The Tucson Unified School District is now firmly under Grijalva control after last night’s Governing Board vote to make Adelita Grijalva the new board president. Almost immediately after Grijalva’s election, the new Board voted to drop objections to the Mexican American Studies classes in the District’s desegregation case.
Board members Kristel Foster and Cam Juarez provided the votes needed by Grijalva. Foster was elected as clerk. Board member Michael Hicks voted against both Grijalva and Foster, Mark Stegeman abstained from voting for Grijalva and voted for Foster.
Newly elected Board members Foster and Juarez along with Mark Stegeman, who was just re-elected were sworn in at the beginning of last night’s meeting.
Two hours before that vote, Tucson activist Gabriela Saucedo Mercer submitted a letter to Federal Court Judge David Bury, co-signed by over 150 residents, outlining the disenfranchisement of the public in the desegregation case.
Both Board members Michael Hicks and Mark Stegeman advised the Board of their reasons against Grijalva’s move to drop the Districts’ objections. Hicks issued a statement that he read into the record:
“The Tucson Unified School District Governing Board is asked to vote to reconsider our objections to the provision in the Special Master’s recommendation to Judge Bury in the matter of the desegregation case.
This Board voted unanimously to proffer those objections to the Court. At the time, the full Board understood the issues and voted freely without coercion.
In an act of bitter retaliation for his loss in the General Election, past Board member Miguel Cuevas agreed to appease present Board member Adelita Grijalva and place this matter on tonight’s agenda. The move is contrary to the Board’s tradition, one which Cuevas himself supported, which held that an item that had been previously considered by the Board, would not be placed on the Board’s agenda within 6 months from its first appearance.
This end run by Cuevas, who was not a supporter of Mexican American Studies, and Ms. Grijalva, who is known mostly for her vehement support of the segregating classes is a slap in the face to our stakeholders. While we spend our time revisiting objections for the Court well past the deadline issued by the Court, parents, students, and staff are hoping that we will work on those things that matter to them; solutions to the apparent deficit that has forced us to close their neighborhood schools, and will force us to layoff staff.
I have received a letter from constituents in which they express their concerns about the way the desegregation public hearings were conducted and the treatment of them by the Court appointed Special Master.
While I will vote against proffering objections, if Ms. Grijalva is successful in nullifying the Board’s past actions, then it is essential that the Court allow other voices to be heard beyond its current deadline. I for one, will join the public in its well thought out letter of concern to the Court.”
In Saucedo Mercer’s letter, Judge Bury was advised that “countless Tucson area families had been “disenfranchised through the process employed by the Court’s Special Master Hawley.”
The letter read:
“According to the plaintiff representatives we have spoken to, and a review of people’s accounts of their exchanges with Mr. Hawley and Justice Department officials, it is apparent that the Special Master had his own agenda and the process would serve that agenda while ignoring the general public’s position.
It appears that Mr. Hawley has systematically created a situation in which the general public did not feel comfortable coming to the only three public hearings held in the matter. Of the three public hearings held, two were held at venues that were difficult to access; Tucson High and Palo Verde High, and one was held at a location that was nearly impossible for anyone to find including a plaintiff’s attorney. One was held on the same night parents were participating in a hearing to save their children’s schools.
When members of the public privately sent concerns to Mr. Hawley, rather than accept them without comment, Mr. Hawley defended his agenda. As a result, became clear to them that there was no point in offering comment as it appeared the decision had been made early on and every effort was being made to only defend the decision rather than conduct a community conversation.
In at least two instances, when contacted by members of the public expressing their concern about the Mexican American Studies classes and curriculum, Mr. Hawley advised that he was going to rely on data upon which to render an opinion. Later, it was discovered that he had one of the witnesses FOR the Mexican American Studies classes in the appeal of the State’s decision that the classes violated State law, conduct the “study.”
Since then, that “study has come under scrutiny” by educators and statisticians for its lack of controls and skewed population. Jay P. Greene, Ph.D., Department Head and 21st Century Chair in Education Reform at the University of Arkansas found that the “study still suffers from selection bias. That is, students who choose to take this elective course are different from students who do not. Any difference in outcomes may be caused by the characteristics of students who would choose to take a course, not necessarily the course itself.”
That has been the pattern in this situation all along. Rather than an open discussion of the issues, facts are presented to the Court and the public only to support the divisive and segregating classes.
It is the fact, as offered in testimony, data, and in anecdotes from parents and students; that the classes segregate rather than desegregate that make their inclusion in Mr. Hawley’s recommendations most appalling.
The notion that the classes Mr. Hawley proposes will actually increase the segregation of children by race and ethnicity is not conjecture; it is the sad history of the MAS classes that well over 90% of the students enrolled were of Mexican-American descent. If the goal of the “desegregation lawsuit” is meaningful integration of students in classes then the reinstitution of these classes goes completely against that goal. Finally, the sad recent history of TUSD is that middle class families of all ethnicities have fled the district for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons that figures prominently in this middle-class flight is the perception by middle class parents that TUSD is far less concerned with the education of its students than it is about the political and ideological concerns of some adults. If the goal of the lawsuit had been to create a district where practically the entire student body was of one demographic Mr. Hawley has surely found just the mechanism to achieve that goal.
Tucson, all of Southern Arizona has enjoyed a rich multi-cultural history. That history, by Arizona law, must be appreciated in all curricula. There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to included specific classes in a federal court Order that segregate children on the basis of the color of their skin to do what is already required by state law.
The overstepping by a federal court in this matter will serve to further alienate the public from our public schools. Those same schools, that served our most underserved children. Those same schools upon which the middle-class was spawned and should continue promote civic engagement based on the beliefs upon which this country first began.
Mr. Hawley’s recommendations will increase the number of staff that have little or no interaction in the classroom. It ignores the one thing we know can end the discrimination of low expectations; that children, no matter what background or disadvantage can thrive if place before a highly skilled teacher focused on developing basic skills and a love of reading.
The discrimination of low expectations has hurt my community; the Latino community for years. The insistence on the use of bilingual education assumes that our children cannot learn English quickly. Decisions made by white men from Maryland about children in the southwest are fairly doomed to miss the fact that our children are surrounded by English everywhere they go.
They are doomed to ignore the fact, that many immigrants have learned the language and as a result have been able to achieve the American Dream. Many of the people who are signers of this letter were immigrants who came to America without English language skills and because they developed those skills were able to build small businesses, and assume positions of power in our community.
It is imperative that you not allow a few radicals and one man in Maryland decide what is right for our community.
This past year, the TUSD Governing Board election results demonstrated clearly according to one progressive writer, a divided and unconvinced community. The results clearly show that support for Mexican American Studies is not in our community. Dr. Stegeman, an opponent to the classes, handily won re-election.”
District insiders believe that the next major action by the new Governing Board will be to fire the District’s superintendent, John Pedicone. It is believe that Pedicone is not viewed as an obstacle for the Grijalva agenda, but some of his administrative staff would stand in the way of new policies.
Related articles:
TUSD responds to erroneous MAS news reports
TUSD votes to approve objections to MAS
Mexican American Studies Arce arrested for domestic violence
