by Mike Bengert | Feb 19, 2025 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Staff Reporter | Feb 6, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
It’s taken the better part of a year for vigilant Scottsdale parents, but the vulgar books they discovered will no longer be in their district’s libraries.
Last July, Scottsdale mom Jill Dunican wrote to the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) governing board about 17 books allegedly containing “vulgar or educationally unsuitable content.” Dunican wrote on behalf of several advocacy organizations and individuals: Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, Arizona Women of Action, Restore Parental Rights in Education, Protect Arizona Children Coalition, A Legal Process, Not In Our Schools, Shiry Sapir, Dan Kleinman (SafeLibraries), EZAZ, Save CFSD, Kids First, Mom Army, and Moms For Liberty.
The contested books were “A Stolen Life” by Jaycee Dugard; “Doomed” and “Haunted” by Chuck Palahniuk; “Lucky” by Alice Sebold; “PUSH” by Sapphire; “Sold” by Patrick McCormick; “Tricks,” “Perfect,” “People Kill People,” “Identical,” and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins; “Icebreaker” by Hannah Grace; “A Court of Frost and Starlight” by Sara J. Maas; “Anatomy of a Boyfriend” and “Anatomy of a Single Girl” by Daria Snadowsky; “Breathless” by Jennifer Niven; “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews; and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison.
Most of these books were only available at the various high schools within the district. One contested title — “Sold” — was available at the Desert Canyon K-8 school.
In her letter to the board, Dunican claimed these books violated Arizona’s laws on furnishing harmful items to minors and Arizona’s parental bill of rights.
“The negative impacts of vulgar material on children include: ‘greater acceptance of sexual harassment, sexual activity at an early age, acceptance of negative attitudes to women, unrealistic expectations, skewed attitudes of gender roles, greater levels of body dissatisfaction, rape myths, and sexual aggression,’ as well as sexual risk taking, mental health problems, decreased academic performance and detachment from family and friends,” wrote Dunican.
SUSD agreed. Following a temporary pull of the books and investigation by a review committee, SUSD found that nearly all of the contested books needed to be kept out of circulation permanently — meaning these texts violated Arizona laws on furnishing harmful materials to minors.
Last Friday, SUSD advised Dunican of the removal of 15 of the 17 contested books. The district determined the other two books — “Sold” and “Stolen Life” — may remain in circulation under the condition of parental consent for checkouts.
In a response email to Dunican, SUSD director Kim Dodds Keran added that the 15 books to be removed from circulation had “very limited circulation,” meaning they were checked out five or fewer times over the past three years.
In an email shared with AZ Free News, Dunican asked SUSD to adopt a policy complementing Arizona law prohibiting public schools from referring students to or using sexually explicit material in any manner.
This law maintains exemptions for works that possess “serious educational value” or “artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” In those cases, schools must obtain written parental consent on a per-material basis.
Dunican suggested the proposed SUSD policy could have librarians rely on rating services to review book ratings ahead of book purchases.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Mike Bengert | Oct 30, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
Can we truly take the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) seriously? They claim to be the premier association for school system leaders and the national voice for public education and district leadership. But do they speak for the majority of parents with children in public schools across America?
The AASA being the voice for public education on Capitol Hill might explain why public education has been failing our children for years. The education professionals who run the AASA and the Arizona School Administrators (ASA) seem more focused on promoting social-emotional learning, DEI, and gender identity rather than prioritizing academic excellence in public schools.
How else do you explain the prior selection of Dr. Donna Lewis as the superintendent of the year when she was the superintendent of a district where math and ELA proficiency were below 15%? And how do you explain the selection of Dr. Menzel as the 2024-2025 national superintendent of the year?
By selecting two failed superintendents for recognition, these organizations demonstrate that they are not concerned with academics.
Contrary to the Scottsdale Unified School District’s (SUSD) claims, Menzel has not enhanced educational outcomes; it is just the opposite. Last year, Menzel failed to meet his academic performance goals, and academic achievement in math, ELA, and science declined. In 2023, SUSD had over 8,000 students who were NOT proficient in ELA, over 9,000 who were NOT proficient in math, and over 12,000 students who were NOT proficient in science. Thirty-five percent of 3rd graders were not proficient in ELA in 2023. Being able to read by 3rd grade is critical to a student’s academic success. By continuing to promote them without being proficient, Menzel is setting them up for academic failure.
Despite these deficiencies, hundreds of SUSD students are promoted and graduate each year.
Under Menzel’s tenure, SUSD experienced a 10% drop in enrollment, with nearly half of the eligible students choosing not to attend SUSD. Additionally, the district has faced record staff turnover due to the fear-driven environment Menzel has created. Yet he is celebrated as the superintendent of the year.
Enough is enough. Scottsdale cannot afford another failed superintendent of the year.
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 Mike Bengert | Oct 4, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
As you read the following excerpts from a book titled “Push” found in a Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) school library, ask yourself – does it have any literary, educational, or scientific value? Is this something you would read to your children?
“I don’t fucks boyz but I’m pregnant. My fahver fuck me. And she know it. She kick me in my head when I’m pregnant. …I think my daddy. He stink, the white shit drip off his dick. Lick it lick it. I HATE that. But then I feel the hot sauce hot cha cha feeling when he be fucking me. I get so confuse. I HATE him. But my pussy be popping. He say that, “Bif Mama your pussy is popping!” I hate myself when I feel good.”
“My clit swell up think Daddy. Daddy sick me, disgust me, but still he sex me up. I nawshus in my stomach but hot tight in my twat and I think I want it back, the smell of the bedroom, the hurt- he slap my face till it sting and my ears sing separate songs from each other, call me names, pump my pussy in out in out in out awww I come…. Orgasm in me, his body shaking, grab me, call me Fat Mama, Big Hole! You LOVE it! Say you love it! I wanna say I DON”T. I wanna say I’m a chile. But my pussy popping like grease in frying pan. He slam in me again. His dick soft. He start sucking my tittie.”
Parents, do you think this kind of material belongs in a school library?
Does it possess any serious educational value for minors, or in any way enrich and support the curriculum in SUSD?
Apparently Governing Board President Dr. Hart-Wells does.
In July, a request to pull certain books from school libraries was submitted by an SUSD parent on behalf of Scottsdale Unites for Education Integrity, a local grass-roots organization.
During the September 10th board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made the following comments regarding the request. She prefaced her comments by saying she wanted to put some “sunshine” on the topic.
“Recently the Board received an out-of-state political organization’s request along with a super-minority of other like-minded folks, that submitted a demand to ban certain books from our school libraries. I would just like to encourage the super-majority of our community members and taxpayers who are opposed to book bans to request additional information from your neighborhood school and District administration about these efforts.”
At the board meeting on October 1st, during my public comments, I pointed out Dr. Hart-Wells’ comments. In response, she said my “representation was manipulated and were lies.”
Here is what I said:
“At the last board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made a bold statement that a ‘super-majority’ of Scottsdale residents agree with her position of wanting their kids to have access to adult-only rated books with sexually explicit content at school, which appears to violate Arizona laws and SUSD policy. She doesn’t just suggest that a few, some, many, or even a majority of Scottsdale residents, but asserts that a ‘super-majority’ supports her stance and wants to provide children with adults-only rated books at school.”
I suggest Dr. Hart-Wells is the one who lied and manipulated information in her September comments.
During my public comments, I pointed out that the request was submitted by a local group and not some out-of-state political organization, as Dr. Hart-Wells claimed in September.
The request was that books containing pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable content be removed from SUSD libraries, classrooms, and online curricula. The goal is to ensure that all the books in the SUSD libraries comply with Arizona law and SUSD policy IJL. It specifically states it is NOT a request to ban books, despite Dr. Hart-Wells’ statement in September.
Dr. Hart-Wells knows or should know, that in response to the request from Scottsdale Unites, using its authority under a U.S. Supreme Court decision and its obligations under Arizona law and SUSD policy, the district began a review of the books in question to determine if they comply with the law and policy.
Rather than supporting an effort (something you would expect the president of the governing board to do) to keep sexually explicit and vulgar books out of the hands of SUSD students, Dr. Hart-Wells purposely lied about the request, even going so far as to encourage community members and taxpayers to contact their school and the district administration about the request.
What was the purpose of her making such a request of the community?
During my public comment, I asked if Dr. Hart-Wells was somehow trying to influence the district review of the books. A valid question, given her encouragement for the community to contact the district.
It seems she objects to the removal of sexually explicit books from libraries. Does she also object to SUSD complying with the law and policy? And why is she apparently encouraging others to object as well?
Following Arizona law and SUSD policy is not optional. It is a basic responsibility of the governing board, a responsibility that the current board and Dr. Menzel’s administration have failed to live up to.
Rather than spending time undermining an effort to keep vulgar and educational unsuitable material out of the hands of SUSD students, Board President Dr. Hart-Wells should be spending her time addressing the low academic performance, record high staff turnover rates, and declining enrollment that SUSD has experienced under her leadership and Dr. Menzel’s administration.
Let’s just be honest about this, union-endorsed candidates are running for the SUSD governing board who want to “protect SUSD” and support Dr. Hart-Wells’ efforts to keep inappropriate, adults-only rated books available to students.
Parents, you don’t have to accept that outcome.
In the upcoming election, you can vote for candidates who want to make SUSD strong by focusing on academics, parents’ rights, safety, and fiscal responsibility.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
