Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Last 7 Days

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.

1 like, 0 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.

2 likes, 2 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.

2 likes, 3 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.

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Still too simplistic. on 05/23/2017 at 4:26 PM

Re: “Smoke Sessions

It appears so much need to be pandered too, hate we first must show who and what we dislike, our long term disgust must be stated before any work to make whats right is done.

I guess I missed the boat again. I didn't understand that boat only sailed to the destination of intolerance. In order to get passage one needs to disassociate and insult others. Then to go on board and work to get other on board that have not agreed in the past. This is working wonderfully a ship of fools my grandmother said.

Posted by carpet baggers on 05/23/2017 at 11:06 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

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.

4 likes, 11 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, 8 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.

7 likes, 8 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.

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

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

If and when this thing gets on the ballot, expect millions of dollars from the pro-voucher movement to pour into the State to defeat it. That said, I hope the people prevail!

11 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Michael S. Ellegood on 05/22/2017 at 8:36 AM

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

Vouchers are clearly a way to drain public dollars that go to the schools that 80% of the population chooses ... in order to fund private schools. I am not at ALL convinced that public schoolchildren are being sacrificed (or held as "economic hostages") in order to save public schools (in fact I think its really offensive)--nor am I convinced that we should all overlook the religious side of Catholic education just because the schools are well organized. I would not expect public monies to send my student to a madrasa, to a Jewish school, nor to a Catholic or Bible school. Kudos to them if their schools are so-called "good schools"--public monies going to religious entities goes against the separation of church and state that this country is supposedly founded on. But who cares about that?!

13 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Betts Putnam-Hidalgo on 05/22/2017 at 7:37 AM

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

If you get rid of vouchers, you end up with the status quo....education run by a government sanctioned monopoly. Being a monopoly, their solutions tend to be in their own self interest. There will no doubt be a call to lard up budgets and raise taxes on " the rich". If you want to look at other states for inspiration, try California. High taxes and approval of many education bond issues. Studies show most of that money goes to the education monopoly bureaucrats and not the classrooms.
The biggest objection to vouchers is that it rewards motivated parents. Maybe we should encourage more motivated parents.

8 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by bsinn on 05/22/2017 at 6:41 AM

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

The Recall Diane Douglas people only gathered 100,000 signatures in 120 days and no one knows how many were actually valid. These people don't have a chance to get the needed amount in 90 days without paid signature gathers which they don't have the funds to pay for. Not a chance.

3 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Cynthia Weiss on 05/21/2017 at 10:43 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

PS Let me be more concise:

KOCH BROTHERS' SHILLS

Thank you.

9 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Just Sayin' on 05/21/2017 at 2:06 PM

Re: “A 'Fat Cat Tax'?

Clearly, the abundant far-right commenters, who feel no responsibility to anyone -- anyone American, let alone Arizonan -- until they themselves get stuck, are targeting The Weekly for special scrutiny. Their strategy: destroy the media's credibility (personalize the attacks if you can), state and repeat lies and half-lie as if they were the truth, and eventually the populace will be softened up enough to belief their reactionary crap. Only, it doesn't work. Note that every far-right bleat gets three to four to a dozen times the Dislikes as Likes. Still, they keep at it. Except for their pathetic attempts to soil The Range and The Weekly, they have no way of fundamentally doing anything about life here in AZ; being consistently negative is what keeps them feeling important and potent. What a pathetic lot.

9 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Just Sayin'.... on 05/21/2017 at 1:59 PM

Re: “The New Teacher Certification Rules: Is Everyone Else Wrong, or Am I?

The plan is to water down the quality of teaching to the point that all schools "fail." Then corporate raiders can take them over, collect tax money and close them down and transfer their loot offshore. We can stop this now. Get out and vote!

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Shirley Willis on 05/21/2017 at 1:24 AM

Re: “Seth MacFarlane and His Peculiar Distaste For Tucson

Whenever I'm in Tucson and ask someone there if they like Tucson and they respond with oh I just love Tucson. I have to ask myself where the hell are they from? Chicago or maybe Detroit! All the dumb baseless arrogance. The best thing that ever came out of Tucson was interstate 10!

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Rickie Garrat on 05/20/2017 at 9:08 PM

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