John Huppenthal is clearly the victim here. Just ask him, he'll tell you, as he did on the John C. Scott radio show last week.

"The interpretation of those blog comments was the exact opposite of what I was trying to communicate."

"All those scholarly posts [of mine] have disappeared. There has been a massive cutting out of what I put into that blog."

"They were pouring boiling oil on me in that blog! Occasionally I responded with a snarky, inappropriate retort to them, to get a reaction out of them."

Let's take a look at those three assertions, one by one.

I'm not sure how you can misinterpret statements that say people on public assistance are "lazy pigs," the Mexican American Studies program is the equivalent of the KKK and its teachers are skin heads, and "We all need to stomp out balkanization. No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English."

Huppenthal went to some lengths on the radio show to explain that his statements were misinterpreted. For instance, his "speak English" tirade was simply him getting emotional about the need for Hispanics to learn English if they want to get ahead. He said it upsets him when he sees billboards in Spanish when he's driving home from work.

"I'm going like, how are these children going to get a command of the English language if they can grow up in a community without ever knowing English?"

Poor John Huppenthal. OK, I didn't mean that, he deserves everything he's been getting lately. But the poor guy (didn't mean it that time either) can't catch a break. First, there are all those vile blog comments he made. Then there's the Common Core. His ardent, oft-stated support for what he's redubbed the "College and Career Ready Standards" will probably do him more harm in the primary than his blog comments, like the one calling people on public assistance "lazy pigs." The right wingers who always vote in large numbers in primaries are likely to be saying "Go John!" about the "lazy pigs" thing, but they hate the Common Core. So does Diane Douglas, Hupp's opponent in the Republican primary. He's got himself a problem.

Huppenthal went on the John C. Scott radio show last week, and he talked about Common Core. (He also talked about his prolific blog commenting, but that will have to wait for another post.) Sounds like Hupp has gone from a believer to an agnostic when it comes to Common Core. He's become an "I agree with all of you" kind of guy. On the one hand, he supports the standards, but on the other hand, “[W]hen you say I support Common Core, I would respectfully disagree.”

According to the new Huppenthal, there are two definitions for Common Core.

"Here's the issue. There's two definitions of Common Core. There's a set of great standards that were created by Craig Barrett and the Achieve organization, and then there's another definition. That other definition is, it's a defamation of our Founding Fathers, it is an unbalanced debate and indoctrination into one side of the science debate. Instead of having a true scientific inquiry into climate change, it's an indoctrination. . . . So when you say I support Common Core, I would respectfully disagree. I am absolutely 100 percent opposed to that definition of Common Core."

John Huppenthal wants the furor over his anonymous internet scribblings to just go away. He publicly renounced his online comments. He repudiated them. He apologized for them. He even said, cryptically, he "sought counsel about it." (Could be psychological, religious or legal counsel he sought. He didn't specify.) But he hasn't said if he commented on sites beyond the list we've read about or if he's used pseudonyms (pronounced "sway-do-nyms according to Huppenthal) other than Falcon9 and Thucydides.

Huppenthal has been asked if there are internet comments out there we don't know about. Blog for Arizona's Bob Lord, who uncovered the Falcon9/Thucydides/Huppenthal connection and exposed it in his blog posts, contacted Huppenthal but has yet to receive a response.

It’s now two weeks since I requested additional information about the aliases John Huppenthal used and the sites at which he commented. A week ago, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now, it seems, he may be ignoring my questions.

I’ll go out on a limb here. I think Huppenthal’s aliases went beyond Falcon9 and Thucydides. On our blog, we had one comment from a Socrates that tracked to the same location as Thucydides and Falcon9, and was made after the last Falcon9 comment and before the first Thucydides comment.

When you're talking about kids filling out an application for a charter school, don't call it an "application"; call it an "enrollment form." Don't talk about a charter school's "staff"; instead, call them "teachers" or "school leaders." Charters don't have a "market share"; they have a "student share." They don't "experiment"; they "innovate." Oh, and all those kids and their parents? Never, never call them "consumers"; they're "families."

You can learn all this and more in the 2014 Charter School Messaging Notebook put together by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (Hat tip to the great blog EduShyster.com for the catch.)

We hope this guide will help fine-tune the messaging you use on your website and in press releases, speeches, and media interviews. The results are clear: when we use words that work, people like what they hear — and that means more support for charter schools.

The 18 page pamphlet is chock full of useful information for charter operators and their PR people about how to market their schools. Lots of it is suggestions for good, positive messaging, but my favorite parts talk about what charter salespeople should avoid, "language we use every day [that is] actually turning parents, voters, and policymakers off."

An article in today's Star has new background on the hiring of Adelita Grijalva's mother-in-law, Olga Gómez, as the new principal of TUSD's Myers/Ganoung Elementary School, and it doesn't look good. Gómez herself comes out fine. Based on her experience, she may have been a good pick for the school. But Superintendent H.T. Sanchez should have used better judgement and, as important, he should have been more forthcoming when he was questioned about hiring details. And board member Grijalva should have disclosed her close family ties to Gómez earlier in the process.

I'm going on the assumption that the Star article is accurate. It sounds well researched to me. According to the article, Gómez got the lowest marks of the three candidates for the principal's job. However, since one of the higher ranked candidates was given another job in the district, it really came down to two choices, Gómez and someone from out of state. Sanchez said the need for the other candidate to be re-certified in Arizona was part of his decision to recommend Gómez. Maybe, maybe not. But if he was thinking of the consequences of his decision, if he weighed his concern that a well qualified candidate didn't have an Arizona credential against the suspicion of impropriety that certainly would follow his choice of Grijalva's mother-in-law, it shouldn't have been a contest. He should have gone with the other candidate.

Last week, John Huppenthal and his Republican primary opponent Diane Douglas had a televised debate on PBS. If it weren't for Huppenthal's responses to questions about his notorious blog commenting, the only statement that might be interesting to people who aren't education wonks came near the end when Douglas was airing her objections to the Common Core:

It has a data collection system on children that rivals Communist Chinese.

If Douglas makes it to the general, the Communist Chinese comment will be part of the political conversation, guaranteed.

But really, it was Huppenthal's dodging and weaving about his blog commenting and about a jaw-droppingly inappropriate statement by one of his employees that made the whole thing interesting. Let me summarize what I heard him saying.

Huppenthal defended his right to use "sway-do-nyms" — that's how he pronounced "pseudonyms," not once, but three times, enunciating very carefully each time — as if what upset people about his comments was that he made them anonymously, not what he actually said.

However, he did admit he used "language that got a little bit tough." Really, though, it was no more than a "harshly stated" way of "getting facts into the public discourse." Still, he said, "I've apologized for that, and I've sought counsel about it."

"Sought counsel"? In the context of his statement, it sounds like Huppenthal is saying he sought spiritual or psychological advice from a counselor of some kind. But out of context, "sought counsel" could just as easily mean he went to a lawyer to find out if he was in any legal trouble. Since Huppenthal is a master of random, disassociated comments, it's not clear exactly what he meant by "sought counsel."

However, Huppenthal's answer in the debate left no doubt about one thing. When he referred to people on public assistance as lazy pigs, said TUSD's Mexican American Studies program was the equivalent of the KKK and called the MAS teachers skinheads, that was nothing more than "language that got a little bit tough," a "harshly stated" way of "getting facts into the public discourse." He doesn't "renounce and repudiate" the meaning of what he said, just the tough, harsh way he said it.

A Maricopa County judge ruled that the legislature has to add over $300 million to Arizona's education funding immediately and as much as $2.9 billion over the next 5 years. No surprise, Republicans are balking. "We don't have the money!" "We don't owe that much!" And their old favorite from awhile back: "We're not paying! If you don't like it, kick us out of office."

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Fred DuVal has challenged Republican candidates for governor to join him in supporting the immediate implementation of the court order.

For nearly five years, Jan Brewer, Doug Ducey, and the Legislature have deliberately and illegally underfunded our kids’ schools. On Friday, the courts gave us clear direction for how to fix this moving forward.

I ask the Republican candidates for governor - Doug Ducey, Christine Jones, Scott Smith, Ken Bennett, Frank Riggs, and Andy Thomas - to join me in supporting immediate implementation of this court order so our children can begin benefitting from these resources as quickly as possible.

When I’m governor, there’ll be no more cuts to our children’s schools - not another dime, not another nickel, not another penny! I will work with teachers and parents to make Arizona’s education system the fastest improving in the country.

Together, we’ll give our children the education they deserve and move Arizona forward.

First it was the National Education Association (NEA) calling for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's resignation at its recent national convention. Now it's the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) joining in, with a twist. The AFT isn't calling on Duncan to resign — yet. Its resolution calls for an improvement plan for Duncan.

RESOLVED, that the AFT today calls on the president to implement a secretary improvement plan that will be based upon standing up for public education, supporting teachers and all school workers, inspiring parents and the public to join us in creating the public schools we want and deserve, and leading with us in reclaiming the promise of public education.

The wording is a sly dig at Duncan for supporting anti-tenure measures which would allow school districts to fire teachers more easily than they can now. The "secretary improvement plan" called for in the AFT resolution is like the teacher improvement plans which need to be implemented under tenure protections before a teacher is fired.

Here are the recommendations in the improvement plan.

• Enact the funding and equity recommendations of the Each and Every Child report issued by the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Equity Commission;
• Work with us to change the NCLB/RTTT “test and punish” accountability system to a “support and improve” model; and
• Promote rather than question the teachers and school support staff of America.

In a long-awaited ruling — and one long-feared by Republicans — Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper ruled that the legislature has to add $317 million to K-12 funding in Arizona right now and something on the order of $2.9 billion over the next five years.

This goes back to a 2000 ballot measure where the voters said school funding has to increase to keep up with inflation, which the lege hasn't done on a regular basis.

Where is the legislature supposed to get the money? The judge said that's not relevant to her ruling.

“Cost does not defeat jurisdiction,” she wrote.

[snip]

“This court cannot (and will not) tell the Legislature or treasurer how to fund the adjustments, past or future,” she wrote. “The court assumes that the Legislature will do what the law requires to enable the state to comply with the Supreme Court decision.”

Stay tuned. This story has legs. It's going to be around for awhile and will most likely become a factor in some 2014 campaigns.

Last week, the National Education Association held its annual convention. Biggest news: they passed a resolution asking Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education, to resign. Second biggest news: the NEA's new president is Lily Eskelsen Garcia — she began as a cafeteria worker and went on to become Utah's Teacher of the Year — who promises to promote a more assertive, activist agenda than the NEA has employed in the past. It has generally been the smaller teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers, that has been the firebrand while the NEA tried to steer a more moderate, middle ground. It's looking like the NEA wants to get in the fight.

This is the latest skirmish in the growing battles over the best ways to improve our children's educations. By naming Arne Duncan Secretary of Education, Obama threw in with the more conservative "education reform" wing of the Democratic party, which has formed an uneasy alliance with conservatives and billionaires who spend millions of dollars trashing public schools and pushing a privatization agenda. That means focusing on high stakes testing and charter schools and harping on problems in traditional public schools — painting the schools and the teachers who work in them as failures. The teachers unions, along with many educators and progressives, disagree. For the NEA, which tends to put its money and influence behind Democrats, to officially call for Duncan's resignation indicates how wide the divide has grown.

The education controversy raging in the country has lots of moving parts. Whole books have been written about the battles and the motivations of the actors in this drama. I want to concentrate on just one aspect of the controversy because it hasn't gotten as much attention as it deserves: the philosophical divide at the core of the discussion.

On one side, the more conservative education reform/privatization movement maintains that traditional public schools and teachers are to blame for our students' poor achievement and, by extension, for problems like poverty and income inequality. Fix the schools and our social ills will take care of themselves, they maintain.

The other, more progressive side maintains that poverty, income inequality and lack of social and economic mobility are societal illnesses which are too deep seeded and pervasive to be cured by the schools. By blaming schools for some of our country's most troublesome structural problems, they say, we're aggravating and perpetuating a situation we should address head on. We need to couple aggressive measures addressing root causes of poverty with efforts to make our schools more effective, and the two will improve together.