Well I don't know where this 12.3 mill came from or if you folks know what traffic congestion really is,that being said come up to phx and drive our roads and then make a statement that isn't ridiculous sounding to people who actually have that problem,and oh by the way. Might I suggest that 12.3 mill of tax payers $$ could've been better served to improve ya'lls bus system its so behind the times its shameful. Thank you and just something to really put tax money toward signed M.M phx native w/ Tucson roots
Second that, TDENTON1138. TW has never been constrained by journalistic ethics. Not their job.
We saw what Gov. Ducey did with Arizona's "state trust" land. It is a bait an switch for cash. "Trump Republicans" would sell American souls one by one for cash. Maybe that's how they will try to finance all his schemes without new tax revenue. It is far, FAR worse than "fuzzy math" when Trump stated over and over that he will "build a wall" and "Mexico will pay for it" and then he gets elected and now he has already stated that he plans to ask Congress to provide US taxpayer money for it. That was just plain LYING to the gullible and the foolish. But it worked. It fooled lots of people. It made them feel good for about a month. Mexico will NEVER pay one peso for a stupid wall. Just sell off federal parks to billionaires instead.
Tracking demographic enrollment data is key to desegregation efforts. For many years TUSD posted data on its website that was updated daily. As far as I can tell, no new data has been posted since last school year. Am I wrong? Can anyone point to where is the new home for this data? Why the lack of transparency?
More importantly, why did TUSD change reporting this data? What is gained and by whom? Nothing is gained by those who seek integration.
This is not how a district that endeavors to integrate conducts business.
What a day!
Please take some time to think about this and let it sink in after the tragic rampage in FL today:
The Florida Senates list of Florida Statutes states that a [concealed carry] license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm intothe inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft.
In other words, it is legal to have a gun with you if it is encased for travelsay, for the purposes of a hunting or shooting tripbut it is not legal to have one otherwise. This mean law-abiding Floridians with concealed carry licenses were barred from having their guns on their persons for self-defense while at the baggage claim where the January 6 attack occurred. The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that Florida is one of only six states that completely ban concealed carry at airports. AWR Hawkins Breitbart News
So gun laws prevented passengers from protecting each other. There are always unintended consequences of most legislation. And nobody wants that to happen.
Monday morning quarterbacks can now see this man should not have had a firearm. As we learn more about his mental state and criminal history, it is another one that nobody stopped.
And if he hadn't used a gun or knife, it may have been a bomb.
Wishing you continued recovery Gabby.
You're asking for professional journalism from the Tucson Weekly? I appreciate the cheekiness
Tammy . Hopefully you understand hypocrisy.
Thank you, Caryn, for putting a pitch for the plaintiffs and the role they can and should play in holding districts accountable. The plaintiffs in the Fisher Mendoza case certainly have tried here in Tucson, but this particular district is a tough case and this particular blogger is an apologist for the irresponsible governing board members and administrators in this district who have recently been disparaging the plaintiffs in Fisher Mendoza and spending millions of our deseg money in picking unnecessary fights with the desegregation judge and court-appointed Special Master.
So unfortunately for the kids in our schools, you won't be able to persuade David Safier of anything -- at least not unless you can first persuade Raul and / or Adelita Grijalva and then get them to issue their marching orders to him. He can't even be bothered to visit and study the successful magnet schools we have right here in Tucson -- he'd prefer to do "online research" to justify and excuse the many failures of his friends in high office.
Please take a look at the Hartford Connecticut experience. It is under a court order (Sheff v O'Neil) and managed by the state-run Regional School Choice Office. They are ALL magnet schools, not charter schools. These are thriving and students are out-achieving their peers from their sending districts. I happen to be principal of one such magnet high school that has been ranked the #1 high school in CT for three years in row, has consistently met the desegregation goal, has students already accepted at service academies and ivy league schools for next year (early admission). How has this happened? Because the plaintiffs in the desegregation lawsuit have not let the state off the hook and takes it back to court every time those with no political backbone try to dismantle the magnet system.
Is "fustercluck" an appropriate term for a professional journalist to be using in an article. C'mon MAN !
Great job City of Tucson! This will provide some relief. When will we get an agreement with the County to extend Snyder Rd to Sabino Canyon? That would relieve all the Tanque Verde congestion of drivers that have no need to come down Sabino Canyon only to have to go back up the mountain on another road to reach their destination.
Steve Christy may be the key to getting this going. It would save millions of road miles, reduce air pollution, provide better access to emergency services, and preserve fuel supplies. Not to mention cutting drive time congestion for thousands of up to 20 minutes each way.
No, she doesn't. She's one of those who supports using public schools as indoctrination centers for her version of what is moral, as she has revealed in her sad little post. Publicly funded schools in a pluralist society, Frances, are inappropriate places for you to think of instructing other people's children in your beliefs about how "women's reproduction" should be handled in our society, but thanks for slipping up and letting us know that your desire for public district schools to spread your beliefs about "women's reproduction" is one reason you oppose vouchers.
As for your cracks about TUSD and Sanchez, those of us who ACTUALLY care about financial transparency and appropriate uses of public funds in public institutions will keep expressing our legitimate concerns. Those of you who have no REAL interest in transparency in public institutions -- just an APPARENT interest when you bash charters for lack of transparency but fail to care about public districts' transparency -- go ahead and make your disparaging comments, slipping up now and then as you did above to let us know what your real concerns are.
"Charter schools, by the way, tend to be more segregated than district schools, so going with charters isn't a deseg solution."
Earth to David Safier. There is a large majority that is actually only intent on getting their kids a great education. They are not swayed by politically motivated and propagated problems. Some of us don't look at skin color, and yet others attempt to profit from it.
TUSD can't be "fixed" until they become the former.
If only it were reproduction Frances. But it has become annihilation. That doesn't even belong in an education discussion regarding private school vouchers. Hopefully you understand the difference between education and abortion funding.
TUSD is evil. Sanchez is the devil. TUSD is evil. Sanchez is the devil. Local fetish for some herein. Taxpayer paid choice is great for private religious indoctrination schools, but not for women's reproduction. We need taxpayers to subsidize creationism as science. Choice on steroids.
I agree with "prudent investment in infrastructure" as a strategy, and would like to include raising dismal salaries too. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that high school teachers right here in Tucson are paid 43% below the national average. Maybe their current, hardly extravagant pay makes some commenters jealous and outraged, but I think it is a disgrace. No wonder good people leave and schools end up with unqualified subs on daily-rate pay in semi-permanent positions.
Not many are fans of locking students into bad educational environments and providing no alternatives, but if you're going to allow "choice," why not also provide oversight and effective quality control? That would be the responsible thing to do.
Does anyone deny that there are bad charter schools and private schools in existence, where students' best interests are not served?
This is from an informational flyer written by an employee of the Arizona Department of Education: "Among the key lessons taken from Arizona's experience with many various forms of school choice is that in nearly every instance, the haste to enact a program was not accompanied by a prudent investment in the necessary infrastructure to oversee it. This has left the ADE [Arizona Department of Education] and ASBCS [Arizona State Board of Charter Schools], among others, under-resourced to handle the demands of an ever-expanding system.  the ASBCS is tasked with overseeing 535 charters serving 145,000 students, yet it has a staff of only 9. By its own account, it is severely understaffed for the amount of work it is required to undertake by law."
Well said. This is the kind of point rational thinkers and sane administrators take into account when making policy decisions about public institutions: "That might be a good idea in theory, but in practice we don't have the funding or the infrastructure necessary to oversee its sound implementation."
In the firstname.lastname@example.org post above, another flaw in the thinking behind "choice" policy is apparent: why would we assume that it's fine to give parents who rate their schools (correctly or incorrectly) as "D or F" alternatives while leaving the children of those who don't recognize that there are problems with their children's education in failing schools? What if we handled the medical system this way? "You only deserve to have a good physician if you know enough about medicine to be able to tell a good one from a bad one."
The state has a responsibility to the children of parents who cannot or will not move children from their neighborhood "government school" as well as to the children of parents who can and will move them if alternatives are provided.
As long as the state of Arizona is refusing to play any role in guaranteeing some minimal level of quality in educational institutions which make use of public funds, it is acting irresponsibly and failing to protect the best interests of citizens and the future health of our communities and economy in Arizona.
The parents of over 4 million students in this country rate their child's school a "D" or an "F". They have no choice, they are stuck. One of them, the parent of a special needs child, was so beside himself he accosted his school board with a rifle.
You can say that these parents can't tell a good school from a bad school but likely they can tell that their school is not very good for their child.
80 percent of 8th graders can't do fractions procedures or understand them conceptually - a fourth grade standard. Thirty percent of 8th grade students take and pass algebra, yet only 1% can do the simplest prealgebra word problem and less than 9% can do the very simplest polynomial manipulation. Education is a huge Potemkin village.
Trapped is the correct adjective for these students, trapped by the parents who want to parasite off the resources that they bring to the school without returning commensurate value. Only school choice can remedy that situation. Those 4 million students have no chance to achieve their potential in life without it.
Parents who don't know how to tell a good school from a bad one do not create "oversight." As it turns out, identifying a quality educational institution requires somewhat more expertise than choosing your favorite kind of cereal in the grocery store.
Try superimposing your "choice" model on the field of medicine. Do patients know enough to evaluate the quality of hospitals? Of their own doctors' quality of care? In most cases, no. Not unless they've been to medical school.
The disrespect for credentialed and experienced educators in this state is astounding. Together with the poverty level wages -- "salary" is not an appropriate term for what teachers are paid here -- this attitude drives teachers out of the classroom and out of the profession. And, as a result, Arizona parents get what they deserve: uniformly low quality schools when compared to what is available in other states, poor educational results, and CHOICE between the frying pan, the fire, and the furnace: poorly overseen district schools, unregulated charters, and irresponsible privates.
Hurray for Arizona.
Sorry "Choice does not guarantee excellence," but there are patents out there that create oversight by pulling their kids from a failed school. It is up to the parents because if the Board can not get the schools to straighten out, the parents would be free to walk. Many families have carried the tuition burden for years in an attempt to get their children and excellent education.
Send these people school shopping and they will get results! The opposite has become true in public education where they can't seem to figure out their failings so they simply blame others. That won't work any more.
Let's make education great again.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation