by Mike Bengert | Oct 23, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is entering a period of upheaval, one that is very concerning to parents, teachers, and taxpayers. Superintendent Dr. Scott Menzel recently announced that the district staff will bring forward proposals for consideration by the Governing Board to deal with the impact of declining enrollment in SUSD, which will reshape several campuses and alter the educational landscape of Scottsdale for years to come.
The first recommendation by district staff under consideration is for Echo Canyon K–8, Pima Elementary schools, and Desert Canyon Elementary and Middle Schools to be repurposed. Dr. Menzel has not made clear exactly what repurposing means. The official explanation for this is straightforward: declining enrollment and a need for “operational efficiency.” But as anyone who has followed SUSD’s trajectory over the past several years knows, declining enrollment is not isolated to a few schools. It is a district-wide problem — one that has deep roots in leadership decisions, cultural conflicts, and misplaced priorities.
A District in Decline
Beyond these four schools, six others have been placed on a “watch list.” These campuses, too, are being monitored for potential closures or repurposing as enrollment continues to fall. Since Dr. Menzel’s arrival in July 2020, the district has lost more than 2,500 students, dropping from over 22,300 to 19,700, an 11% decline in just five years. This decline represents not only a fiscal crisis for the district but also a crisis of confidence among Scottsdale parents.
So, how did we arrive here?
The Menzel Philosophy: Disrupt and Dismantle
If you want to understand how we got here, you need to understand Dr. Menzel’s philosophy of education. In a 2019 interview titled “Public Schools and Social Justice: An Interview with Dr. Scott Menzel,” he explained that understanding how systems operate gives leaders “the opportunity to dismantle, disrupt, and then recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”
This wasn’t a throwaway line. It was a mission statement.
Since arriving in Scottsdale, Menzel has followed this blueprint:
- He has recommended firing respected teachers while hiring unlicensed social workers and “wellness” staff.
- He has proposed cutting classroom budgets while expanding administrative overhead.
- He has recommended reducing opportunities for public comment at board meetings.
- He has directed teachers not to inform parents about students’ gender transitions unless asked directly.
- He has consolidated power and minimized accountability, all while using district communications, podcasts, and social media to promote his leadership as a success story.
- He has championed the elimination of valedictorian honors and class rank.
Unfortunately for the students and parents, the board has approved every recommendation made by Dr. Menzel.
At board meetings, Menzel regularly dominates the discussion, often interacting with the board president as though he were chairing the meeting himself. He highlights a few exceptional student achievements as evidence of district success, perhaps a few hundred students out of nearly 20,000, while ignoring the systemic academic underperformance that affects the majority.
The Illusion of Success
The numbers tell a sobering story. In 2024, SUSD reported a 92% graduation rate (down from 94% in 2022) and a 98% promotion rate. Yet proficiency in core academic subjects remains around 52%. In other words, nearly half of all students graduate or advance to the next grade level without mastering reading, writing, math, or science at grade level.
When questioned about these numbers, Menzel points out that SUSD still outperforms the statewide average of roughly 30% proficiency. But comparing yourself to the bottom of the barrel isn’t a standard of excellence — it’s an excuse for mediocrity.
Despite this record, the Governing Board continues to reward Menzel with pay raises, bonuses, and contract extensions. Two successive boards have failed to impose any meaningful accountability or measurable academic goals.
The “Woke” Agenda and Its Consequences
In Scottsdale, Dr. Menzel’s leadership has been defined by his emphasis on Social Emotional Learning (SEL), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), gender identity programs, and related “woke” initiatives, all fully endorsed by the leftist majority on the current Governing Board. These programs were sold as a way to build empathy, inclusion, and belonging. Instead, they have deepened division, distracted from academics, and driven families out of the district.
At the same time, the district has invested heavily in administrative roles tied to “behavioral health,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” while cutting classroom teaching positions. This inversion of priorities is not only financially unsustainable, it’s academically disastrous.
Parents Are Walking Away
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne recently provided a candid explanation for the declining enrollment. In a public statement, he argued that “the promotion of woke ideology is a significant reason behind potential school closures in several school districts,” explicitly calling out SUSD’s efforts to promote gender ideology among elementary and middle school students.
He went further:
“This happens because of the expenditure of a large amount of campaign funds to elect woke school board members who do not represent their communities. Parents have a choice, so they move their children. The school boards in these districts have no one to blame but themselves for allowing the classroom to be corrupted from a place of learning to a venue for indoctrination in woke principles.”
Love him or hate him, Horne’s diagnosis resonates with many SUSD parents who feel that the district has prioritized social engineering over education.
The Voter’s Responsibility
While Dr. Menzel and the Governing Boards are directly responsible for what has happened to SUSD, the truth is that Scottsdale voters bear responsibility as well.
In the last election cycle, three board seats were up for grabs, an opportunity to shift power away from the progressive bloc that rubber-stamps every one of Menzel’s initiatives. Instead, voters elected candidates who reinforced the status quo: one a former superintendent from a failing Phoenix district, another who told parents to effectively butt out and leave education decisions to “experts,” and another whose own child attends private school, since it was a “better fit.”
Can SUSD Be Saved?
It’s a painful question to ask, but one that must be faced honestly: Can SUSD be saved under current leadership?
Dr. Menzel has shown no willingness to shift his priorities. The Governing Board has shown no appetite for holding him accountable. Parents are leaving, teachers are demoralized, and the district is closing schools while insisting that everything is fine.
The future of Scottsdale’s public schools doesn’t depend on clever slogans, glossy podcasts, or PR campaigns. It depends on leadership that values education over ideology and on citizens willing to demand it.
Scottsdale’s parents, taxpayers, and voters have few options. With the three progressive members’ terms extending to 2028 and the remaining two members up for re-election next year, the balance of power will remain firmly in Menzel’s camp for the foreseeable future. The progressive board members will allow Dr. Menzel to continue “dismantling and disrupting” SUSD until there’s little left to rebuild.
If we want to restore SUSD to its rightful mission, educating children in reading, writing, math, science, and the arts, parents need to speak up, and demand change now. Waiting for an election in 2028 will be too late.
You can start by attending the public meeting scheduled for November 13, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Governing Board Room located at Coronado High School. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain public comment regarding the potential closure and repurposing of Echo Canyon K-8 School and Pima Elementary School. Each speaker will be given two minutes to voice their opinion on the closure/repurposing of the schools. Don’t feel constrained; you can also voice your opinion on Dr. Menzel and the board members’ actions that have led us to this point.
All SUSD parents should attend the meeting, even if their child does not attend Echo Canyon or Pima. Remember, as enrollment continues to decline, these schools are just the beginning; your child’s school may well be next.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Mike Bengert | Apr 10, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
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.
by W.H. Williams | Oct 10, 2024 | Opinion
By W.H. Williams |
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.
by Tamra Farah | May 25, 2024 | Opinion
By Tamra Farah |
Progressive educators have dressed up nonacademic social training in different outfits for decades. Still, the goal remains: to use public education to dictate the next generation’s norms and behaviors. This may seem innocent enough, but it’s not.
Early 20th-century education reformers like Edward Thorndike of Columbia Teachers College and John Dewey, the father of American progressive education, set out to refashion public education to diminish individuality and family influence in children. They aimed to replace these influences with a collectivist mindset prepared for the workforce. By doing so, they could capture the minds and hearts of children in the classroom and substitute “the state for the home and faith.”
Their socialist behaviorist model was effectively the first version of what we now know as social-emotional learning (SEL), which was most recently repackaged as the Whole Child educational framework.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
In the 1960s, Dr. James Comer of the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center set out to prove the effectiveness of behavior versus academic focus for student success. He tested his theory in 650 low-income schools, admitting thirty years later that it was a failure. Still, his method served as the foundation for today’s SEL in schools.
In the 1980s, Psychology Professor Roger Weissberg aimed to help students “develop positive self-concepts” and hone skills in “self-monitoring” and “values such as personal responsibility and respect for self and others.” These seem like loaded phrases subject to interpretation, but his approach was acceptable enough to keep the behaviorist model train running on its tracks.
By the 1990s, National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) president Marc Tucker helped pass the Goals 2000 Educate America Act during the Clinton administration, echoing Thorndike’s goals to advance a socialist workforce development mindset in K-12 education. This was followed by the controversial Outcomes Based Education (OBE) model, which debuted when my kids were school age.
Thankfully, parental backlash in the 1990s squashed OBE, yet it morphed and reappeared through CASEL, the Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning. CASEL took time to stake its claim by hosting conferences and sponsoring research, presumably to build a support base. CASEL’s champion, Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford Graduate School of Education, was a known progressive who advocated for educational equity. The push for so-called equity, versus the much-respected American concept of equal opportunity, hit schools long before COVID.
CASEL’s goals for students include providing “the process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.” This sounds innocuous until you realize their specific definitions for each element may be a far cry from what you might think.
For example, CASEL definitively overplays the role of schools in a child’s life when it asserts that “schools have an important role to play in raising healthy children by fostering not only their cognitive development but also their social and emotional development.” (Emphasis is mine.) This is a tremendous assumption of power over your children in the classroom and is tantamount to brainwashing, not promoting basic good behavior.
CASEL defends its emphasis on social and emotional learning via research that leaves something to be desired. First, there are no recent U.S.-based studies; instead, they cite a 2006 study that asked a national sample of 148,189 sixth through twelfth-grade students if they thought they had social competencies such as empathy, decision-making, and conflict-resolution skills. The results? Only 29% indicated that their school provided a caring, encouraging environment. And how accurate are the results when parents were not consulted on the answers, given the relative immaturity of kids to answer these questions competently?
The latest version of SEL, dubbed Whole Child, stems from The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. It includes expansive elements in its list of critical areas for schools to deliver to students: mental health, cognitive development, social-emotional development, identity development, academic development, and physical health. This resembles a giant leap toward Thorndike and Dewey’s early progressive education agenda.
According to research from the Massachusetts-based think tank Pioneer, Thorndike equated “learning with training” and believed in learning by conditioning. Like Pavlov’s dogs, children could be conditioned to exhibit the desired behaviors by a system of positive or negative consequences linked to actions. John Dewey, the dean of American progressive education, was equally enthusiastic about manipulating the psychological aspects of learning to manipulate the child.
Remember, Dewey favored the “educational potential of social behaviorism used in totalitarian societies” since those societies “required a collective and cooperative mentality.”
Pioneer’s conclusion? “Carried to its logical conclusion, SEL can replace parental influence with the ultimate nanny state.” Progressives have dressed up the nonacademic paradigm of social-emotional style learning in different outfits for decades. They have planned to substitute “the state for the home and faith” and replace individual liberty with a collectivist mindset readied for the “workforce.”
Social Emotional Learning, in its “transformative” form, promotes “justice-oriented civic engagement” to make your kids into activists or “social justice warriors.” Black Lives Matter has often invited schools over the last few years to engage in that process.
A hallmark of SEL’s manipulative approach is the use of student surveys. The surveys are sent to kids’ email inboxes, often asking questions of students that require parental consent according to federal law. SEL puts teachers in a mindset to pry into the lives of students and families. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said social and emotional learning programs shift “the role of teachers from educators to therapists.”
SEL is also big business. According to Education Week, nationwide sales of social and emotional learning materials shot up 45% in a year and a half to $765 million in 2021. Soon after, Attorney General Merrick Garland asked the FBI to investigate parents protesting social and emotional learning issues at SB meetings. It just so happens that Garland’s son-in-law co-founded Panorama Education, a company raking in millions selling social and emotional learning materials to school districts.
Don’t be fooled by social-emotional learning as your child’s education framework. It is not founded on academics and pushes your kids toward an activist mindset that may not align with your family’s values. The Scottsdale Unified School District’s governing board recently approved a new social-emotional learning curriculum called Second Step. For help discovering SEL’s impact on your kids at school, contact education@azwomenofaction.com for information and steps you can take.
Tamra Farah has a twenty-year career in public policy and politics. Her role as director and senior advisor at Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Arizona Women of Action and her expertise in PR and communications demonstrate her ability to create engagement and transformation in her efforts. Tamra has appeared on Fox News, America’s Voice, Newsmax, and Victory Channel and quoted in major publications like The New York Times and Washington Post.
by Elizabeth Troutman | Mar 2, 2024 | Education, News
By Elizabeth Troutman |
More than 900 Arizona schools declined to answer if they teach Critical Race Theory.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne released figures showing that 900 schools would not answer five academic focus questions related to matters such as ensuring schools do not inappropriately expose students to explicit content and avoiding instruction that promotes racial division such as Critical Race Theory.
Of Arizona’s 2,467 district and charter schools, as of Feb. 29, 1,565 have affirmed that they are following these guidelines, but 902 have not.
Other questions attempt to ensure that any sexual content is developmentally appropriate, administrators fully support teacher discipline, and schools avoid excessive distractions such as Social Emotional Learning.
Social Emotional Learning claims to equip children with the ability to manage emotions, feel empathy for others, and maintain positive relationships, but it integrates Critical Race Theory in the education system.
“It is scandalous to see that more than 900 schools have declined to be transparent with parents who entrust their children to be educated by these schools,” Horne said. “Parents have the right to be fully informed about what their neighborhood schools value and how instructional time is used.”
The media claims public schools don’t teach CRT, Horne said. The superintendent said this is false, as the Balsz Elementary District on the east side of Phoenix explicitly and publicly teaches CRT.
“The fact that more than 900 districts and charter schools did not answer the question proves that the problem is widespread and distractions from academics are contributing to low test scores,” he said.
“Every instructional minute is precious, and every minute should be devoted to academics, not unnecessary distractions, lessons that divide people by race, or exposing students to subject matter that is not developmentally appropriate,” Horne continued.
The schools that declined to answer the questions will have that information on their school report card provided on the department’s website. If schools eventually choose to respond, their report card will be updated with that information.
Early next week, the department will finish compiling and releasing information on whether schools are following state law that requires instruction on the Holocaust and other genocides.
“Schools have a responsibility to teach to the state standards and graduating students who are academically proficient,” Horne said. “This is simple common sense and easily achievable by every school in the state.”
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
