Tucson Unified School District Governing Board member Dr. Mark Stegeman was “accosted” by fellow board member Kristel Foster and a supporter of Board candidate Jen Darland, at the Pima Area Labor Federation’s 18th Annual Labor Day Picnic at Reid Park on Monday.
In an email to constituents dated September 1, 2014, Dr. Stegemen wrote, “Earlier today I was minding my own business at PALF’s Labor Day picnic, when Kristel Foster and a man wearing Darland/Grijalva buttons accosted me aggressively. They treated me to a stream of abuse for helping the wrong candidates. It was a fine display of old school Pima County politics, and it was very unpleasant.”
Stegeman requested that “if any of my supporters ever treats anyone like that,” to let him know, “so that I can have a conversation with that person.”
While Stegeman has not endorsed any candidates in the race, Darland, is running as a teammate of sorts with TUSD Board president Adelita Grijalva. According to sources, Darland, a staunch supporter of the union, has been promoted by the district’s superintendent H.T. Sanchez as well, due to the fact that she is believed to be the rubber stamp candidate they seek to forward the Grijalva/Sanchez agenda.
That agenda includes filling key administrative position with cronies, while classrooms receive less money per student. As a result, during the 12 years that Grijalva has served on the Board, the district has lost students every year. In this letter, Stegeman notes that “average enrollment losses have actually been about 1,100 per year, exceeding 1,600 only three times. According to the most recent data that the superintendent has sent to the board, on August 22, this year’s year-over-year loss (based on the 12th day) is about 1,100 students, close to the historical average.”
Darland has been active in “collective action efforts,” according to her biography, on two statewide campaigns to increase taxes, including the temporary one-cent sales tax. While that tax was sold to the public as much needed revenue for public education, most of the money went to union jobs on infrastructure projects.
Stegeman advised constituents, that Grijalva and Darland, “represent the viewpoint of the current board majority and I can see no issue on which they disagree. (Persons carrying the literature of one often carry the literature of both.) Both tend to take the role of cheerleaders for the district, advocate for better community outreach, and blame shortcomings on inadequate funding.”
Contrary to their complaints, TUSD, in 2013, got $8,421 per student. That compared with an average of $7,185 for other districts in its size category. Sunnyside, another Tucson area district that serves students with similar demographics to TUSD got only $6,759 per student. Critics say that any attempt by TUSD apologists to blame its problems on inadequate spending does not pass the red-face test. For years many have pointed out that it is TUSD’s own misplaced priorities that create the problems it faces. Chief among the problems is the annual out-migration of students from TUSD to other districts and charter schools. This has led to an increase in segregation within TUSD and an increase in the percentage of TUSD students living in poverty.
TUSD spends 10.2% of all revenues on administration. That is about $865 per student, and that is $225 MORE per student than the average for districts in its size category (all of whom enjoy huge economies of scale.) If TUSD spent the average $640 per student on administration it would have about $12 million more dollars to spend in the classroom where it would actually improve student learning.
Even though it enjoys huge economies of scale TUSD only manages to spend 49.2% of revenues in the classroom according to the latest audited figures available to the public.
Stegeman also addressed a recent candidate debate held by the Racial Justice Ministry at St. Mark’s Presbyterian Church on August 27. Former Mayor Tom Volgy moderated the event. Stegeman offered constituents his “fact check of statements made by the participants. It reads:
Fact checking the candidate forum on August 27, 2014
For a two-hour forum, the candidates made impressively few errors, but here are some friendly corrections or clarifications:
1) Cuevas spoke about increased transparency when he was on the board, including the live-streaming of meetings, but in 2011 when the board voted 3-2 to move forward with live-streaming, he voted against it. (Later, after the bids were evaluated, the board unanimously approved staff’s contract recommendation.)
2) Grijalva said that TUSD had been losing 1,500-2,500 students per year but this year had lost only 100 students or (later in the debate) none at all. Over the 12 years that she has been on the board average enrollment losses have actually been about 1,100 per year, exceeding 1,600 only three times. According to the most recent data that the superintendent has sent to the board, on August 22, this year’s year-over-year loss (based on the 12th day) is about 1,100 students, close to the historical average.
3) Referring to the controversial $300,000 marketing contract, Grijalva said that TUSD was forced to spend half of that money on marketing because of a grant. It is true that TUSD was obliged to spend some money on promoting certain schools, but that part was less than $150,000 and we were not required to spend it in that way. There were other options.
4) Bernal correctly said that TUSD policy changes have reduced teachers’ options for removing disruptive students from classrooms, but the situation is not quite as bad as he described.
5) Referring to another candidate’s observation that the Chandler district spends about 61% of its revenues in the classroom as defined by the state, Darland said that Chandler is a “high growth” district and it is easier for high-growth districts to achieve a high classroom spending percentage. Chandler’s enrollment has been growing by about 2% per year. It is typically harder for growing districts to achieve a high classroom spending percentage, because they have disproportionately high capital expenses.
That is everything that I caught, except for several mistakes that the candidates themselves caught during the forum.
Contrary to Bernal’s claims, it is not typical TUSD policies that have limited options for removing disruptive students from classrooms. It is the Post-Unitary Status Plan approved by Judge Bury. It creates a double standard for discipline based on race and ethnicity. Principals must be ready to defend any decision to remove a minority student from class before a panel of central administrators. Teachers say that that is tantamount to a huge flashing sign saying “Thou shall not suspend minority students, no matter what they do.”
While it is well documented which administrators and teachers discipline minority students at a greater rate than other educators in the District, the new policy created a blanket of chaos over the district rather than retrain or remove educators who appeared to have a pattern of meting out punishment in a discriminatory manner.