Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Re: “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Rehear Lawsuit On Immigration Relief Programs for Undocumented Parents, Youth

The President continues to act like a dictator. Constitutional scholar? Maybe in Kenya.

8 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Julie Heston on 07/19/2016 at 10:19 AM

Re: “The Verdict is in and the Show Will Go On

the play is called King Charles III not Kind Charles III
don't you people read your own posts ???

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Rob McConeghy III on 07/19/2016 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

You'll have to understand Bob. Last week he got a flat tire and spent 2 hours blaming it on Bush. He's not overly bright.

5 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by CW13 on 07/19/2016 at 9:41 AM

Re: “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Rehear Lawsuit On Immigration Relief Programs for Undocumented Parents, Youth

Because we feel that people should come here legally makes us racists. I have a question for you, Bob. What's it like to be an ignorant stooge?

6 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by CW13 on 07/19/2016 at 8:57 AM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

Sorry, Bob Regan, but there are other problems in Arizona education besides the Republicans. They are most certainly a problem, but, as "Supporting Public Ed Means Supporting LOCAL Reform" wrote above, within the larger dysfunctional context created by AZ legislative decisions, TUSD is failing utterly in its ability to manage its operations and maintain public confidence. When the top administrator in a district engages in a systematic program of attempting to manage a troubled institution by concealing the truth of what is actually going on -- lying about whether bonuses have been granted to the cabinet, lying about whether he has been introduced to the President of the Board's mother-in-law, lying about whether Strategic Plan goals have been 100% fulfilled, lying about what he is going to do with 123 money, etc. (the list is very long and many more items could be added) -- the Board needs to put a stop to that instead of excusing it. They are there to hold top administration accountable, and they are NOT doing it -- none of them, neither the majority nor the minority.

Safier, in defending these people, seems to have been led so far astray that he has lost track of the very concept of what "THE TRUTH" means. It means the right kind of correspondence between what is said and what the reality is. When you get people to vote for 123 by saying you will apply the money, if you receive it, to teacher salaries, you need to do that or you will be failing to fulfill a promise, failing to honor your word. When people see you TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME making promises that you do not keep, you lose the ability to build healthy relationship and to LEAD, which is what someone in a Superintendent's position MUST be able to do.

For government institutions to be functional and healthy, we need to get governing board members in office who will not excuse malfeasance or look the other way and fail to bring lies to the public's attention. All of us who live in Southern Arizona need to care about this school district, which serves almost 50,000 students. If these students do not get sound educations in well managed educational institutions, this breeds problems that undermine the health and stability of our entire community. It is vitally important that effective reform take place.

23 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Both the AZ Leg & TUSD are problematic. on 07/19/2016 at 8:37 AM

Re: “Why Go to the GOP Convention?

Trump's rise is directly related to the elite's complete disdain for the American working class. Between globalization and bringing in 1.5 million immigrants per year ( 6 times the historic average ) to ensure wages stay low and also keeping the working class electorate fractured. It's been a good ride for the 1% but people are catching on.

7 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by bslap on 07/19/2016 at 8:26 AM

Re: “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Rehear Lawsuit On Immigration Relief Programs for Undocumented Parents, Youth

It's really amazing that the president thinks he can unilaterally set immigration policy in direct opposition to Congress. Whatever your views of what immigration law should be, that law is set by Congress, not the President.
I hope the court gives this the swift rejection it deserves.

10 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by bslap on 07/19/2016 at 8:22 AM

Re: “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Rehear Lawsuit On Immigration Relief Programs for Undocumented Parents, Youth

What's it like to be an Arizona conservative? What's it like to live a life controlled by fear and hate. What's it like to have to be armed in order to come out from hiding under your bed? What's it like to be a racist and be proud of it?
What's it like to try to mask these qualities behind phony religion anal phony patriotism?

15 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Bob Regan on 07/19/2016 at 7:37 AM

Re: “Why Go to the GOP Convention?

Trump appeals to the fear and hate that Conservatives use to make their voting decisions. Since Arizona is a state controlled by these scared little girls, Trump will win in Arizona.

8 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Bob Regan on 07/19/2016 at 7:33 AM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

Here's the problem folks.

Want a decent education system..............stop giving control of it to stupid conservatives. If they knew how to design an effective education system, DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW????


14 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Bob Regan on 07/19/2016 at 7:26 AM

Re: “Why Go to the GOP Convention?

You bringing your KKK buddy again? I think that BLM will do more than punch you for that move, so watch out which other agitators you pal around with. Have fun disrupting. I'm glad you've found your purpose in life. Must be fulfilling...

10 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by FU on 07/19/2016 at 7:17 AM
Posted by What, Again on 07/19/2016 at 6:47 AM

Re: “Why Go to the GOP Convention?

It won't be long until media types hire the agitators to try to change history rather than report on it. This is a good start. They are shameless in their attempt to control others.

9 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 07/19/2016 at 6:29 AM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

Mr. Safier's claim that "86 percent of the new funds, about $8.3 million of the $9.7 million, went to salary hikes" is wrong. In CFO Soto's presentations to the TUSD governing Board, she put the total going to employee raises at $3.7 million. That is about 39& going to employees versus 61% going to whatever.

The claim that districts who gave one time bonuses this year were shorting their employees doesn't make sense. Districts got 123 money this year and had plenty left to give substantial salary increases next year.

Talking about Catalina Foothill's 4% pay raises is disingenuous. Their starting pay this year was already higher than TUSD's starting pay next year. Next year, Catalina Foothills starting pay will be $38,500 versus TUSD's starting pay of $35,700. And, Catalina Foothills gets much less money per student than TUSD. Catalina Foothills has the next to the lowest money/student of all the Tucson districts.

However, the correct comparison for TUSD should be to the other 9 large Arizona school Districts. Large districts have economies of scale not available to smaller districts. TUSD is the second largest of all Arizona school districts and has more money per student than all but one of the other large districts.

Last year, 6 of the other 9 districts were already paying starting teachers more than TUSD will pay next year. Mesa's is one example. Mesa is increasing the salary for new teachers by $2,000/year from $37,500 to $38,500 next year versus TUSD's $35,700 next year. Mesa's current teachers will all get raises of $2,500/year plus a one time payment of 3.5% this year. Mesa's hourly employees are all getting 5% raises, except for bus drivers who will get 5% plus an additional 33 cents/hour. TUSD's bus drivers will get a 1% raise or 11 to 12 cents per hour. And, Mesa has less money per student than TUSD.

TUSD needs a through audit of where its money is going. It is in desperate need of an internal auditor with a CPA or a CIA, who reports to the Board, not to Superintendent Sanchez.

27 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Lillian Fox on 07/18/2016 at 11:42 PM

Re: “Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Rehear Lawsuit On Immigration Relief Programs for Undocumented Parents, Youth

Now that BLM has turned on him, he frantically looks for something destructive to tie to his legacy. You have done enough damage Mr President. Eight years of his lawless behavior, surronded by Hillary, Eric Holder and Lynch. There's your legacy.

12 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by Rat T on 07/18/2016 at 10:54 PM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

Safier composed this, no doubt, to combat Steller's editorial piece in the Star:

There are many factors referenced in the statements TUSD representatives make to explain their decision about how to allocate 123 funds, and it is difficult indeed to patch them together into anything resembling a coherent story, but piecing together information available in the media and in the district's statements and board meetings, this is the sequence of events that seems to have led to the current decision to only apply 30% of the 123 funds to teacher salaries:

1. Before 123 passed, TUSD granted raises by tapping the district's Maintenance & Operations funds:
Of the December 2014 raises, Ms. Huicochea wrote, "The money will come mostly from $2.8 million in maintenance and operations funds...." Of the May 2016 raises, Ms. Huicochea wrote, "The majority of the expense [of the raise]— $2.1 million — will be paid for from the maintenance and operation fund..."
Do districts with conspicuously deteriorating facilities usually grant raises out of M&O funds? When they do so, does this set them up for a situation in which later, they will have to tap funds that could or should go to teacher raises to pay back depleted M&O budgets?

2. While it was campaigning for 123, the district gave the impression it was going to run a bond for capital improvements and that 123 funds would be used to further improve teacher salaries, which were still sadly insufficient even with the small raises given previously:

3. Then, once 123 passed, TUSD allocated only 30% of the 123 funds it received for teacher salaries and told the public it would not be running a bond campaign this fall after all, supposedly because the Pima County bonds failed last fall and this spring 123 was unpopular in Southern Arizona.
It seems unlikely that the decision not to run a bond this fall was based only on Southern Arizona feelings about 123 and the Pima County Bond outcomes, and not also on the judgment that public confidence in TUSD's governance and administration was so low that a bond would not pass. Ms. Grijalva seemed to allude to this lack of public confidence in her recent presentation on the ASBA conference, delivered at the 7/12/2016 TUSD Board meeting:

However, in attributing the problems with public confidence to dis-unity on the Board and the actions of minority board members, Ms. Grijalva promotes an interpretation of the current situation that will not seem plausible to most constituents who have been observing the district's recent actions. These actions include a cost escalation in the form of a steep inflation of a relatively inexperienced Superintedent's compensation package:

additional cost escalations in conflicts with the desegregation authority accompanied by commensurate escalations in the legal costs associated with the desegregation case:

a cost reduction accomplished by outsourcing of substitute teachers, accompanied by reducing their pay and benefits:
(see also the first two speakers in the Call to the Audience portion of the 7/12/16 TUSD Board Meeting: )

and the voluntary reduction, by millions of dollars, of desegregation funding available to be applied in support of the integration goals outlined in the Unitary Status Plan:

In sum: we'd have to work pretty hard, in reviewing the above sequence of events, to avoid coming to the conclusion that TUSD has placed itself, through its own decisions and administrative actions, in a situation in which 123 funds, instead of going mainly to teacher salaries, which is clearly what was promised, will have to be used in part to cover things that would normally be covered by bonds. It seems the district must do this in part because of its previous decisions allocating funding, including its decisions to repeatedly tap M&O funds to give raises, and administrative decisions that have eroded the public confidence that would enable the passing of a bond initiative.

It's true that the Arizona legislature has behaved irresponsibly with education funding in our state, but within the funding context they establish, individual districts make better and worse decisions about how to allocate the limited funds available, how to manage their relationships with voters and constituents, and how to successfully take the case for funding supplements to the electorate. It is sad but true -- and an understatement -- that TUSD does not get a gold star for its performance during the last year in these departments.

33 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Supporting Public Ed Means Supporting Local Reform on 07/18/2016 at 8:03 PM

Re: “Another Look at TUSD Salary Hikes and Prop 123

What's the matter, David, if you don't stop defending the indefensible, the Grijalvas will stop asking you over for dinner? If I were you at this point, I'd give up the dinner invitations. They are too expensive when they come at the cost of your reputation (or what remains of it after three solid years of unbelievably BASE propagandizing in support of TUSD's never-ending parade of B.S. administrative and governance decisions.)

You write, " Because it left out TUSD's May 10 teacher raise, its conclusion that TUSD reneged on its pledge to its teachers is inaccurate."

What you write is FALSE.


The district did not say, "The May 10 raise of $1300 will be borrowed from M&O funds and paid back out of 123 funds if the propositions passes." Anyone who was listening to their (as usual) misleading propaganda would have thought that the entirety of 123 funds would, if the proposition passed, be divided up and portioned out in the form of additional raises. Strangely, there are people who have not had sufficient opportunity to observe how TUSD always operates who expect things like FOLLOW-THROUGH and KEEPING YOUR WORD.

As for your assertion that, "TUSD's decision to put all its money into the salary schedule, rather than putting some of it into one time bonuses for returning teachers as most other districts did, could mean that new teachers will fare better at TUSD than elsewhere, which could be a benefit for TUSD when it comes to hiring," Teachers -- including college of ed faculty, including new teachers -- talk to one another, and TUSD's reputation in the teaching community is mud. The district's institutional culture and current teaching conditions are well known. This is why so many of the district's classrooms are filled with a rotating cast of subs, but even the subs' patience is wearing thin. Watch their comments in the Call to the Audience at the July 12 TUSD Board meeting. This district would need to fund raises 5 times as high as the raises they have funded to compensate teachers for the conditions they experience these days in TUSD classrooms, and the sad deterioration in classroom conditions is the direct result of the leadership decisions of the last three years.

37 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Wrong Again, David Safier on 07/18/2016 at 7:55 PM

Re: “The Democratic Party's Progressive Education Platform

Rat T. - Rather than posting your usual snark, please point out what services you deem unnecessary? I agree there is plenty of waste in public and private education, but I don't think services are where the problem lies.

14 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Da Coach on 07/18/2016 at 11:31 AM

Re: “Rogue's Tales of the Jazz Age

I believe that's the Artifact Dance Project, not the Artificial Dance Project. Typical sloppy reporting and editing.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Rob McConeghy III on 07/18/2016 at 10:29 AM

Re: “The Democratic Party's Progressive Education Platform

From the revised Democratic party platform: "Charter schools must reflect their communities, and thus must accept and retain proportionate numbers of students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners in relation to their neighborhood public schools."

Could we just acknowledge openly the indisputable fact that properly educating students to our curricular grade-level standards when they:
A) enter school with deficits in their pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills compared to the majority of their peers of the same age
B) must receive instruction in English as a second language at the same time that they gain competence in core subjects
C) have cognitive disabilities or diagnosed special education needs
requires the installation and maintenance of professionals with special training in these areas of education and thus is more expensive for a school to achieve than educating students who don't have special needs to the same curricular, grade level standards?

District public schools have depended for a long time on funding formulas that assume a certain percentage of these kinds of needs in the population, and that percentage has been altering as more families with children who do not have remedial needs, ESL needs, or special education needs have been exiting the public district school system for charters and privates. As the ratio alters, it creates funding problems for district schools because it costs less than the per-pupil amount currently allocated to educate a child with no special needs, more than the per-pupil amount currently allocated to educate a child with special needs.

But the solution to the funding problems created as ratios of special needs to non-special needs students in district public schools change is not to require every charter school, many of which have very small-scale operations, to deliver services their size may not make it financially feasible for them to provide. Nor is the solution to require all schools to be large enough to sustain ratios that make retaining the full complement of ESL and special education professionals on site possible. A more effective and fair solution to the problems public district schools are experiencing as their ratios are altering is to adjust the per-pupil rate for students with special needs to accurately reflect the ACTUAL expense of giving these students the high-quality education they deserve, delivered by fully qualified professionals. Adjusting the rate to reflect the reality of expense should help more schools of all types retain the needed services, but there would still be a "threshold" -- a minimum # of students enrolled requiring a certain kind of service needed to support the necessary staff, and it will probably be the case that not every charter school -- and perhaps not every district school -- will have the enrollment numbers of students with special needs of various sorts to support the installation of every kind of special service on every site. Publicly funded transportation needs to be provided to the sites where the type of services each child needs are being delivered to remove any geographic or financial obstacles to families to enrolling each of their children in the school best equipped to meet their needs, but the notion that it should be possible for every publicly funded school in existence to have the full range of services needed by every member of our school-age population is an impractical, unimplementable, fiscally irresponsible fantasy. I am disappointed that the Democratic party platform now includes this plank, and I hope attempts to implement it won't do as much damage as attempts to implement other misguided federal policies (Race to the Top, etc., ad nauseam) have done.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Dubious about this plank in the platform... on 07/18/2016 at 10:16 AM

© 2016 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation