Man, have there been a lot of stories about Douglas firing Board of Education employees and Ducey reinstating them! It's a rock-'em, sock-'em, Republican-on-Republican cage fight with constitutional overtones. What's not to love if you're in the media?

I want to make a few observations about Diane Douglas. We pretty much know what to expect from Ducey, but unless you were looking hard for information about Douglas during the campaign, or unless you're one of those right wing supporters she talked to while she shut everybody else out, you probably don't know much about where she's coming from. My sense is, she's a lot like Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller, though a bit smarter, with some Ted Cruz thrown in.

So, a few observations about Douglas.

1. Douglas believes what she says. Douglas isn't a politician, she's an ideologue, a true believer. Her measure of what she should say and do isn't what's doable or what will help her work with others in government. It's whether it's right or wrong, based on her ideology and overall belief system. And when it comes to education, she believes Common Core is wrong, along with the high stakes tests which accompany the Core.

2. Douglas doesn't consider herself part of the Republican establishment. Douglas doesn't want to fit in with other Republicans unless she happens to agree with them. She's not a party loyalist who has a vested interest in Ducey's success. That's one reason so many Republicans broke ranks and supported David Garcia over Douglas—former Republican Superintendents of Education Lisa Graham Keegan and Jaime Molera, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and others. They were afraid Douglas would do exactly what she's done over the past few days, and they preferred the idea of having a progressive educator like Garcia, someone who they knew would be reasonable and sensible even if they didn't agree with him, over a loose cannon like Douglas. Ducey endorsed Douglas—what else could he do?—but I'm betting in his heart of hearts, he wasn't happy with his choice.

3. Douglas will say whatever the hell she wants, whenever the hell she wants to. This is another reason why the Republican establishment is afraid of Douglas. She's willing to go all Ted Cruz on anyone she's mad at. Some of the things she said the past few days filled me with glee, like when she called out Ducey for refusing to meet with her and said he's in bed with the charter school operators and wants nothing more than bad student test scores that will move more students into charter schools—not to mention criticizing him for not pushing the legislature to pay schools what it owes them. Ducey, et al, are fine with taking statements like that from the likes of me, from Democratic legislators and even the odd Republican legislator. But from the Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction? That spells nothing but trouble.

There is bad blood between Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas and Gov. Doug Ducey.

As discussed yesterday, Ducey overturned two dismissals Douglas made in the state Board of Education, to which Douglas replied with a press release titled, "Arizona Superintendent of Public Schools Diane Douglas Did Not See Doug Ducey’s Name on the Ballot for State Superintendent." Ducey and the director of the board said Douglas' move was unlawful because board members do not work for her. 

The board had a special meeting today where they were supposed to get legal advice, and Douglas was able to participate in that meeting because she is a member of the 11-member board that oversees school policy outside the realm of the state superintendent of schools. 

This morning, Douglas held a press conference in Phoenix where she said legislation is needed to clarify who's role it is to make these type of decisions:

“I do not wish to spend vital tax dollars in a dispute over who is responsible for the various operations of the Board of Education. Those resources are better spent on classroom instruction. Statute has their staff reporting to the Department of Education, and specifically to the Superintendent. This ambiguity has created an unnecessary conflict between three public bodies that are all dedicated to serving children.

We do not want current staff, and the two who are limbo, to continue to experience stress as a result of dual roles between the Board and the Department. I look forward to working with Governor Ducey. I am confident that by working with the Governor and with the legislature, we can fix this with simple legislation not litigation. The legislation would clarify the Board has its own staff and responsibility for its own expenditures and operations.

The sooner such legislation is passed, the sooner staff caught in the middle can return to normal operations, and this unnecessary conflict can be resolved without further cost to the taxpayer. Our focus needs to be on educating children, not continuing disputes over poorly written laws."

Earlier today we heard that Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas had fired Arizona Board of Education Executive Director Christine Thompson and Assistant Director Sabrina Vazquez. Gov. Doug Ducey then said Douglas had no legal right to do this, and overturned the layoffs. 

To what Douglas replied: 

“Governor Ducey apparently views himself as both Governor and Superintendent of Schools. For someone who has spent so much time discussing the plain meaning of ‘or vs. and’ as a justification to deprive schools of hundreds of millions of dollars to give to his corporate cronies as tax cuts, I wish he would use the same precision in looking at the plain language of the law with regard to the powers and duties of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Governor Ducey has refused to take calls or meetings with me personally since his swearing in. Clearly he has established a shadow faction of charter school operators and former state Superintendents who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools. It is no surprise that his office supports retaining two liberal staff who have publicly stated they will block all efforts to repeal or change Common Core and backs the newly elected President of the Board of Education who is a charter school operator and stands to profit from the Governor’s policy of pushing through AzMerit to lower school scores so that more students can be removed to charter schools.

I swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the State of Arizona with my hand upon the Bible. I take that oath very seriously and will continue to do so. I also promised the voters of the state to replace Common Core and will not falter in my best efforts to keep my promise, regardless of whether the Governor honors his campaign rhetoric to do the same. If the Governor thinks I have to justify hiring or firing at will employees who can be terminated without cause and without rights of appeal, then it brings into question the dozens of agency heads and gubernatorial employees who have been removed and replaced for clearly political reasons. Does the Governor also believe he controls all other elected officials created by the state Constitution? If so, the next ballot should only have one office to vote upon."

There's more:

"I wish the Governor would focus on his own duty to fill vacant positions on the Board of Education. We have encouraged him to appoint real ‘lay persons’ and to bring back African-American representation to the Board. Unfortunately, he is remiss to address his own education responsibilities. Despite publicly stating that education is the number one issue in the state. If he would spend time selecting Board members it would also reveal whether he is actually for or against Common Core. Perhaps that is the cause for his reticence."

ARS 15-251, which dictates the powers and duties of a superintendent, says:

1. Superintend the schools of this state.
2. Request the auditor general to investigate when necessary the accounts of school monies kept by any state, county or district officer.
3. Subject to supervision by the state board of education, apportion to the several counties the monies to which each county is entitled for the year. Apportionment shall be made as provided in chapter 9 of this title.
4. Direct the work of all employees of the board who shall be employees of the department of education.
5. Execute, under the direction of the state board of education, the policies which have been decided upon by the state board.
6. Direct the performance of executive, administrative or ministerial functions by the department of education or divisions or employees thereof.

President of the board, Greg Miller, also objected to the firings, saying the two employees worked for the board not Douglas. The state Constitution gives Ducey power to appoint board members, but Douglas argues the governor's say in firing employees of the board is also vague.

When TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sanchez met up with Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas to discuss the notice of noncompliance the district received in January, Douglas invited Sanchez to be a member of her Latino Education Advisory Committee—their job would be to infuse the state's schools' content with studies on the contributions Latinos have made in Arizona and the country. 

Today, Douglas announced the other people she invited to that committee:

Ben Barcon, President of the ADM Group
Dr. H.T. Sanchez, Superintendent, Tucson Unified School District
Dr. Jose Leyba, retired K-12 and Community College Administrator, education consultant
Dr. Lupita Hightower, Superintendent, Tolleson Elementary School District (served on previous Advisory Council)
Dr. David Camacho, Professor of History and Special Assistant to the President, Northern Arizona University
Dr. Albert Siqueiros, retired Superintendent, Baboquivari Unified School District, (Sells, Ariz.), former Yuma Unified School District teacher
Dr. Lorraine Morales, President, Pima Community College Community Campus
Lourdes Jeong, parent, Nogales Unified School District, Program Director, Santa Cruz County School Superintendent’s Office
Dr. Manny Valenzuela, Superintendent, Sahuarita Unified School District
Dr. Evie Pletenik, Director, English Language Acquisition Programs, former administrator and teacher, Phoenix Union High School District
Norma Munoz, Roosevelt School District Governing Board President
Christofer Pereyra, Hispanic Ministry Director, Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix
Dr. Maria Harper Marinick, Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor, Maricopa Community Colleges
Victor Contreras, Realtor, Board Member Arizona Ivy League Project
Eva Nunez, Pastor, New Life Covenant Church

Also invited to participate in the committe are Dr. Ed Venezuela, Tommy Chacon, Dr. Manual Madrid and Lucero Bebe, a press release from Arizona Department of Education  says. 

"Douglas supports inclusion of all ethnic groups in the design of standards, curriculum and instruction for all Arizona students," the release says.

We've heard her say that in the past, when it was discussed what exactly was it that the state had found TUSD's culturally relevant curriculum to be in violation of the state's anti-Mexican American studies law; was it the content or what? Douglas said she supported the content, but that the teachers highlighted in the notice of noncompliance—gentlemanly sent to TUSD by former schools chief John Huppenthal on his last day in office—were not teaching it right, or, really, were not using methods Douglas supports.

“Arizona students should have instruction that includes the rich diversity of all ethnic groups and creates an appreciation for their fellow students,” Douglas says in a statement. “I am confident this respected group of community leaders will provide outstanding advice that I intend to implement. We must restore trust in all students and communities and that begins by listening, and then by acting upon recommendations.”

Douglas is also creating an African American committee, Native American committee, and working, alongside former state Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, who is now the director of special projects for the superintendent, to include other groups (she even mentions migrant children and homeless youth) in history, civics, music, literature and other coursework statewide. 

“Homelessness, poverty, ethnic relations and helping children put behind racism in this generation are no longer going to simply receive lip service,” Douglas says.

All committee meetings will be open to the public for input and Douglas says they will try to have hold these across the state. The chairman of the committee will be announced once the list of committee members is finalized.

That would have made for a headline-grabbing slogan if TUSD Board member Michael Hicks used it during the 2014 campaign. "If elected, I promise to cut $64 million from the TUSD budget." I'm guessing he knew it would have hurt his election chances, which is probably why he saved it for later.

SB1371, discussed by the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday, would phase out school district desegregation funding from a number of districts in Arizona including TUSD. Superintendent H.T. Sanchez spoke at the hearing, stating that TUSD needs the funding to comply with the court-ordered deseg plan, and Debbie Lesko, the bill's sponsor, may add an amendment that exempts the district so long as it is under court order.

Meanwhile, Hicks sent a statement to the committee supporting the bill regardless of whether it is amended.

"I urge the Finance Committee to consider passing Senate Bill 1371 based on what the plaintiff representatives' belief that it is the money that caused TUSD to not actively secure Unitary Status. Michael Hicks TUSD Board Member."

Usually, written comments aren't read during committee meetings, but according to Senator Steve Farley, who sits on the committee, "Chair Lesko, in a highly unusual move, read [Hicks'] written comments from the RTS [Request to Speak] system anyway, not once, but twice, because they backed her position and undercut TUSD's credibility for those who did not know him."

In a Facebook post, Farley wrote, 

"This move on Hicks' part amounts to a direct attack on his own superintendent, 49,000 TUSD students, 3,000 teachers, and our entire community and economy. It amounts to dereliction of duty. He must be held accountable for his destructive actions."

Farley hopes to speak out about Hicks' action during the Call to the Audience at a TUSD Board meeting if his legislative schedule allows it. Of course, anyone who objects to Hicks' position can speak out during the Call to the Audience.

I missed Governor Ducey's tele-town hall on education February 5. A number of Tucson area people were called about the event, which featured Ducey and Lisa Graham Keegan, former AZ Superintendent of Education and a member of Ducey's education transition team. But Ann-Eve Pedersen, my cohost on Education: The Rest of the Story, listened in and was able to ask a question. She talks about Ducey and Keegan's efforts to push the idea of charters taking over empty district schools and classrooms and their misleading answer to her question about who owns a charter school building and property when the school closes.

Tucson Unified School District Superintendent H.T. Sanchez spoke in a Senate Finance Committee hearing at the state Capitol this morning to testify against a bill that seeks to defund desegregation programs at some state schools. The bill passed the hearing, which means it is now headed to the state Senate floor, but sponsor and chair of the committee, state Sen. Debbie Lesko of Glendale, said she would work on an amendment to meet TUSD's special needs, since the school district is one of 18 in the state under the Unitary Status Plan. In TUSD's case, it is a federal court order with the purpose to make schools more diverse via trainings, programs, courses, and allowing children in certain areas of the city attend schools out of that area (these are known as magnet schools).

Provisions of SB 1317:

1. Requires school districts that have an existing or previous administrative agreement with the OCR and budgets monies for desegregation expenses outside the revenue control limit to reduce those expenses by at least 15 percent of the amount levied in FY 2009-2010 for five consecutive years beginning in FY 2016-2017 and prohibits those schools from budgeting for desegregation expenses outside the revenue control limit after FY 2022-2023.

2. Requires school districts that are subject to an existing or previous court order of desegregation and budgets monies for desegregation expenses outside the revenue control limit to reduce those expenses by at least 7 percent of the amount levied in FY 2009-2010 for 10 consecutive years beginning in FY 2016-2017 and prohibits those schools from budgeting for desegregation expenses outside the revenue control limit after FY 2027-2028.

3. Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Sanchez says that, although the legislation got the OK today, the district has submitted documents and testimonials on why desegregation money is important to the district, as well as details of where exactly these funds go within TUSD to favor the Unitary Status Plan, which will all hopefully resonate with lawmakers in reaching a decision that will continue to support the district on that side of things.

"They were willing to further explore and understand TUSD's circumstances, so that TUSD can reach unitary status," he says.

The plan is very specific in providing all students of all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds in the district with "above and beyond" programs such as drop-out prevention help, transportation, academic assistance such as study sessions, etc. Sanchez says that if the funding disappears, there would be no way the district would be able to afford any of that (this would be on top of all other budget cuts happening in TUSD, and the looming threat of the state taking 10 percent of monthly aid if the district doesn't fix alleged violations of the state law that banned the Mexican American studies program).

He urges the state Legislature to protect something that is supporting all students' academic advancement, not just a select few.

Some background provided by the state Legislature:

Eighteen school districts in Arizona currently budget for costs resulting from a court order of desegregation, which applies only to Phoenix Union and Tucson Unified (TUSD), or an ongoing or resolved OCR administrative agreement, which applies to sixteen other school districts. Arizona statute allows a school district to budget and levy an additional property tax above and beyond the tax used for regular maintenance and operations for expenses incurred for any measures or activities designed to remediate alleged or proven racial discrimination. This budget authority is typically referred to as “desegregation funding,” although monies may be used to remediate any civil rights category violation.

TUSD receives more than $63 million (the money comes from a local property tax) for the desegregation programs. According to the documents presented at the hearing, TUSD is one of two school districts above the "1 percent cap," which is a constitutional protection for homeowners "that limits their primary property tax exposure to 1 percent of the home's total limited property value." 

From the state Legislature:

Given defunding of desegregation, Maricopa Unified would still be over the 1 percent cap because they currently exceed it by an estimated $5.2 million. Desegregation, however, is responsible for only $1.3 million of that total. TUSD would no longer be over the 1 percent cap without desegregation funding because they are currently over the 1 percent cap by $18.3 million, so eliminating $63.7 million of desegregation funding would more than offset the $18.3 million. 

From the $63 million, about $11 million go to magnet schools' programs, students outreach and recruiting services. Then there's about $8 million for things like translation and interpretation (ESL, etc.); another close to $8 million go to drop-out prevention and programs that aim to close the academic achievement gap.

Now, it's about waiting whether the state Senate will pass the bill. In that case, a version will head to the state House. Sanchez says there is still an open door, and he hopes that after lawmakers take a look at all of the information the district provided, the cuts won't happen.

In New Jersey, they're acknowledging the inevitable. Lots of parents will be insisting their kids opt out of state assessments, and there's really nothing the state or the schools can do. The state can say the tests are mandatory, but that only means the schools have to give them. What, actually, can state and school do to make a student fill in all those little bubbles?

The New Jersey Education Association has supported the right to opt out.

“Parents must have the right to make decisions in the best interest of their children, even if that means refusing to participate in a test they recognize is harmful,” union President Wendell Steinhauer said last month.

So schools have to decide what to do. Many are trying to persuade parents about the value of the tests, which is fine. Give parents the pro-testing side of the story and let them make up their own minds. But the other part of the question is, what do you do with students who show up but won't take the tests? Do you leave them in the room to "sit and stare" at the tests in front of them, or do you give them activities to do elsewhere? School districts have come to different conclusions. Here's my favorite "Did they really say that?" justification for making the students sit and stare at the computer during the test.

Some superintendents have argued that putting the students in classrooms would give them more instruction hours and an unfair advantage.

Let's analyze that Onion-worthy exercise in self-satire. More instruction time, the superintendents warn, would mean more education for the opt outers, which would give them an academic advantage over the kids who wasted the opportunity to further their educations by taking the tests. In other words, a school year filled with pretesting, re-pretesting and the actual state testing deprives students of hours and hours of useful instruction. By saying the non-testers can get an "unfair advantage" from "more instruction hours," the principals are making a forceful argument against our obsession with yearly, high stakes testing. If they believe what they say and also believe in education, those principals should be leading the anti-test protests, carrying signs like those carried by a group of students in Boulder, Colorado: "Education, Not Standardization."

Daniel Scarpinato has been a reporter for the Star, worked on Republican campaigns, was Director of Communications for Republicans in the Arizona House and was National Press Secretary for the RNCC. Now he's a spokesman for Governor Ducey. He's either a very talented guy, or no one wants him around for long.

Me, I want Scarpinato around, because he makes such wonderfully loopy, quotable statements. Back when he was working on Jonathan Paton's campaign for U.S. Congress and I was posting on Blog for Arizona, I wrote about his pronouncements so often, I began calling them Scarps, which I defined as "attack dog, logic-challenged rants written by Daniel Scarpinato."

I've been tempted to write about Scarpinato's pronouncements a number of times since he's been Ducey's spokesman but passed on the opportunity. This recent statement, though, is just too good to pass up.

Here's part of what Scarpinato said about Arizona's education funding:

“The governor doesn’t think that’s acceptable, that we should be that far below the national average."

Y'know, Daniel, I agree. The fact that our per student funding is so far below the national average isn't just unacceptable, it's scandalous. Oh wait, that's not what you were talking about? You were talking about the percentage of school funding that goes into the classroom? Let me finish the quote:

“The governor doesn’t think that’s acceptable, that we should be that far below the national average and that little money is getting into the classroom,” Scarpinato said. “What [Ducey’s] Classrooms First Initiative is about and what his budget reflects is getting more money into the classroom.”

Ah, I understand. It's perfectly fine that our per student funding for education is so much lower than almost every other state's, but it's absolutely unacceptable that the percentage going into the classroom is lower. A logical economic analysis would say, when you have fixed costs like transportation, maintenance and other necessary non-classroom services and have to make cuts, you're forced to do your trimming where you can — like, say, the number of teachers you hire. After all, you can always cram a few more desks and students into a classroom and hold onto battered, out-of-date textbooks another few years to save money if there's no other way to trim costs.

Here's the math. If Arizona adds $134 million to the classroom as Ducey recommends, that will mean about $130 more for each student. Arizona spends thousands less per student than most other states, so that $130 boost, at the expense of $125 per student taken out of non-classroom expenditures, barely makes a dent in Arizona's classroom funding deficit.

Daniel, thanks for making the point so eloquently. You and your boss are right. It's completely unacceptable that our funding for education is so far below the national average. And Ducey's funding shuffle won't make a dime's worth of difference.

Forget about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's presidential aspirations. He's a perfect fit for Arizona. So perfect, if fact, for all we know, he might even be governor right now—unless, of course, he and Governor Ducey were separated at birth. They're certainly brothers in right wing fiscal policy.

Here are some excerpts from an NY Times article, As Jindal’s G.O.P. Profile Grows, So Do Louisiana’s Budget Woes. See if any of it sounds Arizona ready. (Note: to put budget numbers in perspective, Louisiana's population is about 30 percent lower than Arizona's: 4.6 million in Louisiana vs. 6.6 million in Arizona).

[I]n the Louisiana capital, there is mostly one topic on everyone’s mind these days, and it is quite distressingly close to home: the fiscal reckoning the state is facing for next year and perhaps for multiple budgets to come.

“Since I’ve been in Louisiana I’ve never seen a budget cycle as desperate as this one,” said Robert Travis Scott, the president of the Public Affairs Research Council, a nonpartisan group based in Baton Rouge.

Louisiana’s budget shortfall is projected to reach $1.6 billion next year and to remain in that ballpark for a while. The downturn in oil prices has undoubtedly worsened the problem, forcing midyear cuts to the current budget. But economists, policy experts and lawmakers of both parties, pointing out that next year’s projected shortfall was well over a billion dollars even when oil prices were riding high, turn to a different culprit: the fiscal policy pushed by the Jindal administration and backed by the State Legislature.

[snip]

In a state the size of Louisiana, the shortfall is huge. But it is all the more daunting considering that the governor has unequivocally ruled out any plans for new revenue, bone-deep cuts have already been made to health care and higher education, ad hoc revenue sources have been all but drained and robust economic growth has yet to materialize.

Sound familiar? There's more.