Perhaps you should have remained a retired English teacher. Your coverage is so compromised by your web of alliances and undisclosed biases that I honestly no longer bother to read you. I just read the comments. At least they're sincere. And it wouldn't even matter, except that in this space the Weekly could actually post real reporting on these critical issues. Instead, we get, well, whatever it is that you do, on behalf of whomever you do it for.
Stegeman? Wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate running. The district needs him to be voted out together with Juarez and Foster.
The slate with the greatest likelihood of changing the configuration of the board in a constructive way is Putnam-Hidalgo, Sedgwick -- and Rustand for lack of a better alternative. Perhaps Rustand's SALC connections will be helpful in some respects, but we certainly don't want him forming a threesome with Hicks and Stegeman on some of the issues that will come before this Board. He is a "prevent white flight by giving parents in affluent schools what they want" sort of thinker, a Fruchthendler parent, and someone who wants the Fruchthendler-Sabino direct feed created in spite of the fact that the plan has been twice rejected (and rightly so) by the desegregation authority.
Sinking ship, you are so correct. The current board is self serving and has their own agenda that does not include out children. As the sign says the TUSD Kids should come First. All I can say is:
VOTE RUSTAND, STEGEMAN AND BETTS.
TUSD is like this: a sinking ship where the crew and captain (and investors with whom the crew and captain are communicating remotely) are committed to a program of concealing the conspicuous holes in the hull, with water rushing in, from the passengers, lest the passengers run for the lifeboats and demand a refund on what they paid for their tickets. The crew and captain (central admin and Board) and investors (Pima County Democrats) are hoping not to lose those fares (per pupil funding which the Board and admin allocate in part to keep the local political machine running) together with the passengers. Crew, captain, and investors could care less about the fate of the passengers. All they care about is retaining the fares.
And, as was said above, they LIE and LIE and LIE, shamelessly, relentlessly, systematically, with total abandon. I doubt new Board members will fix the problem, but some are better than others, and Putnam-Hidalgo is, in my humble opinion, the most well-informed and the toughest. She will need both of those qualities, if she has the misfortunate to be elected to that Board.
It's also important to note that public district schools are supposed to be TRANSPARENT. When they make decisions, the basis for those decisions should be made clear to the public. This apparently was not done with the last round of school closures in 2013, cf. the Three Sonorans post linked by the commenter above, and Putnam-Hidalgo's apt remark at the end of her remarks in Call to the Audience: "Whatever that information is, we need it." Indeed. That could be said on any number of topics in TUSD, where the perpetual cloud of smoke blown to conceal what is actually going on is always, on every subject, thick as tar.
What Putnam-Hidalgo said at the end of that speech could be a fine motto for the project of parent advocacy in TUSD: "Whatever that information is, we need it." The first part, "Whatever that information is" accurately reflects that TUSD tells you so little you don't even know the shape of the beast you should be looking for, and the second part, tragically, reflects the fact that what TUSD is withholding is information relevant to parents being able to make informed decisions about their children's educations, their health, and their wellbeing.
Thanks, Morales, and thanks for the excellent summary with the clip of Putnam-Hidalgo speaking about school closures at a Board meeting a few years ago:
The fact is, David Safier, when you have candidates who say one thing and then "on the basis of new information they've received since joining the Board," do another, you never know WHAT you're going to get from them. Closed schools? Yes, though they've said they're opposed to closures. Outsourcing? Yes, they outsourced subs, though if you listened to Foster's rhetoric at the end of the League of Women Voters debate, you would think outsourcing ANYTHING would be the very last thing she would think of doing. Failing to implement the Strategic Plan? You bet, in spades, though they brag of its implementation. I could sit here for much longer than I am willing to give to this comment stream, listing ways that their actions in office have been the opposite of the commitments they have very clearly SAID that they have.
They are LIARS, and YOU, David Safier, are a chronic LIAR. For three long years you have spewed out useless commentary whose Truth value, is, as they say "Less Than Zero." So how dare you use the word "dishonest" in your last sentence of this piece? People who can't manage honesty themselves or require it of the candidates they endorse have no right to call others "dishonest."
Listen to Cam supporting school closures on the Buckmaster Show here, but don't let the facts get in your way...
Close schools and use the money to increase teachers pay. Keep the good ones toss the junk. You could also eliminate many administration level jobs that are completely unnecessary. Freeze and reduce pensions. Sell the buses and put computers in the classrooms.
TUSD is fixable, but this may be our last chance. It's headed for collapse as can be seen by the traffic jams at charter schools as the parents have fled TUSD.
David, there you go again. The fact is no one wants to close schools. Everyone wants their children to have a safe and desirable learning environment. Everyone wants a growing school district. However...
If the current Board Majority stays in place then there are few other choices than to be realistic. Shrinking enrollment causes major issues. Like bussing a huge amount of students to Sabino. Or trying to make sense of Santa Rita shrinking from 1200 to 500 in the past few years as parents pull their children for other schools. The fact is an empty school is closed no matter how you look at it. You are trying to mislead by making closed schools the issue but the true issue is shrinking enrollment because of the multitude of TUSD issues. We have teacher flight and kid flight...from TUSD. So again, I know it takes a bit of journalistic thought but if the Majority is reelected there will be more school closures. Why? Because parents can't deal with the discipline (distraction) issues and the lack of certified teachers (learning) in the classroom. That is a simple explanation for the past few years under the Grijalva agenda.
Now if the Change the Board (yellow sign) gang gets their way maybe hope exists. Hope that a Board made of individuals that are all different yet with a common goal of good schools can turn this boat around. So rather than march in lock step like you do with the Grijalva gang the other side has endorsed a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent. How refreshing is that? So keep spinning the yarn David but the fact of the matter is the majority of your readers (yes, you are fun) see that you are nothing but a Board Majority Troll without a unique thought of your own. But we hope...
The southern border of Mexico has been eliminated and it has become part of Central America. AZ will join them soon.
Let's go to the instant replay:
Doesn't look like Mark was in a rush to get it done. He actually lobbied for more accountability and got no help from Grijalva. Could there be something in that?
The internet is your friend. As long as you don't get caught up with an agenda and limit your search.
Moved my kids out.
This is a no brainer. The perfect candidate would support closing them all.
So why are we seeing yellow roadway signs paid for by TKF that say, "Foster + Juarez = Closed Schools," signs whose purpose is to lead voters to think if they vote for Foster and Juarez, they're likely to see more school closures?
Another no brainer. You are seeing those signs because of the "Stop Stegeman" signs.
This is a race to the bottom folks. Get your kids and run away from TUSD.
Hey Ratt, you oughta know all about duplication. There was a point in your posting career here at the TW site where you did that with every other comment you made. I remember it because I got tired of reading your nonsense twice all the time and I called you out on it. Don't be a hypocrite.
The likes have soared on this thing because it's been spread around on facebook. If you look right above the comment section, there are currently 12K likes on that site. Maybe if you quit paying attention to the Russians, who don't need to be singled out in your lame attempt to be clever, you would notice reality.
Jan Brewer better be careful, they have rigged the election. They have been doing it for decades.
Here is the latest:
Slave labor. Including future promises.
I guess you can rest your case on that duplication.
300+ likes on one comment? This publication does not have 300 viewers on line. There are still only 13 of us. Somebody voted twice. This thing is rigged.
This Evan McMullin guy reads like a more rightwing version of Gary Johnson with a hard-on for guns. Some of Evan McMullin's economic policies may have Libertarian appeal, but a bunch of others do not.
I took the challenge to look, and he didn't right fit for me. If he was less hawkish, though, he could become a great GOP and/or LP party candidate.
I think I would have liked to have you as a teacher....
"Stop Stegeman Now"?
Really? That's all they've got in the way of messaging?
Anyone who has been watching the district for the last three years might have been inspired to blanket Tucson roadways with signs saying "Stop Sanchez Now," but then they wouldn't be supporters of Foster and Juarez, who, instead of holding Sanchez accountable, have excused every lie and every botched administrative decision. The decision to receive the ESI donations, by the way, is the end of a long string of bad decisions which started, when Sanchez first arrived in town, with Foster, Juarez, et al. backing his "reduce class sizes" initiative, which was accomplished in part by redistributing Title 1 monies intended to help poor students, but ended up in effect reducing class sizes in high-SES schools but creating hard-to-fill positions in low-SES schools on the South and West sides. Then there was the outsourcing of the management of the subs who, by-in-large, manned the classrooms which were lacking full time qualified teachers in the low-SES schools. This saved the district a lot of money by undermining the subs' benefits and in some cases reducing their wages. The outsourcing company benefited by being able to take a chunk of subs' pay, and a marketing exec at the company rewarded the Board members who recently voted to grant them a $21 million contract (Foster & Juarez) by donating to their desperate campaigns to win RE-election. (Why were they desperate? Because by the time the 2016 elections rolled around, the community was up in arms about their total inability to say NO to the district's ongoing disastrous mismanagement, which included, astoundingly, the mismanaged-in-chief persuading Foster, Juarez, et al. to make him the highest paid Superintendent in Arizona in return for his willingness to continue damaging a district that mis-educates and underserves 40-something-thousand of our students every year.)
But keep weighing in on their side, David. They say they are "progressive," which in Tucson apparently means nothing more than that they are willing to take direction from the Grijalvas. It obviously doesn't mean what it might be understood to mean in cities that aren't in the grip of this kind of institutionalized malfeasance: ability to make decisions in office that actually protect the wellbeing of the most vulnerable members of our community.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation