Well, technically Inside Higher Ed and Slate started it. Still, Gawker is not an education publication and they don't really cover politics—This marks a crossing from "a challenge for the state" to (well, to steal a word from the article) lunacy. Our state is once again making decisions so questionable, nonArizonans think it's hilarious. 

From the Gawker article Arizona Completely Abandons Its Community Colleges:

Community colleges are the most democratic forms of higher education, and, you could argue, the most important. Don't tell that to the state of Arizona.

The trend in America is towards acceptance of the fact that there should be more public funding and support for community colleges, which educate nearly half of our nation's undergrads during any given year, and tend to be much more accessible to working people and minorities than four-year colleges are. It is just common sense for states to direct funds to their community colleges to help make them as open as possible. It is an obvious public good.

With that in mind, consider what the brilliant loons who run state politics in Arizona are doing right now: they have cut state subsidies for two community college districts that serve the state's three most populous counties down to zero dollars. Zero. Inside Higher Ed notes that just five years ago, these two districts were getting a combined $70 million from the state; now, they're scheduled to get nada.

Sigh. I'll let you know when the Daily Show inevitably meets Doug Ducey.

People wanting to take a visible stand for Arizona education are gathering at Tucson High (400 North 2nd Ave.) Saturday, March 14, 9:30 a.m., to march to the Festival of Books on the UA campus, less than a mile away. The march will be followed by a rally and passing out literature to Festival of Books attendees. Participants are encouraged to bring signs. More information on the Arizona Stands UP website.

The state Legislature passed a budget Saturday that eliminates funding for Pima Community College. Now, PCC has to figure out how it will make up for that loss, which might mean students have another tuition increase coming their way.

The PCC Governing Board is meeting this afternoon to discuss increases of $3, $5 and $10 per credit hour.

"When (the administration) discussed the options with the student government leaders, they were very apprehensive about the $10 increase. We will relay that message to the board," a message on the PCC website said. "The college is very sensitive to the impact of tuition increases on our students and is working to minimize the effects of the lost state aid, while ensuring we have the resources needed to provide quality education and services to our students."

One year ago, the PCC board voted to increase tuition by nearly 8 percent, or $5 per credit hour, and since fall 2014 in-state tuition is $2,115. 

The school also issued a message to remind students that budget cuts do not interfere with federal financial aid—the FAFSA process is the same and students should still apply for grants and loans.

"PCC has a strong financial footing and will work hard to absorb the lost state budget revenue without negatively impacting the education and services we provide," the PCC administration says. "The state has been reducing its support to PCC for years and we have been anticipating the day when the state provided no funding to the college."

This gets a little English-teacher, but it's important. As a general rule, you want to avoid the passive voice when you're writing. Not, "The ball was hit into center field," but "Jim Smith hit the ball into center field." The ball didn't get there by itself. Usually, the passive voice is bad writing.

But the passive voice is a favorite with politicians and others in the limelight when they screw up. When you're caught, always say, "Mistakes were made" rather than copping to it yourself. The passive voice says no one is to blame. Somehow, that mistake just fell from the heavens like summer rain.

So, to the story at hand. A group of Sigma Alpha Epsilon frat boys at University of Oklahoma were joyously singing a song on the bus which said, in essence, it's better to lynch an African American than to let him join the fraternity ("There will never be a ni**** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me"). Two of them were expelled, and one of them, Parker Rice, issued an apology. But that doesn't end the problem, even if more of the students apologize or are expelled. This isn't simply about Rice or the other frat boys on the bus. It's about the wider culture that accepts underlying racism as a part of our lives, then when it's exposed, condemns the specific actors and moves on without addressing the larger problem that runs like a cancer through our society.

Listen to the passive voice in one part of Rice's apology: "Yes, the song was taught to us." Who taught it to them? Rice didn't say, nor did he say whether the song is sung regularly at the University of Oklahoma chapter, whether it's sung by other chapters, whether it's one of a number of racist songs, chants, jokes and slogans which are part of the fraternity's culture—and whether, as some African American students at the university have said, this is part of the pervasive racist culture they are forced to deal with daily. Ignore those questions and you end up clucking your tongue at the bad behavior of a few drunken frat boys and ignoring the larger issue.

The high stakes testing opt out bill, HB2246, sponsored by John (Chris) Ackerley (R, LD-2), passed the House 35 to 24 and is moving onto the Senate. It's a Republican bill supported by Republicans, but actually, the idea of opting out of high stakes tests has national bipartisan support. Case in point: The Network for Public Education (NPE), a group founded by progressive education historian and activist Diane Ravitch and others.

According to Tucsonan Robin Hiller, Executive Director of NPE, "We know these tests aren't working for kids, teachers or schools. We believe parents should have the right to opt their children out of the tests with no repercussions to the student or the school."

Here is the NPE statement.

Network for Public Education Supports Those Who Opt Out

The Network for Public Education stands in full support of parents, students and educators who choose to teach and learn about the reality of high stakes tests, opt out of high stakes tests, speak out against high stakes tests and who refuse to give those tests to students.

We take this stand because:

• Right now, in communities from the highest need to the most affluent, students, parents and educators are being punished for the courageous act of informing others about available options to opt out of high stakes tests and acting upon those options. These reprisals, often for merely learning and teaching about students’ rights, violate basic human rights and common decency.

• There is no evidence that these tests contribute to the quality of education, or help close the “achievement gap.” Since NCLB, these tests have hindered, not helped, school improvement efforts. The scores of US students in the international PISA tests have remained flat for the dozen years of high stakes testing.

• These tests, particularly those associated with the Common Core, have become intrusive in our schools, consuming excessive time and resources. These are not the kind of tests that we took when we were children. Students in grades three to eight must spend ten or more hours on testing, and enter their answers on computer keyboards. Since teachers will not see their scores for months they have no diagnostic value. They have resulted in narrow instruction and curriculum that focuses on test preparation.

• The Common Core tests, such as PARCC, SBAC and others Pearson has developed to measure the Common Core standards, have been designed to yield widespread failure for students, and thus are an inaccurate reflection of what our students are capable of doing.

• Inequities in education are a real and devastating reality in our education system. High stakes tests exacerbate this inequity with their negative, disparate impact on students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

It was reported yesterday that, after nearly two years, Pima Community College is no longer on probation.

Several issues, from alleged mismanagement of funds to corrupt hiring practices and sexual harassment, got the institution in trouble with its accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission, in April 2013. Since then, there's a new chancellor on board, Pima laid out a plan to deal with HLC's concerns and issued a self-study report. Then, the HLC came by to evaluate the college team last fall.

Last month, the HLC board had a meeting and decided Pima should get off probation. Instead, the college has been placed "on notice"—a lesser sanction, according to the agency—which means the institution will still be monitored for the next few years.

Pima has to file a notice report in July 2016, followed by another evaluation by the HLC in September. The two will be reviewed in the February 2017 HLC meeting, where it will decide whether Pima is still at risk of non-compliance.

Also, "In addition, the Board placed the College on the Standard Pathway and required that it host its next comprehensive evaluation for Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2018-19," the HLC says.

TUSD board member Cam Juárez says the timing to release a fifth anonymous letter attacking the board is offensive and confusing. He wonders why waste so much energy was spent badmouthing him, board President Adelita Grijalva, board Clerk Kristel Foster and Superintendent H.T. Sanchez, the exact same week a very alarming budget deal that will cut millions upon millions from the education fund was announced. 

"They choose to talk about us as opposed to talking about how horrible this budget situation is," he says.
 
The letter by the so-called Extremely Concerned TUSD Administrators, Teachers and Parents, focuses on a board meeting from two weeks ago, where during the call to the audience and legislative update, TUSD board member Michael Hicks was immensely criticized over a request he sent to lawmakers urging them to pass SB 1371, which asks to slash funding for desegregation programs (about $64 million for TUSD) alone). 

From the letter:

We see a dangerous and vile pattern at work. Grijalva and Foster (perhaps along with mostly-un-engaged Juarez) conspiring with HTEA to publically attack and attempt to humiliate Hicks and Stegeman at any opportunity; instead of sorting out their differences professionally (or shouting it out away from the public eye and ear)? They did the same thing to Stegeman just a few months ago. We see them appealing to individuals such as Steve Farley, on behalf of public education, to take part in their witch-hunt.

At the meeting, Hicks had a chance to address the comments made in the call to the audience, but he was interrupted by strange noises coming from the speakers and by Grijalva, who said this was a chance for him to touch on what was discussed at the meeting, nothing else.

Juárez says Grijalva was within her right to interrupt him. When Hicks walked into the meeting with a three-page, typed response, it signaled he wasn't focusing on the call to the audience.

It was difficult to hear Hicks, but in his response that evening he said he'd take back his statement on the desegregation defunding bill if the district is willing to hire an independent auditor, which has been a constant demand to the board and Superintendent H.T. Sanchez.

"Of course, we want an internal auditor, but there is no money, how am I going to justify that?  When you look at the base pay of this position. You end up somewhere in the $400,000, if we are talking about benefits, an administrative assistant for the auditor..." he says.

Regarding the "un-engaged" comment, Juárez said he didn't say anything because he tries not to engage with people who have "shadow agendas," and who do nothing to further kids' education. 

"You want to call me disengaged? When I first came into the board, I told Adelita I am going to try to visit all of the 90 schools we have in the district this first year, and she said, 'remember you have a full-time job and don't be disappointed if you can't do it all the first year.' Well, I am in the second year, going into the third and I have done 70 percent of that. Principles know who I am because I have sat in their office and have listened to their concerns. (Teachers and students) know who I am because I go to the classes. I don't just go and say 'I am a board member,' I explain to them what it is to be a board member, what it is like to be in my position. I am a person of color, a person with a disability and a person who was raised by a single mother, and I was raised to engage with people."

Juárez  is up for re-election in 2016.

Pima Community College is no longer on probation, after nearly two years in serious trouble with its accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission.

The HLC placed Pima on probation in April 2013 over allegations of corrupt hiring practices, alleged sexual misconduct by the former chancellor, lack of collaboration between the board and the administration, wrongdoings in the financial management, among other concerns listed on a letter they got at the time from their accrediting agency, the Higher Learning Commission.

The college, instead, was placed on a "lesser sanction of notice," according to a statement from PCC Chancellor Lee Lambert:

The Higher Learning Commission defines Notice as a sanction in which an institution meets all of the Criteria for Accreditation, but is still at risk.

Like everyone, I am thankful for the hard work and dedication of the more than 300 employees, community members and students who worked tirelessly to conduct the Institutional Self Study, an important step in creating a culture of continuous improvement.

What’s next: PCC will submit a Notice Report to the HLC by July 1, 2016. The HLC will conduct a Focused Evaluation Visit no later than September 2016. We will have more information for you very shortly.

I am proud of the phenomenal progress that PCC has made. At this new level, we still have significant work to do, but I am confident that this means a new day at PCC. Great job, and keep up the good work!

More details are coming up tomorrow.

It's a longstanding policy of the Republican party. First starve the beast, as they refer to the government, by cutting taxes, especially for corporations and the rich. Then cry poor when it comes time to fund government services. That's exactly what's happening in Arizona and in Republican-led states around the country.

Ducey explained his draconian budget cuts by saying the state budget is broken, so everyone needs "to tighten their belt and to live within their means." His statement about the state budget being broken skips over an essential fact. His Republican cronies broke the budget, on purpose. They've spent years cutting tax revenues to get us to this point, and they plan to continue on their budget-breaking ways by going ahead with a yet another round of corporate tax cuts instead of postponing them. Don't believe those stern, serious-parent looks on their faces when they tell us they have no choice. These folks are whistling while they work on whittling down the budgets for K-12 schools, colleges, universities and social services that benefit the poor and middle class but are of little use to the wealthy Republican backers.

This isn't a new idea. It's been standard Republican operating procedure for decades. Alan Greenspan talked about it back in 1978.

"Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today’s environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

He was talking about federal spending at the time. That hasn't worked out as well as he hoped, since the Feds can run deficits. But at the state level where lawmakers have to balance the budget, cutting back on revenues guarantees cutting back on services.

The Arizona House is considering a bill to rid the state of the Common Core Standards, or the Arizona College and Career Ready Standards.

HB 2190, sponsored by Oro Valley's Republican state Rep. Mark Finchem, would also prohibit the state's Board of Education from adopting any new standards. Instead, a new committee would arise, the Arizona Education Standards Steering Committee, and it would be up to them to establish and revise new standards for K-12 schools, while the board's sole duty would be to administer the standards to public schools.

Also, any changes would require public comment—parents, teachers, etc.—for a 60-day period on the Arizona Department of Education website.

It's a long list of  "no, you can't do that."

From the bill:

Prohibits SBE from entering into any agreement, memorandum of understanding or contract with a federal agency or private entity that cedes or limits state discretion and control over the process of developing, adopting or revising subject matter standards and the corresponding assessments in the public school system, including agreements in exchange for funding.
a. Requires SBE to initiate efforts to amend any agreement existing that is in conflict with this section on the effective date of this act.
b. Stipulates that this requirement does not prohibit SBE from seeking and being granted a federal waiver if the conditions for the waiver do not cede or limit control over the process of developing, adopting or revising standards and assessments.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas based her entire campaign on her opposition to the standards, and in January she said they are one of the reasons the state's education system continues to suffer. She referred to the standards and the test replacing the AIMS, AzMerit, as "unproven methods," and called for Gov. Doug Ducey and the state Legislature to "stop the madness."

Two weeks ago, a bill similar to Finchem's failed in the state Senate. Last year, efforts to kill the standards were also unsuccessful.