Bill Buckmaster went and did it. On his Aug. 10 radio show, Bill asked his guest, Doug Ducey, “What is the next step for getting more money into the classrooms?” In the next few minutes, Ducey, employing his usual word-salad-sprayed-through-a-garden-hose style of answering questions, said lots of things about improving education but never said a word about increasing funding. What we were pretty sure we knew about Ducey’s position since the beginning of our “Next Step” Watch is now official. No. New. Money.
Here’s some of what Ducey said, with commentary.
•”[Prop 123] put additional resources into K-12.”
Well, yes and no. True, there’s more money flowing into schools courtesy of Prop 123, but calling it “additional resources” is heavy-duty political spin. This isn’t additional funding, it’s giving the schools part of what the legislature withheld illegally starting in 2009. We don’t pat bank robbers on the back for returning the money they stole, do we? And we don’t say the bank has “additional resources” when it gets its money back.
•”I want to see our teachers better rewarded.”
Great. I assume “better rewarded” means higher salaries, though I have to admit, it’s dangerous to make assumptions. Maybe Ducey wants to pass out “Good Job!” medals that teachers can wear with pride as they try to figure out how to pay their rents and mortgages and put food on their family tables. But beyond Prop 123, which raised our teacher salaries a bit, where will we get more money to make our salary schedules competitive with other states?
•”I want to see results and outcomes that come from additional resources.”
So. If Ducey doesn’t see enough “results and outcomes” from the “additional” Prop 123 funding, he’s not likely to give schools more money. And if he sees strong “results and outcomes,” that means we don’t need any more money, right? Brilliant! Ducey’s “No more money” argument wins either way.
•”I’ve talked with the education organizations and the constituency that we’ve built to pass 123 . . .”
OK, you’ve talked with them, but have you listened? Every education organization and many of the people who worked to pass Prop 123 say our schools need more money. They worked with you to pass Prop 123. It’s time for you to work with them.
•”What are we going to do in terms of classroom funding? We’ve got an initiative called ‘Classrooms First’ looking at how these funds flow and how we get more effectiveness out of the $10 billion that’s already flowing into K-12.”
Ah, yes, Classrooms First, with a voting majority looking for ways to shift existing money towards charter schools and districts in high rent areas.
“These,” Ducey said, “are the next steps in terms of K-12 education.”
Ducey’s answers to Bill Buckmaster’s question is as clear as it can be. No. New. Money.
We have an election coming up where voters have a choice between “No more money for education” and “More money for education” candidates. Everyone running for office should be asked, “Which side are you on?” Then voters can show which side they’re on by the way they mark their ballots.
This article appears in Aug 11-17, 2016.
This reads like Ducey won’t talk to you so you kind of do a Jimmy Stewart routine with Ducey being your Harvey…the 8 foot rabbit.
Good idea. (Vote for candidates who can create a new majority on public ed funding.) Much better than the pointless “Next Steps Watch.” No one who understands the lay of the land in this state has ever thought there would be a next step coming from Ducey, as commenters on this inane series of blog pieces have repeatedly remarked.
At some point, you might want to acknowledge that perpetually begging for more gas for the car when you refuse to advocate for plugging the leaks in the pipeline getting gas from the tank to the engine isn’t confidence-inspiring. (Translation: start advocating that the TUSD Board demand transparency, promise fulfillment, honesty and student-focused applications of funds from their CEO. Then you can once again beg for more money for them, as you did in the run-up to the Prop 123 election. (No, we haven’t forgotten your role in that….)
Why would anyone who voted no on 123 be surprised? I hate to be in the position of saying “I told you so,” David, but anyone who has lived in AZ for more than 30 years, and I am at more than 50 years here, knows that the current majority refuses to fund education properly in our state. I knew the governor and the legislative majority could not be trusted, let alone the school boards, and I will vote accordingly in November. Didn’t 301 teach you a proper lesson?
Q. You know how to tell when Governor Ducey is lying?
A. His lips are moving.
An old joke, but after so many examples of Ducey duplicity, it isn’t funny anymore.
But the incompetent, ignorant conservatives continue to support Ducey and the GOP. Not understanding they are undermining the state, losing jobs because of uneducated kids. Naw they don’t get it. Its all about voting for a party of doing nothing, except taking away from the citizens and power from the communities. All the bills Ducey signs are taking away communities power. He is the Putin now in AZ. Donald Trump keeps saying me/I. like Ducey does. The GOP belief is if people are uneducated and ignorant they will get votes.
When will they actually work to make AZ better, we have trashed streets and roads with plastic bags/bottle and cans. They are against a clean AZ state. Prefer to waste millions annually picking up all that trash. People do notice to, Ducey
And Martha McSally sponsored and got passed in Congress a bill taking away funds for the military bands and choirs. She is against the military. So many American enjoy the bands and choirs but no more, McSally took that away. But does she tell the voter what she done. NO WAY. Her only mission is like other Republiicans. destroy America and its way of life. Well with Donald backing her up she may just get her way
gcb1, let me refer you to two posts I wrote three weeks before the Prop 123 election. If you just read the first few paragraphs of each post, I think you’ll understand where I’m coming from and realize that your “I told you so” is unnecessary. I knew what Ducey’s Next Step meant back then. If you read further, you’ll see why I still voted for Prop 123 (I know we disagree on that, but it states why I thought a Yes vote was the better of two bad options), and you’ll find out exactly how much I trust Doug Ducey.
“Translating Prop 123 Ducey-Speak: “It’s a First Step”” http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archi…
“Prop 123 is a “First Step”? Let’s Pretend “First Step” Means What Ducey Wants Us to Think It Means.” http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archi…
David, your language in promoting 123 was misleading (“restore” 70% of the lost funding, which was not what the Prop did), just as the language TUSD used to promote it was misleading.
What is the point of this “next step watch,” if you didn’t believe, like the rest of the unbelievably naive coalition of people who shouldn’t have been promoting Prop 123 but did promote it, that your sell-out could then be used to secure more funds in a “next step”?
You and the rest of this crew — including, sadly, far too many members of the PCDP establishment, though the county party took the right position — have demonstrated very clearly that you should not be believed, you should not be followed. You are not fit to lead on this or on other issues, including what to think of TUSD’s current leadership.
votesmartamerica? Even Politico supported her bill along with Democratic sponsor. We were spending one half a billion dollars on bands to play for generals and travel.
Lawmakers who have been advocating for reducing the size and cost of military bands — now a half-billion-dollar a year enterprise — won a key victory Thursday with passage of a provision that would bar funding for “musical units” to play at dinners, dances or social events.
The provision, the handiwork of Rep. Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel, would ensure funds are not spent on “entertaining generals, dignitaries and elected officials, all the different type of things that have nothing to do with appropriate military ceremonies” but reserved for ceremonial tasks such as funerals.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/military-bands-cut-back-house-224450#ixzz4Hc4Ss6NW
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Thank you Martha.
I also disagreed with you David on the yes vote. I voted no hoping that the State Treasurer or the Legislature might take it up again. I did not agree with the ransom of already voted upon funds. Nor did I trust the constitutional changes and spending caps that were slid into the deal.
However now that it passed and we have an election coming up in which all of the state legislature seats are up for grabs, I would urge fellow voters and citizens to replace ALL of those who helped put Prop 123 on the ballot. Even if they currently claim to stand on the side of education, they helped craft or support that funding limit nightmare in some way.
I agree that Ducey has painted a clear picture in his statement about waiting for results and outcomes. I feel you are correct that no more funds will be given. Either the positive results will be “enough” and a job well done or negative results will be read as “funding makes no postive impact”. Therefore either way he can craft an argument for stiffling funding to public education.
Ducey is Lucy and Prop 123 was the football.
Military bands?!?!? Research how many different military bands there are and how much Is spent
on them a year. A billion a year for “bands”. If true about McSally, good for her. I finally agree with her on one thing. Doesn’t mean she should be re-elected though. And dear Sg, you are correct Ducey is lying when his lips move. And he has a big supporting cast of ex house speakers. Hopefully Biggs loses the primary. Oh rats, that means he would get a job with Ducey’s ex speakers job service. Maybe Children’s Health care director In his 1984 world, right Regina Cobb?
Douchey only looks at the bottom line, what he and his cohorts can make on any deal — get them out!
David, I see your point after re-reading those two posts. I really do hate to be in the position of saying I told you so about the outcome of 123, especially in TUSD. I did my best to publicize the multiple viewpoints about the likely outcomes of passage. I am not in the least surprised by Ducey’s position today. Let’s hope between the primary and the general election there will be a large sweep of the AZ Legislature.
GCB1:
You have to read the entirety of what Safier wrote, in sequence, in the weeks leading up to the passage of 123 to understand what his role was. Selectively dipping into the passages he recommends reading in specific pieces he’s selected for you will not give you the whole picture.
The way he manipulated you in selecting certain passages for you to read — out of the context in which they appeared within the frame of the weeks preceding the vote on 123 — is like the method he used in writing about the proposition once the incorrect decision was made that the proposition, bad as it was, had to be promoted to the electorate: then we heard that it would “give 70% of the missing funding back” to the schools (inaccurate) and not much about the triggers, cap on spending for education, or unsustainable rates of distribution from the land trust.
Worse than Safier’s behavior with 123 is his ongoing role vis a vis TUSD. He is not honest. He is a tool of the machine, whose conscience seems, if you read his coverage of the district for the past three years and compare what he writes with what is actually going on in the schools, to have been co-opted by the lying politicians with whom he fraternizes. He persuades some people who have no direct link to the schools to go along with his way of thinking about the district. The fact that people like him influence public opinion and voting behaviors is a large part of the reason why the correct decision, from a parent perspective, is to continue removing students from these schools: the district is not an educational institution. It is a tool of a political machine where decisions will be made by people who are placing the needs of self-interested administrators and the needs of their network of cronies above the needs of children enrolled in the schools and the need to be honest with the public about what ACTUAL conditions and problems are.
You seem to play a game of “catch me if you can,” appearing now on one side and now on the other of the TUSD Board majority fence. Have you in recent weeks received enough persuasion / courting from the powers-that-be to give up your pout about how 123 funds were allocated? Is it time to get back behind your former friends in the months leading up to the election? If so, it will be another sad but TUSD-typical betrayal of the best interests of the children in these “schools.”