By Ronald Sampson
The Scottsdale Unified School District’s 3-2 vote to close Pima Elementary and Echo Canyon School has left the community deeply divided, and the emotional public meeting that preceded it raised important questions about process and transparency. While the district faces legitimate fiscal pressures, the concerns voiced by board members Carine Werner and Amy Carney, both of whom voted against the closures, deserve serious consideration as SUSD moves forward.
Let’s acknowledge the reality: SUSD is navigating genuinely difficult circumstances. The district has shrunk by nearly 25% over fifteen years, equivalent to ten elementary schools, yet has only closed one program during that time. With enrollment below 300 students at each school and a projected budget shortfall reaching up to $9 million, doing nothing wasn’t a viable option. Board member Matthew Pittinsky correctly noted that these structural challenges require difficult decisions, and district leadership deserves credit for confronting rather than deferring these fiscal realities.
The closures are expected to save $2.5 million, and Superintendent Scott Menzel has emphasized the district’s commitment to supporting affected families through reassignment, transportation, and relocation assistance. This isn’t a district throwing families to the wolves; there’s genuine effort to manage a painful transition responsibly.
However, the process concerns raised by Werner and Carney aren’t merely procedural quibbling. Werner’s observation that families and staff were “blindsided” reflects a broader community sentiment that this decision arrived too quickly, without adequate opportunity for stakeholder input. Carney’s call for a community budget committee before making such significant decisions highlights a fundamental question: shouldn’t decisions of this magnitude involve transparent, collaborative exploration of all alternatives?
The timing is particularly striking. Carney had requested an advisory committee in October to support decision-making on key district issues, but that item appeared on the same agenda as the closure vote itself. Parents echoed this concern, with one noting the district pursued “a massive decision, the closure of several schools without even forming a community budget committee.” Even state Representative Matt Gress urged the board to delay until February to allow for more thorough community engagement.
These aren’t unreasonable asks. Public education thrives on community trust, and trust requires transparency. While Superintendent Menzel and his cabinet understandably need to prepare budgets and make recommendations, the feeling among many residents that this decision was made without them rather than with them damages that essential trust.
Moving forward, SUSD should take these concerns to heart, especially as Phase II looms with six additional schools under consideration. Establishing a robust community advisory process now would demonstrate that the district learned from this experience. The two dissenting votes weren’t obstruction; they were a call for better process. That’s worth embracing as SUSD continues navigating these challenging decisions.