Monday, April 2, 2018
Kochs Off Campus is hosting a panel discussion, "Dark Money, Charles Koch, and the UA Freedom Center," Tuesday, April 3, 7pm, in Education Building 211 on the University of Arizona campus. I will be one of the panel members, along with: David Gibbs, Professor of History, Moderator; Samantha Parsons, UnKoch My Campus Grassroots Campaign Strategist; Douglas Weiner, Professor of History; and Jeremy Vetter, Associate Professor of History. The public is invited to attend.
The panel will discuss the history and current status of UA's Freedom Center as well as the course it created, "Phil 101: Ethics, Economy, and Entrepreneurship,” which is being taught in four local school districts.
Before setting up the panel discussion, Kochs Off Campus invited David Schmidtz, the founding director of the Freedom Center, to participate in a public forum where he and David Gibbs would debate the topic, “Is the Freedom Center an Asset or a Liability for the University of Arizona?" Schmidtz refused the invitation.
Tags: Kochs Off Campus , UnKoch My Campus , University of Arizona , Freedom Center , David Schmidtz , David Gibbs , Samantha Parsons , Douglas Weiner , Jeremy Vetter. , Image
Saturday, March 31, 2018
What's gotten into these teachers?
That #RedforEd protest on March 21 was great and all, but it was supposed to be a one-and-done, right? Teachers got to wear those nice, new red t shirts. They went to the Capitol. They told legislators and the press, "We want decent salaries! We want more funding for schools!" They got their few hours of fame. Time to pat themselves on the back and return to their crappy salaries and underfunded classrooms.
That's what they were supposed to do, based on recent Arizona teacher history anyway. Instead, they came out the next Wednesday for another #RedforEd rally and demanded a 20 percent raise.
A 20 percent raise? Are you out of your minds?
The next day, the rally was getting positive press all over Arizona. And CNN. And ABC. And Education Week. And who knows how many other national news outlets.
Who designed those kickass red shirts anyway?
Meanwhile, Ducey's bully pulpit looked more like a kiddie stool. "Hey, c'mon guys, look at me. You know, the governor? I gave teachers a one percent raise, and there's more where that came from. I managed to pass a tax bill that means, well, it means schools won't get any more money, but they won't lose any either. That's something, right?"
That #RedforEd protest on March 21 was great and all, but it was supposed to be a one-and-done, right? Teachers got to wear those nice, new red t shirts. They went to the Capitol. They told legislators and the press, "We want decent salaries! We want more funding for schools!" They got their few hours of fame. Time to pat themselves on the back and return to their crappy salaries and underfunded classrooms.
That's what they were supposed to do, based on recent Arizona teacher history anyway. Instead, they came out the next Wednesday for another #RedforEd rally and demanded a 20 percent raise.
A 20 percent raise? Are you out of your minds?
The next day, the rally was getting positive press all over Arizona. And CNN. And ABC. And Education Week. And who knows how many other national news outlets.
Who designed those kickass red shirts anyway?
Meanwhile, Ducey's bully pulpit looked more like a kiddie stool. "Hey, c'mon guys, look at me. You know, the governor? I gave teachers a one percent raise, and there's more where that came from. I managed to pass a tax bill that means, well, it means schools won't get any more money, but they won't lose any either. That's something, right?"
Tags: #RedforEd , Arizona teacher salaries , 20 percent raise , West Virginia teachers , Oklahoma teachers , Kentucky teachers , Image
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
In 2013, the next big thing in education/technology convergence was inBloom, a nonprofit funded by $100 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The idea was to create a gigantic database filled with student information pulled together from school records. Private education companies could tap into the data to tailor educational software to individual students. The database would be watched over by the education division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and stored on Amazon's computers. Parents didn't need to give their consent for their children's information to be included.
What could possibly go wrong?
Seven states joined in. (Arizona wasn't one of them, by the way.) People on the left and the right went nuts about the intrusion into the privacy of students and their families. I was one of the people who wrote about of the potential dangers of Big Data amassing all this information on our children. In reaction to the uproar, the seven states pulled out one by one. Soon, inBloom, another one of Bill Gates' boneheaded, wrongheaded educational ideas, was gone.
In light of the growing revelations about the exploitation of personal data by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, it looks like inBloom's opponents were more right than we knew. Cambridge Analytica took a few wisps of data and created political profiles on hundreds of millions of Americans. InBloom would have 12 years of records about every student's family, school attendance, academic performance, health history, disciplinary and psychological history — a mind-boggling treasure trove of data. Private companies who gained access to this frighteningly rich data pool could mine it for personal, political and commercial gain. Bad actors could wield embarrassing or incriminating bits of information as weapons against students for the rest of their lives.
What could possibly go wrong?
Seven states joined in. (Arizona wasn't one of them, by the way.) People on the left and the right went nuts about the intrusion into the privacy of students and their families. I was one of the people who wrote about of the potential dangers of Big Data amassing all this information on our children. In reaction to the uproar, the seven states pulled out one by one. Soon, inBloom, another one of Bill Gates' boneheaded, wrongheaded educational ideas, was gone.
In light of the growing revelations about the exploitation of personal data by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, it looks like inBloom's opponents were more right than we knew. Cambridge Analytica took a few wisps of data and created political profiles on hundreds of millions of Americans. InBloom would have 12 years of records about every student's family, school attendance, academic performance, health history, disciplinary and psychological history — a mind-boggling treasure trove of data. Private companies who gained access to this frighteningly rich data pool could mine it for personal, political and commercial gain. Bad actors could wield embarrassing or incriminating bits of information as weapons against students for the rest of their lives.
Tags: inBloom , Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , Facebook , Cambridge Analytica , Educational software , Image
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Well, not a tax hike exactly. SB 1390 is a new tax, but it's not a new new tax. Prop 301, the six-tenths of a cent sales tax for education, is set to expire in 2020, and the new law gives it another 20 years of life. It's a new tax without any new money attached.
It's taken 26 years for the legislature to pass any kind of new tax because in 1992, voters passed Prop 108 which says tax increases of any kind need a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate.
Under most circumstances, two-thirds of our Republican-controlled legislature voting for a tax hike is an impossibly steep climb. I don't know of another instance when the legislature voted for a revenue increase since 1992, and neither does AZ Blue Meanie from Blog for Arizona, who first told me about Prop 108 and has been pushing to get rid of it for as long as I can remember. SB 1390 is a rare alignment of Democratic and Republican interests. Everyone but 4 senators and 6 representatives — all Republicans — voted for it. Then "No New Taxes" Ducey signed it.
Passing this new tax isn't exactly a cause for celebration for public education supporters. It doesn't bring an extra penny to schools. It just means schools won't lose $600 million a year. Actually, the new law could come back and bite schools in the ass if Republicans decide to tinker with it during another legislative session, as they say they might. Still, it's being greeted with a sigh of relief from public education supporters. These days if you're an educator, not losing feels almost like winning.
We may have to wait another 26 years for another moment like this roll around if we stay under Prop 108's supermajority rule. That means no substantial raise in state revenue in the foreseeable future, which means schools won't see the kind of revenue boost they need to pay teachers a decent wage, put more money into educational equipment and supplies, or fix our crumbling educational infrastructure.
If we want significantly more money for schools, the first step is to allow the legislature to pass revenue increases with a simple majority, and that means the voters will have to get rid of Prop 108.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
We've seen massive Women's Marches and other anti-Trump demonstrations. Women voters may lead the way to flipping the Congressional balance of power from R to D. The nationwide student movement against gun violence is accelerating. It looks like it has the legs to stick around. Our young people may lead the rest of us to some common sense gun regulation—not as much as we need, but some.
And now teachers are hitting the streets demanding much-deserved salary increases. Arizona's teachers are gaining national attention with their #RedforEd movement, which follows a successful teacher strike in West Virginia and coincides with strike rumblings in Oklahoma. Wednesday's sick-outs closed schools and brought teachers to the Capitol demanding a raise to get them out of the salary cellar. Ol' Doug "HalfPercentForTeachers" Ducey must be feeling a wee bit uncomfortable these days.
West Virginia teachers demanded a 5 percent raise, and they got it. But the part of the story which has gotten less attention is that the raise will cost $20 million the state doesn't have. The Republican Senate Finance Committee Chair threatened that some of the money will come out of Medicaid, maybe in an attempt to turn public opinion against the teachers, maybe because he doesn't like health care for low income people. The governor says no, it'll come out of other parts to the budget. But it has to come from somewhere. Oklahoma is in the same situation. It doesn't have the money for teacher raises unless it shorts other parts of the budget.
And there's the rub. Raising teacher salaries by 5 percent—in the neighborhood of $2,200 per teacher, which is really the minimum our teachers deserve—takes serious money. In Arizona, which has a much larger population than West Virginia, the bill comes to about $150 million, and that's only a portion of billion a year Arizona schools need just to get even with 2008 levels.
Tags: Arizona budget , Taxes , Capital gains tax cut , November elections , Image
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Maybe it's as simple as a mother saying, "My kids are going to get an education, start a business, earn a good living, make me proud. Education is my priority. That’s why I’m voting Democratic."
That was the most effective message among African Americans in Alabama's recent Senate election pitting Democrat Doug Jones against the racist, child dating Republican Roy Moore. With so many ways to attack Moore, it turned out the positive message about education had the greatest impact on people's desire to vote.
Would a similar message help Arizona Democrats drive voter turnout, the first necessary step to winning close elections?
A column by the New York Times' David Leonhardt discusses a company testing ads to increase African American turnout for Doug Jones in Alabama. A number of ads targeted Roy Moore's negatives, but this is the 15 second ad that tested strongest.
It's "Make American Great Again" for families: "Make the future bright for our children. Vote Democratic."
That was the most effective message among African Americans in Alabama's recent Senate election pitting Democrat Doug Jones against the racist, child dating Republican Roy Moore. With so many ways to attack Moore, it turned out the positive message about education had the greatest impact on people's desire to vote.
Would a similar message help Arizona Democrats drive voter turnout, the first necessary step to winning close elections?
A column by the New York Times' David Leonhardt discusses a company testing ads to increase African American turnout for Doug Jones in Alabama. A number of ads targeted Roy Moore's negatives, but this is the 15 second ad that tested strongest.
“My kids are going to do more than just survive the bigotry and hatred,” a female narrator says, as the video shows a Klan march and then a student at a desk. “They’re going to get an education, start a business, earn a good living, make me proud. Education is my priority. That’s why I’m voting for Doug Jones.”The video flashes a shot of white supremacists carrying tiki torches at the Charlottesville march last August and Trump giving a thumbs-up at a campaign rally, but most of the ad shows a boy in school, a mother, and a young African American businessman behind an office desk.
It's "Make American Great Again" for families: "Make the future bright for our children. Vote Democratic."
Tags: Education , 2018 campaign , Democrats , Republicans , Image
Friday, March 16, 2018
They were in a political bind on March 14. The Arizona House Republicans could have stood for 17 minutes in silent remembrance of the 17 students killed in Florida and risk angering the Second Amendment absolutists who vote for them, or they could leave and risk showing disrespect for the slain Parkland students and the local students who filled the visitors gallery.
They chose disrespect.
Politicians face damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations all the time. Both sides of the aisle love to make their colleagues on the other side squirm. This was one of those times for the Republicans.
House Democrats introduced the students in the gallery one by one. It took an hour. Had to be tough for the Republicans to sit through. The fresh faced, idealistic students asked the legislature to pass laws requiring comprehensive background checks, banning bump stocks and hiring more school counselors. Those comparatively mild, measured requests made the Rs squirm further down in their seats. When Democrats made speeches reinforcing student demands, that was too much for the Republicans to take sitting down. Most of them left.
Then came a moment when they were asked to stand quietly for 17 minutes. They could have done it as a simple gesture, a show of respect for the 17 deaths of Florida students who were the same age as the young people in the gallery. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a commitment to pass gun regulation. Even the nuttiest of their gun nut constituents most likely would have shrugged it off. But they wouldn't do it.
They chose disrespect.
Politicians face damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations all the time. Both sides of the aisle love to make their colleagues on the other side squirm. This was one of those times for the Republicans.
House Democrats introduced the students in the gallery one by one. It took an hour. Had to be tough for the Republicans to sit through. The fresh faced, idealistic students asked the legislature to pass laws requiring comprehensive background checks, banning bump stocks and hiring more school counselors. Those comparatively mild, measured requests made the Rs squirm further down in their seats. When Democrats made speeches reinforcing student demands, that was too much for the Republicans to take sitting down. Most of them left.
Then came a moment when they were asked to stand quietly for 17 minutes. They could have done it as a simple gesture, a show of respect for the 17 deaths of Florida students who were the same age as the young people in the gallery. It wasn't a vote. It wasn't a commitment to pass gun regulation. Even the nuttiest of their gun nut constituents most likely would have shrugged it off. But they wouldn't do it.
Tags: Arizona Legislature , Republicans , Democrats , March 14 , Gun regulation , Image
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Today is National Walkout Day, when students across the country are leaving class to remember the loss of 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. It's a good time to note that Diane Douglas, our Superintendent of Public Instruction, is fine with the idea of teachers carrying guns in schools. More than fine, actually. She thinks teachers packing heat is just like having armed guards protecting banks. "Banks have security to keep our money safe," she said. "I think we should keep our children equally safe."
Douglas is standing ankle deep in the NRA Tar Pit. It might not be the best place for an educator facing an election to be stuck right now. The #NeverAgain and #VoteThemOut movements could help rid us of education's gun-crazy dinosaurs come November.
Douglas promoted arming teachers on the Bill Buckmaster show two weeks ago, but no one picked up on it, myself included, until Monday when the AZ Republic ran a story. After reading the article, I went back to the February 28 Buckmaster Show and listened myself.
Douglas used the bank-school comparison twice; she clearly came to the show prepared with the analogy and liked the way it sounded. And she went further, stating that Arizona law already allows teachers to be armed, citing Arizona Revised Statute 15-341 A23. She really loves ARS 15-341. She made sure to repeat the statute number three times so no one would miss her point.
The problem is, Douglas' interpretation of the statute is questionable.
ARS 15-341 states governing boards may
Douglas is standing ankle deep in the NRA Tar Pit. It might not be the best place for an educator facing an election to be stuck right now. The #NeverAgain and #VoteThemOut movements could help rid us of education's gun-crazy dinosaurs come November.
Douglas promoted arming teachers on the Bill Buckmaster show two weeks ago, but no one picked up on it, myself included, until Monday when the AZ Republic ran a story. After reading the article, I went back to the February 28 Buckmaster Show and listened myself.
Douglas used the bank-school comparison twice; she clearly came to the show prepared with the analogy and liked the way it sounded. And she went further, stating that Arizona law already allows teachers to be armed, citing Arizona Revised Statute 15-341 A23. She really loves ARS 15-341. She made sure to repeat the statute number three times so no one would miss her point.
The problem is, Douglas' interpretation of the statute is questionable.
ARS 15-341 states governing boards may
"prescribe and enforce policies and procedures that prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a weapon on school grounds unless the person is a peace officer or has obtained specific authorization from the school administrator."According to the Republic article, Heidi Vega, spokeswoman for the Arizona School Boards Association, believes the language refers to someone like a police officer giving a talk in a classroom. I think the ASBA interpretation is correct, based on a close reading of the passage.
Tags: Diane Douglas , Gun regulation , Guns in schools , ARS 15-341 , Image
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
I'll go over the main points of the audit. If you want to go to the source, here's the entire TUSD state audit, and here are the report highlights. Hank Stephenson's article in the Star does his usual good job covering the issue, though, damn it . . .
[WARNING: Rant Ahead.] I am really tired of the Star's standard "If TUSD bleeds, it leads" headline and opening. The audit and the Star both present a nuanced analysis of district's spending issues, giving valid reasons for some of the expenditures, but you wouldn't know that from the paper's head and the first 70 words. The headline: "Audit slaps TUSD on high costs for administrators, underused schools." "Slaps." That stings. All that's missing are three big red exclamation points to hammer the point home. Next comes the one-two punch of the opening paragraphs reinforcing the "TUSD: Bad!" theme. After that, the article adds nuance, but by then the initial district damning has already set the tone, adding unnecessarily to the community's negative perceptions of the district. [Rant completed. We will continue with the previously scheduled topic.]
Tucson Unified's enrollment has been declining for years, from about 61,000 students in 2000 to around 45,000 currently. The enrollment drop has slowed in recent years, but it hasn't stopped. The result is underused schools, which means higher building costs and more school-based administrators per student than if the schools were at capacity. If enrollments continue to decline, it's going to be hard to resist another round of school closures, which will accelerate the downward spiral. If enrollment numbers rise, other problems will diminish.
Superintendent Trujillo has told me reversing the district's downward enrollment trend is high on his list of priorities. This is his first year at the helm, so it will take time to see what kind of changes he has in mind.
Tags: Tucson Unified School District , State audit , Administration , Transportation , Enrollment , Image
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
You know, red and black go really good together. Arizona can say yes to the demands of teachers wearing red and still keep the state budget in the black. How do we manage it? The first step is to make a commitment to increase the state budget so we can afford to fund schools, social programs and infrastructure adequately. The next step is to ask, "What's the best way to do it?"
We have plenty of options to choose from. Close tax loopholes for corporations and other special interests. Renew the Prop. 301 sales tax for education, with a penny added to the total. Stop the stupid, goddamn tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Increase taxes on the wealthiest among us so they pay their fair share.
I'm not suggesting which are the best ways to increase state revenue. That's the next step, after we agree to take the "red and black" challenge.
However, I do have two suggestions for things we need to do if we hope to add needed money to the state coffers. Give voters the opportunity to repeal Proposition 108 from 1992 which requires a two-thirds majority in the legislature to pass any new taxes. And vote out politicians who say "No new taxes, period."
Tags: Teachers , Teacher salaries , Class size , Taxes , Proposition 108 , Image
