Mark Stegeman doesn’t want school closures to be an election issue. “Nothing to see here, folks, move along,” he wrote Tuesday as part of a Q&A to the people on his email list. Well, that’s not exactly what he wrote. Here’s the passage in the email.
Are school closures on anyone’s agenda?
No one was even discussing closures until a few weeks ago. This ghost issue was apparently created for the election and will fade in a week, as quickly as it appeared. It is an artfully timed distraction from TUSD’s genuine problems.
An “artfully timed distraction,” not “on anyone’s agenda”? I can understand why Stegeman might want voters to believe that. His campaign is built around spotlighting problems in TUSD and the board majority he holds responsible. School closures are a sticky issue for him. While he’s been on the board, 20 schools have closed. If you look at his statements about further closures, you’ll find out he’s against them, except for what he calls “isolated further closures”—oh, and except for high schools where he wants to “study the potential costs and benefits of high school consolidation.” Stegeman was for school closures before he was against school closures at the same time he’s for school closures, or something like that. His stand is wildly inconsistent. No wonder he wants to convince people it’s a non-issue, so he can go back to his aggrieved minority position. It’s easier to ask hard questions of others than to answer hard questions about school closures himself.
Contrary to what Stegeman asserts, school closures are a genuine, relevant issue in the board election. The newly elected board members will serve four years, through 2020, and school closures will almost certainly be on the agenda at some point during their tenure. Four years is a long time. We’re likely to see changes in population density, the ethnic makeup of the community and overall student enrollment, which means the board will be called on to consider how best to utilize school buildings and whether some of them should be closed. If TUSD history is a guide, the new board will probably find itself hiring a new superintendent. Each candidate for the job is likely to be asked the school closure question, and board members will have to weigh the answers. Voters have a right to know where candidates stand on this very real issue.
Voters should also consider whether they think a $35,000 effort to oust Cam Juarez and Kristel Foster by the independent expenditure committee, TUSD Kids First, is an attempt to come up with a more closure-friendly board. I don’t remember any TUSD board election with anything near $35,000 thrown at it. It’s reasonable to ask why five business people would spend between $3,300 and $8,000 apiece to change the board majority. It’s especially reasonable to ask why Kathleen and James Campbell, the owners of a home building company which has bid unsuccessfully to purchase three closed school sites, would spend a total of $10,000 on the campaign—$8,000 on TKF and another $1,000 each for candidates Mark Stegeman and Brett Rustand—wonder whether a board favoring school closures would open up land in prime housing areas for them to build on.
Board candidates’ positions on future school closures aren’t the only issue in the election. It may not even be the most important issue. But regardless of what Stegeman says, it’s a real issue for voters to consider.
This article appears in Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2016.
Afraid of TUSD closures? No me. I’ve been calling for that for 10 years.
“We’re likely to see changes in population density, the ethnic makeup of the community and overall student enrollment…”
Yes we will.
So why wouldn’t school closures and re-alignment to the market be absolutely appropriate, the right thing to do?
Wish I knew this earlier.
Wish I also knew why Democrats support charter schools, such as the Democrats on the Industrial Development Authority for the County of Pima who vote in favor of bonds to fund charter schools?
Follow the money Raquel. Follow the money. Have you seen what the Clintons do?
We will witness expansion of Progressive Charter Schools to be used to indoctrinate those unsuspecting parents fleeing the public schools. They will try to ensnare you in their greed and profit motivations.
If the Clintons accuse somebody of something…it is exactly what they have been doing. Just listen to the FBI and Wikileaks.
It’s not the Russians.
Safier has no idea “why five business people would spend between $3,300 and $8,000 apiece to change the board majority.”
That’s because he’s doesn’t have, and has never had, children enrolled in TUSD schools. The thing is, Safier, some people, when they see mismanagement and malfeasance, are motivated to use the resources available to them to try to change conditions for the better. Some people realize that the damage to the community at large is huge when an incompetent and dishonest Superintendent in a district serving close to 50,000 students engages in lying to the public, installing improper bidding processes and improper audit processes, permitting improper hiring processes, constantly mis-applying funds and implementing bad policies that damage the education of the district’s students while the incompetent Board members Foster and Juarez smile and nod and rubber stamp disastrous decision after disastrous decision and keep giving the conspicuously bad Superintendent gold stars and more money. (MUCH, MUCH more money — money taken out of the pockets of primarily low-SES taxpayers supposedly for the education of their children, money that should be applied in the district’s sadly underfunded schools to pay its sadly under-compensated TEACHERS.)
David Safier: Why do you comment on a PUBLIC school district that manages the education and college application processes of thousands of our local students every year? Where did your son go to high school? To college? In public institutions? If not, what gives you the authority to comment on a district where other people’s children’s educations are being damaged by poor governance and poor administrative leadership?
Your commentary on TUSD — and on public education in general — is ill-informed about actual conditions in Southern Arizona schools and worse than worthless: its value is not zero, but negative. It adds more lies and more EXCUSES FOR THE INEXCUSABLE to a dialogue that is already thick with them. It makes the local conversation about education, a critically important subject, less trustworthy, less able to accomplish what really needs to be accomplished.
We can’t make the case for increased funding to the populace or to the legislature when we have the ugly, malfeasant example of TUSD sitting in the middle of the local public education scene. Tens of thousands of people locally see what it is and compare what it is to what people like you say about it. It destroys your credibility, the credibility of the political party with which you affiliate, and the case for support of the institutions that party should defend. (A proper defense of their validity would include requiring them to function well and meet students’ needs, but you can’t and won’t ask that of them. You took the escape hatch from public institutions yourself, but you’re very well satisified for other people’s children to be schooled in institutions that benefit your political cronies, and let the actual quality of education delivered in those institutions be damned.)
Why do some Democrats support charters? Look at Safier’s commentary, and the commentary of other so-called Democrats who have defended and benefited from malfeasant and low performing districts in Newark, Chicago, and elsewhere. That answers the question pretty well.
And as for school closures: the issue is related to how well the schools are being managed. If you get rid of malfeasance and mismanagement, you decrease the likelihood of additional closures, for obvious reasons.
Why do the signs say “Foster + Juarez = Closed Schools”? Gee, I wonder. Could it be because anyone who has watched their actions in office for the last three years realizes that they are completely incapable, as members of a three-person majority led by Adelita Grijlava, of saying no to malfeasance and mismanagement?
Hey, David, did you see the nice piece in the Star about propaganda?
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/column/guest/robert-hertzog-propaganda-in-political-campaigns/article_58af94e8-7d79-50e0-9ed8-58d2d0fada6e.html
“Propagandists will gladly tell the truth, if truth serves their purpose. If the truth does not serve their purpose, a propagandist will happily, and without the slightest compunction, LIE. The only thing that matters to propagandists is accomplishing their purpose.”
If the shoe fits, wear it.
No doubt David is reveling these days in that cozy, warm feeling of camaraderie produced among confreres when they are UNDER SIEGE.
Imagine them in their trenches, huddling together, stoking one another’s feelings of (un)righteous indignation and feeding each other lines to use as they try to keep the barbarian hordes from overrunning their lines of defense: David, Adelita, Kristel, Cam, Ann-Eve, HT and various seasoned campaigners and hangers-on:
Ann-Eve: “Let’s turn the attention on Stegeman. I’ve disparaged him so much through the years that no one who likes me, likes him. And EVERYONE likes me. How about this? Signs all over town that say ‘STOP STEGEMAN NOW.’ We’ll put them on every corner where the ‘Change the Board signs are.'”
Kristel: “Let’s try the ‘our enemies are evil capitalists’ line. Make it about business interests trying to make a buck. Democrats always fall for that. No one will notice Cam and I have been actively undermining the interests of labor from day 1 in office. Or that we’ve improperly received donations from the for-profit company that manages outsourced substitute labor in TUSD.”
David: “I think I can spin that one pretty well. I’m pretty good at that kind of thing.”
HT: “Are there any gullible, unattractive middle-aged ladies I need to win over with my special brand of ‘Aw shucks, I’m so GOOD, just such a GOOD man’ charm?’ That always works for me, but I won’t say who with.” (And he wouldn’t say “with whom”, either — it’s beyond his capacity.)
Adelita: “Daddy will have some of his friends donate and that will pay for the signs we need to put up, since we have so little grass roots support behind my two puppets this time.”
Enjoy it while it lasts, David. This particular party’s almost over.
David, continuing to flog this particular non-issue shows a disappointing lack of creativity. Of course, you are right: closures are never completely off the radar for TUSD, especially if enrollment continues to decline. But having closed 20, they have moved far down the threat board. Perhaps I should point out again:
(1) The Pedicone administration wanted to close up to 25 schools in 2012-13, and I would support only 7. Does that fact support your hypothesis?
(2) If I were the pawn of developers, then why were Hicks and I the two votes against the sale of the Ft. Lowell site, on the grounds that the price seemed low? Does that fact support your hypothesis?
(3) Why on earth would these land-hungry developers be supporting Betts if closures were the agenda? Is it possible — just possible — that they are more concerned about the general health of the school system and being able to attract people to central Tucson? That probably has much more effect on their financial well-being than a few school closures.
I stand by my prediction. In a week, the TUSD discussion will return to the district’s serious issues, and the closure discussion will ebb as quickly as it rose.
And yet, Stegeman, you will close a neighborhood-feed high school in TUSD and give its campus to University High School if you can gain a majority willing to support that plan.
Why Safier continues to flog this ridiculous story of developers salivating over the prospect of land acquisition when there is another story just as ugly but actually true to tell about your plans is one of the many mysteries about Safier. Another mystery: Does he actually have anything resembling a conscience?
(Of course, Stegeman, that very same question could be asked about you and among those who’ve had the opportunity to observe you for a few years, it would receive the same answer.)
Back to Safier: why is he pulling punches on the ugly little elitist plan you have up your sleeve? Probably because some of his fellow upper crust Dems favor it. Like Sam Hughes, Ann-Eve’s TUSD school, and Fruchthendler, Jen Darland’s TUSD school, some schools, as Orwell would say, “are more equal than others” and — surprise, surprise — some of our Democratic Party loyalists are willing to look the other way when the poor get kicked to the curb to accommodate the needs of the Sam Hugheses, Fruchthendlers, and UHSes in this sad district.
Thank you for your comments, but the UHS sole-campus-plus-middle-school idea is hardly a secret. The previous board voted for it in 2012 and I have mentioned it often. I believe it would help not hurt lower-income students and am happy to discuss the pros and cons at any time. It obviously crosses over into a high school consolidation discussion that TUSD has so far avoided, but that is a tightly bounded discussion: I know of no one who wants to reopen the issue of closing elementary and middle schools, any time soon. We already went through that.
I disagree with David’s journalism but do not feel qualified to comment on his or anyone’s conscience.
The last time a figure approaching $35,000 was spent on a school board election was in the last school board election. Then, a winning incumbent spent close to that on a SINGLE campaign. Much of the money came from out-of-district, to say nothing of out-of-state (Washington D.C.).
Stegeman:
Your UHS separate site plan may be “hardly a secret,” and it seems you will answer questions on the topic when it is addressed directly, but you never choose to mention it when speaking to broad audiences, and when you do mention it, you always use the word “consolidation,” not “closure.” When you weigh in in discussions of potential closures, you do not mention the UHS plan. In light of the fact that the plan involves a closure, that seems evasive and misleading.
You are in favor of transparency? Then please answer these questions: does the plan involve closing a neighborhood-feed high school? If so, which high schools may be targets for closure? Will the plan involve removing AP and fine arts opportunities from the population that attends Rincon? If so, how will these opportunities be replaced? How widely distributed are high quality college preparatory courses in this district? Is a plan that uses limited district resources to take already unevenly distributed opportunities and concentrates them more narrowly in a high school that serves only a cognitively selective population with no admixture of open enrollment population an appropriate one? If so, why is it appropriate; how is it appropriate? What advantages does this use of the district’s limited resources achieve for the forty-something thousand students in the district who will not be enrolled in UHS or its co-located middle school?
As for your quip about not being prepared to judge the state of someone’s conscience, there are traditions that have expectations that their members will tell the truth and show concern for the disadvantaged. Within some of these traditions, there is a belief that there are objective standards for behavior, not just subjective feelings about what is right and wrong. Perhaps it would be better to say: “When viewed in the light of the standards many of us accept, individuals who consistently involve themselves in lies or evasions and seem to show no regard for the effect of school policies on the disadvantaged raise questions in the minds of many about whether the sort of thing many of us define as “a conscience” may be regularly informing the decisions these individuals make.”
Whether or not you “like” or “approve of” that statement, it is both true and politically relevant. There are large and active cohorts of voters who form impressions of elected officials (and of those who write about elected officials in the media) based in part on impressions of these individuals’ veracity and compassion. They are unlikely to vote for — or follow the political advice of — individuals who do not seem to them to have what they would understand to be a conscience.
I did bring the UHS issue up directly, at one of the candidate forums. It is incorporated in one of the ten points on the 100-day plan that I have distributed as widely as possible. No secret there. In fact I rarely use the word consolidation — I use “closure” much more often. I have often spoken of the possibility of closing one of the high schools, with or without the UHS plan. You are projecting what you wish to believe — or provide contrary evidence. On veracity, I will gladly place my record against any of the other incumbents. Or: if you believe I am untruthful, a serious charge, then the burden is on you to provide evidence; that is also a widely accepted norm. Yet I (or many others) could provide a long list of grossly incorrect statements made by district leadership. I have shown much more support for funding the magnet programs than the members of the majority; what is your measure of compassion? I have made much greater efforts to redirect funds out of administration and into schools, as evidenced by no votes on countless unnecessary consulting contracts; again, what is your measure? Your UHS questions are fine; I have answered them before and will answer in a subsequent post (after my lecture!).
Stegeman:
If you are referring to the League of Women Voter-YWCA Forum, you did not bring up the University High School separate site issue directly. One of the audience members submitted a question on the issue, the question passed the screen probably because the League and the YWCA both take an interest in equity in education and the screeners at this forum would have been aware that the question relates, not just to UHS, but to equity and desegregation. When the forum moderator asked a question about the University High School separate site issue, you answered the question. This is not the same as bringing the issue up of your own free will.
I have seen three of the TUSD candidate forums and part of a fourth. In none of the opening and closing statements where the candidates are able to freely choose what topics they will address have I seen you choose to bring up your plans to close a neighborhood-feed high school and give its site to UHS and a co-located middle school. Neither in your first comment on this piece on closures, nor in your comment on Tim Steller’s recent piece on closures, did you choose to mention your plans to close a neighborhood-feed high school and give its site to UHS and a co-located middle school.
At the very end of your 100-day plan (Point 10 of 10 points), you state: “STRENGTHEN MIDDLE SCHOOL OPTIONS by restarting the plan to attach an open- admission high-standards middle school to University High School. The current board stopped the plan initiated by the 2012 board and has offered no alternative.”
Does this make clear to the public that the plan to “strengthen middle school options…by restarting the plan to attach…a middle school to University High School” involves the closure of one of TUSD’s neighborhood feed high schools? No. Not in the least.
It appears that though you purport to champion “transparency,” you have chosen to be less than fully transparent about your own plans when you are addressing broad audiences that you have good reason to believe may not like plans that use the district’s limited resources to achieve improved college preparatory benefits for very small, very select cohorts within the district and to take benefits away from disadvantaged students who already have too few college preparatory opportunities.
I do believe that your discourse is tendentiously selective — as much so, in its own way, as Safier’s. It is a serious charge, and I have provided evidence for it. I invite anyone who questions the evidence on which my arguments are based to watch the videotapes of the TUSD candidate forums held at Temple Emanuel, the YWCA, and Palo Verde High School, to read your 100-day plan and the comment streams on this article and Steller’s article and to ask themselves: Is Stegeman being forthcoming, clear, and straightforward that he intends to move forward with plans to close one of TUSD’s neighborhood-feed high schools, withdraw UHS’s faculty from the Rincon campus, and give the closed neighborhood-feed high school to UHS and a co-located middle school? I believe the answer to that question, when addressed to people who do not have independent, background information on what exactly the UHS separate site plan entails, would be, “No.”
The Temple Emanuel Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riFK2JoYmOg
The League of Women Voters-YWCA Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDaTtYU2Tw
The Palo Verde High School Forum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOrolt4ZURE
Tim Steller’s Article, with Stegeman’s Comment:
http://tucson.com/news/local/columnists/steller/political-notebook-tucson-unified-school-district-board-race-turns-dirty/article_c9620f4d-5c96-5e79-a581-d2cac3ee6fec.html
Stegeman’s 100 Day Plan:
http://stegeman4tusd.com/mark-stegeman-100-day-plan/
I appreciate your engagement on this. I will answer in more detail after I get through my work obligations today. I am sure I could have done better, that is almost always true, but since the board first passed the UHS expansion concept in 2012 it has been a significant item in my agenda — not the biggest item but a significant item — and I have never sought to hide that. My recent constituent letter on closures, which goes to a large list and is where I have the chance to fill in the details on many topics, was explicit about the high school closure issue.
Stegeman:
It would seem that if you take the trouble to comment on articles in the media that are attempting to inform the public about what closure plans there may and may not be in the district’s near future, that would be a place to state clearly what your specific closure plans are. It is clear that you have chosen not to do so. Provide more information if you like. It will not change the record on what the communication has and has not been to date.
As I have written elsewhere, no matter what outcome the upcoming election has, professionally informed scrutiny and commentary on this district will continue.
If you are re-elected to this Board it would be reasonable to expect that there will be parties making you aware that any major plan to close an under-enrolled neighborhood-feed high school and give its site to another population — rather than, for example, adding a co-located selective college prep program similar to UHS to the high school targeted for closure, a plan which would multiply rather than diminishing the college preparatory opportunities available to the district’s students — should include proper processes for public participation: advisory committees to study the issue and make recommendations with participation from all the relevant affected populations: UHS, Rincon, the high school targeted for closure, TUSD K-8 gifted students, gifted education faculty at the university, families in other districts like 16 and 13 that have been feeding students into UHS, and representatives of plaintiffs in the desegregation case. Contrary to what you may believe, it is not or should not be a matter of gaining a board majority and ramrodding an initiative through without the advise of experts in relevant fields and without the informed consent of those the plan will directly affect.
If the district engaged in a proper public discernment process, what it would find on this particular issue is that the community is divided. TUSD has not excelled in utilizing proper public processes, at the governing board level or at the Site Council level. The very notion that parents should be consulted in the policy decisions affecting their children — which is encoded in ARS 15-351 where it stipulates that the purpose of site councils is “to ensure that individuals who are affected by the outcome of a decision at the school site share in the decision making process” — seems to be anathema to some of the players in this district. Attempts to pass controversial plans (or plans that WOULD be controversial, if they were properly understood) without the knowledge or consent of constituents may or may not continue, but if they do continue, some will encounter opposition.
David,
Since you call out my wife and I by name I feel compelled once again to answer your smear against us. It is a fact my wife runs a homebuilding company. It is also true we previously bid on some closed school sites similar to other homebuilders and developers in town. But rather than extrapolate with your evil BS lets look at what else has happened.
IT IS TRUE that TUSD has brought another 3-4 schools out for auction and we have not bid on any of them. The reason is because we have no interest in growing our home-building business beyond the current fifteen homes per year. Your premise of us wanting to shut schools is ludicrous.
IT IS TRUE, unlike you, we have children at TUSD. We have felt personally the issues that TUSD desperately needs to address. We have felt the abandonment with one of our daughters when 504 (and IEPs) plans have been completely ignored.
IT IS TRUE we have received multiple phone calls from our daughter, crying, saying she was just jumped at school but cant defend herself or she will be expelled. After repeated issues we have been told by the sheriff that TUSD wont do anything to protect our child. We have felt our childs despair.
IT IS TRUE we have seen how desperate the teachers need dollars in the classroom and how extracurricular activities are starving for funding. We have tried to help where we can but it is a major blunder for TUSD that there is an extra $11M spent on administration rather than the classroom.
IT IS TRUE that my wife cares deeply about TUSD and wants to make TUSD stronger and better; not only for our children but for all the children that go to the District. She has a Masters Degree in Education and knows what a properly operating school looks like. It is also crucial for Tucson that TUSD succeeds and becomes an A rated school district.
But David, you project some sort of evil plot to crap on the students, shut schools and let some sort of heightened greed overrule the needs of our own children. It is truly insulting to me, my wife, my family and the business community as a whole. These smears will resonate through the business community and wont soon be forgot.
At the same time may I ask what your motivations are at TUSD? As a parent of TUSD students I should have a right to ask you sir. Why do you believe it is ok that the current Board majority votes as a block 97% of the time, silencing any and all discussion? Why do you not support a viable and diverse school board made up of republicans, democrats and independents? What is wrong with dissimilar and varied viewpoints on the TUSD Board? Why do you support an Independent Expenditure Committee supporting the status quo, attacking local business people and made up of DC and Phoenix dollars? Do you believe they care about our community as much as parents of TUSD students? Simply, what motivates you David because it surely isnt enhancing the TUSD learning experience for my daughters?
So yes, my wife is trying to change the board for the better. There is no power trip, no need for control, no need for land for houses, no need to stay in control of a $600M budget. As I mentioned before it is solely about my kids and for us to spend what we can to enhance their schools and our community is the least we should do sir.
Jim and Kathy,
I hope you know how grateful many in the community — including many who may not be on the same side of the political fence with you on every issue — are for the role “TUSD Kids First” has played in raising awareness of the district’s problems. The local media continues to be what it is — irresponsible — and even, in some cases (as with Safier) downright depraved. I’ve been on his case for three years — in person and in the comment streams — about various issues in TUSD. I generally believe the best about people, so it took me a while to see through his “compassionate liberal / wise elder” act and to realize he couldn’t care less about what real children are experiencing in these schools. He is a political operative through-and-through, the die-hard propagandist described in one of the comments above, with a laser-like focus on what he wants the political outcome to be and sadly, it seems, no compunction about lying or slandering to achieve his ends.
Stegeman is not, in my opinion, a better candidate for the Board than Foster and Juarez, but the ultimate source from which many bad things flow locally — including, probably, a good number of Safier’s marching orders — is Ann-Eve Pedersen. Until this sponsor-of-dishonesty and excuser-of-dysfunction retires from her self-appointed role as local political queen, issuing her ludicrously condescending, poorly informed, and sadly misguided directives to the peasants from on high, many things will continue to go wrong in Southern Arizona. (If you’re in need of some good comic relief in the midst of all this, have someone send you her most recent Facebook post about Stegeman, entitled “TUSD – Part Two.” I doubt that there is any well-informed Tucson resident who cannot at this point see through her persistent and ridiculous assumption that under-funding excuses malfeasance and dishonesty, yet she persists in pitching this disreputable argument and assuming that, even after the ESI debacle and the Superintendent’s compensation fiasco, her popularity will not wane and her dictates will continue to be heeded.
We can only hope she is wrong about that, this time.
In any case, many thanks for your generous service in support of improving the educations of students in TUSD’s schools.
David Safier is a poor writer, a tired political hack, and pathetically ingrained in the damaged and tragic culture that runs TUSD. I am sick of reading him, and will do so no longer. Jim Campbell and his wife do not deserve to be disparaged like this. Totally wrong! Ask me who to vote for~I’m a teacher in this diabolical district, and we all deserve CHANGE!
Hey David,
Did it ever occur to you that Kathleen and James Campbell simply might not want crappy schools for their kids, and a crappy, bought-and-paid-for school board majority and superintendent to oversee them? What nerve you have, since you’re a donor to the campaign of Kristel Foster (disclosure not forthcoming until someone outed you, Mr. Unbiased Journalist), an incumbent who took a $5,000 donation from a TUSD vendor–after voting to approve that vendor’s $21 million contract with the district–and then tried to hide it. I can tolerate a lot of things. But I have little patience for hypocrites.