Current Arizona State Treasurer Jeff DeWit thinks it's unwise to draw down the principle of the Arizona State Land Trust to increase education funding. Former State Treasurer Dean Martin, who spoke against the plan during the last week's legislative special session, agrees. So, according to DeWit, does former treasurer Carol Springer.

To be fair, former State Treasurer and current Governor Doug Ducey likes the plan just fine. And it's not fair to say he's outnumbered three to one. He is, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is, some people who have looked after Arizona's money, all Republicans, think this is a very bad idea.

But in Ducey's favor, the Koch Brothers like both him and his plan. And that's much, much more important than having three former treasurers disagree. The Koch Brothers have a hell of a lot of money (They're number 5 and 6 on the Forbes 400 list. Combine their net worths and they're Number 1, $6 billion above Bill Gates), and they're big Ducey supporters, so he has their money to help him sell—literally—his ideas.

Take, for instance, the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at ASU. The libertarian think tank got its start courtesy of a $3.5 million gift from the Charles Koch Foundation. Executive director Scott Beaulier says the Center is not at all influenced by the Koch Brothers. Nevertheless, on October 7, a little over three weeks ago, Beaulier published a policy report about what a great idea it is to spend down the trust fund. Which, of course, was absolutely unconnected to the wishes of Ducey or the Koch Brothers. Because Beaulier says so.

Typical of scholarly work, the report—Should the Permanent Fund Sit On Its Assets?—is long, detailed and technical, far beyond my ability to critique. But there's one passage I don't need economic expertise to follow, and I love it because it's so wacky and un-scholarly. It comes straight from the clever-precocious-adolescent school of libertarian thought.

I've written over the past few days (here and here) about the incident at a South Carolina high school where a school resource officer slammed a sophomore girl to the ground because of her failure to obey an order to stop texting, then to leave the room. My focus has been on the problem of criminalizing student behavior. I haven't brought up the fact that the girl is black. I'm bringing it up now.

Was race a factor in the level of violence the resource officer used in arresting the girl? There's no way of knowing for sure. But it's worth while for each of us to do a gut check. How would we have reacted to the video if the girl had been white? Betts Putnam-Hidalgo, in a comment on my previous post, took the question one step further.

"I wonder what you all would be saying if the policeman were black and the student were white—-such transgressions of societal expectations were cause for lynching and hanging at one time in South Carolina."

I had to look away after the tenth time I saw the video clip on the news. I listened to the discussion without watching the screen. It was just too painful to see over and over. But to be perfectly honest, I think the scene would have sparked a higher level of visceral outrage in me if it was a black officer slamming a white girl to the ground. I'm not proud of that. It shows an ingrained prejudice on my part. But much as I try to fight against the worst parts of my acculturation, if I pretend my prejudices don't exist—if I say, in the words of the right wing character Stephen Colbert played on his Comedy Central show, "I don't see color"—that makes me a party to the myth that we don't live in a society whose racism is widespread on both personal and institutional levels.

This year, a study was published called Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced and Underprotected. One of its main findings is the disproportionate number of black girls who are disciplined, suspended and expelled in our schools. We tend to focus on black (or Hispanic) males as being targets of excessive punishment in schools and the outside world, but as this study makes clear, we shouldn't forget that black girls are targets of similar discrimination.

There's this from the Department of Education.

Data released by the Department of Education for the 2011–2012 school year reveal that while Black males were suspended more than three times as often as their white counterparts, Black girls were suspended six times as often.

The Black Girls Matter study looks at statistics on discipline, suspensions and expulsions in Boston and New York schools. Here are some of the findings for Boston schools.

• Black girls are disciplined at rate about six times higher than white girls (Black girls make up 28 percent of the schools' females and 61 percent of the girls disciplined. White girls make up 15 percent of the females and 5 percent of the girls disciplined.)
• Black boys are disciplined at a rate between four and five times higher than white boys.
• Black girls are suspended at rate a bit more than six times higher than white girls.
• Black boys are suspended at a rate about three times higher than white boys.
• No white girls were expelled, so it's impossible to make a comparison. (The study doesn't state the number of black girls expelled, but a bit of extrapolation puts that number at about 10.)
• Black boys are expelled at a rate a little under three times higher than white boys.

Though the numbers are a bit different in New York, they're similar.

Girls are disciplined, suspended and expelled less frequently than boys, but when it happens, the disproportion between black and white girls is higher than between black and white boys.

From the moment the resource officer was involved, it was an arrest. When a sophomore girl in a South Carolina high school refused to stop using her cell phone, then refused to leave the room as her teacher ordered, the school resource officer arrested her. As part of the arrest, he slammed her to the ground while she was still sitting in her desk. He also arrested another girl who stood up in outrage and shouted at the officer because of what he was doing. The charge for both girls: Disturbing schools.

Both she and another student who verbally challenged the officer's actions during the arrest still face misdemeanor charges of disturbing schools, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or 90 days in jail, Lott said, although in most cases, judges impose alternative sentences that keep students out of jail.

Until I read about this incident, I had no idea how many hardened criminals I had in my classes during my thirty-plus years as a public high school teacher. I always thought when students disturbed the school or disturbed my classroom, they were behavior problems. Times have changed. School discipline issues, even with no violence of threat of violence involved, can now be cause for arrest, fines and possible jail time. Mouth off in class, refuse to obey a teacher's order to put away your cell phone, and you may take a ride on the school-to-prison pipeline.

Let's assign some blame here. At the very top of the list is the culture of criminalizing student behavior. But let's look at the individuals first.

Local badass Jes Baker (you'll know her from her blog, those Abercrombie & Fitch photos, or as the founder of the Body Love Conference) is getting some national love for her new book Things No One Will Tell Fat Girls. 

We'll be printing an excerpt soon to help you decide if you want to buy her book (you do), but until then we'll let the Today Show fill you in.

Baker, who appeared on the Today Show for the first time a few years ago, will be back in Tucson next Friday (Nov. 6 at 7 p.m.) doing a reading from her book at Antigone. 

Many of you have already watched the videos of a South Carolina high school resource officer knocking a female student out of her chair and dragging her across the classroom. From what we know, the student was texting on her cell phone and refused to stop when the teacher told her to, then refused the teacher's order to leave the room. The vice principal was called in, and the resource officer either came with him or followed soon after. The girl didn't move from her desk or appear to be a physical threat to anyone when she was slammed to the ground. She was arrested, along with another student who stood up and loudly protested the officer's actions from across the room.

Unless there was some kind of physical threat we don't know about, the officer's actions were totally unacceptable. Most people agree, including the mayor as well as representatives of the school district and the police force. But one part of the story hasn't been addressed adequately, and it demands more attention. The officer was called into the room to act as a "bouncer," probably by the vice principal, and he and the teacher stood by and watched as the officer assaulted the girl.

Blame the officer, absolutely. Fire him, absolutely. Then take a very close look at the teacher, the vice principal and the disciplinary culture of the school. The moment captured on tape and the arrests that followed are classic examples of the criminalization of our schools. A relatively minor disciplinary offense—a student disobeying an order from her teacher—escalated into a violent confrontation with a police officer and an encounter with the criminal justice system. Two students were unnecessarily thrown into the school-to-prison pipeline. And while the officer was wildly out of line, I put the primary blame on the vice principal and possibly (though not necessarily) the teacher. It was their school. They had a responsibility to protect their students from harm whenever possible, and they failed to do so.

Lots of educational bits and pieces I won't be able to get to individually, so here's a list of things which have happened or been talked about recently, or are about to be talked about in the near future.

Education Town Hall at Catalina Magnet High. Last Wednesday, a crowd nearly filled the Catalina High auditorium for an education town hall, whose purpose was to explain and discuss the need for more funding for education. Proudly sharing the stage with southern Arizona Democratic legislators were representatives from the Metro Tucson Chamber of Commerce and local realtors. The base of support for increasing our education spending is growing. And it's likely to take center stage this week, because . . .

There may be a deal on the education funding lawsuit. It looks like a tentative, behind-closed-door deal to settle the lawsuit over education funding has been reached. What is it? Only a few people know, and as I write this, none of them are Democratic legislators. The current plan is to hold a special session in the middle of the week. If that happens, that will probably signal they have enough Republican votes to pass a deal Ducey can live with, without needing any Democratic votes they might have to wheel-and-deal to obtain. If they can pass something—a big "if," given the range of views on the Republican side—most of the funding package will likely need ratification from voters, maybe a two part ratification if they plan to sweep funds from First Things First as well as take money from the State Land Trust. If the voters OK the funding—another big "if" (especially in the case of First Things First)—the money won't begin to flow until 2017, unless the legislature decides to put up some money from the general fund now, which wouldn't need voter approval. Lots and lots of moving parts, lots of variables. This is a first, tentative step.

High stakes testing may be scaled back a bit. The Obama administration says it thinks we've gone overboard with our standardized testing regimen. What does that mean? Not a whole lot yet since there aren't many details, and it probably won't mean a whole lot when more details are revealed. One idea is that standardized testing should occupy no more than 2 percent of students' school time. That would mean no more than three-and-a-half days of testing a year, which still sounds like a lot. However, that doesn't include the amount of time spent teaching to the test or giving pretests. Lots and lots of moving parts, lots of variables. The best thing about the statement is the acknowledgement that people have been right to complain about the post-No Child Left Behind emphasis on high stakes testing. That could put a bit of wind in the sails of people who are advocating testing every few years instead of every year, allowing parents to opt their children out of high stakes testing, and making student, teacher and school evaluations include more than a score on a test. And speaking of high stakes tests . . .

Another day, more news about Arizona's education funding problems. I'll have the Quote of the Day and the Email of the Day a bit later, but first, the most important News of the Day, from the front page of the Star.

The Tucson Values Teachers study, sponsored by the University of Arizona’s College of Education and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, revealed the median annual wage for secondary teachers in Tucson when cost of living is factored in is more than $16,000 below the national average for secondary teachers and the lowest in a comparison of nearly a dozen major western cities, including Phoenix.

Wow. That number is far higher than I imagined, and I knew it was bad. If Tucson teachers made $8,000 less than the national average when adjusted for cost of living, that would be outrageous, scandalous. But $16,000? Wow.

Thanks to Tucson Values Teachers and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council for joining up with the UA College of Education to put together the study (and the Star for realizing this is front page news). It's good to see business-oriented groups putting their efforts behind exposing how poorly our local teachers are paid. To move the ball forward on school funding in general and teacher compensation in particular is going to take a broad coalition, which has to include a sizable portion of the business community.

One bit of information that came from Marian Salzman, executive chair of Tucson Values Teachers, struck me as especially telling.

“At Raytheon there are over 400 professional jobs open right now which would equal $60 million into the local economy,” Salzman said. “One of the top reasons they feel they can’t fill those jobs is they have a difficult time recruiting people who are coming with families to come to this area because of the questions around the schools. That’s an awful lot of income tax and property tax that isn’t getting paid into the community.”

Four hundred jobs. That's exactly the number the Rosemont Mine folks throw around. "Let us wreak havoc on the Arizona landscape and the environment," they say, "and we'll bring you 400 jobs!" Here's a better idea. Let's put some desperately needed money into our education system and attract educated people and high wage businesses to the state. Unlike the Rosemont Mine, those jobs won't disappear when it's no longer profitable to dig copper out of the ground.

The AZ Republic ran two education-related fact checks Tuesday, one on a statement by Gov. Doug Ducey and another on a statement by Arizona Education Association president Andrew Morrill. Ducey's statement was rated No stars: Unsupported. Morrill's statement was rated four stars: True.

I have to admit, Ducey's statement is more misleading than wrong. The Republic gave him no stars because it's based on guesswork, not data. He said during a telephone town hall,

“Arizona will be among the leading states in the nation in new dollars in this slow-growing economy that we’re adding to K-12 education.”

Ducey was referring, of course, to the bump in education funding if his $325 million plan is approved. The problem is, no one knows how much other states will add next year or the years following, so he's just speculating. But the Republic adds at the end of the fact check, "Arizona’s proposed funding increase would likely be at or near the top." Ducey is not so much lying as turning a possibility into a fact.

The bigger problem is, adding $325 million is no reason to proclaim "We're number one!" on anything related to education funding. Even if we add the funding Ducey proposes, we'll still be at or near the bottom of the barrel in per student funding. Actually, his $325 million isn't even new money. It's almost exactly what the courts say the legislature owes the schools by law. Sorry, Doug, if you and the other dead beat dads and moms at the legislature are planning to cough up what you owe for our children's education—and that's without going back and making up for stiffing our children over the past few years—that's nothing to brag about.

For Ducey to make it sound like we're beating other states in education funding makes as much sense as, say, bragging that he wants to get the money moving sooner, not later, when his plan has to make it through the legislature, then be passed by the voters. Best case scenario, if all that happens, the payments will begin in 2017.

HOLD EVERYTHING! STOP THE PRESSES! I just got an email from Daniel Scarpinato, Ducey's communications guy, that says, among other things,

"[Ducey] wants to get this money moving sooner, not later."

Unbelievable. Gotta love these guys. Or, not.

Tim Steller wrote a good column Saturday, Underpaid and disrespected, Arizona's teachers flee. Arizona teachers are leaving the profession altogether, he wrote, or leaving the state for greener—as in higher-salaried—states. It's worth a read, in part because of Steller's support for Ed Supe Diane Douglas' education funding proposal which is the only one among those currently being floated that targets the teacher shortage directly, to the tune of $400 million.

But the story doesn't end with Arizona. Things are tough all over, not only in the current shortage of teachers in the classroom but also in the waning number of prospective teachers in the national pipeline. According to a piece in Politico's Morning Education email briefing:

Many states are struggling with teacher shortages. Teacher pay is dismal. Fewer students are enrolling in teacher preparation programs, drawn to better-paying jobs as the U.S. continues to climb out of the recession. During the 2008-09 school year, more than 719,000 students nationwide were enrolled in teacher prep programs. By 2012-13, that number fell to about 500,000.

A recent Daily Star article said the enrollment in the UA College of Education follows the trend, with an enrollment drop from 1,135 in 2009 to 900 in 2013.

I'm sure Politico is right to say that the improving economy is part of the reason people are choosing other professions over teaching, but that's far from the whole story. The savaging of teachers, which has been promoted by conservatives since the Reagan years and has become a regular drumbeat in the media, is driving people out of the profession. Teachers are thinking, "I work my ass off to educate your children while being paid a ridiculously low salary and having to cope with too many students and too few books and supplies, and all I hear is what a lousy job I'm doing." The disrespect is literally adding insult to injury. And then there's the increased pressure to teach to the test rather than to the whole child.

Would I go into teaching if I were a college student today, or would I stay there after my first few years in the classroom? The profession would certainly be less appealing to me than when I began in 1969 — with a $7,200 yearly salary, by the way, so I certainly wasn't in it for the money.

Case in point. You know those idealistic young people who join Teach for America, generally from the top ranks of college graduates, to spend a few years in classrooms, often in low income areas? Their numbers are down by nearly 25% from two years ago. One reason may be that graduates are having an easier time finding jobs because of the economic rebound, but I doubt that tops the list. TfA numbers were high when the economy was booming. I'm guessing two other factors are deterring top graduates from spending a few years in the classroom before they join their chosen professions. First, who would want to go into that "lousy profession" and work in "failing schools" where they'll get nothing but grief for their efforts? That would put a serious crimp in those feelings of altruism that might have drawn young people to the program. Second, lots of people go into TfA at least in part to burnish their resumes. A few years in the program used to give them a leg up over other applicants for high paying jobs. These days, I'm guessing when you tell a job interviewer that you spent a few years as a teacher, it has less cachet than it did back in the a-little-better old days when teaching was still considered a somewhat noble profession. 

Bernie Sanders came to town Friday night, and Tucson showed up. More than an hour before the event began, a line of supporters snaked around Reid Park waiting to get into the outdoor performance center. How many were there? Thousands. A Friday night TV news report said 5,000. Isabel Garcia told the crowd they numbered 11,000. The Star said the crowd was probably over 7,000. Whatever the exact number, it was a packed house.

The crowd ranged in age: there were 20-to-30 year olds, middle aged people and older attendees in reasonably equal numbers. Sanders' Tucson appeal doesn't have an age demographic. The crowd was predominantly white, though not exclusively so. Tucson's minority communities were well represented.

The Tucson crowd may have had a white majority, but the entertainment and speakers were definitely more "Tuk-son" than "Too-sohn." A mariachi band warmed things up before the event. Isabel Garcia, a local activist in Hispanic causes and other social issues, spoke first and introduced the other speakers. A young woman from the Apache Nation spoke passionately about the need to protect sacred Apache grounds from being taken over by private interests. Ten-year-old Bobby de la Rosa spoke about his mother, who was deported to Mexico, and the struggles his father, brothers and sister faced coping with her loss to the family, a story which was told recently in the Star. (Sanders said later that he was used to being introduced by local dignitaries, but "I have never heard people—young people—give the kind of statements and stories I've heard in Tucson.") The national anthem was sung a cappella by twin sisters, high school students from Nogales.

And then, of course, there was Rep. Raúl Grijalva, the first Congressperson to endorse Sanders. He said he was asked by other members of Congress why he endorsed Bernie.

"I answered, 'Why not?' Bernie's my friend, and beyond friendship, I agree with his values, I agree with the solutions he's bringing to the American people, and finally, it's way past time when we had a campaign and a voice that speaks truth to power."

Then it was Sanders' turn. He spoke for almost an hour to an attentive, receptive crowd. Nearly every sentence ended with an exclamation point, usually accompanied a hand thrust out to his side, finger pointing at the issue he seemed to be indicating was "Right over there! Look at it!"—as if a mere exclamation point at the end of a sentence wasn't emphatic enough to capture how important, how unbelievably important, it is to focus on the problems this country faces and what needs to be done to fix them. Bernie wins his audiences over with passion and ideas, not polish.

The point that united his speech was stated early and often. "This is a people's campaign," he said, "not a billionaires' campaign!" Again and again, he hit on income inequality, the number of people living in poverty, which is unconscionable in the richest country in the world, and the dangerous power a few very rich people have to dominate the country's politics thanks to the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling.