I’ve been off for the past few weeks, but the world of education decided to continue turning in my absence, and TUSD is no exception. So here’s a quick catch-up on TUSD-related events and decisions: The Good, the Bad and the Arrogant.
TUSD decided to rework its student code of conduct. It’s a good idea, especially if, as Superintendent Sanchez said, “The student code of conduct as it exists now is templated off of the penal code and speaks to student disciplinary actions as a law enforcement officer would.” That’s school-to-prison pipeline territory, and it needs to change. Helping students has to take priority over punishing them. Hiring consultant Jim Freeman looks like a good move, especially if he’s as capable and experienced as his resume suggests. He should bring a wide variety of possible approaches with him, which he can mix and match to create a disciplinary policy best suited to TUSD students. I don’t see how the district, or any district, has enough in-house knowledge and expertise to do the job itself. If Freeman comes through with an improved new disciplinary policy, it will be $35,000 well spent. [Note: a just-published study on suspensions in California schools maintains that lowering district suspension rates correlates with higher district achievement.]
The approval of a plan to change the student makeup of five schools, mainly adding middle school grades, is a mixed bag. The big question is how the move will impact the district’s desegregation status, which is why it has to be approved by the courts before it’s put into action. Overall, the plan is a good idea if it’s anywhere from neutral to moderately positive in its effect of the district’s racial and ethnic mix. As central as the deseg plan is to nearly every important decision TUSD makes, a district’s mission is to provide the best education possible for its students, and if the changes increase the quality of education for the students attending those schools—and if it also encourages some parents to leave their children in TUSD rather than fleeing to charters or neighboring districts—those are good things regardless of whether they further the deseg cause. It’s worth noting that the board was unanimous in its approval of all the changes except for the plans at Sabino High, which were opposed by Michael Hicks and Mark Stegeman. We haven’t seen lots of unanimous board votes on important issues lately.
The controversies over TUSD’s magnet schools, which haven’t succeeding at their deseg missions, have moved in a positive direction with an agreement between the district and some of the plaintiffs in the deseg lawsuit. More money will be flowing to the magnet schools, recruiting efforts outside of the schools’ neighborhoods are supposed to be stepped up, and permanent teachers are supposed to take over the classrooms which have been taught by long term substitutes. But the longstanding problems with the magnet schools, some of which will be addressed, show that the district has dropped the ball for years. And even with the positive changes, Sanchez, the board majority and their supporters in the magnet school communities continue to partake in mind-boggling doublespeak when they say the schools should be able to keep their deseg funding even if they continue to have Hispanic student populations far above the 70% maximum required by the court-ordered deseg plans. Magnet schools are called “magnets” because their unique programs are supposed to draw a wider variety of students from beyond the neighborhood. Any school that doesn’t succeed at that is a failed “magnet” school, even if its program is a success with the students who attend. Call it a “specialty” school if you want, but not a “magnet.” The district and parents have every right to believe a “specialty” school which enriches the educations of neighborhood students is a terrific idea, that it doesn’t need to have a diverse student population to be valuable for its students, but they lose the right to call it a “magnet” school worthy of deseg funding if it doesn’t try to attract students from outside the neighborhood and isn’t interested in desegregation.
Finally, the addition of people to the district’s Audit Committee who have family members working for the district is an unnecessary, unforced error that harms the district’s credibility and reinforces Sanchez’s reputation for arrogance—which, unfortunately, is a reputation he has earned through some of his behavior and actions. The Audit Committee has been a source of contention in the district for some time. Back in April, two of its members were kicked off because they live out of district, a move that was viewed by some as an attempt to defang the committee—and they were almost certainly right. With that background, new appointments to the committee should have been done with an eye to keeping them squeaky clean and independent. Instead, people with connections to the district filled the empty slots, which looks a whole lot like stacking the committee with friendly members. And Sanchez’s justification for the move, saying connections with the district won’t make their decisions less independent, is absurd. Any votes they make about possible financial improprieties which favor the district would automatically seem tainted. Last week, two of the new members left the committee, which was the right thing to do. They shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
(A note to Sanchez haters: If the last two items have you crowing that I’ve joined your ranks, that I’ve finally seen the light and realize that Sanchez is a terrible superintendent, you should stop crowing. I see weaknesses in him, as I do in all leaders—and in all human beings—but pointing out his flaws doesn’t amount to a general condemnation of him or his tenure as superintendent. I believe he has done, and continues to do, a reasonably good job. My concern is that his tendency to be arrogant, to always want to be right, to always want to be the smartest guy in the room, lowers his effectiveness as superintendent, especially in a place like Tucson which painted a bullseye on TUSD long ago and is always looking for problems to spotlight. A bit more humility from Sanchez would go a long way. He should be more willing to admit when he’s made a wrong decision and more willing to share credit with others, even (especially) people he is at odds with. I’m aware that arrogance is a common trait shared by people who seek to put themselves in positions of power. It’s part of why they think they deserve to be in such lofty positions. But as a fellow English teacher, Sanchez, I’m sure, is well acquainted with the bad things that happen to people in Greek tragedies who are burdened with an overabundance of hubris. The Old Testament backs up the ancient Greeks on that count. As it says in Proverbs, Pride goeth before the fall. Sanchez should take both admonitions to heart.)
This article appears in Nov 19-25, 2015.
Your biggest mistake is that nobody painted a bullseye on TUSD EXCEPT TUSD. Nobody has to look for problems to spotlight. They spotlight themselves because most of them defy explanation. Bureaucratic cronyism is what collapsed TUSD.
Let it fall. Could be that nobody would hear it.
I don’t see any mention of Judge Bury’s November 19 ruling, David.
Do you consider it significant that the court overseeing the desegregation order has as much as said that the massive correspondence it has received from disgruntled TUSD parents seems to indicate that parties inside TUSD have been spreading misinformation about the desegregation case in the parent community?
How about this: that the Special Master will now be sending copies of all court orders to Adelita Grijalva, “to keep her fully informed regarding the progress of this case” and that the Special Master will “ensure that the TUSD website continues to include all substantive orders issued by the Court.” What could be the purpose of these orders issued by a federal judge, other than to prevent the district’s continuing to spread misinformation?
Anyone who would like to read the judge’s ruling and Sylvia Campoy’s commentary on it can find them both here:
http://threesonorans.com/2015/11/20/federal-judge-issues-order-public-has-been-misled-by-tusd-on-deseg-and-adelita-grijalva-needs-to-get-her-facts-straight/
I agree with you about the Magnet Schools and the Audit Committee. But I don’t agree with you about Sanchez, Adelita Grijalva, and whether or not the institutional culture of TUSD is salvageable. It is not. A public school district where the governing board majority and Superintendent actively collaborate to spread misinformation in the community about the court and its agents and where they try to lead the community against integration is not salvageable or justifiable, at least not under its current leadership.
The proposed school expansion plan, in your opinion, is good “if it also encourages some parents to leave their children in TUSD rather than fleeing to charters or neighboring districts.” On the contrary: the more people pull children out of TUSD and transfer them to responsible schools systems that are not addicted to the practice of lying to their constituents, the better off those children, the cause of social justice, and the Tucson community as a whole will be.
Unfortunately, some children will inevitably be left behind in this corrupt district. I urge anyone who cares about their wellbeing to work to defeat Foster and Juarez (and any other Adelita-Grijalva-backed candidates) in the next board election.
Tucson is a relatively poor city and TUSD has yet to convince voters that it deserves a robust infusion of additional revenue via bonding or overrides. A salary and benefits package for this superintendent ranging from $250,000-$300,000 might be in line with other large districts. But stating “I believe he has done, and continues to do, a reasonably good job” is faint and damning praise. The Tucsonans who are struggling to make ends meet on poverty level incomes, expect more than a reasonably good job – they expect to see the district turned around.
Without a proven, experienced administrator supported by a competent, non-partisan school board, TUSD will continue to be an educational backwater and revolving door for would be school improvement journeymen.
Rick, can you explain to me why “Tucson is a relatively poor city,” and what can we do to change it? I personally see charter trade schools for blue collar students as one way to provide what Tucsonans need and want. Education alone will not improve the economics of Tucson. There is something fundamentally wrong at the root of this problem.
I’ll be darned if I can figure it out. And yet the public school upper management and the City and County heads make as much as anywhere in the country. That does not reflect the community at large. And I must add that very few problems are solved.
What gives? It’s time for an open an honest discussion about how to change Tucson for the better because politics is not getting it done.
Tucson will remain poor until there is a realization that the basic industries are necessary to lift the wages of the average person. This includes mining projects such as Rosemont. For each directly employed person, nearly two other full-time jobs are created to support such operations.
The whiners suggest that inasmuch as the owner, HudBay, is a Canadian company, we are giving away resources. This is a red herring. The vast majority of the income from the sale of the copper stays here in the US as “cost of production.”
Hopefully, someday our “Obama-led” politicians will think for themselves and do something for Arizona by supporting the responsible exploitation of our natural resources.
Bisbee boy, I watched a news story this morning naming 5 countries that are on the verge of economic collapse due to oil prices. They claim citizens are about to riot. We have increased our production and cut consumption, but now it’s destroying other countries’ economic viability. Just like all the global warming kooks, they never stopped to consider the unintended consequences.
They can’t all live in the USA. This immigration system is about to be overwhelmed and nobody is doing a thing. It will be the second coming of the baby boom that will bankrupt the social strategies of the 40s.
Bisbee Boy, Tucson is rich in businesses that directly support the mining industry (Modular Mining and many others). That’s a good thing and those businesses employ thousands of highly paid professionals. To suggest Rosemont Mine will be a godsend to the local economy flies in the face of reality; copper prices are down and the major importer, China, is in an economic tailspin. The market is simply not there. In a boom and bust business, copper mining is now officially in a bust cycle with miners being laid off here and Hudbay’s stock down below $5 from a five year high of $20. You really want to bet on that nag for the economic well being of Southern Arizona?
Rat, the biggest obstacle to Tucson gaining traction and building a solid base of business is, in my view, the crony capitalism, nepotism and garden variety idiocy we see each year evidenced by the Grand Canyon University fiasco and the latest brouhaha with TUSD naming family of board members to the internal audit committee. Throw in your favorite, be it Rio Nevero or the palatial new digs for the Regional Transport Authority. My favorite is a state issue, the legislature’s absolute head in the sand approach to film production in one of the most scenic states in the union. So, locally we have Democratic rule that will find the way to screw the pooch at every opportunity and statewide we have Republicans who will always ignore the twenty dollar bill laying in front of them to chase a nickel rolling down the street.
Any discussion of school improvement strategies for TUSD is moot until the deadwood is removed from the board and administration. Perhaps as a result funding levels can be increased to provide teachers with a wage consistent with the critical role they could provide for the city’s future. Until that happens parents will continue to pull their kids out of the district and UA graduates will continue to flee the city for greener climates.
Well said, Rick.
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
That IS a very interesting point. It may take, or it will take a change of political party to put a halt to that.
This city desperately needs to move forward. We are stuck on stupid because we allow the very same people to stay in office too long.
Rat, I tend to agree with your comment except for one pertinent point, the local Republicans are a bizarre lot and I wonder what they would do and who they would favor if they ever were elected to a majority position.
Kind of like the dog that finally catches the car it’s been chasing.
It’s quite possible that if the City elections were fixed per the 9th Circuit Court ruling that candidates that have stood in the shadows may step forward. I see a couple at the County level that have become encouraged after the failing of the “old guard” on the bonds.
Change just may be coming. We can hope can’t we?
“But as a fellow English teacher, Sanchez, I’m sure, is well acquainted with the bad things that happen to people in Greek tragedies who are burdened with an overabundance of hubris. The Old Testament backs up the ancient Greeks on that count. As it says in Proverbs, Pride goeth before the fall.”
So, David, in both literature and life, what usually happens to people like this…and those around them? Answer the question honestly. Doing so may cause you to reassess your view of the TUSD superintendent’s job performance and his future prospects.
To be fair, it’s a certainty that Sanchez will stick around until at least the November, 2016 general election results. Bet on the fact, however, that he will be out of here faster than butter on a hot skillet if he loses his Board majority and TUSD voters turn down the bond he’ll ask to be on the ballot at the same time. Given the widespread distaste for how he and his minions are running things at 1010 and his own tendency to self-destruct through increasing self-absorption, my money’s on HT being back in Texas by early 2017.
In response to Rick’s comments: True, no one business or project will pull Tucson out of its seemingly perpetual economic doldrums, but each new business or project, such as Rosemont, is important.
Natural resource companies do not live on the current price of their commodities nor their momentary share price, as you suggest. These companies enter into projects fully aware that the business is cyclical. Hudbay needs to replace resources mined elsewhere to remain in the game. There is much to the long-term strategy of resource companies that is not obvious.
Importantly, southern Arizona holds many more potentially viable copper deposits and it is my hope that more will be developed over time, to add to the economic strength of our state.
Here and elsewhere in TW comment streams, there are excellent questions not being answered by those to whom they are posed.
How about it David: could you answer the question asked above, “in both literature and life, what usually happens to people like this…and those around them?” For the well-read, the question answers itself, but it would still be interesting to read your response, if you’re willing to provide one.
Should the Grijalvas be advised that if they expect to retain any shred of credibility as “progressives” in this town, they should give up on Sanchez and encourage him to look for work in some other unfortunate school district? This struggling district has already suffered for over two years now with ongoing damage at levels that it cannot reasonably continue to sustain, while limping through the delivery of “education” to so many of our students. Some of us would prefer not to wait around until November of 2016 or early 2017 for a change in leadership.
I am now confused between the Grijalvas and the Progressives. I thought the Grijalvas are Progressives. What is the difference? It doesn’t seem like any progress is being made. Thus the name?
Rat T:
Sanchez appears not to be a progressive. Some say he was brought into town to help TUSD negotiate with his kind in the AZ legislature.
The Grijalvas are supposedly “progressives,” but in backing Sanchez 100% they have supported all sorts of things that run contrary to the progressive agenda, including, most recently, defending and justifying TUSD’s ongoing failure to properly support and integrate its magnet schools and engaging in open (and expensive) conflicts with the Special Master and courts overseeing the deseg order.
No progress of the right kind has been made in TUSD for the past two years, nor will it be made until, as Rick Spanier said, there is change in the board majority and top-level administration in TUSD.
Well now I’m really confused, as it appears there are 3 sides.
1. Progressives
2. The Grijalvas
3.his kind in the state legislature
We were told in 1989 that the only way our child could attend a GATE program was if that improved the racial imbalance. There were no other qualifiers. Back then parents referred to it as a second layer of “Busing for equality.” We chose not to be a pawn in a governmental bureaucratic nightmare.
Twenty six years ago. Absolutely nothing has changed.
There are at least 4 parties active in TUSD’s current controversies and here are best guesses about their motives:
1. the true progressives – want to see social justice done and kids’ educational needs met
2. the Grijalvas – want as much money automatically flowing into the district from taxes as possible with as little oversight, transparency and accountability as possible in how that money is applied once it reaches TUSD – don’t seem to believe in integration or be willing to fund programs that will achieve it, except in a few isolated cases where it serves their agenda (e.g. UHS)
3. the state legislature majority and our governor – want to cripple public education and increase tax funds flowing into for-profit charters and privates – want corporations and private interests calling the shots in how Americans are educated
4. Sanchez – in it to build his own resume. In every possible way he milks the district for what make his own performance stats look good so he can talk someone into giving him his next job “up” a level in the ladder he is trying to climb. He’ll be out of here the very moment that he gets a better offer and thanking his lucky stars to shake the Tucson dust off his Texan feet.
So the children really are LAST. Close TUSD.
We’d be better off if we had real progressives on the TUSD board rather than fake progressives. Vote for Betts Putnam-Hidalgo.
Head Supt. Sanchez is probably looking for an escape hatch already; won’t be surprised when news breaks that he’s applying for jobs elsewhere. Then, the same old leadership crisis starts all over again. If, as many continue to declare, the better reality is to close TUSD, or break it up into smaller districts, then we will have more school boards, more head superintendents, more override elections, and more imbalance as better schools will be found in the richer areas of the city. How such a break up could legally take place is difficult to imagine, much less plan successfully.