I am coming late to the party, but I just want to clarify one thing: I did not feel that I lost that Family Liaison position through retaliation, but maybe I did. At the time, I could not believe that a Magnet school with Title One money would have to choose between a reading specialist and a family engagement person. But there were strange and inexplicable things going on at the school at the time, and I, the principal and a person who had been the glue of the school (the Magnet Coordinator who also ran the after school sports program that produced so many district winners over so very many years) were all removed, one way or another before the following school year was very much underway. A new principal (BRAND new principal to a brick and mortars school) was brought in--ANOTHER thing that is not supposed to happen to Magnet Schools. When all of that happened, it was accompanied by a scary number of substitute teachers, (another thing that is not supposed to occur in Magnet Schools--and there was a Court order specifically about this: of course the District remains out of compliance on this too) and a number of families fled the school from the middle of the year on. That removed many of the more active families in the school. So there wasn't much of it that looked like it was good for the school. In retrospect and at the time, it certainly looked like the District was doing its best to close the school without really closing it (not the first time this has happened to that school) It certainly confirmed my thought that if you want to look for the GOOD in TUSD look to the teachers, the counselors, the underpaid people who are the closest to the kids. DON'T look to the District, where it seems that people get paid more and more the further they are from the kids. And finally, as to IECs, they are legal and completely unconnected to the campaigns they support, as David confirmed in the article. This is unlike taking money with no questions asked apparently from TUSD vendors very soon after voting in a 21 million dollar contract. That is really a testament to poor judgement and not asking the right questions, two characteristics that the TUSD Board does not need.
Thanks for this simple lens through which to view Arizona and even TUSD financial politics. It's a shell game and the details can be mind-numbing, (as attempts are made to get desegregation funds to pay for everything from football fields to additional behavior supports in the schools) but the basic foundation is NIMB.
And don't forget that just coincidentally the Sec'y of State was too busy campaigning FOR this crummy Proposition to actually get out a piece of information that laid out both sides of the argument to between 200,000 and 400,000 voters in time to inform their vote. Hmm, guess they had to find out about it on TV...Oh, who's on TV you say? Only the YES side, but there is no corruption here, none here, move along, nothing to see here.
Thats right David. And one way to say it is to counter the latest "pay my friends and screw the poor and young..." and vote NO on 123. Its not about school funding. Its about legislative theft.
And about those "somewhat moderate Republicans", I would tone down the partisanship....as a person really interested in seeing our schools funded, I am outright happy for the help from a few courageous outliers who are willing to buck their own party on this one instead of giving them faint praise. I still remember the so-called "non-partisan" education funding town hall at Catalina High where one of the "somewhat moderate Republicans" who happens to be really good on education was relegated to sitting in the audience while the Democrats, who are all just NOW practicing non-partisanship by supporting Prop 123 (in the name of the--yes, grossly underpaid--teachers) dominated the stage and patted themselves on the back for all the great things they are doing for the schools. If we really wanted to help the teachers our local (D) Education Heroes would stop spending all of our money on retaining administrators and the Superintendent, , and start putting more of it into retaining the people who really do the work of public schools--teaching the kids.
When the local Superintendent of a very very poor district teams up with Lisa Graham Keegan to discuss how to increase teacher recruitment , you've got a problem. When that same Superintendent promises to pay teachers more than the $500 increase that they received to make up for the longevity stipends that they (unwittingly) lost in the process, when that same Superintendent's "necessary" incentive to stay is a YUGE salary increase, you've got a problem. My heart goes out to teachers who are tired of being talked down to and bad about, but I am going to keep working for a deal that actually benefits them with money, not empty promises. And David, I would have thought that you would too. Guess you don't have grandkids in Arizona (who you might want to see have access to public education too) .....
David it continues to amaze me that you can write the stuff you write and then not come to the conclusion that you are leading to! Obviously, according to what you have written, after we are amazed and appalled we are supposed to vote YES on their NEXT cockamamie scheme to hurt our kids and grandkids--because thats the Arizona Way! We are supposed to continuously reward them for being criminals and liars by trusting them "just one more time".
I was not in the negotiations, and I cannot imagine what kind of threats and insinuations could have caused usually excellent legal teams to strike such a miserable deal. Clearly , the supes have built budgets around money that doesn't exist in order to build a constituency for a pittance that they made sure was UNDESIGNATED funding so that they can scare the living h^ll out of already starving teachers. I'll be interested to see just how LONG the Prop 123 money goes for teacher raises.....if at all.
HEADLINE IS SCREWED UP---ITS THIS THURSDAY!!!!!
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation