Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

Re: “Border Love

Frank Stagg, I'm sorry you lost a friend to a drunk driver. What about all the Americans who are dead because of Timothy McVeigh, Jared Loughner, Sandy Hook, Columbine, et al? Do you propose we get rid of all white males?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by theresa.tucson on 08/16/2016 at 9:00 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

In 2014, Newsweek stopped ranking high schools that serve students below grade 7 -- like every BASIS.ed school.

THAT'S why BASIS.ed schools are no longer ranked by Newsweek.

The Newsweek methodology is easy to find on their rankings site.

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Blue Zona on 08/16/2016 at 8:33 AM

Re: “The Skinny

Someone reading your emails would appear to be a compliment these days ,no matter how they do it!

Posted by Kommon Cents on 08/16/2016 at 8:20 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

If only these teachers did have a sound knowledge of the 3 R's. Much more focused on indoctrinating our kids with "progressive" ideology.

9 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Once a teacher on 08/16/2016 at 8:19 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

A kid with some food in their tummy and a teacher with sound knowlage of the three R's is set for success... anything less is a waste of time... those old school one roomers that had to walk up hill both ways turned out ok... with only chalk and small boards! It's not how much money you have ... it's what and how you have been teaching!

10 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Kommon Cents on 08/16/2016 at 7:59 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Look at number 3, Stuyvesant High School with a 47.3% poverty rate. I guess Stuyvesant is the exception that proves the rule

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Cactus Barb on 08/16/2016 at 7:22 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

The war on poverty has been lost. Much like all the other wars our politicians have waged, they somehow manage to lose them. I agree with the shackled analogy for many of these folks are frozen waiting for something to "be delivered" to them. Forget waiting for it, better yourselves and move forward. You have tolerated a failing educational system and look what you have gotten.

12 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Larry McNeil on 08/16/2016 at 5:23 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Paul, if you are specifically referring to the poor economically disadvantaged children in TUSD as american citizens, you would only be half correct.

The other half are illegals, exploited by the liberal public education system to line their pockets and have a permanent second class of citizens to clean their toilets and keep them in power.

And you are correct, Safier will never have the courage to address it. His entire career has been living off the backs of taxayers and ruining our public education system.

11 likes, 19 dislikes
Posted by What, Again on 08/16/2016 at 5:18 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Being "low income" is only a badge of honor in the liberal cesspool of Tucson.

Parents, if you want the best education and opportunities for your children, work hard, improve yourselves so you can provide for your children.

Or you can be dependent on liberals and content being 'low income'.

11 likes, 18 dislikes
Posted by What, Again on 08/16/2016 at 5:06 AM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Dear "Break the Shackles, etc": your position is tellingly disingenuous. The discussion is centered squarely on the factors of economic disadvantage and the attendant impediments to academic success. Vouchers are in no way under discussion, poses a fatuous and distressing distraction to the discussion, and becomes a red herring.

As to your odd allusion to racist language, re: " ...the plantation.", and your bizarre " Break the Shackles" signature, perhaps your dog-whistle to your fellow KKK brothers should be made more explicitly. Please don't be a coward on this forum. Call these poor, economically disadvantaged students by their rightful names: American citizens.

14 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Paul Stapleton-Smith on 08/15/2016 at 11:45 PM

Re: “Police Dispatch

How did it end?

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Nosey Nancy on 08/15/2016 at 9:28 PM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Safire makes a great case for vouchers. Let these parents pick the school which fits them best.

Now if we could only get the parents to feed them. Progressive policies hurt the poor and lock them up on the plantation.

15 likes, 22 dislikes
Posted by Break the shackles of dependency on 08/15/2016 at 9:21 PM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

More interesting to me than either Safier's discussion of the rankings or the comment of "workinginthetrenches"-- which is both clueless and self-pitying, typical of the the sour-spirited, ignorant, arrogant, uncompassionate denizens of UHS -- is the fact that there are 7 schools with higher poverty levels than UHS that place higher than they do in the Newsweek rankings, many of them with MUCH higher percentages of poor students than UHS has. In the Beating the Odds list, UHS falls to 48.

UHS does not place highly as an exemplar in compensating for the effects of poverty. Unsurprising, in that doing so would require better counseling support and a school culture that does not place "gaming" its stats above student wellbeing.

16 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by UHS could do much better at supporting poor students. on 08/15/2016 at 8:41 PM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

Evidently "workinginthetrenches" does not understand Safier's point, which has to do with the correlation between STUDENT POVERTY and test scores, not with the correlation between how much a district invests in technology and test scores.

Is there some sort of proven relationship between a high school that "creams" its student population (selects for cognitively and academically high functioning students) receiving low technology funding from its district and low student test scores? No. Therefore UHS does not get any award for "beating the odds" because it (surprise, surprise!) manages to get good test scores from an extremely selective, high performing student population even when the district does not fund computers for kids who, by in large, already have their own laptops -- and tutoring when they need it, and educational supplements when they need them, all handily available through their relatively high-SES families, not through their school.

Take a look at the table of tax credit contributions available in this district-produced doc:
Which school has, by far, the largest tax credit contributions in the district in 2014? Rincon / UHS.

How many high schools in the district have Foundation - Alumni Associations that raise significant amounts of money every year to supplement their budgets? Pueblo? Palo Verde? Cholla? Santa Rita? Guess again. UHS does, and their Foundation buys the schools computers.

But poor, poor UHS. It must be such a hardship -- the teaching conditions, the lack of resources. Must be why, in a district where it is increasingly hard to fill teaching positions with permanent, certified teachers, there are scores of highly qualified faculty lining up and competing for every open position at University High School.

"in the trenches" indeed. Grow up, take a tour of other TUSD sites some time, and stop ignorantly missing the point when people try to advocate for schools serving children growing up in poverty.

21 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by UHS is not "beating the odds" in any meaningful fashion. on 08/15/2016 at 8:36 PM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

It is not about how much money the school has, but how much money the families have. Can parents afford tutors and coaches? Are the kids well-fed? Is a parent able to be there for them, or are the parents overworked? Do the parents understand how school works and can they guide their children through the process? Can the family afford clothes and school supplies? Do older kids have to work to help sustain the family? All these socioeconomic factors affect how well kids do in school.

23 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by On the wrong side of the tracks on 08/15/2016 at 8:03 PM

Re: “Want To Be a Top High School? Better Not Have Too Many Low Income Students.

"People in Arizona who think it makes sense to give "high performing schools" more money because of the mistaken notion that those schools are doing a better job than schools with lower test scores and higher percentages of low income kids should take a look at the two Newsweek lists. They just might learn something."

Please visit the UHS campus and take a thorough assessment of their facilities and available technology before throwing around condescending and dismissive phrases such as this. TUSD has not provided UHS with a new piece of technology in five years and they were recently denied any additional funding for technology or support staff positions, whereas other high schools in the district were given hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of technology. UHS is deliberately put at a disadvantage in comparison to most other high schools in Tucson when it comes to funding and resources. They absolutely deserve a high ranking in the "Beating the Odds" list.

11 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by workinginthetrenches on 08/15/2016 at 7:14 PM

Re: “Sign of the Times

The idea that this business "needs" a 100 foot high sign is nonsense. It doesn't have to be seen from Nogales, or Yuma, just to be seen on the nearest major street, which would call for a "not more than" 40 foot integrated, "architectural feature". It should not have been approved. Sign companies are famous for the idea that bigger, taller, and wider signs are essential to economic development. They are not.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Frances Perkins on 08/15/2016 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Editor's Note

xanthippe: we allowed him to actually take a full-on vacation. He returns this week.

3 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Aztlán Mari on 08/15/2016 at 11:39 AM

Re: “Tucson Salvage

Wonderful story Brian!

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by j toal on 08/15/2016 at 5:05 AM

Re: “Editor's Note

Where is "The Skinny"? Nothing new from Jim in 3 weeks? WTF?

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by xanthippe on 08/14/2016 at 10:41 PM

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