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: Feature

Re: “The Saga of Three Points

I live in Three Points. It's a town of very open and friendly people. People socialize, ride their horses down the roads, their 4 wheelers, their 4x4's. They hunt, they drink beer, they enjoy their days. It's not as bad as this article makes it sound.

Posted by Jennifer Lane on 11/09/2017 at 3:32 PM

Re: “Eat This, Tucson

This was a great read, now I want to go there. ASAP. So glad this was forward to me to read. Thank to the writer. I was picturing me in all the places.
Im from Santa Clara, CA. Any yes my birth name is Clara....)

Posted by CRC on 10/29/2017 at 5:22 PM

Re: “The Case of Liberty Cove

http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,… This article is somehow related to the LNG port ....I think they were trying to buy up land cheap

Posted by Jerry Kelly on 10/24/2017 at 8:34 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Why doesn't someone propose using the 3 money losing Pre-Ks in TUSD. They are underutilized, over funded, and mismanaged. The disgraced former director had to move to the Patagonia Superintendent job to avoid firing. TUSD wants more enrollment so use their Pre-Ks as a pipeline. Taxpayers are already paying anyway..,,

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Disgusted TUSD Taxpayer on 10/18/2017 at 6:56 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Edit:
I meant to say, 'I don't notice hell getting any cooler."

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by A. M. Kennedy on 10/14/2017 at 4:29 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

I decided to vote yes on 204 because I trust that the people involved will behave with integrity and care. I too would have liked the text to be more rigorous, but ultimately decided that I've no reason to believe that anyone involved is trying to deceive me. I believe this because many of the volunteers I work with are teachers or retired teachers who place the highest importance on education, on the welfare of their pupils. A desire to see something succeed does not always bring on unwise spending.
And based on my observation of other commissions, I trust that mayor and council will make careful choices in their appointments.
Steve K. is right-we should work on the legislature-and we are-but I don't notice hell getting any warmer. I certainly can't skate on it yet. In the meantime, this money could produce a group of kids who come to Kindergarden eager to continue learning.
A. M. Kennedy

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by A. M. Kennedy on 10/14/2017 at 3:56 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

It's disappointing to see the Weekly assert this campaign's talking points without attribution, as though they were facts.

Khmara writes: "It's important to note that the Strong Start program would focus dollars on schools rated three to five stars through First Things First's Quality First rating system. Child-care programs currently funded through DES that don't rank as high-quality or haven't been assessed for quality wouldn't be eligible."

These are not facts. Prop. 204 actually doesn't say a thing about how quality would be measured or on what criteria providers would be selected. These decisions would be up to a commission, and nobody knows what this commission would decide, or even who would be on it

Khmara also writes: "Preschool would be paid for on a first-come, first-serve basis, and the amount families receive would be determined on a sliding scale, based on income and family size.

Actually, the initiative doesn't say anything about who would be served first, nor does it say anything about family size.

It's important to read the text of these ballot measures. Not all voters do, which is understandable. But reporters should when writing about them. In this story Khmara appears to have invented details of the initiative that don't actually exist, like the one about using First Things First's Quality First rating system. Who knows where she got that. (I'm guessing probably from the campaign, which has repeated this claim elsewhere.) It's not part of the initiative, nor are a number of other details Khmara has unfortunately reported here as facts.

12 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Luke Knipe on 10/12/2017 at 11:45 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

The goal may be correct in giving the best to all children, but the methods proposed for funding, and therefore governance, are flawed.

If the money is raised by the city and and council appoints the committee, partisanship will soon raise its local, very ugly head. The local funds for education are raised by school districts, but those do not have the mandate to use sales taxes which are usually reserved for municipal needs like fire, police, roads and similar infrastructure programs including garbabge collection.

Third, there seem to be, in this report of the proposed move, no clear way of regulating the pre-school curriculum, way to reserve funds from mixing church and state, and clear definition of education as opposed to babysitting with crayons present.

IT IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME -- BUT the method needs to be fairly developed, tested and open to change that will benefit the children and the testable for result.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by C. H. Mara on 10/12/2017 at 6:45 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Children are part of our community just as adults are. When you support children to have access to high quality preschool, you not only support our next generation of citizens, you also support your current citizens. Children in high quality preschool settings learn to negotiate, collaborate, communicate, and problem solve in the context of a peer to peer relationships. Critical skills that will serve them in kindergarten and beyond. Yes, parents play a crucial role in nurturing these skills as well. That's the beauty of high quality preschools- they happen in partnership with families. For this and many other reasons, I say YES on 204 and sure hope our community follows suit- our community depends on it.

11 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by cheynie27 on 10/12/2017 at 4:40 PM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Computer selected breeding partners is the way to go. Push the left side of the Bell curve to the right.

I support public child setting, i.e., preschool, but I do wonder how my generation made it. My mother didn't teach me how to use scissors or color inside the lines or how to count, and there was no kindergarten. But my generation took us to the moon, developed the digital computer, etc., etc. Maybe we're involved in attempting to optimize a system that doesn't need to be optimized?

7 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by DennyG on 10/12/2017 at 10:01 AM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Cradle to grave is the war cry of the lazy and ignorant. Head Start failed for decades, and now they want more. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

6 likes, 15 dislikes
Posted by Wayne Olson on 10/12/2017 at 9:35 AM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Cradle to womb government care is the goal. Someday...

5 likes, 16 dislikes
Posted by bslap on 10/12/2017 at 9:27 AM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

The City of Tucson has many priorities for taking care of it's citizens and infrastructure, as set forth in the City CHarter. The education of preschoolers is NOT one of those priorities. Education, funding of those programs, and program management falls under the State of Arizona and the school districts. If you want to change programs, add programs, or fund programs, the City is not where your efforts should be directed.

There is another part of early childhood education that is not addressed by Prop 204, and costs far less than $50 million each year. PARENTS: get involved with your kids' lives. Read with your kids, talk with your children, share the values that are important to you.

Don't abdicate your responsibility or leave it to political appointees to raise your kids. Do your job as parents. And, as part of those duties, VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 204.

8 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by n7iqv on 10/12/2017 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Waaay back when, there was a Federal program called Head Start. Sounds similar to the one being proposed. It was designed by Democrats ( preferred party of the education establishment), well funded, and had loads of teachers and educrats to do the teaching and watch those doing the teaching. As I recall ,it ran for a while and was evaluated . Evaluation showed that the kids had a benefit for a while but by 3rd grade ( second grade ?) the participants tested no better than non participants. Parents were a bigger influence on the kids, for better or worse. I'm sure that someone will remember better than me. But if this is anywhere near accurate sounds like a " been there , done that".

10 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by bsinn on 10/12/2017 at 6:50 AM

Re: “Rugrat Referendum

Well Steve are you suggesting that the state fix our potholes, because you can't seem to figure it out?

8 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Jonathon K on 10/12/2017 at 4:30 AM

Re: “Have a Little Faith

Beautifully written and makes me feel hopeful.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Carlos Torres on 09/29/2017 at 5:31 PM

Re: “Have a Little Faith

Peggy, there are a good 8 or 10 churches in Tucson who would love to welcome your daughter and granddaughter. We're very fortunate in that regard. Mine - Grace St. Paul's Episcopal - is one of them. But like I say, there are many!

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by bruzintuc on 09/29/2017 at 11:33 AM

Re: “Have a Little Faith

Wonderful article! I forwarded it to several young people.
Mother of a lesbian young woman and a granddaughter also lesbian.
I will be visiting your church soon.
Thank you

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Peggy Wright Foster on 09/28/2017 at 11:05 AM

Re: “Have a Little Faith

What a fantastic article, thanks.

6 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by bslap on 09/28/2017 at 6:36 AM

Re: “Not Going Anywhere

CW13 - Who said anything about being entitled to citizenship without going through proper channels? Nice straw man argument. DACA is not about citizenship.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jeffrey Patten on 09/23/2017 at 3:20 PM

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