by David Safier Nicholas Kristof's column in today's NY Times has one of the ultimate stories of the effect a teacher can have on a kid. Even if you only kinda like this stuff, read this one, all the way to the end. Then ask yourself, if that teacher hadn't been there at that moment, … Read more
by David Safier Scott Brown wants to show he cares about the little people more than Elizabeth Warren. That's why he's worried raising taxes on everyone who makes more than $250,000 per year will hurt “teachers, firefighters, policemen, folks who work two jobs.” I mean, consider the lot of a husband and wife, one a … Read more
by David Safier
Look, I don't want to go too hard on the Star editorial writers, because I think they've written some fine stuff lately — the piece, Bible in schools not a topic for the Legislature, is one outstanding example — and today's editorial, Students forgotten in TUSD fiasco, has its good moments. But for the editorial to maintain the removal of books previously used in MAS courses is not a ban is semantically untenable. People whose stock-in-trade is words should know better.
"To ban" is " "To prohibit, especially by legal means. . . . To prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book>." It doesn't have to be a total and outright ban. Something can be banned from use by an entire school district or by certain teachers. Whether it is a universal ban or a selective ban — I choose to use the term "discriminatory ban" to make the point clearer and more dramatic — a ban is a ban is a ban.
The Star editorial defends its assertion this is not ban by writing,
Officials boxed up texts used in the MAS classes and put them in storage, because the MAS classes are no longer being taught.
That's only a partial truth. The rest of the story is, TUSD is not prohibiting the use of the texts in all classrooms, only those led by former MAS teachers. The editorial writers should read an article by Alexis Huicochea in Wednesday's Star more carefully. She reports,
[TUSD spokeswoman Cara Rene] wasn't sure if other Tucson Unified School District teachers are using the books as part of their curricula.
A post on The Range by Mari Herreras repeats the same point.
Teachers not under the MAS banner and in other schools throughout the district can teach and are teaching from books that Huppenthal found objectionable or questioned — but not Acosta and his MAS co-workers.
Not all of the selected texts have been boxed up in all classrooms. They are only banned in classes taught by former MAS teachers. The fact that others teaching the same or similar classes can use the texts makes the partial, or selective, or discriminatory ban — choose the adjective you prefer — that much more objectionable.
I understand why TUSD and The Star both object to the term "banned books." It's a loaded term with all kinds of negative connotations. But it's accurate. Instead of denying the ban, TUSD should explain it. I'll talk about that after the jump.
by David Safier H/t to Abie Morales for this link. If you remember, Huppenthal once said the style of education in the MAS program is reminiscent of Hitler Youth. Now, Tom Horne implies the MAS curriculum opens the door to KKK curriculum. State Attorney General Tom Horne has filed a response to two Mexican American … Read more
by David Safier Yesterday I posted about Rich Crandall's company, Crandall Corporate Dietitians — he's President and CFO — and wondered if he had any skin in the game with his bill to allow schools to opt out of the Federal free and reduced school lunch program. The company calls itself "the nation's largest provider … Read more