Spend an extra $6.2 trillion on education over the next 20 years, get a return of $225 trillion on the investment. That's what Randall Lane, who edits Forbes, suggests in the magazine's December 15 issue (Hat tip to commenter Michael S. Ellegood for pointing me to the article). That's Forbes, the business magazine.

Lane discusses the costs of five educational policies and estimates the returns on the investment.

The investment required to implement all five would run somewhere in the neighborhood of $6.2 trillion, spread over 20 years. Or $310 billion a year in today’s dollars. And the payoff, as calculated by factoring in all those additional, better-skilled high school and college graduates on our national GDP? Almost $225 trillion, spread over an 80-year time horizon, which incorporates an entire generation’s professional achievement.

Lane didn't create the policy suggestions. They came from a number of educators and people involved in education policy.

I don't have to agree with all the policy suggestions—I don't—or be convinced the costs and return-on-investment figures are accurate—I'm not—to be encouraged that an article in Forbes talks about spending on education as a good investment, not "throwing money" at schools. I'm also encouraged that this isn't an ideological shopping list compiled either by a like-minded group of educational privatizers or progressives. It's an honest attempt to look at ways to spend money on education to get positive economic results, drawing from ideas across the spectrum.

Here's a quick summary of the five policy changes:

1. Teacher Efficacy. Raise teacher salaries to attract top candidates for the job. Adding 50% to salaries would mean most new teachers would come from the top third of college grads. Investment: $4.8 trillion. Return On Investment: $64.5 trillion.

2. Universal Pre-K. Guarantee pre-kindergarten education for every child. Investment: $1.1 trillion. Return On Investment: $38.4 trillion.

The notice of noncompliance John Huppenthal sent out to TUSD on his last day as Arizona's superintendent of schools Jan. 2, saying some of the district's culturally relevant classes violated state law, is still on the table. But school district Superintendent H.T. Sanchez says Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas is willing to collaborate to soon put the issue to rest.

Sanchez and Douglas met for an hour and a half in Phoenix today to chat about TUSD's culturally relevant curriculum, and specifically about the U.S. history and English from a Mexican-American and African American perspective classes that are reportedly in violation of HB 2281—the Jan Brewer statute that outlawed TUSD's Mexican American Studies program about two years ago.

The meeting went so well, according to Sanchez, Douglas even invited him to join an advisory committee that'll work to implement studies on the contributions Latinos have made to Arizona and the rest of the country into the state's Common Core Standards, or College and Career Ready Standards.

"I don't feel that the state agency (Arizona Department of Education) wants to shut down our program, but wants to take a look at how we can work together and address any concerns...with the law (HB 2281) that is in the 9th Circuit right now. Until that case is done, the law is the law," Sanchez said during a press conference this afternoon at Utterback Magnet Middle School. "If her desire was to eliminate ethnic studies in TUSD, she would not have invited me to serve in a committee that is going to (create) instructional standards that provide the perspective of Latinos into the state curriculum."

Now, it's all about opening the classroom doors to members of the state Department of Education, show them what is going on, the materials being taught, so that trust and communication can be rebuilt. All of that will hopefully lead to the state not cutting TUSD's funding (if the district doesn't fix whatever the state doesn't like in the next two months, they face losing 10 percent of the state's monthly aid).

Sanchez said he isn't concerned—and a big chunk of that is because he knows his district is not teaching hatred and instigating students to overthrow the government, which is what Huppenthal alleges.

"(In the classroom), you see students that are eager to learn, you see teachers who love their kids and love teaching, and that is the best thing that could happen to us is have them come in and see what we do, meet our kids, meet our teachers, understand their passion, to understand what they are trying to put forward to the students, and I'm not opposed to an open dialogue," he said.

In regards to whether Douglas likes or dislikes these culturally relevant classes, Sanchez said that during the talk, Douglas suggested all TUSD schools should offer them rather than just a handful—surprised?

But keep in mind that just because Douglas is not going after the content of the classes itself, it all is safe. The tables have turned to looking at how the content is being taught, and who knows if the teachers are going to be willing to modify their procedures and the relationship they have with their students to comply with the state.

Huppenthal's parting shot at TUSD's Culturally Relevant Curriculum made Rolling Stone, not because of its attack on the ethnic studies courses, but because Hupp mentioned a Rage Against The Machine song and KRS-One's discussion of the nature of hip-hop. None of that is news to Tucsonans — it's been all over the media — but this comment at the end of the article could be an important bit of information.

Sally Stewart, the spokeswoman for the state's Department of Education, said that Huppenthal's replacement, Diane Douglas, would "keep the ball rolling" and follow up on her predecessor's notice. Douglas' chief of staff did not reply to requests for comment from the Republic on Friday.

I have my doubts that Douglas will want to jump into Hupp's (and Horne's) battle this early in her tenure, but if it's in the Rolling Stone, I guess it's gotta be true. But then again, the information comes from a Dept. of Ed. spokesperson, not Douglas' new Chief of Staff, Michael Bradley, a longtime political operative whose job seems to be to temper the Douglas we saw on the campaign trail — to the extent we saw the invisible candidate, anyway. Until the word comes from Douglas or Bradley, it's not official.

I listened to the Rage Against The Machine song Hupp referenced, "Take The Power Back." Strong, thoughtful lyrics. There's plenty of substance in the in-your-face words, well worth study and analysis in a high school class, both for their historical/political context and their musical/literary quality. Here's part of the song Huppenthal didn't mention, which can be read as a justification for the courses Hupp and his friends condemn.

Savor this moment. Maybe clip a few of these quotes and hang them on your wall for future reference. Our new Governor Ducey and Superintendent of Public Instruction Douglas have shown us their nonpartisan, sensitive sides in their final comments before taking office.

Here are a few lovely moments Diane Douglas gave us in an interview with Howard Fischer and a recent media release.

“We have to educate the whole child. We have to make sure that our children are not only ready to contribute to society but know how to be self-governing adults.” [Turn-of-the-twentieth-century progressive education philosopher John Dewey would beam with pride if he could hear those words from our conservative Ed Supe.]

"Funding is not the only factor in the success of education, but it is clear that Arizona schools are suffering due to years of frugal budgets and cutbacks." [Preach, Diane, Preach!]

"I will do everything in my power to assist them [the executive branch and the state Legislature] through this difficult process while advocating for the funding so desperately needed in our classrooms." [Keep preaching! Keep the faith!]

Douglas, 58, who grew up in New Jersey, acknowledged that in the 1950s and early 1960s there was a big emphasis in schools on patriotism. And she said she’s not proposing that sort of one-sided approach to teaching history and civics.

“But has the pendulum swung too far the other way?” she asked. “Have we gone from being too positive to being too negative?” [Acknowledging that our patriotism-heavy education was once "one-sided" and "too positive" is a first important step in acknowledging that we have to be more honest about our history.]

No-longer-superintendent John Huppenthal's parting shot across TUSD's bow has been much in the news lately, including a few posts here at the Range. Hupp, not content with successfully dismantling the TUSD's Mexican American Studies program, has been itching to do the same to the district's current Culturally Relevant Curriculum, a similar (but not identical) program which was created to fulfill the dictates of the federal desegregation orders for the district. He's demanded that the district send him piles of documents about the program and has arranged scheduled and unscheduled visits to the classrooms. I'm guessing if he had beat Diane Douglas in the primary, he would have brought this up during his reelection campaign like he did four years ago — nothing like running against La Raza to rile up the base — but since he lost the primary, he kept quiet until he had one foot out the door.

But MAS, though dismantled, isn't dead. A lawsuit is scheduled to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on January 12 contesting HB 2281, the law that was created to outlaw Mexican American Studies.

The lawsuit argues that HB 2281 should be thrown out because it's too vague. What does it mean that a course "promote[s] the overthrow of the United States government," or "promote[s] resentment toward a race or class of people"? Those charges can be hurled at any number of texts used in history, political science and literature classes, or discussions led by teachers who want students to think critically about this country's past and present, not just curriculum used in the Mexican American and African American studies courses. And what, exactly, does it mean to say a class "advocate[s] ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals"? That's definitely in the eye, and the bias, of the beholder.

[Note: I wrote this awhile before New Years and it got lost in the end-of-the-year shuffle, so it may sound a bit dated. But I've been reading a whole lot about the problems with mass incarceration, mandatory sentencing and the school-to-prison pipeline and plan to write more about the topics this year. So consider this an introduction, with more posts to follow.]

I missed this when it happened a few weeks back. In the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, U.S. Ed Sec Arne Duncan went to St. Louis to talk with students about problems related to race, police relations and educational inequality. His takeaway:

“The division between young people and the police is huge,” Duncan said. “The division along race in this community is huge. The division along educational opportunity being based on where you live, your zip code, is huge. The inequities are huge.”

According to Duncan, the students want more interaction with police — positive interaction.

“I just can't overstate how large the appetite is among young people to be part of the solution, to build bridges to the police,” Duncan said. “To have the police see them for who they are, and for the police to see them for who they are. And look beyond skin color, look beyond uniforms, look beyond badges, look beyond stereotypes and get to know each other as humans.”

Nice words. It's good to see Duncan diving into these issues, especially the problems between the youth and police which isn't strictly an education issue. But how would he go about improving the situation? Is the conservative "education reform" movement, much of which he and Obama have embraced, his answer? If so, if supporting charters over school districts, sidling toward an acceptance of vouchers and blaming "bad teachers" and teachers unions for our "failing schools" are the ways he wants to lower educational inequity and improve educational opportunity, he's siding with educational privatizers and profiteers who are more interested in a bigger slice of the education pie than in what's best for our children.

John Huppenthal, who is serving his final days as Superintendent of Public Instruction, notified Tucson Unified School District that it is in violation of A.R.S. §15-112.

The law in question prevents schools from promoting resentment towards a particular race among other, overthrowing the United States government, and advocating ethnic solidarity over treatment of people as individuals. If the TUSD is not found in compliance with the law by March 4, the Arizona Department of Education could decide to withhold 10 percent of the monthly apportionment of state aid each month until the violations are corrected.

From the press release:

“After a thorough review of materials from TUSD’s culturally relevant courses, I find that the district has failed to meet several provisions of the 2012 Settlement Agreement settlement and is once again in clear violation of A.R.S. §15-112. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned by the fact that the noncompliance appears to extend beyond classes taught from the Mexican American perspective and now also includes classes taught from the African American perspective.

“ADE staff has worked tirelessly to provide guidance and feedback as quickly as possible throughout the process so that district officials would have the resources needed to keep all culturally relevant courses in compliance with the law. This process has been made challenging by the fact that the district has failed to fully respond to several requests for information and has been inconsistent in its application of materials that have been provided.

“In issuing this finding before classes resume, I am hopeful that the district will take immediate action to comply with the law.”

At the same time high profile killings of unarmed black men by police officers are making national news and bringing thousands of people into the streets to protest, TUSD is introducing police officers into some of its schools. When you combine people's justifiable concerns that too many police are arrest- and trigger-happy with the introduction of officers into Tucson schools with a high minority population, it's inevitable there will be concerns. And it's the job of TUSD and the Tucson Police Department to address and deal with the concerns directly.

Ideally, officers in the school should be community policing at its finest, bringing police into the halls and the classrooms to increase dialogue and understanding between young people and police at the same time the schools become safer places for students and staff. But officers in the schools can also result in more juveniles being brought into the criminal justice system, which can lead to all kinds of negative, life-altering consequences for the young people involved, and can give students and other community members another reason to fear and distrust police.

There are two positive aspects of the way police officers are being introduced. First, TUSD wisely refused to station police officers in its schools if they were allowed to ask students about their immigration status. Only after the agreement with the city read, “School Resource Officers shall refrain from asking about immigration status,” was the officers' presence OK'd.

Second, the legal agreement between TUSD and the City of Tucson on the use of police officers in the schools looks like a good document to my untrained eye. Attached to the agreement is the Arizona Department of Education's School Safety Program Guidance Manual which begins by saying the purpose of the program is "to contribute to safe school environments that are conducive to teaching and learning." It discusses the training officers go through and their educational duties in the schools. The emphasis of the manual is on safety and education, not arrest and incarceration.

But with a police officer easily at hand, it becomes easier to turn situations which should be handled in house into trips down to the police station. When there's a law enforcement hammer in the school, every infraction of the rules can look like a nail. The officers as well as the school administration need to be aware of the temptation to criminalize bad behavior by students which should be dealt with by in-school reprimands and, if necessary, disciplinary action. The only time the criminal justice system should be involved is when a situation is serious enough that a school without an on-campus officer would call in the police to deal with the problem.

Here's a quote by Ed Supe-elect Diane Douglas from a media release:

"The courts have ruled that Arizona schools were deprived of increases guaranteed to them by a vote of the people."

What does she mean exactly? I haven't seen the whole media release (Gotta get on that email list!), and from the reporting I've read, Douglas is short on specifics, but it looks like Douglas is saying the lege should cough up the dough it owes the schools. Another quote:

“Funding is not the only factor in the success of education, but it is clear that Arizona schools are suffering due to years of frugal budgets and cutbacks."

Here's what's missing — in a good sense — from that statement: the phrase "throwing money at schools." I agree with Douglas, "Funding is not the only factor in the success of education." But lots of conservatives take it a step further and contend that schools deserve less money because they're doing such a terrible job, why reward them for bad behavior by "throwing money at them"?

Douglas states her disagreement with the "throw money at education" crowd by stating, "Arizona schools are suffering due to years of frugal budgets and cutbacks." Yes, indeed they are.

Credit where credit is due. The superintendent has no direct control over the size of the state's education budget, but if Douglas is making statements that move the conversation in a positive direction, she's doing the right thing.

Pima Community College got word today that it will most likely have its probation lifted, based on a report by the Higher Learning Commission.

The report, which was put together based on a visit to Pima in September, will be one of the main pieces of evidence the commission takes into consideration when deciding the college’s fate in early 2015. The report included the caveat that while the college has made some good progress, many of the programs that have been implemented are still new. As a result, the team is recommending that the college be taken off probation, but put “on notice”—essentially saying that while the progress looks promising, the HLC should make sure everything holds up over time.

“I see today’s recommendation as positive news of where we’ve come and where we’re headed,” Pima Chancellor Lee Lambert said at a press conference. “The team that spent the most time with the college is coming back with this positive recommendation. I think it will be hard for them not to follow that.”

The announcement, which Lambert made encircled by smiling college employees, was met with a standing ovation.

The college’s accreditation has been on probation since the spring of 2013, when community concern brought the HLC to Tucson to look into problems at the college. During that evaluation, the HLC found five standards for accreditation that the college did not meet, including failing to investigate sexual harassment allegations quickly and abusing the college's HR practices.

Read the full report that will be submitted for Pima's upcoming trial here.