The battle over Prop 123 rages on in the MSM, on Facebook . . . everywhere. No need to re-argue the issue here. It's been argued nearly to death by me and others, and by now most people have made up their minds. So far as I know, there's no polling available to predict the outcome. Anyone's guess is as good as mine. But a question as big as the May 17 outcome is, what happens May 18?

The May 17 vote must be seen as the beginning, not the end of the discussion about school funding. Whether the proposition goes up or down, whether some of the money voters demanded for schools in 2000 is restored immediately or in a few years or is tied up in endless lawsuits, at best it's a financial first step in what must be a concerted effort to give our schools the money they need to improve the quality of our children's educations. If passed, Prop 123 will put back about 70 percent of the funds taken illegally from schools. In other words, best case scenario, we'll still be 30 percent below the woefully low educational funding levels of 2009. This is nothing new. It began when the Republicans took over the state's government in 1966 and continued as they solidified their power. (At the end of the post is a graph of the decline in per student funding from an earlier post.)

I'm not sure what form the post-May 17 pressure will take, though there are some early signs of activism. I know right from the start, people have to stand in the way of Ducey's victory lap if Prop 123 passes, or refute his "It looks like voters don't want more money for education" lecture if it fails. Ducey wants to put the funding issue behind him as quickly as he can, and that can't be allowed to happen. 

My "Take it with a grain of salt" graphic is getting a workout lately. I used it when Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said education is a big winner in the state budget. I used it again with a report saying district schools have higher graduation rates than charter schools. I should have used it when I posted about U.S. News & World Report's Best High Schools list which always puts BASIS schools in the top ten. Sometimes the claims are purposely deceptive (I'm looking at you, Glenn). Other times they're true but don't mean much. Caveat emptor, folks.

Today I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the nine high school students in the Tucson area who were named National Merit Scholars out of a pool of 15,000 finalists. It's a genuine honor for each individual. All of them should be proud. Their parents should be proud. Their schools should be proud.

But separately and with less applause, I want to note where the students go to school. Over half, five out of nine, go to TUSD's University High. Four other schools have one each: Catalina Foothills High, The Gregory School, BASIS Oro Valley and BASIS Tucson North. That's a pretty spectacular showing for UHS and TUSD, especially considering that Catalina Foothill is the only other school district in the area with even a single student chosen. TUSD and UHS, pat yourselves on the back, take a quick bow and move on.

The next time someone tells you charter schools are superior to district schools—because, "Look at BASIS!" "Look at Louisiana!" "Look at [fill in the blank]!"—and has FACTS and FIGURES to back it up, tell them charter schools have a significantly lower graduation rate than district schools, and hit them with some FACTS and FIGURES of your own.

And, by the way, even if both of you have good data, more often than not the comparisons don't mean a hell of a lot when it comes to showing that charters are better that district schools or vice versa.

The seventh annual report on U.S. graduation rates just came out. According to the report:

"Seven percent (7%) of regular district public schools, or roughly 1,000 schools nationwide, were low-graduation rate high schools."

"Thirty percent (30%) of charter schools were low-graduation-rate high schools."

The study is chock full o' stats. Here are a few more. District schools have an average 85 percent graduation rate, while charters have an average 70 percent graduation rate. And if you look at virtual schools—online schools where the students work from home, like the K12 Inc. schools (such as Arizona Virtual Academy), 87 percent are low graduation rate schools, with a shockingly low 40 percent average graduation rate.

If I were anti-charter, which I'm not, and wanted to score points, which I don't, I'd say, "See? All those district schools that the 'education reform'/privatizer folks love to complain about are doing a better job graduating students than the charters they praise to the skies." But that's ridiculous, because these stats, like so many used against district schools, don't lend themselves to direct comparison.

It's big, it's loud and it's golden. And 14 local filmmakers want it. 

"It" is the esteemed "Golden Gong" trophy—the prize one filmmaker will win, along with $1,000, for their submission to The Loft Cinema's First Friday Shorts: The Golden Gong Year-End Showdown short-film contest on Friday, May 6.  The showdown currently plans to feature shorts from locals Gilbert Rataezyk, David Bornstein, Adela Antoinette, Brooke Hartnett, Matthew Vanek, Jacob Webb, Mac Benning, MJ Watz, Brian McAdams, Kevin Kittle, Steve Roggenbuck, Malcolm Critcher, Cody Hunt and Dom Villarrubia, but The Loft will accept up to seven new film entries at the show itself. If you're interested, submit your short quickly—the spots will fill fast. 

The Loft's twelfth annual installment of First Friday Shorts will also begin the same evening, right after host Max Cannon presents the Golden Gong to its rightful owner. The First Friday Shorts winner will win a "sweet" $200, so be sure to submit your short to the contest. 

Admission is $5 for Loft members and $6 for everyone else. Get your tickets here. For more information on The Golden Gong Year-End Showdown and First Friday Shorts in general, check out The Loft's website. 

Amy Goodman, the host of radio show Democracy Now!, will be making a Tucson appearance to talk about her new book, Democracy Now!: Twenty Years Covering the Movements Changing America.

Goodman, whose show airs on KXCI, 91.3 FM, will talk to fans from 7 to 9 p.m. on Thursday, April 28, at the TCC Leo Rich Theatre, 260 S. Church St.

The talk is a benefit for KXCI community radio. Tickets are $16, with kids 16 and younger allowed in free as long as they’re accompanied by an ticket-carrying adult.

Doug Ducey loves to say Prop 123 is a "first step." That phrase has become a mantra for Ducey and others supporting Prop 123. The question Ducey won't answer is, if Prop 123 is the first step, what's the next step?

"First step" is one of those vague, Rorschach-test statements politicians love which allow voters to deduce the meaning based on their own desires. If you're a pro-education-funding voter, you're supposed to imagine it means the next step is to put more money in public education. If you think our "government schools" are wasting money on administration and we're "throwing money" at "failing schools," then you can imagine the next step has nothing to do with increasing funding. It's about firing administrators, defunding "government schools," especially those with lots of poor and minority kids, and increasing funds for "school choice" — meaning plenty of money for charter and private schools.

Ducey agrees with the second group. Prop 123 is a way of getting the public off his back without putting any new money for education in the state budget. He and his surrogates have made it clear, they want to keep education funding low while shifting money toward high rent school districts, charters and private schools. But he can't say that out loud right now. Prop 123 needs the votes of people who know our schools are desperately in need of more funding and want the state to increase what it spends on education. His oft-used "first step" statement is designed to leave the impression he's on their side without making a commitment he might be expected to live up to later.

Ducey can show he agrees our schools need more funding by adding education spending to the budget he and Republican legislative leadership are hammering out. Instead, it looks like they're going to push for a net loss of $21 million in state education money. That means if Prop 123 passes, the first $21 million dollars will go toward bringing state funding up to this year's abysmally low level, not to adding money for schools. If it fails, our schools will be $21 million poorer.

I missed this when it came out a few weeks ago, but with the proposed Arizona state budget being revealed in dribs and drabs this week, it seems like a good time to talk about the assessment by ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) regarding Arizona's economic outlook. It's excellent! We're Number 5! We're Number 5! We're Number 5! You can read all about it in the ALEC-Laffer, 2016 Rich States, Poor States publication. It's called the ALEC-Laffer report, by the way, because the lead researcher is Arthur B. Laffer, who, according to his bio in the report, has often been called “The Father of Supply-Side Economics.” You know, trickle down economics, and the Laffer curve that explains it all. The co-authors: Stephen Moore, who was "the founder and president of the Club for Growth and founded the Free Enterprise Fund"; and Jonathan Williams, "the vice president for the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council." It's a like-minded group.

The top magic pony states, the ones that most closely adhere to the doctrine that low taxes and minimal regulations bring prosperity, are, in order, Utah, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wyoming and Arizona: the world beaters driving our national economy. The bottom states — I guess all you'll find there is magic pony poop — are California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont and New York: the loser states where nothing much ever happens economically. I remember Ducey talking about California's imminent economic demise in his State of the State address, which I guess is why Arizona's U Haul lots are full to bursting with trailers and trucks from California carrying businesses from that "economic outlook" loser to this "economic outlook" winner. Oh, the lots aren't full? Maybe all those businesses just hopped a ride on a magic pony heading our way.

What's your view again?

I sometimes cite education studies and statistics in my posts, but I try to be careful to write about the "conclusions" drawn from the material rather than saying the study "shows" or "proves" something. Any study is only as good as the quality of its data as well as the way the data is sliced and diced. When it comes to studies concerning education, that's a big problem. Skepticism is always advisable.

Short side trip: When I was taking a graduate school statistics course, our assignment was to go to the library, find a good and a bad statistical study and analyze them for their strengths and weaknesses. I asked the prof where I would be most likely to find bad statistical analysis, and he said, "Go to the education journals. Most of those studies are pretty bad." He wasn't criticizing the researchers as much as he was pointing out that it's almost impossible to create strong control groups or comparisons because the variances between students and teachers are so large. No two students, groups of students or teachers are identical, so any conclusions researchers draw from the data are open to question.

Case in point: the rise in state test scores, especially among Hispanic students, starting in 2007. Does that mean Arizona began doing a better job educating its Hispanic population?

Two researchers at Arizona State University's Educational Policy Analysis and Evaluation program have taken a look at the rise in Arizona student scores on state tests, especially among Hispanic students, starting in 2007, a few years before SB 1070 passed in 2010. They ask the question: is the rise in scores an indication that student achievement went up, or does it reflect fewer undocumented students in our schools, which would mean fewer Hispanic students whose English language skills are low? Their conclusion: SB 1070 and the 2007 law requiring businesses to use E-Verify to check the legal status of their employees resulted in a drop in undocumented students, and that was the main driver behind the increase in state test scores among Hispanic students.

The data is fairly convincing. When the researchers looked at Arizona schools where the student population was more than 75 percent Hispanic, they found a far more dramatic rise in student scores starting in 2007 than they found in schools with smaller Hispanic student populations. They also found that the 75 percent-plus schools had a greater percentage drop in the number of Hispanic students than the other schools.

It's that time of year again, when U.S. News & World Report declares which are the best high schools in the nation. As usual, BASIS charter schools did great, taking Number 2 (BASIS Scottsdale), Number 3 (BASIS Tucson North) and Number 6 (BASIS Oro Valley). TUSD's University High was ranked Number 24.

So, BASIS schools do a great job of educating students and University High does a damn good job, right? Well, not so fast. I'm sure they all give their students a good education, but that's not what this ranking measures. It measures how many students at those schools took AP exams and how well they scored. The stronger the student body is academically and the more AP exams they're required to take, the better the rankings.

A casual reading of the Star article on the subject makes it sound like a number of variables go into creating a school's score: performance on the state test, performance of minority and low-income students, and graduation rates, all of which are combined with student participation in and performance on either AP (Advanced Placement) or IB (International Baccalaureate) tests.

But that's not exactly true. That's like saying a boxing match is decided by the boxer's weight and how he did on a drug test along with his performance in the ring. Sure, the boxer needs to make weight and pass a drug test to make it into the ring, but once he's there, it's all about the mano a mano matchup with his opponent. In the same way, the schools have to pass the state test, minority/low income performance and graduation criteria, but once they do, it's all about a test-to-test comparison of the students on the AP or IB tests. You can read about the methodology here.