Kathy Hoffman and Frank Riggs are putting up a spirited fight to become our next Superintendent of Public Instruction. Their campaign websites are filled with educational plans and proposals, too many to list or discuss without getting so deep in the weeds, I'd never find my way out. The short version is, I like Hoffman's ideas far better than Riggs', but that doesn't tell you much.

So let's take another tack. Let's talk about hammers and nails.

No doubt you've heard the saying, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Even if the hammer you're holding isn't the best, or the only tool for the job in front of you, you're going to try and find a way to use it. You know that hammer. You like that hammer. It's the first tool that comes to mind when you have a situation you have to deal with before you consider other options.

It's the same with the ideas you tend to favor. They are going to be readily at hand when you're looking for solutions to problems you have to deal with. You'll call on them before you consider alternatives. Likewise with your personal and professional experience. You're going to lean on what you know to guide you.

So let's look at the hammer —actually the hammers — Hoffman and Riggs have in their tool belts which they would tend to favor if they became our next education superintendent.

Kathy Hoffman knows public schools. She knows early childhood education. She works with students with disabilities. She speaks fluent Spanish and Japanese. She understands the value of being bilingual and the importance of bilingual education.

If Hoffman becomes superintendent, her first instinct will be to seek out public school solutions to problems or opportunities she faces. She's going to think about Spanish (and other language) speakers as well as English speakers. She's going to consider students who have to overcome problems to reach educational success. She'll consider whether early childhood education should be a part of the solution.

Apologies to fellow teachers. (I know, I've been out of the profession for 15 years, but once a teacher, always a teacher, even after you lose your class [badum-ching!]). I know how much teachers hate being told what to do. I always did. I keep promising I won't give teachers advice, but I keep doing it anyway. My excuse is, I spent 30-plus years in the classroom, so I'm cutting myself a little slack.

My advice to teachers is, VOTE! If you have a mail-in ballot sitting around beginning to gather dust, pick it up, fill it out and mail it in. No stamp required. If not, there's early voting at the polls. And there's November 6.

Teachers, vote for education, whatever that means to you. More on that later.

Arizona has about 50,000 K-12 teachers. Roughly 40,000 of them work in school districts, and most of the remainder work in charter schools. That's a whole lot of people whose lives revolve around governmental decisions. Include an equal number of non-teaching staff, and it adds up to nearly 100,000 potential education-based voters in statewide races, 3,000 per legislative district. That's more than enough to make the difference in close races.

For some reason I've never understood, teachers aren't reliable voters. I've heard figures as low a 35 percent show up for elections, which astounds me. Anything lower than 80 percent from a group of people who dedicate themselves to serving the public interest, who perform their civic duty every working day, seems wrong. Maybe some teachers feel like they use up their quotient of public service in the classroom, then when it comes time to vote, they think, "Screw it, it's time for the rest of you to step up while I work on tomorrow's lesson plan for your kids!"

OK, so this year, don't think about voting as another civic chore to add to your physically and emotionally draining teaching schedule. This year, vote out of self interest.

In a debate peppered with accusations of lying and treason, U.S. Senate candidates Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema took shots at each other Monday in their only public debate of the 2018 election, each calling out the other’s voting record as proof that the other candidate is not a true representative of Arizona.

Sinema used the debate, which was broadcast live on Arizona PBS, to portray herself as an independent, echoing the campaign ads supporting her candidacy. She painted herself as someone willing to step over party lines, embracing the fact that she had voted largely with President Donald Trump’s agenda since 2017.

“Over the past six years, I’m proud to say I’ve taken the time to learn and grow and occasionally even change my opinion,” said Sinema, who has served three terms in Congress. “Over time, I think it makes sense for individuals, who are willing, to learn and to grow.”

She attempted to dodge questions about how she would have voted during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, calling the event a “circus.” She expressed disappointment with the way the Senate handled the confirmation, but ultimately said she would have voted no because it appeared to her that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

On other issues, she attempted to downplay that some of her positions are Democratic, pointing them out as good for Arizona. She referenced the price of beer cans when saying she opposed the Trump administration’s tariffs on aluminum imports because they hurt the state’s people.

“That’s something I think we should all agree on, that beer shouldn’t cost more,” she said.

"Channel your fury." That was the subject line of one of the hundred-plus Democratic fundraising emails in my inbox on Sunday. Was it from MoveOn? Nope. From Bernie Sanders 2020? Nope again. It was from the Democratic Governors Association.

And that's why Republicans are making such a big deal about Democrats being angry, or one of the reasons anyway. Sure, they want to use the "Democrat angry mob" attack to rally their base by conflating the Democratic Party with their usual grab bag of scary people, the immigrants and gangs and just about any people of color — you know, the usual suspects in the Republican "Be very afraid, they're coming to get you!" campaign. But as important, they don't want Democrats to use anger to rally their base. The DGA email says Democrats have to "channel all our fury into fighting as hard as we can for the next 23 days until Election Day," so Dems will vote in large enough numbers, they'll win close races. Republicans expect that kind of talk from lefties like MoveOn and Bernie Sanders. But when it comes from the usually staid, measured Democratic Governors Association, that's scary.

Anger and vitriol are supposed to be exclusive Republican weapons used to pummel Democrats into submission, according to Republicans anyway. They know anger works. It gets voters' adrenalin pumping. It's especially effective when Democrats respond as they have historically, with measured tones, using logic to explain why Republican anger isn't justified.

"See?" the aggressors crow after a weak Democratic response. "Republicans are strong, we know how to fight! Democrats are wusses."

Legislative District 11, which straddles Pima and Pinal counties, has enough Republican voters it might look like an easy win for Republicans who have held it since 2013. But don't try to tell that to Hollace Lyon, a Democrat making her second run for a house seat in the district.

Lyon started campaigning and fundraising last September and has amassed a war chest of $150,000 and counting, larger than the two Republican candidates put together. The campaign funds combined with her targeted, persistent ground game—volunteers have knocked on 13,000 doors—put her solidly in the running, especially in an election season which continues to be full of surprises.

I sat down with Hollace Lyon over coffee where we discussed the campaign and her stance on the issues.

Full disclosure: I've known Hollace for years and would love to see her pull out a win in LD-11. This post is certainly an endorsement. It's also a way to let readers know who she is.

Hollace Lyon is a moderate Democrat who has a detailed platform on her website laying out her stands on the major issues facing the state. However, she says her main focus is fiscal responsibility. She developed skills with budgets and negotiation during her 26-year career in the Air Force, and she wants to bring those skills to the legislature.

Lyon says her Air Force experience taught her she's a moderate. "One of the more important aspects I took out of the Air Force was, I learned I don't always have the answers I think I have," she said. "When I think I'm right about things, I've learned I'd better stop, get some input, weigh things and see the consequences of certain decisions before I press forward."

Lyon puts her Air Force service front and center in her campaign. "When I knock on doors," she told me, "I say to people, 'I'm a retired Air Force colonel with 26 years experience. I commanded two squadrons. I did strategic planning. I ran the NATO satellite system during the Bosnian War. I negotiated with Microsoft to save the Air Force $200 million. I negotiated fielding the NATO nuclear planning system between Turkey and Greece.'"

Lyon continued, "I want to use my skills in budgeting and negotiation to figure out where the money we've been paying into the state has gone, money that we thought was going to fund schools and fix roads." Voters have seen their taxes go up, most often at the local level "because the state has stopped paying for things they're supposed to pay for." The reason state funds have been insufficient? "You've heard this before, it's the cumulative tax giveaways. And every year, the Legislature and the governor add more."

At this weekend's Tucson Meet Yourself Festival, the Food Justice Expo will be featuring different organizations, food businesses and non profits from Southern Arizona. Through sampling, interactive displays and demonstrations, the expo will shed light on the many food initiatives that Tucson has to offer.

The Food Justice Expo is a partnership between Tucson City of Gastronomy and Southwest Folklife Alliance. Tucson was selected to be the first UNESCO City of Gastronomy in the United States due to the region's agricultural history and vibrant culinary scene.

Erik Stanford, who works for Tucson City of Gastronomy and is the coordinator of the Food Justice Expo, said that the intention of the expo is to highlight food justice organizations and their initiatives in Tucson.

Organizations like Compost Cats will be working with food waste activism and an organization called Tierra Y Libertad that works to improve food access in Southside neighborhoods will also be at the festival.

There will be  13 different food justice organizations that will be represented throughout the weekend of the festival including Mission Garden, Café 54, Community Food Bank, L.O.C.A.S and Felicia's Farm. 

Café 54, a non-profit training program in addition to being a restaurant, will be one of the local food businesses featured at the Food Justice Expo. The café is a program of Coyote TaskForce, which is an employment-training program for adults recovering from mental illness.

Joanna Kyl, a development coordinator for Coyote TaskForce through Café 54, said that the café will offer samples of the their signature rosemary rolls and will be teaching their trainees bread making at the Tucson Meet Yourself festival.

"I think the event will do a great job of showing the incredible resources that Tucson offers and will bring attention to the culture and culinary diversity in Tucson as well," Kyl said.

Visit the Tucson Meet Yourself Festival and the Food Justice Expo this weekend Friday, Oct. 12, Saturday, Oct. 13, and Sunday Oct. 14.

For more information about the Tucson Meet Yourself Festival click here.

NextGen, a nonprofit political-action organization, has registered 21,051 new voters between the ages of 18-35 ahead of the registration deadline in Arizona.

To do this, organizers in Arizona have knocked on 43,069 doors and sent 43,285 texts through Oct. 9 to entice the youth population to vote in the upcoming election.

Since its founding in 2013, NextGen has worked to raise support for political issues such as immigrant rights, affordable healthcare, equal rights and battling climate change.

Jalakoi Solomon, NextGen Arizona State Youth Director, said that young people are the largest voting block and may be the deciding factor in the upcoming November election.

"Young Arizonans hold incredible potential and power and are ready for political change," said Solomon. "Now is the time to flex our muscle and show Trump and his Republican allies, like Martha McSally, that their time is up."

The youth organization in Arizona has employed more than 50 organizers and has recruited nearly 2,437 volunteers across 23 campuses to politically empower young people.

The Our Lives, Our Vote program is a joint initiative between NextGen, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Everytown, which is the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country. The nationwide initiative was created in order to register young voters and start a conversation about gun reform before the 2018 midterm election. The program has since registered 3,442 high school students to vote in Arizona.

For more information about NextGen's initiatives, click here.

Note [of exasperation]: I'm beginning to think the Star has a policy: "Never write the words, 'According to an article by Craig Harris in the Republic . . .'" Harris has written a groundbreaking series of articles on charter school corruption and profiteering which has statewide relevance, but to my recollection, the Star hasn't mentioned any of them, nor has it done similar investigations on its own.

Craig Harris has a new article in The Republic that takes another look at the lack of charter school regulation and accountability. Not only does the State Board for Charter Schools conduct minimal charter school oversight, it doesn't acknowledge public complaints about charters on its website.

For the past three years, each charter school's profile on the site displayed the message: "This charter has no complaints."

According to Harris, the board received 91 complaints during the 2017-18 school year. Two months into this school year, it has already received 141 complaints.

The board's motto: See no evil. Hear no evil. Post no evil.

According to Harris, the website has addressed the problem, though the board has yet to release complaints, which are public records, to the paper.

None of this is recent, or accidental. It's part of a pattern that goes back to charter school beginnings in Arizona. The state charter board has always been more a promoter of charters than a regulator. Here's some historical background.

Here are two overlapping stories. First, Tucsonan John Brakey, head of AUDIT-USA and longtime election integrity watchdog, recently received a cease-and-desist order from Election Systems & Software, one of the big three election machine companies. Second, a lengthy article in this week's New York Times magazine details the very problems Brakey is concerned about: ways voting machines can malfunction or be hacked which can change election results, turning winners into losers and losers into winners.

Brakey put instruction manuals for ES&S voting machines on his AUDIT-USA website. They look like the typical, detailed user manuals we get when we buy software packages, but ES&S doesn't want them in public view. The company wrote Brakey a cease-and-desist letter demanding he take the material down. If not, the company threatens to take him to court for copyright violation.

Has Brakey violated copyright law by posting the ES&S manuals? I won't venture a lay person's opinion, though I've talked with people who say, as with many copyright cases, there's not a clear answer. But another question has a clear answer for me. Should a company whose products are used to count votes in elections be allowed to work in secret, out of public view? My answer is no. When one of the foundations of our democracy, free and fair elections, is at stake, machines and software created by a private, for-profit vendor should not collect and tally votes under cover of darkness. If bad actors can change election results at will, it's game over for our democratic system.

Brakey's reaction to the cease-and-desist letter? If a company which works so hard to guard its secrecy wants to take him to court, that's fine with him.

The New York Times magazine article is titled, The Crisis of Election Security. The shoddy programming described in the article, the gaping security holes, the ease with which the machines can be hacked and votes altered, were serious problems when the voting systems were first put into common use. Today, when we know Russian hackers have their tendrils in our election systems, the possibility that election results can be changed by a foreign power is all the more frightening.

Forbes is not my go-to source for educational news and insight, but you get news and insight where you find it. In this case, it's from a 39-year-veteran high school English teacher, a fellow English teacher who outranks me by five years. I have to pay attention to what he says, right?

The headline asks, Is The Big Standardized Test A Big Standardized Flop? The answer, according to the writer, is yes, and teachers knew it when the testing craze began ramping up 20 years ago. The people who didn't catch on were leaders of the education reform/privatization movement. Now a few of them are beginning to.

The author cites the work of two conservative educational scholars, Jay Greene and Frederick Hess. Greene is head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas (If the "education reform" in the department title and Arkansas as the location aren't clues enough to Greene's conservative educational leanings, let me add for longtime followers of the Goldwater Institute and my posts, Matthew Ladner, ex-education guy at the Goldwater Institute and current senior research fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, has been a frequent contributor to Greene's blog.) Greene says, rightly, test scores aren't valuable in and of themselves. They are supposed to be predictors of success in students' future lives. The problem is, they're not very good at it.

If increasing test scores is a good indicator of improving later life outcomes, we should see roughly the same direction and magnitude in changes of scores and later outcomes in most rigorously identified studies. We do not.

And he goes further, saying test scores and VAM (Value Added Measurement) don't tell us much about the quality of the schools or the programs the students are enrolled in.