Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range
    • From:

      To:


Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch

Re: “Quick Bites: Summer Markets

Go red roasters!!!! Amazing food and receipies and Kris is awesome!!!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Janette N Matt Gauthier on 05/25/2017 at 10:27 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

Two different visions:

1. Ensuring that the worst teacher in the worst school in the worst school district has a full classroom.

2. Providing so many choices for so long that every full classroom is evidence of a world class teacher.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/24/2017 at 8:25 PM

Re: “Need Child Care So You Can Hang Onto Your Job? Don't Expect Help in Arizona

first thing first program will help with a scholarship for day care low as a 25 a week

Posted by Mildrene Moutry on 05/24/2017 at 8:13 PM

Re: “Need Child Care So You Can Hang Onto Your Job? Don't Expect Help in Arizona

first things first is a program that will help they have scholarship if you qualify

Posted by Mildrene Moutry on 05/24/2017 at 8:12 PM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

If we are concerned about the generally dismal state of our System of Public Education, we would not hesitate to supports efforts at improvement. We cannot continue with our heads in the sand, and, under the shibboleth, local control of Education watch passively as our System of Public Education becomes, internationally, at best, Second Rate!! The viability of our Democracy and National Security are in jeopardy.

Given the wide classroom instructional heterogeneity within Public Schools/Districts, it is necessary to have some State objective measure so as to determine if Students are being taught properly and/or effectively learning the required body of information per Subject Area. This is the sole purpose of Standardized Assessment Examinations. AzMerit is such an Assessment Examination and will indicate the effectiveness of the Schools/Districts Academic Program, so that, if necessary, remedial action can be taken; so as to ensure Teacher/Administrator Academic Accountability.

4 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Francis Saitta on 05/24/2017 at 11:33 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

Marilyn Tucson:

What are you on?

The fact that you're calling liberals selfish is name calling.

Quit being a hypocrite.

7 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Tarilyn Mucson on 05/24/2017 at 11:20 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

Students have been exiting TUSD by the thousands for well over a decade, Betts Putnam-Hidalgo, not just during the Sanchez administration. The reason is because it has been, is being, and will be mismanaged. It has deeply imbedded problems with its middle management, its Board, and its institutional culture that seem to be reform-proof at this point. Talk to a few of the hapless former Superintendents (other than Sanchez) who tried to take the helm during the last decade some time and draw your own conclusions. When I have heard them, they've sounded a lot like another CEO of a Tucson public institution who has spoken honestly in public forums about the difficulties of trying to administer a massive underfunded public institution where the workers in the trenches are in shell shock over ongoing budget cuts and forced reorganizations and the long-term players within the bureaucracy have become accustomed to going their own way and ignoring the latest figure head installed atop the dysfunctional hierarchy.

Were you surprised when the new and improved Board majority filed, inappropriately, prematurely, for partial Unitary Status? I wasn't. All any of the elected leaders in this district seem to want is to get out from under court oversight so they can go their own way with initiatives that have nothing to do with the kind of social justice concerns at the heart of the desegregation case. They want to grant UHS a separate site with a co-located middle school, establish a Fruchthendler to Sabino direct-feed pipeline, etc. Why would those concerned with social justice want increased enrollment in this district, i.e. to add more students to experience inequitable conditions? What reason, based on the management of the desegregation case for the past 40 years and more, do you have to believe the district's way of responding to these concerns will ever change?

There are many families, who, with good reason, do not think it wise to entrust their children's "educations" to an institution with these kinds of entrenched problems. Should they be penalized financially by losing state support for their children's K-12 education when they decide to utilize well managed institutions that will deliver better education? Should the state be off the hook for providing support when families exit public districts or charters? That's what happens without vouchers or tax credits. Students leave the public district / charter system, and the state gets somewhere in the neighborhood of $5K savings per year on the cost of educating that child. Whom does that benefit? Children in public schools? No, not unless the financial disincentive of having to lose all state support for your child's K-12 education acts effectively to prevent families who want to exit the public system from exiting. If putting up financial obstacles to students leaving the public district and public charter systems is what is intended by anti-voucher advocacy, then there's no valid argument against the notion that anti-voucher campaigners "want to use the children of other families as economic hostages to the dubious goal of supposedly 'saving' troubled public school districts."

I'm sorry you find that offensive, but you have yet to provide a clear explanation of how exactly denying students attending certain (largely Roman Catholic) institutions any state support for their educations serves either the cause of social justice or the cause of delivering as excellent an education as possible to the young people in our communities, especially in a context where our largest local public school district is what it demonstrably and persistently is.

7 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Explain how eliminating vouchers serves social justice. on 05/24/2017 at 9:58 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

The left is getting very selfish. They neglect to tell you that even after the wealthy spend large amounts of tuition money to get their children in better schools, they still have to fund the masses that are stuck in the public school swirl. You can't discriminate based on income, if you want fairness. And hating the rich has never made them go away.

I guess all that you have left is name calling. Carry on.

7 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Marilyn Tucson on 05/24/2017 at 9:39 AM

Re: “Results-Based Funding Violates the Spirit (If Not the Letter) of Arizona's 1980 Funding Equalization Law

It's not like public school teachers are going to riot:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/classroom_fight_between_georgi.html

Don't try this at home, these are professionals.

3 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by TUSD needs to rid itself of on 05/24/2017 at 9:27 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

Whenever the word "choice" comes out, buyer beware. That is not a choice for the many (the 80% that "choose" public education) but for the few (that have a good 1/2 or 3/4 of the tuition for their favorite private institution to begin with). Welfare for the rich, cloaked in the language of choice is what this administration has to offer. When previous Superintendent Sanchez championed the award the district received for offering the most "choice" some of us thought he was doing the same thing. Unfortunately the biggest "choice" that people utilized under his administration was to leave, en masse, for charters, especially at the middle school level. Despite the machinations he used to try to hide it, and despite the enrollment lies told by his biggest Board cheerleader during her campaign, this continued a tradition that has plagued TUSD for a long time. Now it will need to be resolved in a considerably more difficult educational landscape.

9 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Betts Putnam-Hidalgo on 05/24/2017 at 7:49 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

You are one long-winded fuck. Why is it every time that I decide against my better judgement to read your BS commentary that I read it anyway and Every time I Always regret that decision afterwards? I have figured out the answer. It is because you're a long-winded fuck!
WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!
Yes, that's what the voucher system is All about. Maybe you don't get it because your head is buried in the sand. God Forbid that you want to actually help those in need, not those who already have access to private/Christian/Catholic schools because of their income.
It's definitely welfare for the rich, the rest of us will get the bone and no lube.

10 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by You Are Simplistic on 05/24/2017 at 7:45 AM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

Just keep saying it over and over and over again, David.

WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!
WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!
WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!

Perhaps, no matter how deliberately misleading, how discriminatory, and how biased your "take" on education policy is, some gullible members of your audience who don't bother to analyze your arguments will believe you just because they'll figure if you're confident enough to repeat it in blog after sad blog, it must be true.

Vouchers make per-pupil funding that could previously be applied only in public district and public charter schools "portable." In most cases, they are used to extend the state's support of K-12 education to high functioning institutions that are entirely worthy of public investment. That this support was previously offered in a discriminatory fashion to families willing to utilize certain institutions, but not to families who prefer to use other institutions (institutions which, in many cases, deliver higher quality academic instruction than the institutions that were publicly funded) is an injustice that needed to be corrected.

As for the "more funding to higher performing schools," the way it has been structured is problematic. But, if we're going to be completely honest, we'd have to acknowledge that this is also highly problematic: the notion that families that have chosen to structure their lives to provide the maximal amount of support to their children at home should be taxed to install expensive services in schools that compensate for other families' unwillingness or inability to do so. If, for example, a family chooses to keep one parent at home to support children's growth and development, they are making a choice -- extremely costly to themselves in terms of total family income -- that, if the at-home parent's time is appropriately allocated to support the children, makes the job of educating those children easier and less expensive for the school that child attends. Should the taxes this family pays into the system be used to provide supplementary services for children of families with two parents working full time, who need after-care and perhaps tutoring support that a family with one parent at home does not need?

Education policy questions are complicated, much more so than simplistic analyses, tag phrases like "WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!," and vulgar appeals to emotion and / or prejudice make them out to be.

11 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Still too simplistic. on 05/23/2017 at 4:26 PM

Re: “Because of Results-Based Funding, 15 to 17 Percent of Schools Will Get "A" Grades, Down From 30 Percent. Here's Why That's Important

We should send the worst schools all the education money and just buy Chinese junk. Then we could stop this constant argument over who gets to hold all the education money. It is obvious it should be you.

7 likes, 17 dislikes
Posted by Marilyn Tucson on 05/23/2017 at 10:07 AM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

That worked for them in the past but the public has wised up to it. This is usually when they switch to name calling. They must be teaching Cloward-Piven at the U of A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Love it or leave it on 05/23/2017 at 10:05 AM

Re: “Someone In Phoenix Is Selling A Fence That (Might Have) Belonged To Barry Goldwater

i get the other 7 pieces

Posted by yo on 05/22/2017 at 7:11 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Response to "Just Sayin'

Provide some evidence and logic other than expecting us to believe something just because you say it.

What do you believe will create a better education system and why do you believe it. What evidence do you have? What logic are you using? Just sneering and denigrating doesn't cut it and getting a mob to back you up doesn't cut it.

1 like, 7 dislikes
Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/22/2017 at 5:21 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Amen brother! And the non establishment clause kept the government fro endorsing or establishing their own religion.

That's may be why they adopted the environmental theology. Most people didn't see it as religious, and were easily duped.

2 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Green Is Their Money Color Also on 05/22/2017 at 4:18 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

Betts Putnam-Hidalgo writes, "vouchers are clearly a way to drain public dollars that go to the schools that 80% of the population chooses." That repeats Democratic party orthodoxy, but is not an accurate way of characterizing what vouchers do. Vouchers are per-pupil funding that is transferred from the public school where it would have been applied in support of that child's education in that setting to a private school, which, if the child transfers, must bear the cost of educating that child. It's a zero sum game. The public school loses the expense of educating that child at the same time that it loses the per pupil funding. There is no "drain" on public schools involved. Public schools only get "per pupil" funding when the pupil chooses to enroll there, not when they withdraw.

In a context where the above-described transfer is not permitted through vouchers or tax credits or some other equalizing type of law or policy, what is actually going on is economic discrimination against families who want their children's academic instruction delivered in a context different from the public district or public charter schools. In states like Arizona where there are deeply troubled public school districts that have been permitted to mismanage the education of tens of thousands of students, when students transfer out of one of these troubled districts into a high-performing private, if there are no vouchers or tax credits, the state is able to benefit from better educated, higher earning, more productive citizens at no cost to itself. Voucher supporters believe the state should be asked to pay its fair share towards the education of all K-12 students. (It would be best if the state provided some way of verifying that the quality of education delivered in alternative institutions is at or above the quality of education delivered in publicly funded schools. Unfortunately, Arizona legislators have not seen fit to put in place any regulatory mechanisms that can accomplish this, and that is a serious flaw in the way the law and policy relating to this have been structured to date.)

The so-called "separation of church and state" which voucher opponents call in to service to back up their economic discrimination against families using alternative schools which happen to have religious affiliations shows a misunderstanding of the context in which the US Constitution was framed. The founders were trying to prohibit the kind of economic discrimination practiced in England against all those who refused to affiliate with the state-sponsored religion. They wanted to prevent the formation of a state-sponsored religion in this country. Allowing people to choose to apply the public funds available for the K-12 education of their children in whatever alternative institution they prefer -- religiously affiliated or not -- in no way limits the freedom of other citizens, constitutes the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, or discriminates against anyone who does not want to make the same choice.

Unfortunately, what is at the bottom of a surprising amount of anti-voucher advocacy is resistance to the entitlements citizens should have in a country that grants freedom of religious affiliation and -- even worse -- thinly disguised prejudice against organized religion. Citizens with religious affiliations have not always found the public district school system a "value-neutral" environment. For generations now, those who have chosen not to educate their children in contexts that show subtle and not-so-subtle forms of disrespect for their values and beliefs have carried an inappropriate economic burden as they have paid out-of-pocket for schooling that, if they had chosen to ignore the discriminatory flaws too often found in the public district system, would have been free. It's a good thing that this form of economic discrimination is now, in some contexts, being reversed. It seems unlikely that the citizens benefiting from these programs will fail to organize to support their continuance, if they come under threat in upcoming elections.

8 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by ... and some don't want public funds spent on failing TUSD. on 05/22/2017 at 2:09 PM

Re: “Can Voters Defeat the Vouchers-For-All Law?

You also cannot abbreviate the name of the city, or write with anything other than a blue or black ball point pen. And yes, cursive letters that go below the line will make your signature invalid. The intent of the lege is on full display.

11 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Pima Mujer on 05/22/2017 at 10:41 AM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation