Three encouraging takeaways for me from Thursday's walkout.

A Sea Of Red: 50,000 to 75,000 teachers and supporters filled the streets of Phoenix and gathered in front of the state Capitol. Thousands of others lined the streets in Tucson and, I imagine, other cities as well. A terrific show of unity.

Good #RedforEd Ink: The media appeared to be awed by and delighted with the teachers and the walkout. The Yays! far outweighed the Nays in print and on TV news.

The Governor's Seal Of Approval: Ducey had nothing but positive things to say about teachers Thursday. No talk of political theater. Nothing about teachers deserting their classrooms and their students. In a televised interview, he said, "I'm listening to these teachers. I think citizens have a voice. They have a right to petition their government. I think they want to be heard, and they are being heard."

Ducey's almost-endorsement of the walkout is huge, as is his acknowledgement that teachers deserve a 20 percent raise. Governor One Percent got religion a few weeks ago and increased his salary offer twenty fold. He even said—be still my heart—that the work Arizona's teachers have done makes them worthy of a raise.

"These teachers have earned the pay raise. They're getting the results and outcomes inside the classroom. . . . Our public districts and our public charters are improving faster than any state in the nation."

The improvement he's talking about is Arizona's scores on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress ( NAEP) test, which went up while most other states stayed flat.

Diane Douglas, Superintendent of Public Instruction, had a 20 minute interview with reporter Derek Staahl Monday about the potential teacher walkout. The interview had a number of noteworthy moments, but the jaw dropper was when Douglas went beyond speaking out against the walkout and said public servants should not unionize.

Douglas said during the interview that she doesn't like the idea of a walkout, insisting she's only thinking of the children.

"Stay on the job. Stay in your positions. Show up for work on Thursday. Continue your negotiations with the governor and the legislature. . . . I think there are solutions to this problem, but hurting our families and our children are not one of them."

Douglas wants to call it a strike, not a walkout, because that allows her to add, "In Arizona it is not legal for teachers to strike." Sounding like a third grade teacher addressing her unruly class, she said there might be consequences if the children — I mean, the teachers — don't behave. If they went out on strike, she wouldn't punish them herself, but the principal — scratch that, the State Board of Education — might take action, and you children — I mean, you teachers — wouldn't like that, would you?

"One of the ramifications could be decertification. . . . If they walk out, and I’m not advocating for one way or another, but if parents or citizens file a complaint at the department, we have an investigations unit, and I’ve ensured the board this morning, we will investigate anything that comes. . . . It may not be decertifying them. It may be a letter of censure within their file that goes on their record and is reported to the national database, and if they choose to leave and go teach somewhere else, it can be something that follows them. I would encourage cooler heads to prevail."

Then came Douglas' statement against public servants unionizing. I have a feeling she went a bit farther than she meant to here — I think she meant to say she was against strikes by government workers, not unions — but I'm fairly certain those were her true feelings coming out of her mouth, and it'll be pretty hard to call them back in again.

Here's a golden oldie. See if you remember it. "Teachers shouldn't complain about their pay. They make more than the average worker. When they retire, they live off their generous state pensions. And look at all that vacation time they get. Their cushy pay and perks come courtesy of the teachers union which squeezes money out us taxpayers while it protects bad teachers and doesn't give a damn about the kids."

Did I leave anything out? I don't think so. I know the talking points by heart. I heard them every year when teacher contract time rolled around. The anti-teacher rhetoric grew louder and more frequent over the years as conservatives ramped up their anti-tax, anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-government agenda. The bashing of high paid teachers and their mercenary union became a year round mantra.

Funny though. I haven't heard those talking points much during the past few months. You'd think if there was ever a time to pull out the big "lazy, overpaid teachers" guns, it would be now, what with the demands for higher teacher salaries rolling from West Virginia to Oklahoma to Kentucky to Arizona. Why did all the conservatives stop using what had always been a sure fire winner?

It looks like they got the memo. Literally. A three page memo titled "Messaging Guide: How to Talk about Teacher Strikes" was put out by the State Policy Network, an umbrella organization that pulls together ideas from conservative think tanks and disseminates them to member organizations in all 50 states.

The memo begins by telling conservatives to ditch the "pampered teacher" line.

"A message that focuses on teacher hours or summer vacations will sound tone-deaf when there are dozens of videos and social media posts going viral from teachers about their second jobs, teachers having to rely on food pantries, classroom books that are falling apart, paper rationing, etc. This is a time to sympathize with teachers."

In other words, "We've been out-messaged. We're busted!" All the lies about pampered teachers don't work anymore. Those crafty teachers took unfair advantage by using actual evidence to prove they're underpaid and schools are underfunded. Bummer!

Oh, and don't bring up school choice, another standard conservative answer to anyone who complains about public school salaries and funding.

"It is also not the right time to talk about school choice — that's off topic, and teachers at choice-schools are often paid less than district school teachers."

Ix-nay on the Oice-chay, got it?

So how should conservatives go about bad-mouthing schools and teachers?

The teacher demonstrations, walk-ins, walkouts and strikes around the country are playing pretty well with the public. That surprises and encourages me. Republicans have led a decades-long onslaught against teachers, beginning in earnest with the "Our schools suck!" rallying cry from the Reagan administration in its 1983 report, "A Nation At Risk." It was a blatantly political scare screed about how terrible our schools—and by extension, our teachers—are. So terrible, they might as well be a Commie plot to destroy our country. Here's the money quote:

"If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

It's been wall-to-wall anti-public education, anti-teacher, anti-teachers union grandstanding from Republicans ever since.

And yet, public sentiment over the past month has been generally favorable to teachers' demands for better pay and increased school funding. If a savvy politician like our own "[not] Education Governor" Ducey is forced to concede that teachers might have a point, that maybe they deserve a pay raise twenty times higher than what he proposed a year earlier, you know Ducey knows the public is siding with teachers.

I guess the Republican onslaught hasn't been as successful as they hoped. Oh, it's had an impact. In the late 1980s, I was honestly shocked by the growing level of anger directed against my profession—generally parroting conservative talking points — the likes of which I hadn't experienced in my previous 20 years of teaching. But in spite of that, teachers still garner a great deal of respect.

A few recent polls tell the tale. A story in Education Week pulls together the numbers.

Dr. Auggie Romero, principal of Pueblo High School, got screwed by the TUSD board majority when it decided in a 3-2 vote not to renew his contract at the April 10 board meeting. Very likely, current and future Pueblo High students lost out as well.

The story behind the vote against Romero is both simple and complex, depending on how it's told, and it tends to come out differently depending on who's telling it. Let me try and reduce the story to its essentials.

Two years ago, Romero changed the course grades of 6 seniors at Pueblo High from F to D in the last days of the school year, which allowed them to graduate (Actually, one student didn't graduate because he failed another class). In doing so, Romero violated state law and TUSD district policy, both of which state that a principal is not allowed to change a grade given by a teacher. On the surface, that's the primary issue which led the board majority to decide not to renew his contract, though they didn't discuss the issues much before the vote. More on the reasons behind their decision later.

However, the story is more complicated than that, as you learn when you read the 13 page report on the grade changing incident produced by the law firm, DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy. You can read it on the KGUN9 website.

According to the report, the six students complained to Romero that the teacher had not allowed them to make up work they had missed, which led to them failing the class. The report substantiated their claim and said the teacher violated district policy by refusing to allow them to complete the make-up work. Romero gave the students the opportunity to complete the assignments they missed. After their work was graded, each of the students had enough points to pass the class. That's when Romero changed their grades from F to D in violation of state law and district policy.

The law firm's report came to the conclusion that "Dr. Romero was not flouting the law or policy intentionally. I think he believed that the students in question were in fact denied the opportunity to complete the assignments and that, by allowing them to do so, he was simply providing them the opportunity that their teacher should have provided to them under district policy." The report recommends "Dr. Romero be directed not to change students' grades in the future, regardless of the reason." It also recommends that Romero be counseled on better ways to handle similar situations in the future. No further actions are suggested.

Ducey’s offer of a 19 percent raise for teachers is a moving target. Here are a few random thoughts, some of which may be out of date by the time this post hits The Range.

Did Ducey Blink?
Ducey didn’t just blink. His knees buckled, he reached for the white handkerchief in his breast pocket, straightened himself out, waved the kerchief over his head, put on his best smile and tried to pretend his offer of a 19 percent raise for teachers is what he wanted to do all along.

It wasn’t. The teachers forced his hand. Instead of demonstrating, patting themselves on the back and retreating to their classrooms, they refused to go away. They were out last week, they were out this week, and they’ll be out next week in ever growing numbers. It’s a rolling thunder sweeping across the nation, from West Virginia to Oklahoma to Kentucky to Arizona, and the storm is building in intensity. First the media covered the spectacle, then it covered the issues. (Lesson learned: If you want media coverage, earn it. Make a spectacle of yourself, then do it again. Say something outrageous, then say it again. That's catnip for journalists.) Nearly all the coverage has been on the teachers’ side, because the teachers are right and because they impressed the nation with their tenacity, their unity, their fearlessness.

If I sounds like I’m proud of the practicing members of my profession . . . you goddam betcha I am.

Did I See This Coming?
Nope. Didn’t even imagine this moment was possible, let alone that it could come this soon.

Should Teachers Cheer?
Absolutely. They won a big victory. They should cheer for a full minute. Hell, this is a biggie, make it ten minutes. Then get back to the business of guaranteeing increased funding levels for teacher salaries, for support staff salaries, for school repairs, for school supplies — for all the stuff the "Dismantle public schools" Republicans who run this state have refused to pay for.

Wednesday, teachers "Walked In" all over the state. They gathered outside their schools before class, then walked into the building together. Lots of teachers. We'll have to wait for the news coverage and Facebook posts to know how many. The walk-in is in preparation for a possible walkout. Not a strike, not yet. A walkout. A show of solidarity. Maybe a prelude to a strike, maybe not.

The one near-strike I participated in was way back in the 1970s in a district outside of Portland, Oregon. I remember sitting in the band room after school with the rest of the faculty as the school's union leaders discussed our options with us. Unannounced, the principal walked through the door. "If any of you plan to go on strike," he said, looking around the room, "I want you to come to my office and tell me first."

His words set off a mild rumbling of fear inside my 20-something body. But when he opened his mouth to continue, one of the union leaders, a mild mannered older teacher, interrupted him. "We are holding a union meeting," the teacher said quietly but firmly. "It's after school hours, so we're on our own time. You are not allowed in here. I ask that you leave, now." The principal stood still for a few moments, then turned and left. If we weren't absolutely united before, we were when the door closed behind him.

The district settled with the teachers the next day, so the strike was averted. Otherwise, we were more than ready to walk. [This story isn't a knock on principals or administrators in general, by the way, many of whom are very supportive of their staff. It's just this one guy and this one situation I'm talking about.]

That near-strike moment came to mind as I listened to the way our "education governor" has responded to teacher activism. Ducey's tactic, like my principal back then, is divide and conquer.

The three Democratic candidates for governor—Steve Farley, David Garcia and Kelly Fryer—debated at UA Saturday, April 7. They covered a lot of ground, but I want to focus on their statements about education.

Full Disclosure: I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, though I do know who I'm voting for in the general: the last Democrat standing. Any one of them will be a vast improvement over the current officeholder, who somehow manages to call himself "the education governor" with a straight face. So I'm reporting what I heard at the debate, not expressing any personal preferences.

Though the three Democrats varied a bit, they stand pretty close together in their overall views about education and miles away from Doug Ducey, meaning they're for strong, well funded public education, including a substantial raise for teachers. All three agreed teachers should get at least a 20 percent raise. Fryer wants it to be 25 percent. Farley wants a 20 percent raise for the classified staff as well.

The only direct question about education in the debate was about where the new education money will come from.

The three had different proposals for how to add money to the state budget: raising taxes on the wealthy, getting rid of corporate tax exemptions or a combination of the two. None of them suggested we increase the sales tax.

David Garcia presented a both/and funding proposal. He wants to reverse corporate tax exemptions — carve-outs which allow specific corporations to pay lower taxes — and get rid of private school tax credits. He also wants to increase taxes on the one percenters. The result, he said, will be a more progressive tax structure in Arizona, which is currently one of the most regressive in the country. Garcia didn't put a dollar figure on the amount his plan would bring in.

Steve Farley said the state has 330 corporate tax loopholes, and by ending some of the loopholes, we can bring in $3 billion. He will use $2 billion for education spending, which is more than enough to cover a 20 percent raise for teachers as well as classified staff. The remaining billion dollars will be used to lower the sales tax by one percent.

Kelly Fryer doesn't believe much money can be raised by getting rid of corporate tax loopholes, so she essentially discarded that idea. She recommended a variety of ways to tax the rich. She wants to increase taxes for people who make over a million a year. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the income of Arizona's one percenters begins at $309,000, so she's looking at a smaller pool of taxpayers than Garcia. However, she also wants to put a sales property tax on every home over a million dollars, as well as what she calls a "vacation tax" on people who own homes in Arizona but don't actually live here. Fryer said her plan will raise $2.7 billion, and she'll give teachers a 25 percent raise.

Follow the money, or as much as you can find, anyway. Always good advice.

The University of Arizona recently responded to a records request from Kochs Off Campus to list all funders of the Freedom Center since 2008 and the amount each contributed. It doesn't appear to be a complete list, but it paints a picture of the political and economic leanings of the people whose money makes the Center's existence possible.

The UA response to the Kochs Off Campus request lists 14 donors whose contributions total $8,325,000. That number is far short of what Michael McKenna, then the director of the Freedom Center, wrote in a November 2, 2017, response to my column about the high school course created by the Center. McKenna wrote,

According to [David Schmitz, founding director of the Freedom Center], since 2004 the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom has received $16 million dollars from roughly two dozen donors.

The reason for the discrepancy could be the dates. Kochs Off Campus asked for a list of donations beginning in 2008 while McKenna begins in 2004. David Schmidtz is in the best position to reconcile the two figures. In an article in UA's paper, The Wildcat, the reporter said Schmidtz promised to share a donor list with the paper, but at the time of publication, she had not received one. Maybe Schmidtz is ready to share a complete list now.

Here's the list of Freedom Center donors supplied by the UA.

Templeton Foundation: $2,900,000
Randy and Ken Kendrick: $1,500,000
Charles G. Koch Foundation: $1,345,500
Thomas W. Smith Foundation: $1,326,000
Donors Trust:  $380,000
Jerry Fullinwider:  $380,000
Karl and Stevie Eller:  $350,000
APGAR Foundation:  $67,000
Garland and Carolyn Cox:  $31,000
Michael Kasser: $25,000
Nancy and Jack Weiss:  $10,000
Gerry Ohrstrom:  $5,000
Jim Click, Jr.:  $5,000
Irv Mindes: $500

I looked into some of the major funders to find their political and economic leanings. Not surprisingly, they tilt to the political right. Many of them tend toward libertarianism, and their contributions, along with their ideology, follow closely on the heels of the Koch brothers. Here's what I found.

George H. W. Bush was a Life Member of the N.R.A. until 1995, when he sent an angry letter to the Association and quit. It was two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing, and the N.R.A was standing by Wayne LaPierre's statement that federal agents are "jack-booted thugs," going on to call them “federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black stormtrooper uniforms.” In the letter Bush talked about specific federal agents, some of whom died in the bombing. He said these men were no Nazis.

He continued,

"I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.’s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns."

Bush made it sound like the N.R.A was a good ol' association gone bad. But when we go back to the 60s and look at the way it fought gun regulation, it looks more like a bad ol' organization gone worse.

It was 1968. Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot and killed. Nine weeks later, it was Bobby Kennedy's turn. President Lyndon Johnson decided, if there was ever a moment to pass his Gun Control Act, this was it.

An article in the New York Times describes the events. To that point, the country's high rate of gun violence wasn't enough to prod Congress to pass gun regulation. California was one of the few states to pass gun control measures, but it wasn't because of the violence. The legislature was reacting to the sight of Black Panthers on patrol, carrying loaded rifles.

The mood in Congress changed after the King assassination.

The King assassination spurred the legislation not just because it horrified the nation, but also because it prompted unrest across the country, including in Washington, where lawmakers watched rioters come within blocks of the White House as thousands of federal troops were mobilized.

After Bobby Kennedy's assassination, Congress made a small change in the law, raising the age when people could buy handguns to 21.

Mr. Johnson wanted something far more sweeping. He proposed to treat guns like cars: They would be registered and their owners would be licensed.

Johnson knew he had no more than two weeks to get the bill through Congress or "the N.R.A. will kill us." Which is exactly what happened.