Dr. Auggie Romero, principal of Pueblo High School, got screwed by the TUSD board majority when it decided in a 3-2 vote not to renew his contract at the April 10 board meeting. Very likely, current and future Pueblo High students lost out as well.
The story behind the vote against Romero is both simple and complex, depending on how it’s told, and it tends to come out differently depending on who’s telling it. Let me try and reduce the story to its essentials.
Two years ago, Romero changed the course grades of 6 seniors at Pueblo High from F to D in the last days of the school year, which allowed them to graduate (Actually, one student didn’t graduate because he failed another class). In doing so, Romero violated state law and TUSD district policy, both of which state that a principal is not allowed to change a grade given by a teacher. On the surface, that’s the primary issue which led the board majority to decide not to renew his contract, though they didn’t discuss the issues much before the vote. More on the reasons behind their decision later.
However, the story is more complicated than that, as you learn when you read the 13 page report on the grade changing incident produced by the law firm, DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy. You can read it on the KGUN9 website.
According to the report, the six students complained to Romero that the teacher had not allowed them to make up work they had missed, which led to them failing the class. The report substantiated their claim and said the teacher violated district policy by refusing to allow them to complete the make-up work. Romero gave the students the opportunity to complete the assignments they missed. After their work was graded, each of the students had enough points to pass the class. That’s when Romero changed their grades from F to D in violation of state law and district policy.
The law firm’s report came to the conclusion that “Dr. Romero was not flouting the law or policy intentionally. I think he believed that the students in question were in fact denied the opportunity to complete the assignments and that, by allowing them to do so, he was simply providing them the opportunity that their teacher should have provided to them under district policy.” The report recommends “Dr. Romero be directed not to change students’ grades in the future, regardless of the reason.” It also recommends that Romero be counseled on better ways to handle similar situations in the future. No further actions are suggested.
At the time of the incident, then-Superintendent H.T. Sanchez suspended Romero for two days without pay. The current superintendent, Gabriel Trujillo, determined that the situation had already been taken care of and did not recommend any further action. However, three members of the board, Mark Stegeman, Rachel Sedgwick and Michael Hicks, voted not to renew Romero’s contract for next year.
That’s the gist of the story.
During the call to the audience at the board meeting, a few people advocated that Romero’s contract not be renewed, and a larger number praised his work as principal and said he should be allowed to continue at Pueblo High.
The arguments of the speakers advocating against renewal revolved around three points. (1) Romero broke the law, which means he shouldn’t be principal; (2) Romero doesn’t support his staff’s decisions, which means he shouldn’t be principal; (3) Because he broke the law, Romero is a bad role model for the students, which means he shouldn’t be principal.
I disagree.
Romero breaking the law means he shouldn’t be principal? Seriously? Shouting “Rule of Law” is a favorite refuge of scoundrels, usually right wing scoundrels. Every undocumented immigrant is a lawbreaker. More pertinent to Romero’s situation, every protester who decides to be arrested to defend a higher principal is a lawbreaker. Stamping “Lawbreaker” on someone’s forehead and saying there’s nothing more to discuss is ridiculous.
Romero decided the students should be given the opportunity to make up work and graduate, an opportunity denied to them by their teacher in violation of district policy. Romero’s decision and the time he spent working on those students’ behalf meant some students who demonstrated the desire and the ability to do the necessary work are now high school graduates, not high school dropouts. You can argue he made the wrong decision. You can say he could have handled the situation better. But to say Romero shouldn’t be allowed to be principal because of this legal infraction in support of students is ridiculous.
Romero doesn’t support his staff’s decisions? I should hope he doesn’t support his staff’s decisions in all cases. If a member of his staff makes a poor decision which is against a student’s best interests, it’s the principal’s job to correct, not blindly support, the teacher’s actions. That’s what Romero did. Again, he may have chosen the wrong way to deal with the situation. But according to district policy, the teacher violated the students’ rights, and Romero took the students’ side, as he should have. At most, his actions deserve a hand slap, not removal from his position.
A number of Pueblo staff members stood during the board meeting’s call to the audience and spoke of their respect for Romero and the work he is doing at the school. Other staff members in the audience applauded when they spoke. Those staff members clearly don’t believe Romero is unsupportive of his staff.
Romero is a bad role model for the students? Really? Because he took the time to listen to students’ legitimate complaints, then gave them the opportunity to graduate by overruling a teacher who denied them their rights? I don’t think you have to dig very deep into high school history textbooks to find similar instances where a historical figure is praised and considered a role model for righting a wrong, even if it meant violating the law.
I’m guessing lots of students who heard how Romero handled the situation would think he was modeling moral behavior, supporting the students when they have been treated badly. “The principal has the students’ back. This school has our best interests at heart.”
If the praise heaped on Romero by a number of speakers — students, staff community members and board members — has any validity, TUSD has lost a very effective principal. Romero was credited with increasing student enrollment. The number of honors classes and AP classes offered at the school increased significantly. Problems with student disruption dropped along with the number of suspensions.
I don’t know the details, so I can’t vouch for what the speakers said. However, if even part of what they claim is true, Romero has been an effective principal, and to remove him because he spent extra time and effort helping students earn the credits they needed to graduate is a travesty. (If readers want to refute the claims made by the speakers, they should feel free to do so in the comments.)
Did the three board members vote not to renew Romero’s contract because he changed the students’ grades? Probably not. A more likely reason for Mark Stegeman and Michael Hicks’ votes is that they bear a long standing grudge against Romero for his involvement in the Mexican American Studies program—he was one of the founders of the program and its co-director — and his role in the creation of the Culturally Relevant Curriculum which was put in place after MAS was dismantled. Stegeman and Hicks were vocal opponents of MAS and thought the new CRC curriculum was too radical. Both of them voted against Romero’s involvement in CRC and his appointment as Pueblo High principal, but they were in the minority both times. With Rachel Sedgwick on the board, they finally had the votes they needed to succeed in their efforts to get rid of Romero.
I can’t offer a clear explanation why Sedgwick sided with Stegeman and Hicks on this vote, other than to note that she sides with them on most issues. Her views tend to bounce back and forth between wrongheaded and incomprehensible, so I find it difficult to understand the rationale behind her comments or her votes.
This article appears in Apr 12-18, 2018.
I knew you couldn’t explain anything without political bias and screaming racism. That’s why the public schools are finished. It has turned into a bloodsport. Get your children out.
He broke rules. Willingly and knowingly. You cannot say his termination is ridiculous. Draconian maybe …
What I think is interesting (and you failed to address) is that he played the racist card when he remarked about his dismissal … THAT is “ridiculous” …
“Every undocumented immigrant is a lawbreaker” – yes, and your point is?
It must be difficult to administer schools where so many classrooms are filled, not with fully qualified, permanent teachers, but with long term subs. It’s not only a lack of knowledge of district policy that handicaps them in teaching successfully.
Remind us, David: when did the percent of classrooms filled with long term subs rise dramatically? On whose watch? Who was the board majority at the time, and who was the Superintendent?
One difference between the Star’s education reporting and this education reporting is that the Star will usually call for comment or offer a chance to respond, before speculating on board members’ motives.
Why is it so hard for reporters or even bloggers to do any research whatsoever on the teacher who, depending on your side and political allegiances is either a victim of the principal or victimizing students (by actually expecting and demanding that they come to class regularly and finish assignments before receiving grades for the class). She too was heavily involved in MAS, and was one of the teachers involved in the lawsuit. She too was one of the developers of the program, and she is currently a part of the Culturally Relevant program. In fact, the class in question was not just any class, it was a culturally relevant class that lost its teacher mid-year, and Sotelo, a 30 + year veteran certified teacher got permission to “sub” in the class instead of letting just any substitute take it over. Get it? There is no race card to play here and yet the point is completely missed by people who are desperate to play this card.
Why also is it so hard for bloggers or reporters to wrap their mind around the fact that Romero’s two days were NOT for the grade changing incident, but were for a concurrent incident that involved losing track of a master key, leading to a gym door being left open, leading to vandalism and thousands of dollars of damage…all of which was unreported.Only because of Able Morado’s furious letter inserted into Auggie’s employee file was any disciplinary action (even on that issue) taken at all. If you very carefully read David’s assertion about those two days, you will see that he did not specifically say that they had to do WITH the incident in question,(which implies that he knew more than he stated) and in fact they did not.
The real story is one of unbelievable cover up and deceit by the last Board majority, who were so enamored of their Hispanic superintendent that they stood by with their thumbs in their mouths while he crookedly fixed the districts’ books (teachers 301 money), destroyed a great deal of progress on the Unitary Status Plan, demanded that principals “get their numbers right or else”–causing incredible amounts of corruption and unattended to disciplinary problems, etc. Two of them claimed ignorance when the wife of a District vendor (from Phoenix, no less) who had just received a generous contract from the district donated $5,000 to their reelection campaign and the other, up for re-election now, has been on the board for almost two decades, more than enough by any standard. That majority will do anything to protect their cuates (pals), including filling the room with orchestrated supporters. (Who remembers the unseating of HT Sanchez, their beloved superintendent who did more to destroy the district in his short tenure than many others combined?)
Despite being a visionary teacher, Romero was far from being a good or knowledgeable administrator but he sure knew which side his bread was buttered on. He was a master at supporting his Superintendent, and joined other faithful principals in publicly thanking Sanchez for his support for magnet schools even while, unbeknownst to any of them, their magnet budgets had actually been cut (in some cases drastically). They all joined in with the Board majority/ Sanchez chorus that defiled the plaintiffs and their representatives (who ultimately noticed the budget cuts and rejected them). A quick look at which schools lost their magnet status recently will reveal almost a “who’s who” of principals who genuflected towards Sanchez for his treatment of their schools while they were being defunded, disrespected and systematically undermined. These are not the actions of good administrators, they are the actions of “company men” (whether they were men or not) who say and do whatever is needed to make their boss look good, regardless of how it plays out with students and teachers.
The important question now is will these faithful Romero supporters make sure that the next principal of Pueblo is qualified to both be a principal AND to support both teachers and students? About the only valid issue in this whole sordid story is that the school has had a revolving door of principals, which means it has systematically been treated the way southside schools get treated by TUSD. The next principal must be an experienced administrator, not just a political appointee. The next principal must be honest, too–and must not use the District email system to call on supporters to write letters and say nice things in the Board meetings. Stay tuned to see, but I have serious doubts that this Board will (or even can, with the amount of time consuming and useless bickering they do) get their act together to actually place an administrator who knows what he or she is doing in that position.
Interesting comment above. Why is it that TUSD can not get Board, Principals, and Teachers to work for the good of the students? The rules in place require lying, cheating and backstabbing. It has almost come to the point that they operate in opposition to the benefit of the student.
That is the 600 million dollar question.
Betts, a few comments about your comments.
First, I can be wrong as the day is long, but I don’t tend to be purposely deceptive, as you half stated, half implied. So far as I knew, Romero was suspended because of the grade change incident. I was not trying to hide what I knew to make my case. I tried to be as clear and honest as I could be in stating the facts and my opinions. That’s something I strive to do in my posts. And just to add a comment about a key being lost, I remember at least a few rekeyings of high schools where I taught because of lost master keys. I don’t remember any punishment of staff or administrators because of the losses. Also, I have a question: you say someone lost track of a master key, but you don’t say who. Was Romero directly responsible, or is he responsible because he’s the principal? Either way, I don’t think that kind of carelessness is a hanging, or firing, offense.
Next, I’m assuming you’re saying I played the race card in my post. That was not my intention. I never mentioned race. I don’t think the ill will Stegeman and Hicks feel toward Romero needs to be based on racial animus. Both of them disliked the MAS program intensely. It’s possible to dislike it for reasons other than racism: it was too radical or it distorts history and the teaching of history, for instance. What ever the reason, emotions were at fever pitch on both sides of the MAS issue, and unless I misread the situation, Stegeman and Hicks would have been happy to see Romero leave the district along with Sean Arce and other strong proponents of the program. Twice they voted against Romero, once when he took a position helping to create CRC, the other time when he was up for the principal position at Pueblo. They couldn’t get rid of him then. They got rid of him now. Was racism involved? It’s hard to assert that was a primary reason for firing him, given the number of Hispanic students and staff in the district.
Please reread the passage you say plays the race card. If you still believe I implied the non-renewal had to do with racism, if it looks like I was playing the race card, that was not my intention. I hope I cleared that up here. If you still believe that was my intention, so be it.
Much of the rest of your comments are an airing of grievances against H.T. Sanchez and the three board members who formed the majority before Sedgwick was elected. No comment for me on that. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion of Romero’s non-renewal. Your only comment relevant to Romero’s abilities as a principal after the first two paragraphs is, “Romero was far from being a good or knowledgeable administrator.” Since you don’t present any evidence, I’ll take that as your honest opinion, but it doesn’t add anything to the discussion. I wrote about what people said are Romero’s accomplishments at Pueblo. I also admitted I don’t know if the assertions are accurate and, if they’re not, that I recommend commenters rebut them. You didn’t discuss any of those assertions, so you didn’t add anything to the discussion of Romero’s merits as a principal.
Mark, Hank Stephenson of the Star is a hundred times the reporter I am. One reason for that is he’s damned talented and works hard. The other is, he’s a reporter and I’m a blogger. Though I sometimes do independent reporting, most of what I do is commentary and analysis, like a columnist. It’s true, I didn’t call you for comment, because I generally don’t do that. However, feel free to comment here on ways you think I misrepresented you. You understand, I hope, your comments are always welcome here.
But since I’m extending my blogging into the comments section, let me offer an opinion I believe to be true. People often state reasons for their actions or opinions which are perfectly rational and reasonable but don’t represent their primary motivations. It happens all the time in people’s personal and professional lives. So if you told me what you think are the real reasons you voted not to renew Auggie Romero’s contract, there’s a fair chance I might not believe the reasons you give represent the main reason you voted against renewal.
But you wouldn’t be commenting for me, I assume. You would be commenting to correct the record. The floor is yours.
What Ms. Putnam-Hidalgo wrote DOES add to the discussion of the Romero incident, David Safier, because it speaks to the conditions in the district at the time that the grade changing occurred: unusually high teacher attrition and neglect of disciplinary consequences to manipulate the stats for the sake of achieving Unitary Status and getting out from under the Deseg order. Whether or not the “long term sub” whose grades were changed was actually a credentialed and highly experienced teacher, increased rates of mid-year faculty vacancies and lack of administrative support for teachers who try to impose reasonable consequences for academic or behavioral problems are serious, destabilizing problems in a school district, and in this particular district at that particular time they had one indisputable source, as another commenter and Ms. Putnam-Hidalgo both make clear. It wasn’t Stegeman-Hicks-Sedgwick. It was Sanchez-Grijalva-Foster-Juarez.
If Stegeman replies, I hope he will also make clear that curricular adoptions in public schools need to be approved in an open public meeting by the elected Board. There were transparency issues surrounding the MAS program Romero helped to create. Just as there are valid reasons why it is illegal for administrators to change grades, there are valid reasons why curricula adoptions in public schools need to be transparent. But, unfortunately, these kinds of proper process and transparency points are often lost or entirely disregarded in the politicized, factionalized, Balkanized mess that is TUSD — and in the sadly deficient media and blog-o-sphere “reporting” on the district.
Running a school district that educates tens of thousands of students is not a “patch-it-together with duct tape and chewing gum,” “fly under the radar as much as possible,” “manipulate the disciplinary, testing, and graduation stats to make us look better than we actually are,” and “protect your in-group by any means possible” kind of game. Those who continue to defend these kinds of behaviors are actively aiding and abetting the district’s further sad deterioration.
There is absolutely no surprise here. David Safier is totally plugged into Adelita Grijalva and Kristel Foster and has supported them for as long as he has been writing his biased pieces for the TW, which is one of the many reasons I often do not bother to read his shallow pieces on education. David Safier is an elitist man who seems to believe that he is smarter than most but he also is egotistical enough to think that his bestowed blessings or damnations- via the TW- on certain people and actions somehow count for something important. NOT! He is TWs education beat bully. Nothing more.
Safier laces everything relative to TUSD with his biases against certain Board members and his blind partisan loyalty towards Grijalva and Foster (and formerly Cam Juarez). HT Sanchez was his ultimate hero. These things alone should discredit him but the TW chooses to see it otherwise.
I came to read his current piece only because 2 teachers with whom I work AT PUEBLO insisted that I read it. Again, there were no surprises. Safier glorifies Auggie Romero and almost makes him a hero while villainizing the Board members who finally decided that enough was enough with Romeros trail of indiscretions. Sure, there was a great deal of noise last week at the Board meeting by some Auggie Romero Pueblo fans along with those who had been coerced into attending for the sake of showing numbers. What was most palatable was the number of Pueblo supporters (not Auggie Supporters) whose voice was unheard; whose presence was unseen; and whose opinion was trampled down long ago by the likes of Auggie Romero and HT Sanchez.
First to the theatrical display that was orchestrated by two Pueblo NON-teachers: There are approximately 110-113 teachers assigned to Pueblo. The school has 3 counselors and a large number of support staff. Not a single teacher spear headed any support for Romero. Lots of teachers were recruited to get involved and most choice not to, which is a loud statement in itself. The Romero-support campaign was orchestrated by the school nurse (Kate Straub) and one school counselor (Teresa Toro). Romero himself was involved in developing the support campaign for himself and wrote up all of the words of glory about his so-called accomplishments (most of this was based on his manipulation of numbers pertaining to grades (failures), discipline, scholarships, etc.). Straub and Toro did as each was asked (directed). Counselor Toro shamefully recruited others to attend the meeting such as her sister, who addressed the Board, along with her child. There are no limits to how children can be exploited in Romeros playbook. All based on lies.
Romero put his wife and child through the ordeal last week and was flanked by each of them as they broke into tears after the vote was taken not to renew his contract. There was NO need to put them through this and most professional administrators would not have done this! Romero then gloriously called the whole thing racist, showing his total disregard for taking any responsibility for his actions (any of his actions).
Second- to the Mountain of Lies Told by Romero about His Changing a Teachers Grades:
Romero has provided a fictional version of what took place with the grade changing to those at Pueblo (and in the community) and there have been some who swallowed each of his malicious lies. They are the ones who showed up to protest Romeros contract non-renewal. They are also the ones who Romero strokes and provides favors to, knowing that some day he will collect the pound of flesh he is due.
Romero changed the grades of six seniors who had failed a senior Mexican American Culturally Relevant English class. Each of the seniors failed to turn in one or two critical assignments, each worth 100 points and each requiring several hours (two weeks) of work. One student actually plagiarized an assignment. They all had more than ample opportunity to turn in their assignments just as the students who passed the course. The students panicked once they understood that they would not be graduating and voiced their concern to the administration. Romero did not want his graduation rate and failure rate to suffer so he decided to change the grades, not out of fairness to the students who had obviously failed the course, but to save his hide by making it appear that the students had fulfilled the course requirements, which they had NOT. The teacher gave plenty of chances to the students to complete their assigned work. She allowed for make-up work and was available as scheduled afterschool. Bottom Line: The six students did not turn in the required work and one of them plagiarized one of the major assignments.
Lesson Learned from the Romero Grade Change:
Six students learned that they could get away with NOT doing the required work for a full semester by simply lying to the Pueblo Administration. One of the six students learned that it is perfectly all right to plagiarize documents. Teachers throughout the District have learned NEVER to complain against any administrator who does something wrong- even illegal. They have learned that someone like the teacher who complained in this matter will be attacked by the Principal, just like Romero has done in this case. Teachers have learned that Principals without any integrity, as in the case of Romero, will lie on a dime and blame his illegal actions on the teacher who taught the course and graded assignments throughout the semester only to have her grades overturned by someone who puts himself before the legitimate education of students. Everyone involved in this matter has learned that anyone as soul-less as Romero can allege racist, when it is he who showed the most racism. It is believed that the six students involved in this charade are all Chican@s and every single one of them were cheated out of meeting the course requirements.
The way to have settled this issue would have been for Romero to give the students the option of appealing their grade to the Governing Board or to suggest that they go to summer school. Instead Romero cheated and most people in Tucson know that he cheatedto the level of violating Governing Board policy and state statue. Safier believed this is perfectly all right. Safier has decided to believe a liar. It is not all right.
As for Romeros claim of racism which was backed-up by Adelita Grijalva; try this on for size:
Just a few years ago
Rex Scott (a white male) did not have his contract renewed as the Principal of Catalina High School based on the schools achievement scores. (This was not an illegal act.) This might be a good place to remind everyone that Romero is responsible for the loss of the magnet identification and resources for Pueblo. Chris Bonn (a white male) was immediately removed from Sahuaro as Principal when he got into an altercation with a young man who was involved with his step-daughter in what he thought was an inappropriate way.
There is no racism here. There is plenty of racism to complain about in TUSD that is real and very tangible. Why doesnt Adelita Grijalva focus on this fact instead of constantly coming to Romeros rescue?
An administrator who is so unfamiliar with his own budget that he can stand up and genuflect to his masters about the great support he is receiving while his budget is actually being cut is not a good administrator (especially if his schools’ Magnet status is cut because of a systematic starvation of his Magnet funds). An administrator who single handedly changes grades is not a good administrator. Same for an administrator who doesn’t even appear to know that he is not allowed to single handedly undertake such an activity. (See Policy Code IKA Section 1 for the following statement:”Only the Governing Board has the authority to overturn the decision of the teacher of a middle or high school course, to pass or fail a student”) In other words, a good administrator might be expected to look into the policy implications of his actions if he doesn’t know them. (And a good Board or Superintendent as well). An administrator who loses track of a master key over the weekend and does not report it is not a good administrator. (Not his fault that the media got ahold of the vandalism case and his oversight came to light) An administrator who allows discipline to go to hell in a hand basket and does not report it is not a good administrator. And, in my view, an administrator who first admits that he changed grades and then degrades the teacher whose grades he changed, to try to make the case that it is okay is also not a good administrator. Nor is one who uses District resources (email list and computer) to ginny up some public support for himself, claiming, essentially, a witch hunt. Not one of these things is supportive to teachers and students, and that is his job.
Re: the race card issue–yes, I have reread your statement, and you may be right that I called it the race card when I shouldn’t have. OK, lets call it the MAS card. Why does it prove some bias against people involved with MAS if both principal and teacher were equally involved in MAS and were among the founders of the program? As stated above, Sotelo works with the Culturally Relevant Program that is supposedly so intensely disliked by Hicks and Stegeman that it skews their judgement. Why, one wonders, would they they side with one Latina who developed MAS in order to bring down another Latino who developed MAS? Hmmmmmnnn….How about this–It is a red herring raised by Romero’s supportive Board members who depend on both the press and blogging community to rely on their analysis instead of fully researching the actors. In this case, both you and the Arizona Star fell short
Readers of this comment stream know that there are many times and places where we agree on education issues. That is hardly ever the case, though, when the subject is TUSD, even less when the TUSD issue focuses on the actions of (especially certain) Board members. The trick to actually moving forward though is based on the ability to somewhat cordially/respectfully agree to disagree . This is a strange beast that doesn’t frequent our TUSD Board meetings enough at all.
No publication should publish anonymous letters or comments. Such comments are meaningless if the writer is not willing to be identified. It simply allows people to be hateful and not take responsibility for their words. Shame on the Weekly and those commenters. Nancy Drigotas
Why would anyone reading this dialogue ever enroll a child in this district? Illegal grade changing, mudslinging, backbiting, deriding of administrators, teachers and the Board; dramas that turn your stomach staged at Governing Board meetings, law suits and subsequent breakdowns in civility WITHIN the factions filing the law suits. It’s like watching some kind of a deranged animal tearing into its own flesh.
If this is the kind of environment some like to spend their time in — and “educate” (?!) their children in — they can and should keep it to themselves.
Here’s hoping that state level governance will continue to make progress in implementing public policy that ensures that NO ONE who would prefer to exit is forced to remain in the degraded spectacle of discord and mismanagement that TUSD has become. For those who continue to desire to engage with it, that is their own misfortune, but a misfortune they should not be allowed to impose on others.
Nancy, the Weekly has a policy of allowing anonymous commenters in most cases, which I agree with. However, their comments are weakened by hiding who is making them.
As a former principal, I know what is expected of an administrator when a “substitute teacher” is in an important class. Also, I know that last minute appeals to administration to change grades seldom prevail (thank God). There is a clearly defined process for appeals which Augie failed to acknowledge or to follow. That process is there because of state law, and also because of the supposedly sacred rule that the teacher knows what he/she is doing and should not be overset in a cavalier manner. Having not attended to the supposedly inadequate curriculum delivery through appropriate supervision during the semester, to jump in at the end and cast aspersions on the teacher is not proper administrative behavior. Also, his most passionate defender, the counselor, was wholly discounted by the investigator because she only knew what Augie told her to say. Too many high school stats have had doubt cast on them to be believable. A high level of skepticism about the wonders at Pueblo were raised and not investigated. Losing track of a master key resulting in a $1 million plus act of vandalism is not a small or trivial matter. Two days suspension over that event was a slap on the wrist. The supervisor of the High Schools Division does not engender respect as he ALWAYS supports the principal and lies about easily investigated matters. That this individual continues in office appalls me, but he’s a good old boy (workout buddy with Sanchez) whose faculty was glad to see him kicked upstairs. This whole incident stinks to high heaven but it is not the stink of racism or hatred of MAS. It is clearly favoritism at the board level which happens far too often over the terms of the board members. I believe the right decision was made.
And by the way, Sixto Molina’s comments at the call to the audience claiming he only found out on graduation day that his son would not graduate is not only ludicrous, but says his kid was hiding the information from. I expected better from a law and order man from South Tucson. A kid’s life is not ruined by “not walking with his class.” Why have the celebration when you haven’t done the work? Systems are in place in each semester and quarter to inform parents when their kid is in grade trouble. A good principal requires from each of his teachers a list of those students in danger of failing at multiple times in the year. If the principal isn’t delegating that task to an assistant principal, he has no business claiming he is too busy. That’s an important job.
Auggie Romero is such a role model to high school students, especially when he gets escorted out of a national conference for violent behavior… Is that what you really think David Safier… This is the principal that Pueblo truly deserves? Would Sabino accept such a violent principal?
https://youtu.be/SuGFWyXnsns
gcb1, thanks for the thoughtful, well reasoned comments. They add important context to the issue.
The closer we look, the more we see.
Three Points:
1.The following is worth having repeated from one of the above comments:
“There are approximately 110-113 teachers assigned to Pueblo. The school has 3 counselors and a large number of support staff. Not a single teacher spear headed any support for Romero. Lots of teachers were recruited to get involved and most choice not to, which is a loud statement in itself. The Romero-support campaign was orchestrated by the school nurse (Kate Straub) and one school counselor (Teresa Toro). Romero himself was involved in developing the support campaign for himself and wrote up all of the words of glory about his so-called accomplishments (most of this was based on his manipulation of numbers pertaining to grades (failures), discipline, scholarships, etc.). Straub and Toro did as each was asked (directed). Counselor Toro shamefully recruited others to attend the meeting such as her sister, who addressed the Board, along with her child. There are no limits to how children can be exploited in Romero’s playbook. All based on lies. ”
This is a case where the principal has abused his power and has engaged his subordinates and his special friend, Adelita Grijalva, in supporting him.
2. To Nancy’s comment: If one works at Pueblo right now, of course it would be professional and personal suicide to identify oneself on this stream of comments. Augustine Romero, besides being crooked as the day is long, is vengeful, and he would do whatever possible to harm the person, as he and his cheering crowd have attempted to hurt the teacher who rightfully complained about his illegal grade changing.
3. I agree that Safier is biased in his writings about TUSD. He does not serve anyone by being the spokesperson for Adelita or Kristel or Auggie or HT Sanchez. His perception is very warped.
He was once a classroom teacher, he should know the law. He was once a classroom teacher and treated as a professional. So, why did he not follow the law? So, why did he not treat Ms. Sotelo as the professional she is, of over 30 years? He did wrong, he admitted it and I’m glad he will not be at Pueblo, the students deserve an ethical leader, not this person who was self-serving and unethical during his time there.