On the morning of  Dec. 9, Scottsdale Unified School District announced a celebratory Dec. 13 ribbon cutting on a project “to transform the former Tonalea Elementary School site into the new 68th and Oak Street Athletic Facility.”

SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel called the project “an amazing community asset,” saying, “The revitalized site serves as both a gateway to the neighborhood and a hub for community connection.”

Even with the holidays approaching, the mood was hardly joyful hours later – when the SUSD board decided the fate of two other elementary schools that may join Tonalea’s path.

Pima Elementary and Echo Canyon K-8 will close, after a 3-2 vote.

Amy Carney and Carine Werner, both up for reelection in 2026,  vehemently opposed votes to close the two schools.

Board President Donna Lewis fought back tears as she explained her reasoning in support of Menzel’s “Phase I” closure plan – then fought back calls from hecklers, asking for those in attendance to respect decorum.

That did not stop some after Lewis made her vote to close the two schools as they shouted, “Resign!”

Matt Pittinsky and Mike Sharkey, who successfully ran with Lewis on a group effort as board candidates last year, joined Lewis in supporting the Menzel plan.

Few in the audience at Coronado High’s auditorium seemed to like the idea of closing the two schools.

This followed months of meetings on the idea – each one featuring emotional pleas that can be summed as “don’t do it!”

Yet, the board moved forward with the plan to “close and repurpose” the two south-of-Camelback schools that are 4 miles apart.

Carney, Werner and many in the crowd took little comfort in Menzel’s presentation: “Next Steps: Supporting Families and Staff Following Repurposing Decision.”

For nearly six months, Menzel has repeated that he does not want to close schools – but the district’s financial outlook demands it.

Like other Arizona districts, SUSD’s funding is tied to enrollment.

And, like many of its neighbors, Scottsdale Unified’s student count is plunging with no “bottom” in sight.

According to the district’s tagline, “With around 20,000 students in our schools, the Scottsdale Unified School District has been a premier choice for pre-kindergarten through grade 12 public education for nearly 130 years.”

The district mainly serves families in Scottsdale, Phoenix, Paradise Valley, Fountain Hills and Tempe.

In similar fashion to other districts around the Valley, SUSD has increased marketing to try to attract families – yet is experiencing a decade-long, steady decline in enrollment.

Demographer Rick Brammer of consultant Applied Economics recently told the SUSD board the district’s “substantial” enrollment decline is expected to continue.

“The school-age population of the district is projected to decline by about 1,800 over the next 10 years,” Brammer said.

Menzel recently shared a plan with the board for “Potential cost savings of more than $5 million through repurposing of multiple school sites over the next two years.”

Over months of meetings during which this data was shared, Werner, Carney and many audience members have pushed back, blasting the podcast-heavy marketing effort by the district and demanding a “forensic audit.”

Pima and Echo Canyon – the district’s smallest schools – could be just the beginning, or Phase I.

As Menzel stated,  “Schools under 300 students were identified for potential action in 2026-27 and those at or near 400 students were included on the Phase II repurposing list with planned discussions launching in January of 2026.”

Six schools are on Menzel’s “proposed implementation of

restructuring in 2027-28” list:

  • Anasazi K-5 (407 students);
  • Copper Ridge K-8 (440 students);
  • Laguna K-5 (302 students);
  • Redfield K-5 (376 students);
  • Tonalea Middle 6-8 (364 students);
  • Yavapai K-5 (345 students).

Menzel previously told the board “the administration will present one option that incorporates both Phase I and Phase II to illustrate how reducing our footprint (reducing the number of schools that are open) will help us increase our impact …”

At the Dec. 9 meeting, Menzel gave a brief presentation on “Discussion of Pros and Cons of Accelerating or Maintaining the Phase II Timeline.”

Menzel said one group was pushing for “getting it all done this year … to shorten the timeline of angst so that we could move on.”

But, the superintendent noted, “My recommendation is to continue on the two-year, two-phase policy.”

“I agree it’s way too quick to consider (moving up the timeline) in academic year 26-27,” Sharkey said.

No board members asked for a faster timeline, with Werner commenting, “There’s no way I would support that.”

Though the board agreed to Menzel’s first phase in “closing and repurposing” the two schools, what comes next is still to be decided.

“There’s no clear repurposing plan,” Carney stated, asking for legal advice.

Jennifer MacLennan, the board’s legal adviser, responded that the future use of the two schools “is a governing board decision.

She said the two schools may be “leased, sold, repurposed and used for other district purposes.

“The district’s governing board,” the lawyer said, “will have to authorize the next use of the properties.”

Board rationale

Board members spoke to explain their votes on closing Pima and Echo Canyon. 

Excerpts of their pre-vote rationales.

Matt Pittinsky: Yes.

“Voting yes to close these schools in the upcoming budget is incredibly difficult. I also believe it is the right thing to do …SUSD is nearly 25% smaller than we were 15 years ago, that is the equivalent of 10 elementary schools smaller – yet we have closed only one program in that timeframe. That is not sustainable, that is not responsible, and I’m afraid that is not protecting SUSD.”

Carine Werner: No.

“These conversations should have happened a long time ago . . .  so that families were not blindsided.

“I believe that (Pima and Echo Canyon families) have a viable product. And if marketing was different and we had more time, this process had been done in a proper orderly fashion, we probably wouldn’t be here today.”

Amy Carney: No.

“I believe the board should have first voted to even explore repurposing. They should have established a community advisory committee that included parents, teachers, staff and other key stakeholders, and developed a transparent long term plan before arriving at a decision to close or repurpose any school …

“It didn’t have to be this way … I’m constantly looking at ways we can save money. I’m unheard.”

Mike Sharkey: Yes.

“What I don’t want to do is to get us into this death spiral. We make a little few cuts. Those cuts make our product worse. That reduces enrollments, which forces us to make more cuts, and I think we’re very close to that point. I don’t want to exacerbate that.

“I have people saying ‘During your campaign, you promised to protect SUSD.’ I’m protecting SUSD.”

Donna Lewis: Yes.

“It is with a grieving heart for the circumstances and with a moral sense of fiduciary accountability that I vote to support this.”