Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch: Last 7 Days

Re: “Anyone Can Teach. It's Easy! (At Least That's What Republican Legislators and the Governor Tell Me.)

Excellent teaching is not easy, in fact it is very difficult and can't even be achieved consistently as an individual. Most candidates going through the college of education don't have the emotional strength necessary to achieve the classroom control required to provide a great education.

That's why widening the candidate pool will increase academic gains in Arizona. Districts can train teachers much more efficiently than colleges of education. There is something toxic about colleges of education when the coefficient of a master's degree is negative. Consider this: hundreds of millions of dollars spent on master's degrees somehow end up with a teacher is can't achieve the academic gains of someone with a bachelor's degree.

Posted by jhuppent@hotmail.com on 05/27/2017 at 11:05 PM

Re: “Anyone Can Teach. It's Easy! (At Least That's What Republican Legislators and the Governor Tell Me.)

"It would be good for the legislators' souls"

Sorry David, you are giving Arizona legislators credit for something they have clearly demonstrated they do not have.

8 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by sgsmith on 05/26/2017 at 8:20 PM

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

You forgot to mention, David Safier, that individual schools within districts -- not just districts as a whole -- have ways to supplement and skew the supposedly "equitable" distribution of funds to public schools.

Within TUSD, for example, you could use your internet research skills to compare the amount of tax credits accrued by University High School or Sam Hughes or Fruchthendler, for example, with the amounts accrued by the schools in TUSD that lost their magnet status under the Sanchez administration. You might want to make some inquiries, too, about how much these tax-credit-enriched TUSD schools raised privately on top of the inequitably distributed publicly funded tax credits they accrued. Here's one very odd example: the previous TUSD Superintendent, Sanchez, gave UHS a $10K private donation and, as though that wasn't enough inequitable favor for him to bestow on an individual school within the district he administered, made sure they were the first school in the district to receive new band uniforms paid for by some district-internal funding source he had available. This to the school that in recent years has had more public school tax credits designated to it than any other school in the district. UHS also has its own private Foundation, though last time I checked they didn't amount to much. Are they waiting until UHS gets its separate site, perhaps, before they'll call on their network to donate larger amounts?

Lots of talk about equity from certain folks when it serves them to talk about it. But start looking at the various funding quirks and exceptions-to-the-rules associated with the supposedly "equitable" public schools that just happen to be utilized by the players in the local Democratic party, and the story gets "curiouser and curiouser," as Alice would say.

But David Safier's concerns with funding "equity" and other sorts of equity always seem to stop somewhat short of turning over rocks in his own political garden and looking at what's wriggling underneath. If it didn't, he might have devoted some reporting to the Fruchthendler-Sabino plan twice put forward by the TUSD Board majority and Superintendent he supported 2013-2016 and twice denied by the authorities in the desegregation case. This district keeps creating and reinforcing inequitable conditions within itself, but when families want to use vouchers, tax credits, or ESAs to exit some of the not-on-the-A-list-of-influence schools in the district like Utterback, for example, this is called, "Welfare for the rich."

"Welfare for the rich," indeed. If the shoe fits, the constituents in certain public schools should start to wear it.

3 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Could we be equitable in our concerns with equity? on 05/26/2017 at 1:29 PM

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, 9 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.

8 likes, 5 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.

11 likes, 11 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.

10 likes, 13 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.

10 likes, 14 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, 14 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.

13 likes, 12 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.

14 likes, 12 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.

14 likes, 18 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.

9 likes, 20 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

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