Wow the comments on this thread are amazing for taking on straw dogs of their own creation. It isn't any political party's responsibility to show anything about public education: the Dems who mismanage are no better or worse than the Republicans that run the state and so drastically underfund our public schools--80% of the school-going population--and then continually find ways to cut up the ever-shrinking pie so that its funds can be shunted to charters. Yeah, charters and private schools that supposedly will now be able to help the lower SES population--except that they don't. Charters do not show up as any better than public schools in academic terms, and private schools don't either--and the famed vouchers have been shown to only help those who can almost pay for the school year themselves--hardly the poorest of the poor that commenters seem to keep advocating for.
To the extent that our public education system has become a political football, our kids have suffered. In fact, let us not forget that the Dems and the Republicans together voted for Prop 123, that will guarantee that there are less public school monies long into the future. And apparently in the meantime, even that small amount that is supposed to go to help the 80% will be diverted. If we looked at this in another country we would be able to see it as effectively offering less and less to more and more students. Instead we make up benefits to "choice" that fit neatly into the pocket of ALEC and the Goldwater Institute and in general do little to benefit who those groups promise will be benefitted. I mean honestly, when was the last time those two organizations championed ANYthing for the poor?
Now, close to 100% of our schools are open to the public. Unlike other states, and the situation you want, where every school is closed to 99% of the public.
We are getting very close to a public school system instead of a district system.
The district system was designed with the specific intent of excluding Catholics and minorities. It is a bigoted and racist institution. It is an abomination of language to call it "public."
Any chance you'll ever have something new/current here??
How would you know anything about liberals or Christians?
You're neither one.
Ha ha ha! If What, Again saw Christ in the desert he'd call ICE on him.
Well I knew it couldn't be a church because there's nothing that Tucson liberals hate more than Christians.
Happy Easter! Christ has risen.
Actually it's a movie theater on East Speedway. Of course, I wouldn't expect a Russian troll to know that.
Is that the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx in the background?
Thank you for this. Our world has changed little yet some for the better.
To Mari Herreras ... s/he? WTF is that? I hate when reporters don't understand our pronouns. I guess TC didn't mind, but damn. Sure hope that crap doesn't start another misinformed, ignorant trend in this country. You call me a s/he, and you'd be met with my baseball bat instead of an interview! LOL
Why would the public district system disappear? Keep in mind that in addition to troubled districts that may see an increase in exits now that ESA policy has been increased, there are many high functioning, well-managed districts where the majority of parents are satisfied with the services they receive. It will still be the easiest, most convenient, least expensive thing to do to use your local public district school if that school is meeting your child's needs. If that school is NOT meeting your child's needs, the ESA bill enacted makes it less cost prohibitive to transfer to a private, but the amount of the ESA won't fully cover tuition in any reputable private, and in addition to a portion of tuition, parents still have to be willing to bear the expense and trouble of transportation. It would seem possible that the distribution between public district schools and privates might change slightly as the result of this bill, but not much. The public system will not disappear. The most likely effect of the legislation on the public system would seem to be that it will further decrease enrollment in low functioning districts.
It falls to the Democratic Party to explain how being locked into low functioning schools that are not meeting their academic needs benefits the students who want to leave -- not how it benefits the political machines connected with low functioning districts, and not how it benefits the students who may be left behind in those districts. It's the district's role to figure out how to meet the academic needs of the students enrolled in it. It's not students' roles to persist in a school that is not meeting their academic needs in order to make the teachers' and administrators' jobs easier by reducing the concentrations of students who struggle academically or behaviorally. Parents have to choose a school that enables their child to learn at a reasonable rate and that provides a safe, supportive environment. Those who think that every public district school is capable of doing that for every child within its catchment area are simply not living in the real world, looking at real conditions in the schools. Nor are they being realistic (or just) when they propose to say, "Sure, you can transfer out of this school that is not meeting your needs, but if you do so you lose the right to have the tax dollars the state has available for you applied in support of your education."
We went and the food was as excellent as you described. I'm telling others to head over there- and don't forget to order that amazing ginger drink.
Tom, instead getting all vexed by Pancho Villa the next time you're in Las Cruces, you should take a short trip down the road from Mesilla to La Mesa and have some of the best New Mexican food at the Chope's Bar & Restaurant! Also La Posta in Mesilla.
Las Cruces is OK to visit, but I wouldn't think of a trip there without eating some real New Mexican food!
Follow the dots - A) All parents get vouchers for their kids' education. B) They spend them at the public school of their choice C) Vouchers don't increase D) School operating costs increase E) public schools are forced to ask parents to make up the difference F) School vouchers decrease - in real terms if not nominal terms G) Parents are asked to make up more of the difference H) Parents can't afford to send their kids to public education; so they don't I) Free public education for all is gone, and kids are not educated unless their parents are well-off.
Vouchers for all looks fair on the surface but is always going to favor those who are economically well-off at the expense of the middle class and the poor as well as our businesses who need educated workers.
My dear, dear friend, Kathryn, I can't believe you are gone! You gave so much of yourself to so many! The day you walked into my classroom to introduce yourself as my new substitute, I knew we would ALWAYS BE GREAT FRIENDS! My heart is so broken, as are all of her family-her loving, caring husband and beautiful spirited sister as well as her many friends! She was a true hero to so many, her devotion to our friends walking the desert was shear love of humanity itself! Oh my dearest Kathryn whatever are we going to do without you?!? YOu will forever be our Bass Ass Warrior Woman! Protect all our immigrants in the desert !!!!
How about someone who opposes ESAs answers the question, "Why is it bad if a diverse range of Independent Schools are strengthened and if kids coming from a wider range of socioeconomic backgrounds have access to them?"
That might bring us around to the real motive for opposing ESAs: though "Democrats" have no objection to the plutocracy buying itself any form of education it desires, they want the middle class locked into public district schools to keep them "functional" and to ensure that all students whose income is under a certain level (not ALL students, regardless of income level) are offered exactly the same kind of educational services. They don't give a damn whether public schools meet the full range of learning needs within that cohort, or whether, as ARS 15-779 tries to require, students who come into public district schools with above-average academic ability are afforded the opportunity to make "otherwise attainable progress" in their classrooms. It's all about raising the bottom SES range's educational attainment somewhat and the middle's participation is needed to ensure that can be done. Increasingly, unfortunately, what this "noble" social experiment seems to be deteriorating into is locking both the bottom and the middle portion of the SES range in this country into classrooms where massive low quality curricula adoptions that profit corporations force these students to grind away at rote memorization and regurgitation of canned content on multiple choice tests. Meanwhile, the "Democratic" party lets the high SES range entirely off the hook. They can buy themselves any kind of education they want, and no Democrat will take issue with their right to do so. The plutocrat Democratic Party campaign funders are certainly not compelled to participate in the great "EQUITY" (?!) experiment the Party is trying to run in this country's tax funded "educational" institutions.
Sadly, this is the doublespeak-hypocrisy otherwise known as Democratic "education" policy. Any "Democrat" who peddles this shoddy merchandise, which has little or nothing to do with excellence in education or any legitimate, meaningful form of "equity," should be forced to disclose whether at any point, their own children have been enrolled in private educational institutions. If so, they have no right to pitch policies to the public that decrease rather than increase the percent of our population that can access educational institutions that offer alternatives to what is served up as "education" in too many public district schools.
(And by the way, reputable private schools are non-profit. And their teachers and administrators have lower salaries than public administrators do. So let's get rid of the idea that they're all being run by greedy capitalists trying to make a profit on public funds. That is a mischaracterization of the private sector meant to fuel ill-informed support of a particular political agenda which includes keeping the maximum # of students, with their per-pupil funding, locked into a public system that benefits political machines but in too many cases cannot meet the full range of academic needs of the students it enrolls.)
I loved dust devils, as a kid growing up I remember running to be inside of every dust devil that we saw. Trying to stay inside as long as possible. The one who came out with the most dust on our faces/eyelashes and eyebrows was declared the winner.
Mary. What we have here is a typical example of your basic compassionate, civil liberal. You can bet that tomorrow Pulitzer Tammy will be in the front row at Mass so everyone can see him. Then when ever he has to write his next column he'll be back calling anybody he disagrees with stupid, moronic, etc. A little advice to Tammy's family. After his remark that he made about Sen. Tovis getting into an accident, I might avoid getting in a car with him. Karma and all.
As far as me being a loser goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
P.S. For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Tammy about the whole driving while on a cell phone thing. Before I had to give up the Harley because of health reasons, every close call I ever had was with some asshole either texting or on their phone.
Thank you Margret for reminding us that Art is one of our most potent agencies in sparking the imagination in resistance to systematic dissolve and that Art which is reserved for escapistt purpose and profit always comes up short in feeding those most in need . Creative Department of Defense . Tucson Chapter..
Truly a woman of integrity, Kathryn's loss came unexpectedly. Not only Tucson but all of Southern Arizona is in tears.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation