Lillian, a few responses to your comments. First, my statement that 86 percent of the Prop 123 funds was a continuation of the earlier part of the paragraph, "If the district waited like other districts and took the entire $2,000 out of its Prop 123 funds, it would have amounted to 75 percent of the total." I was talking about the total salary increases, both from the May 10 board meeting and the Prop 123 funds. If I didn't make that clear, that's my fault for not phrasing it better. That goes for your statement about CFO Soto's presentation as well. She was referring to the amount of salary that was added after Prop 123 passed, while my point was to look at the total raise received by TUSD teachers and other employees. The employees don't really care if their 2016-17 raises were given in two parts or they received them all after Prop 123 passed. All that matters is the amount in their paychecks.
You say I accused other districts of shorting their employees by giving them bonuses. I said no such thing. Here's my point. The bonuses added to the raises put more money in teachers' pockets right now, which is good. But if the actual raise is lower, after a few years, teachers will find that they're getting less year by year than if they received bigger raises, and there will come a point where their total pay over the years will be less than teachers who got a larger raise at the beginning but no bonus. So it's a toss-up which is better for teachers, to get more money in the short run with the bonuses or more in the long run with the larger salary raise.
I'm pretty sure you're correct about other large districts paying higher salaries than TUSD. I believe the Tucson area districts in general pay less than districts in most other areas of Arizona. But that wasn't the subject of my post. I was writing to refute the Star articles which left the impression that TUSD raises were lower than what other Tucson area districts gave their teachers. That assertion is incorrect.
Stop with the sexist put downs Bob. You diminish your thoughts. They can ill afford more diminishment.
He's no Reagan. Thanks for facts Lillian. Audit TUSD.
The President continues to act like a dictator. Constitutional scholar? Maybe in Kenya.
the play is called King Charles III not Kind Charles III
don't you people read your own posts ???
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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????
THEY'VE BEEN IN ALMOST TOTAL CONTROL OF ARIZONA FOR DECADES.
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...
Parasites. Throw their asses out.
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.
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.
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.
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: http://www.tusd1.org/contents/govboard/gbvideo071216.html )
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.
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 fact that TUSD reneged on its pledge to the teachers is based on a comparison between WHAT THE DISTRICT TOLD THE TEACHERS AND VOTERS IT MOBILIZED IN SUPPORT OF 123 and WHAT THE DISTRICT ACTUALLY DID WITH THE FUNDS AFTER THE PROPOSITION PASSED.
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.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation