On Thursday, Sept. 29 the League of Women Voters held a forum for candidates seeking election to the Tucson Unified School District governing board. The current board consists of five members: Adelita Grijalva, Michael Hicks, Cam Juárez, Kristel Foster, and Mark Stegeman. The terms of Juarez, Foster, and Stegeman are up and all three are running for re-election. However, the election is at large and nonpartisan and a number of other candidates have joined the fray. These other candidates include: Betts Putnam-Hidalgo, Lori Riegel, Brett Rustand, and Rachael Sedgwick.
The candidates were each given two minutes for an opening statement. They then answered questions, two of which were provided in advance. The advance questions were in regards to the ongoing desegregation lawsuit and district administration transparency. The candidates were then provided with questions from the audience to which they gave one minute responses. Steve Lynn was the moderator.
Background
Alas, TUSD is not without its controversies. We have seen reports of student violence in and around Palo Verde High School, illegal grade changes by the principal of Pueblo High School (allegedly to increase graduation rates), the changing of absent/tardy records at Pueblo, the fact that less than half the budget goes to the classroom (TUSD: 48.7 percent, state average 53.6 percent), multi-million dollar contracts buried in consent agendas, and who could forget the hijinks when half a dozen boys and girls chained themselves to chairs in an effort to disrupt a district meeting?
It is important to note that the schools themselves vary widely from total failures to wildly successful. University High, which is nationally recognized, is an example of a TUSD school that is succeeding in virtually every category. Schools that do well do so on their own. Those that are in need of guidance and support find little from the administration.
As mentioned earlier, the current board consists of Adelita Grijalva, Michael Hicks, Cam Juárez, Kristel Foster, and Mark Stegeman. Grijalva, Foster, and Juarez make up a majority of the board. More often than not they vote as a block, giving them control of the board and thereby the district. Stegeman and Hicks tend to vote with the majority on routine matters, but are regularly at odds with the majority when it comes to making changes to the status quo. There has been ongoing tension between the board majority and its minority.
The Event
The tension between board members was evident at the forum. Fortunately for all concerned, Juarez and Foster sat at one end of the table and Stegeman at the other. Foster took the lead in attacking Stegman, sometimes by name, sometimes not. It did seem, however, that Stegeman had to correct, or “fact check” as he put it, statements from Foster before answering the question at hand. Stegeman did not retaliate, though towards the end he did mention some of the details of news stories that embarrass (or should embarrass) the district. An example is the controversy that ensued when when it was reported that three members of the internal auditing committee were married to employees of the district which was a violation of the charter, two resigned, the third stayed on and voted for the new watered-down charter that allowed him to stay. Foster was lucky in that she delivered her closing statement after Stegeman, so when she delivered the final laundry list of criticisms he had no opportunity to respond.
The other candidates pretty much left each other alone, though Riegel chastised Juarez for referring to University High students as “upper class,” and Putnam-Hidalgo had to pause in the middle of an answer to ask Juarez to stop talking to her while she was speaking (he apologized at his first opportunity).
None of the candidates were critical of the now discontinued Mexican American Studies Program (MAS), there was unanimous approval with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Putnam-Hidalgo was the biggest fan gushing about how “very successful” it was and that the district should “bring it back.” Riegel expressed support and suggested that it be expanded to include other ethnicities. She went on to say that she arranged to have a Holocaust survivor speak at University High School after some anti-Semitism was observed there. Stegeman said that any “hook” that inspired an interest in learning was great. Juarez said that the program gave Latino students confidence.
Putnam-Hidalgo pointed out the irony of a career path that paid more as educators moved further away from contact with students. She also claimed that the superintendent encouraged teachers to not report or document incidents or problems to make it easier to “game the numbers.”
Stegeman, Riegel, and Rustand expressed the need for increased student discipline and teacher support. Rustand also spoke in favor of “site based leadership,” and he is not a fan of “high stakes testing.”
None of the candidates were critical of the over forty year (that’s four-zero year) old desegregation lawsuit.
Jonathan Hoffman is the Weekly‘s resident Libertarian columnist.
This article appears in Sep 29 – Oct 5, 2016.
That’s exactly why they continue to push for amnesty, open borders and sanctuary city. If the law breakers were deported TUSD would be empty.
Substantive change in TUSD will NOT come with a Change in the composition of the Board/Administration. It will only come when TUSD Teachers regain Control of their Classroom as given them by Arizona Law: Arizona Revised Statutes 1- 841, A(1)(2).
TUSD Teachers have been Professionally Emasculated by the Board/Administration. They have permitted such to happen by NOT speaking out under the guise of Job Security and at the expense of their Students and Academic Programs
It is a responsibility of Citizens in our Democracy to speak out openly whenever they see/experience wrong doing; particularly when such is contrary to Law as it is in TUSD. A exclusive focus on Self Interest is, in the long term, destructive to a our Democracy
For sure there are risks! TUSD Board/Administration will make every effort to rid themselves of the “trouble makers”. But there are also Laws prohibiting “Retaliation”, and, there is Power/Protection in Numbers…if TUSD Teachers insist on the implementation of Arizona Law ( Arizona Revised Statutes 1- 841, A(1)(2))and speak with ONE voice.
“Decertify the union (TEA). Simple majority of bargaining unit employees, (that’s ALL teachers, not just those that are union members), BOOM! TEA is gone!
Petition NLRB for a vote. (or the state’s equivalent).
Step up and be counted……” juan, ADI (10/6/2016)
TUSD Teachers must File a Law Suit against the TUSD Board/Administration for this violation of Arizona Law!!!
Anyone who’s paying attention to the ongoing controversies, should see that the incumbents cannot provide adequate oversight over the HT Sanchez administration. HT’s employment is dependent on the current board majority, so he is doing everything in his power to keep them elected. He even spent over $1600 (of our tax dollars) for a half page ad in the AZ Daily Star to counter an unflattering essay, written by Tim Steller, about how the district handled 301 monies. Our kids deserve TUSD’s focus to be on them. Their education, their needs, their good outcomes. None of this can occur under the current board majority or with HT Sanchez at the helm.
Sorry: Make that: Arizona Revised Statutes 15- 841, A(1)(2).
If things go on schedule you people who want Sanchez’s resignation should get your way. He is probably checking out jobs online because it’s a free country that way. No matter what he scores interview points for surviving a nightmare job. And then what? The same cycle? Good luck stampede candidates because you will be part of that problem.
One would hope the same cycle would not be enacted. It could be prevented if the Board who manages the search and recruiting process for the next Superintendent understands how to go through a proper public process to recruit a candidate who is actually qualified by previous demonstrated experience for a superintendency in a troubled district under a desegregation order. Bad processes lead to bad outcomes, and that rule proved true with how the recruiting and hiring of Sanchez was handled.
I think this article points out that voters should investigate those who are running to determine how to best amend the board so that there are no voting blocks. I was in an HOA where these were present, and with an entrenched culture, it was deadly to moving forward as needed. HT is in a difficult, at best, place and he should be supported. That means, having a board who works with him and not against him — providing information and policy input. My take is any board can make or break an executive.
Take note TUSD Teachers!!!!
Officials, parents worry Chicago schools deal won’t stick
CHICAGO (AP) – Teachers in the nation’s third-largest school district pulled back from a threatened strike after a tentative last-minute contract agreement that Chicago officials acknowledged Tuesday may amount to a temporary fix and parents worried would fall apart. “It wasn’t easy, as you all know,” Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said after Monday’s late-night agreement, which now goes to the union’s House of Delegates and all 28,000 members for a final vote. Vice President Jesse Sharkey said Tuesday that he’s “confident that it’ll pass” because it has wins for students and for school workers. But even as Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who fought bitterly with Lewis before and during the 2012 teachers’ strike, praised the union and the Chicago Public Schools in a speech in which he introduced his 2017 budget proposal, it still isn’t clear how the financially strapped city will pay for the four-year deal.
Take note TUSD supporters:
Board troubles
The decade of the 1980s was another time of great conflicts and intensity on the school board. Board members often criticized each other and the administration at public meetings. In contrast to the similar trouble in the ’70s, however, there were no clearly drawn lines between the members. Alliances changed depending upon the issues. Although major decisions such as hiring the superintendent were often conducted on split votes, on many other areas they voted unanimously. Cutting the budget often brought out frustrated attacks on each other’s priorities. That dissension carried over within the district administration.
In a February, 1986, speech to the Tucson Metropolitan Ministry, Dr. Houston described the tone of the district. He said, “The board may be the most visible example of this, but it’s more than the board. It’s between parents and board members, board members and teachers, teachers and administrators. This whole district has become programmed, over a period of time, to conflict, and I would rather be in the position of searching for solutions to problems than acting as a referee. We’ve got to stop this senseless bickering we have here and get on to some action.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN 30 years? NOTHING!
http://www.tusd1.org/contents/distinfo/history/history9312.asp
The worst is not over. By any means.