If it weren't so sad, it would be quite funny, the way the promoters of an egregiously mismanaged public school district that, though it has lost thousands of students during the last decade, still has more than 40,000 student stuck in it, persist in trying to pitch their transparently shoddy merchandise to the public as "the best kind of education possible!!!"
Meanwhile they scheme to alter public policy to ensure that as few people as possible will have any way of escaping the sick institutions and shockingly poor governance they love to excuse and justify.
Heads up, Dems. If you live in Southern Arizona and have even the smallest degree of awareness of local conditions and events, you recognize that people who want to lock students into a district where the governance has deteriorated to this parody-able level are neither "pro-education" nor "pro-child":
Let's translate the propagandistic doublespeak in Safier's blog on "Trouble in Republican City": "Democrats hope to profit from squabbles between factions on the other side of the political fence to push their self-interested, political machine-feeding public policy agenda through the legislature. This agenda has nothing to do with expanding access to SOUND education or protecting CHILDREN'S best interests, and everything to do with keeping certain powerful politicians and their networks, which are interwoven with districts like TUSD, happy."
Several times back in the past (i.e., before the attack) I can remember listening to our Representative Gabrielle Giffords live on local radio, being interviewed and taking calls. Gabrielle took all calls without hesitation and spoke up on a range of issues, even those that were personal to the caller. In a soft voice, Gabrielle spoke with strength and sincerity. With so many people in office today, such courage and common sense have evaporated.
Are there "pro-education, pro-child" Democrats David?
Who exactly would that be? The people who want to lock low-income kids into malfunctioning public schools like those where a rotating cast of outsourced and underpaid subs, not certified teachers, staff the classrooms?
But that doesn't serve either the cause of excellence in education OR the best interests of the children who could be learning more in an alternative setting, e.g. one of the private schools in Tucson where seats go begging for lack of families able to bear the full cost of tuition.
Not surprised that those who profit from charters are up in arms about the ESA legislation. Low quality charters have been able to draw enrollment off of high quality privates because of the state's economic discrimination against private schools. They know they can't compete once the economic discrimination is elimitated.
Pionic is such a wonderful place! I envision this place becoming a gem of Tucson, and a nationally renowned restaurant. Scott's energy, passion, and love shows in everything Pionic does.
I think restaurants like Piology are fine too, but Pionic is OUR Tucson gem. It is the only restaurant with this concept that is native from Tucson.
Best of luck!
12 dead in Caracas today from food riots. Socialism failing once again Tucsonans. Please try to pay attention.
At least there's one golden highlight: If I move within the TUSD area, I'll be able to use this voucher program.
Do you children ever quit whining? It's not how much money we give education, it's how poorly education spends it. Nothing will change until TUSD does. Thank God for that.
Ask Steve what happened to our tax dollars that were collected to repair roads. What was that money spent on, and what guarantee does the taxpayer have that we simply won't be lied to again?
No more money Steve you have an addition to spending, and we are planning a tough love intervention.
Vote NO on any bond initiatives until we get rid of the current crop of lying leaders.
Rancho Snob, depending on who is drafting the polling question, the issue is framed to give the desired outcome. Mine was not an attempted nice try. It serviced the target.
NOT A RANCHO SNOB, you should have kept reading:
"That tells you that a single question on the concept of vouchers does not tell the whole story, said State Board of Education President Michael Kirst, who wrote analyses for both voucher initiatives. 'Support eroded for vouchers the more that voters learned about the details and the implications,' he said. He said to accurately measure public opinion, there should be several questions, such as: 'Would you support a voucher program if it funded students already in private school? Would you support it if it only went to low-income children? Or paid for only a portion of the tuition?''
So in other words, contra Safier, the way the question is framed does matter. Support changes significantly as the wording changes and the details of the proposal that goes to the electorate change.
Also of interest in the same article: "African Americans, who elsewhere in the poll express the least satisfaction with public schools, are the most supportive, with 73 percent favoring vouchers, followed by Latinos, with 69 percent favoring vouchers, Asians with 56 percent and whites with 51 percent."
That would seem to suggest that the comment above which stated that support for vouchers is related to how well the public schools are meeting the needs of their constituents is correct. Minority populations that have traditionally been under-served in public schools support vouchers at higher rates than whites and Asians do. Schools serving high-SES neighborhoods that have majority white / Asian populations generally have higher functioning public schools.
People don't generally leave a neighborhood school that is convenient and comes with free transportation for trivial reasons. If they want to leave, let them leave, and let them apply the money that the state saves when they exit that school in a school that better meets their child's needs.
allen s, you should have kept reading:
PPICs 13th annual K-12 survey would appear at odds with California voters strong past opposition to vouchers. Twice before, in 1993 and 2000, voters rejected voucher initiatives, with 70 percent voting against them each time. However, in 1998, two years before the last vote and the last time that PPIC polled Californians on the issue, 58 percent of adults favored vouchers while 36 percent opposed them.
That means that answering a poll is different than actually VOTING for something.
Statewide vouchers will HELP the public schools identify their problems, and deal with them. More tax dollars going to them only means much more of the same.
Ever consider that the willingness of the electorate to support vouchers may vary in inverse relation to the functionality of the public school system in a given state, i.e. where there are low functioning public schools, there will be high support for vouchers; where there are high functioning public schools, there will be low support for vouchers?
Coming from a blue state that had high functioning public schools, my initial stance was anti-voucher. After several years of observing what is going on in TUSD's schools and on its Board and with its administration, I changed my position. Now I do support vouchers. But if you refuse to be honest about the fact that the ship is sinking, David, which you have consistently done for the four years that I have taken the trouble to read your misleading and deeply depressing "commentary," I guess you think you should get a "pass" on having to acknowledge that lifeboats are necessary to save as many lives / educations as possible from a school system that has descended to this now-probably-irreversible level of dysfunction.
You may hold the opinion that more children's futures should be sacrificed to the false God of WHAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHOULD BE, BUT IN ARIZONA ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE. Many of us -- more every day as the dysfunction of TUSD becomes ever more conspicuous to the broader community -- disagree with you.
"The numbers might move a bit if the questions on the two polls were phrased in a more voucher-friendly way, but not by enough to change the overall result."
Pure assertion. The questions in the polls you cite were asked in extremely biased, prejudicial ways, and there is absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that if the questions had been phrased differently, the results would not have been different.
What if the question were posed this way:
"Do all children with similar needs deserve to have exactly the same amount of tax funded support for their educations, or should it be legal for the state to discriminate economically against parents who are responsible enough to take the time and trouble to remove their children from malfunctioning / low performing neighborhood schools and to transport them at their own expense to schools that are able to meet their children's academic needs i.e. that enable their children to perform at the academic level that matches their ability level?"
Impeachment on what grounds, that you are a sore loser? Get back to helping Make America Great Again.
Hate won't Trump Trump.
Updated 48 hours ago.
I wonder just how much of what you believe just simply isn't true?
Isn't it funny how Grijalva and fellow travelers are never concerned about the environmental impacts of drug smuggling and illegal immigration across the unsecured border?
- Migrants and smugglers dump an estimated 2,000 tons of trash and human waste in the borderlands every year - most of it in areas where it is very difficult to remove. (See https://legacy.azdeq.gov/obep/waste.html).
- Migrants and smugglers had cut an estimated 1300 miles of wildcat trails in the borderlands as of 2006. (See https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opini).
-Illegal aliens and smugglers regularly set wildfires, both to summon aid or to distract CBP, destroying hundreds of acres of vegetation a year. In fact, migrants are suspected of causing many of southern Arizona's most devastating fires of the last few years (Horseshoe 2, Monument, etc.). (See http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/arizona).
Would a wall have some environmental impact? Sure. But so would doing nothing. Let's try to keep some perspective on both sides of the issue.
Don't you wonder why so many of Trump campaign advisors/contributors were meeting with Russian agents? Where are the people of America not calling for his impeachment? Do we actually have Democracy under the Republicans?
DeVos brother met with the Russians on a secluded just prior to Trump taking his oath of office. Both are billionaires from MI, Brother is now living in another country. He left the USA
The Republicans want all the power so they try to pass any bills to take away the rights of the people and communities. It's called DICTATORSHIP
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation