MIKE BENGERT: Scottsdale Students Deserve Better Than Failed Education Experiments

MIKE BENGERT: Scottsdale Students Deserve Better Than Failed Education Experiments

by | Jun 16, 2026 | Opinion

By Mike Bengert |

I have opposed Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Superintendent Dr. Menzel and his Governing Board allies since his arrival, and for good reason.

For decades, progressive education experts have promoted policies they said would raise achievement, often without any evidence. Whatever their intentions, the results have been disappointing and well documented.

After years of weak results, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 brought accountability-focused reform. By raising standards, measuring results, and targeting low-performing schools, it helped improve outcomes. Over its first decade, nearly half the states gained in 4th-grade reading and almost all improved in 4th-grade math.

Despite that progress, the “experts” replaced NCLB with Common Core and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). According to numbers from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), that experiment has failed.

For 50 years, the National Center for Education Statistics has tracked performance through the NAEP, the Nation’s Report Card. The 2024 results reinforce concerns about the last decade of education policy and echo warnings first raised in 1983.

Let’s take a look at some of the key findings:

  • Student proficiency has stagnated or declined since the early 1990s.
  • Public school performance improved under NCLB, then stagnated after Common Core and declined under ESSA.
  • From 2013 to 2024, charter schools were more stable across achievement levels.
  • States with educator bargaining laws saw steeper reading declines, suggesting less instructional flexibility.
  • Even with record per-pupil spending in some states, achievement remains low, showing funding alone is not enough.

One article summarizes it this way:

“The declines reflect the failures of more than a decade of educational policy—specifically, a retreat from expectations that began under the Common Core Standards and continued under the Every Student Succeeds Act.”

The data show that the pedagogies favored by education experts, including Dr. Menzel and the majority of the SUSD Governing Board, and have failed for decades.

Whole language failed as a reading method in the 1980s and 1990s. In its place, the Science of Reading emphasizes systematic, explicit phonics.

Common Core deemphasized cursive, and instruction declined after 2010 as its authors argued keyboarding mattered more. Another failure.

Was prioritizing laptops and keyboarding over handwriting the right choice?

Studies cited in Psychology Today say no.

“These studies show that handwriting is an essential cognitive process and a valuable intellectual activity that supports learning from the first day of school through advanced levels of education.”

“…children should first learn handwriting. Only after they become fully proficient—especially in complex narrative writing—should typing be introduced.”

One of the most consequential failures in recent U.S. education policy was the COVID-era closure of public schools, supported by education experts and teachers’ unions, which resulted in widespread learning loss. The shutdowns were not only costly and unnecessary but also lacked scientific support.

These are only a few examples of the failures of expert-led public education. In my view, the most damaging and still spreading nationwide, including in SUSD, is the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).

In FY2020–2021, Dr. Menzel’s first year at SUSD, the Governing Board launched a future-focused strategic plan that made MTSS a key initiative.

In 2023, after a Scottsdale parent’s complaint, the Arizona Attorney General found that Menzel and the Governing Board’s strategic planning design team violated Open Meeting Law (OML). The AG did not punish the district or require rescission of the Strategic Plan, issuing only a warning, so the district still uses it today. Despite the OML training required by that finding, SUSD was hit with another OML complaint. Will Menzel ever learn?

MTSS began in the 1960s as a model for delivering mental health services in large urban areas. Schools later adapted it to identify students with special needs, and in the 2000s expanded it to all students.

MTSS requires schools to create support teams and policies that reshape how they handle behavior and learning. It has three tiers: tier one exposes all students to mental health awareness programs; tier two provides individual or group counseling for students identified by staff or self-referral; and tier three refers students needing more extensive services to outside professionals or clinics. In short, MTSS is designed to reshape school culture and organization around delivering mental health services.

Response to Intervention (RTI) focuses on academics, while Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) fits within MTSS on the premise that students cannot learn if social or emotional barriers block learning. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and RTI were originally developed for special education students but are now used schoolwide.

MTSS spread gradually through U.S. public schools over two decades, with wider adoption in the 2010s.

Under Dr. Menzel’s leadership, SUSD has implemented MTSS and integrated PBIS, RTI, and SEL across the district, describing them as research-based and effective. The district also describes itself as a national leader in RTI.

Despite SUSD’s claims that MTSS is research-based and improves academic and social outcomes, the objective data from multiple studies do not support the claims.

Since 2010, SUSD enrollment has fallen by more than 6,000 students. Nearly 29% of that decline occurred during Dr. Menzel’s tenure from 2021 to 2025, including more than 1,200 students in the 2024–2025 school year alone.

Arizona Department of Education data show that since 2021, SUSD students have averaged 60% proficiency in English Language Arts, 56% in math, and 40% in science, with little improvement.

These numbers do not support the SUSD claims of better academics, improved discipline, or a more positive school culture at SUSD. If the claims were true, why have proficiencies remained stagnant during Menzel’s tenure?

While MTSS is simply a means of organizing and providing mental health services in schools, programs like PBIS address behavior through encouragement rather than disciplinary policies. Revising disciplinary policies was one of Menzel’s early priorities after coming into office.

Follow this link to SUSD’s policies, and you’ll notice that the policies JK Student Discipline, JKD Student Suspension, and JKE Expulsion of Students and their related regulations and exhibits were all updated December 12, 2023, within Menzel’s first couple of years at SUSD.

In May 2024, the SUSD Code of Conduct Committee made a presentation to the Board. Two points stand out: the committee appears to classify bringing a loaded gun to school as “a minor aggressive act” (slide 5 and item #2 on this list of 24 Shocking Moments of 2024)

Slides 6 and 7 emphasize MTSS, SUSD’s core discipline framework.

While the entire 24 Shocking Moments of 2024 list is worth reading, pay particular attention to #3, #5, #9, #10, #13, #16, #20, and #21. They illustrate what Menzel calls better academics, improved discipline, and a more positive school culture at SUSD.

Consistent with that list, exit interviews show parents most often leave SUSD over weak academics, excessive technology use, poor discipline and policy enforcement, bullying and safety concerns, and dissatisfaction with leadership.

MTSS also carries costs: it requires more master’s-level non-teaching staff and uses class time for mental health programming. Along with PBIS, RTI, and SEL, it has shifted resources from classroom instruction to non-academic support services.

According to the AZ Auditor General’s SUSD spending report, SUSD academic instructional spending fell from nearly 64% of the operating budget in 2004 to 54% in 2025. In the five years since Menzel was hired, non-academic support spending rose 1.9% while instructional spending fell 2.3%—a swing of more than 4 points. In 2025, SUSD spent $1,449 per pupil on support services, about 21% of its instructional spending ($6,959), up from $871 and 16% in 2020.

For years, education experts have promoted school-based mental health programs and SEL as ways to improve academics. But multiple studies—including a 2024 long-term study of nearly 500,000 Minnesota students—found no meaningful gains in test scores, attendance, or other academic outcomes. Research from Europe, Canada, Australia, and Latin America reaches the same conclusion: SEL may help behavior or social-emotional skills in some cases, but it does not reliably raise academic performance. (For more, see here.)

Schools often use universal mental health screenings to identify students for intervention. But without adequate safeguards and expertise, these screenings can produce false-positive rates as high as 90%, with potentially lasting consequences.

SUSD says it uses universal screening. Arizona Revised Statutes 15-104 and 36-2272 require written parental consent before school mental health screening. If your child was screened without your consent, you should contact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and file a complaint.

Since March 2024, there has been no statutory exemption allowing school-based behavioral workers to practice behavioral health without a license. If you believe your child was subjected to behavioral health services at SUSD through MTSS or otherwise, you can file a complaint with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners here.

Dr. Menzel is on a mission to disrupt and destroy SUSD, and he should be stopped.

If you think things can’t get much worse in SUSD, or in public education more broadly, just wait until the experts implement AI in the curriculum. We should build real intelligence in students before turning to artificial intelligence.

Unfortunately, the SUSD staff recently attended a 2-day event to “level up” and attend 66 engaging learning sessions focused on innovative instructional practices, student support, technology integration, and more. I can’t wait!

After researching and writing this piece, I am more convinced than ever that focusing on and supporting truly evidence-based academics and fiscal responsibility in our schools, puts me on the right side of the issues.

Wherever you live and whatever school your children attend, if you care about your child’s education, please visit Restore Parental Rights in Education and support its mission to “awaken and empower everyday citizens who advocate for excellence in K-12 education.”

Reversing the decline of public education in America will require people to unite and act together.

Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.

MIKE BENGERT: Can Scottsdale Unified School District Be Saved?

MIKE BENGERT: Can Scottsdale Unified School District Be Saved?

by | 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.

TIFFANY BENSON: Pushing Back Against Secularism In Public Education

MIKE BENGERT: What Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Says About The State Of Our Schools And Culture

by | 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.

PEGGY MCCLAIN: The Dais Is For The Elected — Not The Employed

PEGGY MCCLAIN: The Dais Is For The Elected — Not The Employed

by | Jul 17, 2025 | Opinion

By Peggy McClain |

Recently, the Peoria Unified Governing Board made a necessary correction: They removed the superintendent from the dais, restoring a clear boundary between the elected and the employed. While some saw this as dramatic, the only real surprise was that the line had been blurred for so long.

Unfortunately, the Higley Unified School District went the opposite direction, and they did it quietly.

At what should have been a routine meeting last week, Superintendent David Loutzenheiser, attending his very first meeting as head of Higley Schools, took a seat on the dais without any board vote or public discussion. And unfortunately, his first moves were not in line with what he promised when interviewed.

Immediately after the meeting began, Board Member Anna Van Hoek read a detailed statement opposing the new seating arrangement. Her opposition was not just personal, it was procedural. According to Van Hoek, she learned about the change via email, without any discussion or vote among the five board members. She stated: “The dais represents the authority entrusted to us directly by the voters.”

Van Hoek is absolutely correct.

Per Arizona Statute §15-503, governing boards in Arizona are responsible for hiring and evaluating the superintendent. When an employee sits on the dais as if equal to the officials tasked with his oversight, it blurs the lines of authority. That distinction may be lost on those with long careers in education, but in the private sector, these boundaries are well understood. There is a reason the CEO does not share the boardroom table with the board of directors. It is not about ego, it is about structure, accountability, and ensuring each role is properly respected.

Employees, even highly paid ones, are assigned responsibilities, expectations, and standards of behavior. If a superintendent is perceived as a peer rather than an employee, will board members evaluate him objectively when the time comes? That is not a rhetorical question as it became reality just minutes into the meeting when Board Member Scott Glover asked the superintendent if it was “okay” to table the vote on his dais placement. That single moment flipped the chain of command upside down.

Superintendent Loutzenheiser oversees a district with a budget exceeding $100 million and is responsible for hundreds of employees. He will hold meetings with principals, department heads, and administrators to carry out the board’s direction. Will any of them be invited to sit beside him at his desk? Of course not. And yet, some expect him to sit shoulder to shoulder with his bosses. It is not just improper, it is dysfunctional.

According to Van Hoek’s statement, the superintendent requested to move to the dais, and Board President Amanda Wade approved the request entirely on her own. When Van Hoek received the email, she immediately requested the seating change be added as an action item for the July 8 board meeting. Had she not spoken up, the change would have gone forward without any transparency, just Wade’s quiet approval. That would have set a dangerous precedent.

While Loutzenheiser initiated the request, the greater failure lies with President Wade, who acted without board consensus. Tiffany Shultz, another board member, responded to Van Hoek’s concerns by claiming the new arrangement promotes collaboration and a “united front.” Yet collaboration was not on display in that email from the superintendent to board members. And the role of an elected official is not to present uniformity, but to represent the full range of community concerns, especially when those views differ.

There is no legal or ethical requirement for a school board to look united. In fact, the opposite is true. Voters should expect to see board members raise concerns, challenge decisions, and vote independently. When votes are unanimous and debate is absent, the public should worry, not applaud. Disagreement is not dysfunction. It is how oversight works.

Sadly, the obsession with unity and harmony is a symptom of a broader trend in public education, one fueled by Social Emotional Learning (SEL). SEL prioritizes emotional well-being and interpersonal bonding over academic rigor and role clarity. This focus has blurred the lines between teachers and parents, students and staff, and now board members and the superintendent. Meanwhile, test scores fall and academic achievement stalls.

The confusion SEL has introduced into the system is precisely why the Arizona Legislature passed laws like the Parents Bill of Rights, to restore proper authority to parents. In the same way, this dais debacle exposes a need to restore proper authority and boundaries at the board level.

President Wade claims she values her fellow board members. If that is true, why didn’t she involve them in the decision? Her words and actions while sitting on the dais say otherwise.

It is important that the public can identify district staff in their designated spaces. I have attended many board meetings and am shocked at the whispers and private conversations happening on the dais between board members. Now, the same thing can happen between the superintendent and whichever board member is seated beside him. That is a problem.

Superintendent Loutzenheiser is under a three-year contract with a base salary of $210,000, not including perks and bonuses. With that kind of compensation comes an obligation to honor the governance structure. If he wants to begin his tenure with integrity, he should respectfully return to his proper seat off the dais at the next board meeting.

It may seem like a small gesture. But it would speak volumes.

Because the dais is for the elected, and it must stay that way.

Peggy McClain is a concerned citizen who advocates for accountability in Arizona’s schools. You can follower her on Twitter here.