David Safier

by David Safier

I went on the Bill Buckmaster Show today and talked about a TUSD-related topic that doesn't get as much attention as it deserves: the politically charged nature of the TUSD Board. No serious followers of the State Legislature or Congress would be foolish enough to think they can observe elected officials' speeches, tactics and decisions without considering the players' political motivations. Savvy observers try to peek behind the curtain to figure out what's really going on behind all the posturing for the public. But when we turn to TUSD, too often we forget to ask ourselves, What are the politics behind what people say and do? I'm not referring to Democratic and Republican politics here. I'm talking about "politics" in a more general sense, where there's more to people's actions than meets the eye. Politics are behind much of what's been happening lately at TUSD, and it's played with great skill by the master gamesman on the Board, Mark Stegeman, who is both a scholar and a practitioner of Economics Game Theory.

I went into the subject of TUSD politics on today's Buckmaster Show for 10 minutes starting at about the 30 minute mark, specifically in reference to the superintendent search. I delve into it in more detail on the show than I will here, so I recommend you give it a listen. Bill and I go on about TUSD and also discuss the Sunnyside Board meeting that will decide Manuel Isquierdo's fate after that, and Steve Farley discusses the legislative session at the beginning of the show. It's all reasonably interesting, but I think I can safely say, you haven't heard what I have to say about TUSD.

Things got very complicated on the TUSD board during the Mexican-American Studies controversy, but there was a reasonably solid 3-2 or 4-1 majority that was likely to go along with Huppenthal and dismantle the MAS program. Many of us hoped for a different outcome, but few people were surprised by the vote to end MAS. However, the Board composition changed significantly in November when Cam Juarez and Kristel Foster replaced two moderate-to-conservative Board members. Together with Adelita Grijalva, the new Board members form a 3-2 progressive majority, leaving Mark Stegeman and Michael Hicks with far less power and influence than they once had. Hicks may be willing to accept his role as a back bencher, but Stegeman is having none of it, and he's ratcheting up his political tactics to gain whatever advantage he can.

by David Safier Until recently, it's been tough for any progressive voices to rise above the shouting of the conservative "education reform" movement. Conservatives are swimming in corporate and foundation money, and they have a simple set of myths they repeats ad nauseum: Public schools are failing; Teacher unions are bad for education; Charter and … Read more

by David Safier I'll be doing my monthly Blogger Beat segment on the Bill Buckmaster radio show today. The show runs from 12-1PM on KVOI, 1030AM. It should be an interesting show. Sen. Steve Farley will begin with a discussion of the legislative session (Spoiler alert: He'll be smiling now and then while he talks), … Read more

by David Safier

Bob Lord pretty much covers the income/wealth inequality beat here at BfA, but a piece in today's NY Times moves the discussion into my area: education. Our education system, the author says, favors the wealthy over the poor. That isn't a surprise, of course. Kids from high income families have every educational advantage over kids from poor families, in the U.S. and around the world. But the author makes the important point that even our public schools spend more on wealthy children than poor children, increasing the educational disparity.

The truth is that there are two very different education stories in America. The children of the wealthiest 10 percent or so do receive some of the best education in the world, and the quality keeps getting better. For most everyone else, this is not the case. America’s average standing in global education rankings has tumbled not because everyone is falling, but because of the country’s deep, still-widening achievement gap between socioeconomic groups.

And while America does spend plenty on education, it funnels a disproportionate share into educating wealthier students, worsening that gap. The majority of other advanced countries do things differently, at least at the K-12 level, tilting resources in favor of poorer students.

The last sentence in the passage bears repeating. Other countries give extra funds to low achieving schools — which usually means schools with low income kids. The usual result is, those kids do better than they would otherwise. They may not reach the same achievement level as wealthy kids, but they close the gap a bit. Here, the amount spent on schools with high income kids tops what goes to the schools where the kids need the most educational help. And Arizona is doing its best to increase the disparity. Brewer and her education cronies want to reward high performing schools with extra funding and punish schools that aren't making the grade.

Preschool is one way to narrow the achievement gap, or at least prevent it from widening. It's the rare child from upper income family who doesn't attend preschool of some kind, but as a nation, only 69% of young children are enrolled in preschool. That compares to an 81% preschool enrollment rate in the comparable nations.

by David Safier

John Denker has a post below basically slammming H.T. Sanchez, the only finalist for the TUSD Superintendent position. It deserves a counter post. I come not to praise Sanchez, nor to bury him, but to give some perspective.

In my 30-plus years of teaching, I had about a half dozen superintendents. I never loved any of them (except maybe for one old guy who came to meetings in overalls and was an alcohol-is-sin Christian in his younger days, but by the time I knew him was making homemade wine. He was an alright superintendent, I guess, but I loved the fact a guy like that existed). I despised a few, liked a few and was neutral about some of the others, but I never loved the job any superintendent did, and I doubt I ever will. If Sanchez takes the helm at TUSD, I don't expect to love him either.

So the question is, will Sanchez be good enough to move TUSD in a generally positive direction? My answer is, I think he's likely to do as much good as any new superintendent and will probably succeed better than most.