As most everyone knows by now, H.T. Sanchez resigned as TUSD superintendent Tuesday. You can read the official Separation and Release Agreement here. It’s a clean break agreement. No one is admitting guilt on either side. Members of the board can’t speak badly about Sanchez, and Sanchez can’t speak badly about the board. If anyone violates this “non-disparagement” agreement, that person can be sued and, if found guilty, is responsible for paying the damages. That should effectively button lips on both sides. Sanchez gets $200,000 for leaving, which I figure is more-or-less half of what he would get in salary if he stayed until his contract was up.
People in the community will continue to talk about Sanchez, I’m sure, but TUSD is saying, “Let’s move on.” I agree.
What comes next? Unless the board majority has a Plan B with someone already in mind as the next superintendent, the next step is up in the air. So, a few thoughts.
First, I’m folding my hands and praying a secular prayer that the board hires a competent, effective superintendent with as little fussing and fighting as possible. I’m not sure how many great potential superintendents are job hunting right now, but I imagine a number of applicants for the job will be reasonably capable. A great superintendent can move a district forward, usually by small steps, not by leaps and bounds. A bad superintendent can be a drag on the district and bring it down a few notches. A competent, caretaker superintendent can keep things running with a modicum of efficiency and, with a bit of luck, lower the hysteria level just a little. I’ll add that I hope the new superintendent is both confident and cautious. People will be pushing and pulling the Supe from all directions, and the best response, at least in the near future, is to plot a steady course instead of bending with whatever wind is strongest.
Second, I hope the superintendent the district hires is an educator, not a bean counter. Lots of the complaints about Sanchez by his detractors, including the current board majority who voted him out, have to do with misspent money, and those board members may think the best way to solve the problem is to hire a numbers-savvy superintendent who can put the books in apple-pie order and keep them that way. So, they might decide, let’s hire an expert number cruncher, a former CFO, say, who can work together with the district’s financial managers alongside a reconstituted audit committee and straighten out the financial mess they believe the district is in.
The problem is, financial decisions aren’t educational decisions. That’s why we have CFOs, to watch the money. The superintendent’s job is to keep the bigger picture in mind, and the only big picture that really matters is the students and their families. Decisions need to be driven by what’s best for the people the district serves, not by what looks prudent or efficient on a financial spreadsheet.
There’s another real danger if we have a “minding the store” superintendent without a strong educational background. It would create an educational leadership vacuum some board members would be delighted to fill. Board members aren’t qualified to run the district. They hire a superintendent and other administrators to do that. They have decision-making responsibilities. They sometimes suggest directions the district should head. But none of them have the background or the experience or the time spent deep inside the district to know how to run things.
Mark Stegeman, someone who has never worked inside a K-12 school system, has demonstrated a serious lack of humility when it comes to what he knows about education. Rachael Sedgwick, who has some K-12 education experience but not enough to qualify her to run a district, looks like she’s cut from similar cloth. Neither they nor other board members should be allowed to use the district as a plaything to experiment with. “I’ll bet it would be great if we . . . I wonder what would happen if we . . .” A superintendent weak on educational knowledge and skills could allow board members to make foolish decisions for the district.
I really, really want what’s good for TUSD. I hope for the best, but I fear the worst. If the district ends up with some kind of middle ground, some stability in leadership and a reasonable level of respect from the community, at this moment, I’ll consider that a victory.
This article appears in Mar 2-8, 2017.
Blah, blah, blah, more of the same. Whether they want to face it or not, TUSD is TOO BIG!
The district should be divided — using north-south dividing lines so as to ensure community diversity and create separate boards and leadership to better serve their communities.
As far as the original idea of creating TUSD to save money on infrastructure and support services goes, each of the newly created districts could outsource many services at a substantial cost savings and the creation of new businesses to provide transportation services, meals, information technology, facility engineering, custodians, security and on and on would create new jobs for Tucsonans.
There could be no more persuasive proof that the district is beyond hope than the three week long parade of ignorant commentary, public “ambushes” and the shabby spectacles they created, and conspicuous governance bungling that occurred in the weeks leading up to and during the Board meetings on 2/14, 2/21 and 2/28. For those who care about the students in the district and know what this kind of chaos at the governance and administrative levels means for young people unfortunate enough to be caught in these schools, it was quite painful to watch. And in the end it yielded a mutual non-disparagement agreement so the PUBLIC will have no valid information about what has gone wrong with the management of this “PUBLIC” institution? And a $200K pay-out from the taxpayer-fed coffers of this poverty stricken district, where the classrooms cannot be staffed with qualified teachers, students go without textbooks and the sites are in shambles?
That is appalling.
David Safier writes, “…the only big picture that really matters is the students and their families.”
And when, may I ask, during the past 3 and 1/2 years of almost constant damage to the students, teachers, and schools in this district, has the effect of administrative actions on the students and families of TUSD been his priority in choosing what to report? Never. The magnets were starved. He didn’t report. Testing was abused, to the detriment of students, for the benefit of the district’s stats. He didn’t report. Teachers’ 123 and 301 money was kept from them. He made excuses. Board members received campaign contributions from an exec at a company to which substitute teacher labor had been outsourced. He created a distraction by dragging the names of those Board members’ political opponents through the mud.
David Safier writes, “I really, really want what’s good for TUSD.” Yep, I believe that, if he defines “TUSD” as his friends who now constitute the Board minority and the political networks with which they are connected.
If anyone who followed TUSD for the past three weeks believes that a valid, transparent, consensus-building Superintendent recruitment process with appropriate and constructive community participation can be orchestrated by the current Board, they should perhaps be committed to an insane asylum.
Conjugate it: STUDENTS HAVE LEFT, ARE LEAVING, WILL LEAVE. That is what has been, is, and will be good for “students and their families” in Southern Arizona, but not “for TUSD” as David Safier defines it.
Well, you certainly are showing your bias with this op/ed. Stegeman and Sedgwick whom you so glibly disparage were the driving force behind Sanchez’ ouster which is a good thing. They are two reform minded board members who are intelligent and issue driven. The fact that you do not criticize the board members who wanted to make the whole thing about personalities starting with the election last fall tells the story. As a retired TUSD teacher who has seen a parade of superintendents come and go, each one worse than their predecessor I think maybe it’s time that the board listens to Mark Stegeman and does a thorough candidate search and review. The problems with Sanchez could have been prevented it the board hadn’t done such a cursory review of him in the first place.
Why not do some real journalism and report on why HT left?
On the Wednesday Buckmaster snooze fest, it was said that Sanchez did some really bad to get himself axed.
Why dont you find out who he banged / molested / abused?
H.T. was a piece of crap punk bully. He arrived in Tucson accusing us of being bigots to cover for his lack of competence and his hatred for us only grew under the sponsorship of the Grijalva’s.
Good riddance.
Thank you Rachel Sedgwick. You are very brave. But don’t drop your guard. Raul and his daughter are very nasty people.
Everyone is a genius. Split the district. Consolidate the district. Abolish the district. Hire a bean counter. Hire a teacher advocate. Hire Stegeman’s lackey. Hire Grijalvas lackey. Hire a private sector CEO. Hire a retired Air Force colonel or general. I sure hope there is a huge cadre of potential big district administrators out there for all the geniuses to participate in a public selection process. It certainly is no endorsement for potential candidates that you only get two years to do anything on average. I hope they do remember the only reason any of them are there is student success. Period.
If Sanchez was forced to leave for performing poorly, who was responsible for hiring him in the “first place” ??? And the others? And the Others, and others? There’s the problem. Even the search committees and costly consultants cant get it right?
. In 2014, during Superintend SANCHEZ One Year Tenure
. WHAT 2014 TUSD CURRICULUM AUDITORS REPORTED
(http://tusd1.org/contents/Documents/curric…)
TUSD DISTRICT-WIDE and school-based planning was not of sufficient quality to lead the district toward the achievement of intended goals. TUSDs planning process was found to have the minimum characteristics of quality planning.
. INADEQUATE PROGRAM(S) EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT
TUSD DISTRICTS FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING
and budget development and are not driven by curricular goals, strategic priorities.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, ASSESSMENT DATA, AND ALLOCATIONS
are structured in a manner that PREVENTS MEASUREMENT of the cost-effectiveness of program activities and services.
. INADEQUATE POLICY FRAMEWORK
. INADEQUATE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
. INADEQUATE CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT
. INADEQUATE WRITTEN CURRICULUM
. INADEQUATE POLICIES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
. INADEQUATE PLANNING PROCESS
. NADEQUATE PROGRAM(S) EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT
. INADEQUATE COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS
If the auditor got it right, ask them to recommend the next Supe.
Dan R. Anderson:
The problem is the role Hicks is now taking on. That he allowed himself to be talked into cutting a transparency-destroying deal like this is a complete betrayal of the public whose interests he should defend.
Has he forgotten the scorn that the current minority’s network heaped on him surrounding The Daily Show “magic burrito” incident? Has he forgotten that they (including Safier) made his personal bankruptcy an issue in the 2014 Board elections?
Evidently so.
He has become the weak link in the new majority. It is ludicrous that Kristel Foster is kissing the ass of someone who played the role Hicks did in the MAS controversies while trying to frame Sedgwick as a “white supremacist.” How many people buy this grade-school level “mean girl” manipulation, slander and BS? How many people find it hard to recognize the “hook” by means of which the new Board President has been snagged, i.e. his reputed political ambitions on City Council, all of whose members (inappropriately) showed support for Foster in the last election? What he is doing now with his Foster- and Grijalva-supported role as Board President makes no sense unless the reports of his attempt to run for the Ward 4 seat are true.
Sickening.
This district is a LOST CAUSE, and a bad advertisement for democratically governed institutions of education. When an ignorant electorate chooses ignorant and venal leaders who don’t put students’ best interests first and don’t understand the values and professional protocols that should govern public institutions, there is no salvaging the disaster they create. The tragic part of it is that tens of thousands students’ lives and educations get damaged in the process.
Shut it down, break it up, transfer out of it: take your pick. What THE WISE will avoid at all costs is getting their lives or the lives of their children tied up with this tragic farce and the chronically misguided “leaders” who are the principal actors in it.
And I thought that I would be the very last to call for closing TUSD. Well, here I am.
Close TUSD
28. Dr. Estanislado “Stan” Paz 2000-2004
29. Roger Pfeuffer 2004-2008
30. Dr. Elizabeth Celania-Fagen 2008-2010
31. John Carroll, Ed.D., Superintendent-Interim 2010
32. John J. Pedicone, Ph.D., Superintendent 2010-2013
33. Dr. H.T. Snchez, Superintendent 2013-2017
Successful districts are characterized by ten plus years of Superintendency and often 30 plus years of employment within the district. What are people going to do to try and get out of this rut?
If Mr. Safier had followed what was happening in TUSD and in Board meetings under Dr. Sanchez, he would have a very good idea why Dr. Sanchez had to go.
The dishonesty was blatant. The parents’ complaints were ignored.
The day Dr. Sanchez resigned a parent complained in the call to the audience that she was never able to get a 504 for her daughter, who has very dangerous allergies. She called the principal; she even called Dr. Sanchez and got no response and never did get a 504 for her daughter. Her daughter is now in a different school and has the 504 she needed, but never got in her TUSD school.
On March 1st, the Auditor General released their 2 page reports for each Arizona school district. If there is any question about what happened to TUSD under Sanchez, all anyone needs to do is look at the report on TUSD. The 1st page has a variety of full color, easy to understand graphics that compare TUSD to its peer districts. Red is bad.
The second page is a series of graphs showing TUSD’s performance in various areas over 5 years or over 10 years. It’s very clear from the graphs, the direction TUSD was headed in under Dr. Sanchez and the prior Board majority. Thank goodness for Rachel Sedgwick, Michael Hicks and Mark Stegeman!
Ms. Fox:
We have no reason to believe, based on…
A) the shameful, ignorant spectacle Hicks allowed Grijalva and Foster to put on in the Board room where he was presiding on 2/14, again on 2/21, and once again on 2/28
B) the shameful, inexcusably opaque and financially exploitive terms of the Sanchez resignation agreement
…that this district will be trending in the direction of increased transparency and accountability or improved observation of proper professional protocols in the management of public institutions.
Who expects proper management — or a proper Superintendent recruitment process — to arise out of the appalling train wreck we saw in and around those Board meetings last month? The inexcusable “ambush” of Stegeman in the parking lot. The parade of irrelevant and shockingly poorly informed commentary in THREE separate Calls to the Audience and the public bickering on the dais about who and how many would get to speak, a conspicuous and unforgivable mismanaging of the process through which public participation in governance meetings is to take place (which, not coincidentally, managed to deny the Latino plaintiffs’ representative from having her turn at the podium). The incivility of Ms. Foster on the dais and the incivility and lack of self-control of large portions of the audience in the Board room, which Hicks repeatedly found himself unable to put a stop to. The reprehensible and repeated attacks on Ms. Sedgwick as a “white supremacist.” All of it: utterly deplorable. A nightmare.
Perhaps Mr. Hicks will surprise observers of the district in the future. For my part, I don’t believe that it is possible and, after three and a half years of observation, I can no longer stand to watch. I’ve seen enough.
In response to several comments made above, Ms. Sedgewick is a *self proclaimed* white supremacist and publicly admitted her comment.
http://www.kvoa.com/story/34517565/school-…
Mike Hicks doesn’t have respect enough to attempt saying any one person’s name correctly, even when pronounced for his benefit. He’s lackadaisical and poorly equipped for leadership.
Think: The Big Lebowski.
Yeah, well, you know, thats just, like, your opinion, man. The Dude
or:
This is a very complicated case Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous.
The Dude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATGvkbl4g…
http://tusd1.org/contents/govboard/gbvideo…
This is how the most recent manufactured Sedgwick scandal looks to those who’ve read and heard the public commentary and know the affiliations of the various parties involved:
Sedgwick was badgered into making a facetious remark during a meeting requested by a constituent who had worked for one of her political opponent’s campaigns. The meeting was recorded without Ms. Sedgwick’s knowledge or permission. A quote from the meeting taken out of context and misinterpreted was then used to drag Sedgwick through the mud. She is not a white supremacist. The charge seems to have been something deliberately cooked up to try to discredit her in a context where her opponents do not want her to be effective on the Board or in the community. Some of the many parties in TUSD who are trying to help improve services to minority students (the African American plaintiffs’ representative in the desegregation case, parents at Utterback advocating for better conditions) have spoken in support of Ms. Sedgwick’s leadership and with gratitude for her support of their efforts.
RE Hicks:
Constituents have a right to ask that, as Board President, he run Board meetings in such a way that they do not devolve into circuses like the 2/14, 2/21, and 2/28 meetings did. They have a right to ask that he and the other members of the new majority not vote in support of agreements that destroy the public’s ability to have a clear understanding of what has gone on in this “public” district. They have a right to ask that the majority not vote in support of a $200K payout when a Superintendent resigns. But focusing on Mr. Hicks’ personal characteristics rather than his governance decisions is not, in my humble opinion, the right approach to discussing the quality of his leadership as an elected official.
Is it really impossible for constituents in this district to focus on WHAT REALLY MATTERS? For example:
–could they focus on whether the Superintendent can apply Title 1 and desegregation funds in such a way that the targeted populations are benefited, which is highly relevant to assessing his performance, and not on whether or not he is popular or charming?
–could they focus on whether or not the Board President runs meetings properly and negotiates deals that benefit students in the district, and not on whether he has a speech impediment?
The answer in TUSD is “apparently not.” Many in the constituency will not interpret what is happening accurately and will not focus on what really matters. They will be manipulated and distracted and entertained by the political operatives connected with the network that feeds on the district, but the majority of those who vote in elections will not understand which candidates are well equipped to provide quality leadership of a public institution.
More’s the pity.
La Raza and white supremacy is all that is left of a once great school district. It can’t be saved. Shut it down.