Yesterday I wrote about the gap between what Ducey wants us to think he means when he calls Prop 123 a "first step" and what he really means. He wants to leave the impression that he believes Prop 123 is a first financial step, a down payment on a significant increase in school funding. What he actually means is, he wants to keep, or lower, the budget's current per-student funding rates while shifting as much of that money as possible toward high rent school districts and charter schools.

I have a suggestion. Let's take Ducey at his word, or at least what he wants us to believe is his word. Let's pretend he's really advocating for increasing the amount we spend on education. And then let's be APPALLED! and OUTRAGED! when he goes back on his word. Hell, let's hold every one of the First Steppers to the same standard. If you say Prop 123 is a first step, that means you're an advocate for budgeting more money for public schools as soon as possible.

Looking at the budget deals being cut by Ducey and the Republican legislative leadership, we need be APPALLED! and OUTRAGED! right now.

Thursday, Ducey & Co. were talking about cutting $21 million from school funding. That's absolutely appalling. Lowering the amount our state budget allots for our children's education when we're already one of the lowest spenders in the nation? Outrageous! Especially when you promised to increase funding by telling us Prop 123 is just a first step. This morning it looks like there's a deal afoot to restore that funding. Again, unbelievable! Outrageous! That's the best you can do, put back the money today you stole from our kids yesterday? I thought you said Prop 123 was only a first step in boosting funding for public education. Where's the rest of the money you promised?

After five years as the head of the UA's Institute for LGBT Studies, Susan Stryker announced on her Facebook page today that she is leaving the position.

Perhaps one of Stryker's biggest accomplishments at the UA is the formation of the world's first-ever transgender studies degree. Most recently, Stryker had also been in talks with the UA administration and the state about how to provide inclusive health care options for transgender faculty, staff and their family members. 

In her Facebook post, Stryker says she will continue to teach gender and women's studies at the university in the future, but she will take a one-year leave of absence to continue working on a book about how gender has changed in the U.S. since the 19th century. 

I feel extremely fortunate that I have the privilege not only of being adequately compensated for doing work that I find meaningful, but of prioritizing what dimension of that work I'm most led to do at a particular moment. At this moment, I need to express more and administer less. I'm very much looking forward to the year ahead, which promises to be a refreshing mix of working from home in San Francisco where I'll get to spend more time with my sweetie and less time commuting back and forth to Tucson, some fun international travel, and some opportunities for secluded writer's retreats. 

Doug Ducey loves to say Prop 123 is a "first step." That phrase has become a mantra for Ducey and others supporting Prop 123. The question Ducey won't answer is, if Prop 123 is the first step, what's the next step?

"First step" is one of those vague, Rorschach-test statements politicians love which allow voters to deduce the meaning based on their own desires. If you're a pro-education-funding voter, you're supposed to imagine it means the next step is to put more money in public education. If you think our "government schools" are wasting money on administration and we're "throwing money" at "failing schools," then you can imagine the next step has nothing to do with increasing funding. It's about firing administrators, defunding "government schools," especially those with lots of poor and minority kids, and increasing funds for "school choice" — meaning plenty of money for charter and private schools.

Ducey agrees with the second group. Prop 123 is a way of getting the public off his back without putting any new money for education in the state budget. He and his surrogates have made it clear, they want to keep education funding low while shifting money toward high rent school districts, charters and private schools. But he can't say that out loud right now. Prop 123 needs the votes of people who know our schools are desperately in need of more funding and want the state to increase what it spends on education. His oft-used "first step" statement is designed to leave the impression he's on their side without making a commitment he might be expected to live up to later.

Ducey can show he agrees our schools need more funding by adding education spending to the budget he and Republican legislative leadership are hammering out. Instead, it looks like they're going to push for a net loss of $21 million in state education money. That means if Prop 123 passes, the first $21 million dollars will go toward bringing state funding up to this year's abysmally low level, not to adding money for schools. If it fails, our schools will be $21 million poorer.

I missed this when it came out a few weeks ago, but with the proposed Arizona state budget being revealed in dribs and drabs this week, it seems like a good time to talk about the assessment by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) regarding Arizona's economic outlook. It's excellent! We're Number 5! We're Number 5! We're Number 5! You can read all about it in the ALEC-Laffer, 2016 Rich States, Poor States publication. It's called the ALEC-Laffer report, by the way, because the lead researcher is Arthur B. Laffer, who, according to his bio in the report, has often been called “The Father of Supply-Side Economics.” You know, trickle down economics, and the Laffer curve that explains it all. The co-authors: Stephen Moore, who was "the founder and president of the Club for Growth and founded the Free Enterprise Fund"; and Jonathan Williams, "the vice president for the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council." It's a like-minded group.

The top magic pony states, the ones that most closely adhere to the doctrine that low taxes and minimal regulations bring prosperity, are, in order, Utah, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wyoming and Arizona: the world beaters driving our national economy. The bottom states — I guess all you'll find there is magic pony poop — are California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont and New York: the loser states where nothing much ever happens economically. I remember Ducey talking about California's imminent economic demise in his State of the State address, which I guess is why Arizona's U Haul lots are full to bursting with trailers and trucks from California carrying businesses from that "economic outlook" loser to this "economic outlook" winner. Oh, the lots aren't full? Maybe all those businesses just hopped a ride on a magic pony heading our way.

With just weeks to go before the May 17 special election, State Rep. Bruce Wheeler announced yesterday that he was now opposed to Prop 123.

“I was wrong,” the Tucson Democrat told the Weekly Monday.

Wheeler had originally opposed sending the controversial school-funding plan to the ballot, but had since said he supported Prop 123, which asks voters to dig into the state land trust to fund most of a $3.5 billion funding plan for Arizona schools. Wheeler even urged voters to support the plan in the state’s official voter guide.

Last week, he told the Weekly that Prop 123 wasn’t his preferred plan, but it “was the only game in town” and if it failed at the ballot, it would mean years of court battles before schools saw any new funding.

But Wheeler now says he doesn’t trust Republicans to stop cutting education programs, so the additional Prop 123 dollars won’t make a difference anyway.

“The attacks on public education are continuing,” Wheeler said. “They’re giving with one hand and taking away with another.”

Wheeler predicts that next year, Republican lawmakers will strip TUSD of its desegregation funds, which will result in a cut of roughly $60 million. (Legislation to do just that failed this year.)

On top of that, with the latest budget proposal that is floating around the Capitol this week, Republicans continue to hollow out the state’s finances with tax cuts, Wheeler said.

“In addition to corporate tax breaks that were enacted three years ago and are being phased in and that are going to cost us $350 million next year, they want other tax breaks?” Wheeler said. “I’ll say it again: Where is the sincerity in educating our kids this year, next year and the year after? Why is that money not going to schools, if they’re so concerned about them?”

“Prop 123 is a sham,” Wheeler said. “And I’m kicking myself for not catching what a sham it is until now.”

We'll have an in-depth look at Prop 123 in this week's Tucson Weekly.

I sometimes cite education studies and statistics in my posts, but I try to be careful to write about the "conclusions" drawn from the material rather than saying the study "shows" or "proves" something. Any study is only as good as the quality of its data as well as the way the data is sliced and diced. When it comes to studies concerning education, that's a big problem. Skepticism is always advisable.

Short side trip: When I was taking a graduate school statistics course, our assignment was to go to the library, find a good and a bad statistical study and analyze them for their strengths and weaknesses. I asked the prof where I would be most likely to find bad statistical analysis, and he said, "Go to the education journals. Most of those studies are pretty bad." He wasn't criticizing the researchers as much as he was pointing out that it's almost impossible to create strong control groups or comparisons because the variances between students and teachers are so large. No two students, groups of students or teachers are identical, so any conclusions researchers draw from the data are open to question.

Case in point: the rise in state test scores, especially among Hispanic students, starting in 2007. Does that mean Arizona began doing a better job educating its Hispanic population?

Two researchers at Arizona State University's Educational Policy Analysis and Evaluation program have taken a look at the rise in Arizona student scores on state tests, especially among Hispanic students, starting in 2007, a few years before SB 1070 passed in 2010. They ask the question: is the rise in scores an indication that student achievement went up, or does it reflect fewer undocumented students in our schools, which would mean fewer Hispanic students whose English language skills are low? Their conclusion: SB 1070 and the 2007 law requiring businesses to use E-Verify to check the legal status of their employees resulted in a drop in undocumented students, and that was the main driver behind the increase in state test scores among Hispanic students.

The data is fairly convincing. When the researchers looked at Arizona schools where the student population was more than 75 percent Hispanic, they found a far more dramatic rise in student scores starting in 2007 than they found in schools with smaller Hispanic student populations. They also found that the 75 percent-plus schools had a greater percentage drop in the number of Hispanic students than the other schools.

It's that time of year again, when U.S. News & World Report declares which are the best high schools in the nation. As usual, BASIS charter schools did great, taking Number 2 (BASIS Scottsdale), Number 3 (BASIS Tucson North) and Number 6 (BASIS Oro Valley). TUSD's University High was ranked Number 24.

So, BASIS schools do a great job of educating students and University High does a damn good job, right? Well, not so fast. I'm sure they all give their students a good education, but that's not what this ranking measures. It measures how many students at those schools took AP exams and how well they scored. The stronger the student body is academically and the more AP exams they're required to take, the better the rankings.

A casual reading of the Star article on the subject makes it sound like a number of variables go into creating a school's score: performance on the state test, performance of minority and low-income students, and graduation rates, all of which are combined with student participation in and performance on either AP (Advanced Placement) or IB (International Baccalaureate) tests.

But that's not exactly true. That's like saying a boxing match is decided by the boxer's weight and how he did on a drug test along with his performance in the ring. Sure, the boxer needs to make weight and pass a drug test to make it into the ring, but once he's there, it's all about the mano a mano matchup with his opponent. In the same way, the schools have to pass the state test, minority/low income performance and graduation criteria, but once they do, it's all about a test-to-test comparison of the students on the AP or IB tests. You can read about the methodology here.

This is incredible. Last year, the state budget cut $99 million from our three state universities. This year, among the possible scenarios for the state budget is an extra $5 million for the university's three "economic freedom centers." Whoever inserted that item into the budget isn't talking. No one will admit they know how it got there.

(Before I go further, I have to give a shout out to Hank Stephenson who wrote the article about this possible giveaway in the Capitol Times. Stephenson earned the wrath of David Gowan when he wrote about the House Speaker's travel on the state's dime—actually, "the state's $12,000" is more accurate than "the state's dime"—which led to Gowan's revenge-banning of reporters from the House floor, an order that was later rescinded. This story might earn Stephenson another black mark from Republican legislators, but I say he deserves an award of journalistic valor for his recent reporting.)

You can't get a degree at the "economic freedom centers," which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Koch Brothers: UA's Center for the Philosophy of Freedom and ASU's Center for the Study of Economic Liberty and Center for Political Thought and Leadership. The Charles Koch Charitable Foundation put up most of the money to fund the centers.

The state currently funds $500,000 per year for the UA center. Someone in state government who thus far has decided to remain anonymous wants to boost that number to $5 million. Our local state senator Steve Farley noted the irony of the state subsidizing privately-funded centers that push free market ideas.

“Why do we need to spend taxpayer money on an institute to study free markets? Shouldn’t they go to the free market for that?” Farley asked.

To that I would add, the move is in keeping with Republicans' self serving double standard. They squeeze state budgets for education and state services, pleading fiscal poverty, then manage to find $5 million lying around to spend on three privately funded conservative-libertarian propaganda mills embedded in our state universities.

Here's the primary reason—not the only reason, but the primary one—why I'm planning to hold my nose and vote yes on Prop 123, then hate myself in the morning. It's either pass the proposition or not see any more money for our schools any time in the foreseeable future.

Some people who plan to vote against Prop 123 believe that, since we won the battle for school funding in the courts, Prop 123 will mean losing what we've gained. If we vote down Prop 123, they believe, the court decision will come back into play and we'll get, not just 70 percent of what the state owes the schools but the whole 100 percent, and we'll get it without all those triggers Ducey and his henchmen built into the proposition which could let the legislature pull the money out from under the schools as easily as Lucy used to pull the football away from Charlie Brown. Under that scenario, defeating Prop 123 is a win-win.

It's a lovely thought. If it were true, even if it took a few years for the courts to force the legislature to pay up, I'd be at the front of the line voting against Prop 123. The problem is, it just ain't so. The courts can tell the legislature to pay up, but all the anti-public-school legislators have to do is shrug, fold their arms across their chests and say "Make Me!" That's it. Game over. The courts can't make the state pay up.

On Saturday, Tim Steller had an instructive column about the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches in Arizona. The article is about Ducey's desire to pack the Supreme Court by adding two seats. Naturally, he'd be the one who would appoint the new justices meaning the court would be in his pocket. Supreme Court justices past and present say they don't want the two extra members and the court doesn't need them, but the current justices are reluctantly going along with the idea. Why? Because it would come with a much-needed ten million dollars for the court system, including a 3 percent raise. The reason the courts need the money so badly is that the legislature swept up $6 million to help balance the budget. To get it back, they have to bow to the governor's will. Of the two supposedly independent branches of government, the one holding the purse strings is a whole lot more independent than the other.

It's always wise to remember, if a quote is too perfect to be true, it probably isn't. Examples abound on Facebook and in viral emails. And occasionally you can find an example in the Star's Letters to the Editor.

The Star's editorial staff should have caught this one, and if they decided to publish it anyway, at least they should have included a note under it. The last letter in Friday's Star has a quote the writer states is from "Cicero, 55 BC." It's a beaut. And it's a phony.

“The Budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome will become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance.” 

That perfect-for-conservatives quote should have set off the editors' crap detectors—light flashing, sirens screaming. All it takes is a quick internet search to find the words didn't come from Cicero. The top three Google hits name the source. It's from a 1965 novel, A Pillar of Iron, by Taylor Caldwell. And even there, it's different from what's in the letter. The lines in the novel aren't spoken by Cicero. They're the fictional words of another character, Antonius, paraphrasing Cicero, meaning the wording in the Star "quote" had to be tweaked a bit. And the last sentence is a reworking of Caldwell's words, mainly for the purpose of replacing the Caldwell/Cicero/Antonius phrase, "the mob" with a more acceptable "people."

But I guess I shouldn't be too hard on the Star. Louisiana Representative Otto Passman read the phony quote into the Congressional Record in 1968. It appeared in a letter in the Chicago Tribune in 1971. And if you go onto the Forbes website, the bogus quote is at the top of the "Thoughts on the Business of Life" page.

According to a number of sites, there is an actual Cicero quote that Caldwell probably built on to create the passage in her novel: “The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall.” The problem is, it's not nearly as sexy. Nothing about refilling the treasury, reducing public debt or getting people off the public dole. (BTW, I wasn't able to locate this quote on anything that looked like a scholarly site, so I can't be certain it's accurate.)

Bonus Bogus Lincoln Quote: In 2011, our once-state-senator Al Melvin put up a series of tweets quoting Lincoln making all kinds of conservative-friendly statements. The problem is, the quotes were made up in 1916 and 1917 and had been debunked long before they got into Melvin's hands. They were being quoted so often by Republicans over the years that the RNC warned its speakers, "Do not use them as Lincoln’s words!" Reagan, apparently, didn't get the memo. He included them in a speech at the Republican National Convention.