parents alike, rather than “landing the plane”, what we are witnessing is a controlled crash of the SUSD plane.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
At the Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) meeting in February, Dr. Cindy Bochna, Director of Assessments and Accountability, and Ms. Lea Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services from Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) gave a presentation of the K-12 Statewide Assessments. You can view the video of the meeting here, SPC 2-19-25 Meeting.
A couple of interesting and somewhat disturbing points came out during the presentation and discussion.
One being how SUSD and most of the schools are “A” rated by the Arizona Department of Education.
For those of you not familiar with the AZ report card process, according to the Arizona Department of Education website, the
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-241 requires the Arizona Department of Education, subject to final adoption by the State Board of Education, to develop an annual achievement profile for every public school in the state based on an A through F scale.
The system measures year to year student academic growth, proficiency on English language arts, math and science. It also includes the proficiency and academic growth of English language learners, indicators that an elementary student is ready for success in high school and that high school students are ready to succeed in a career or higher education and high school graduation rates.”
To find out what grade your child’s school has been awarded, and how many points the school earned in each category, go to AZ Report Cards and search by the name of the school.
I understand that the Arizona Department of Education assigns the grades and SUSD didn’t establish the criteria, nor the weighted values assigned for the grading, but I think it is important that parents understand exactly what goes into the grades assigned and how to interpret them.
So, when you are looking at your child’s school to determine the assessment grade and detailed scoring, I encourage you to scroll down and look at the other information available, specifically the student achievement in state academic assessment reports.
These reports provide details on student proficiency rates for ELA, math, and science. By looking at previous years, you can see how the data is trending.
During the discussion at the SPC meeting, using Chaparral High School as an example, I asked Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell how Chaparral is given an A grade when across all three academic subjects, an average of only 53% of the students are proficient. I asked how a 53% could be an A, isn’t that more like an F?
What I found disturbing was the response I got from Ms. Mitchell. She explained that Stephen Curry and Steve Kerr, both NBA players, only made 45% of the shots they took yet they were rated as world champion basketball players.
So, Ms. Mitchell, are you saying 53% makes you a world champion in academics? Really?!?
Statements like this are silly and make me wonder just how serious they are about education. SUSD students and parents deserve better.
At one point during the meeting, I asked how Arizona compared to the rest of the country. I said that I thought we were somewhere around 48th or 49th. Both Dr. Bochna and Ms. Mitchell said I was wrong, and that Arizona was somewhere around 30th or so in terms of ACT scores across the nation.
In a follow-up email, Dr. Bochna provided me with the following information:
When you look at the data and sort it from highest to lowest, Arizona is right where I said we are, tied with Mississippi and Hawaii for 47, 48, and 49th positions. Arizona is nowhere near the top 30 or whatever position Ms. Mitchell thought. If they were analyzing the data, they should know that. Being a top performer in a state that ranks at the bottom is nothing to brag about.
When you put this performance in some context, the 21.5 ACT score for SUSD is less than impressive. The average ACT score for incoming students at ASU is 26. While a score of 20-23 is considered competitive at many mid-tier colleges, a score of 24-28 is needed for more selective colleges. To get into a top engineering school, a student needs something like a 30 in math and 36 for a composite score. I’m sure there are a handful of students out of the 20,000 in SUSD who score that high, but to get an average of 21.5, many students do not.
While I certainly encourage you to listen to the entire meeting (Dr. Menzel responds to questions at the beginning of the meeting) the points I discussed here are found in the 44:00 to 1:00:00 portion and the 1:13:00 to 1:24:00 segment in the video. Listen for yourself.
For anyone that has been paying attention to what has been happening in SUSD over the past few years, it comes as no surprise that academic performance under Dr. Menzel has been terrible. Thousands of SUSD students each year are not proficient in ELA, math or science, yet over 92% graduate high school in four years. Remember, Dr. Menzel has never met any of his academic performance goals throughout his tenure at SUSD.
This academic record has contributed, in large part, to the steady decline in enrollment, leading to major financial issues the Governing Board is now struggling with. As has been his practice for the past few years, Dr. Menzel proposes cutting teachers and instructional staff positions and hiring more unlicensed social workers to solve the budget crisis, a crisis that his poor management has caused. Actions, if taken, will ensure the Governing Board will be dealing with the same problem again next year.
At the last Governing Board meeting, Member Pittinsky told Dr. Menzel he wanted to see a deep dive into causes of the declining enrollment. He wants to understand what parents are saying during exit surveys as they pull their children out of SUSD and see the data by site and grade level. All of us involved with SUSD would like to see that information.
I wish Dr. Pittinsky the best of luck as he tries to get this information from Dr. Menzel.
As I have said on multiple occasions, identifying the root cause of the problem and fixing it is the only way anything will change. Unfortunately, change takes time; time that thousands of SUSD students don’t have.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
