TUSD’s Governing Board member Dr. Mark Stegeman said that the district is cooperating with Tucson Police in the matter of the smoke bombs set off at the April 10 school Board meeting.
Stegeman, in his weekly constituent letter, reminded constituents that the letter “reflects only my own opinions, not the official positions of the district or the board.” He advised his constituents that, “We allowed much aggressive free speech, but the smoke bomb went over the line and staff is cooperating with the Tucson police department.”
TUSD Governing Board member Michael Hicks would only say that he was, “anxiously awaiting the Fund for Civility, Respect, and Understanding to come out and express their concerns or condemn the uncivil behavior of the adults and students the night of April 10.”
The district is now offering the public an opportunity to tell them what their priorities should be (take survey). The distict’s latest PR move, should not to be confused with a genuine effort to make reforms that will lead to more dollars and less politics inn the classroom. As long as the current administration is in place, the public has little hope that Board members Stegeman, Hicks, and reform inclined Cuevas will achieve any meaningful reform.
According to district sources, Superintendent Pedicone urged the Board to leave the matter alone, and refuse cooperation with TPD. Last week, Pedicone created a new organizational chart putting Augie Romero, one of the creators of the Mexican American Studies curriculum and Raul Grijalva operative, in charge of developing the district’s new multicultural curriculum.
Romero was the appointee of Pima County Supervisor Richard Elias to the County’s redistricting group, and long time advisor to Adelita Grijalva.
Elias has also appointed Rosalva Bullock, the TUSD employee who left the district amid the Promotoras scandal, to a County commission. The Promotoras program funnelled Title 1 funds away from underserved children, to primarily undocumented female entrants, to learn community organizing. That program was shut down by Dr. Lupita Garcia as soon as she discovered what was happening.
Stegeman’s newsletter:
I have long pushed for a live video stream of board meetings, so that people could improve their understanding of what actually happens. Ironically, now that the live stream is (finally) fully implemented, what everyone saw on April 10 was the rowdiest meeting of the year.
Another board member’s controversial television interview about Mexican American Studies (MAS) aired, unfortunately, just a few days earlier. With that interview leading into the April 10 vote on the non-renewal of the MAS director’s contract, we anticipated an emotional crowd at the meeting. We postponed some agenda items and extended the audience call to three hours, though we ran out of speakers after about 2½ hours. My top three goals were to get through the shortened agenda, give persons in attendance an ample opportunity to express themselves, and avoid injuries. We accomplished these things.
After adjournment, however, some person(s) ignited a smoke bomb in the board room. Tucson police were not present, but I expect TUSD’s security department to cooperate fully in the identification of the suspect(s) and the subsequent investigation. The city or county attorney will ultimately decide what legal action is warranted by the evidence, but I think it is important to show that the district takes such disturbances seriously, regardless of the political context. (We should treat disruptions from activists of the “left” just as we would treat disruptions from the “right” or from any other direction.)
People who want to attend board meetings should feel safe, and it is the district’s responsibility to help keep them safe.
Implicitly condoning disturbances such as smoke bombs would set a bad precedent.
Administrative non-renewals
On April 10, the board accepted staff’s recommendation not to renew three contracts, including the contract
of the MAS director, by a 3-2 vote (Grijalva and Sugiyama dissenting). Despite public speculation to the contrary, I don’t think anyone knew the outcome of the vote in advance. The board is a deliberative body and I never assume that I know how members will vote, before the vote happens.
My policy is not to comment on personnel issues, but the board’s resolution of January 10 implies a considerable change in the role and activities of the MAS department. Its primary historical role has been to run the MAS classes, but it will probably evolve into something closer to the African American and Native American Studies departments, which have focused on student support and intervention.
The board does not have an entirely free hand because TUSD is still under the supervision of the federal court, through the old desegregation litigation. The court-appointed special master is expected to present his recommendations this summer.
Former board members redux
On April 9 several former board members released a letter to the press which criticized the current board’s handling of the MAS issue. I know and respect most of the ten former members who eventually signed the letter, and so it is with only the most courteous intent (and some surprise) that I point out certain ironies in it. Here is a relatively mild excerpt:
“In order to prevent further division, we urge that adverse actions, including individual board member media interviews and personnel action, pertaining to MAS, be halted … there continue to be negative news stories … about MAS… We encourage you to conduct yourselves in a manner that unifies rather than divides, and that you work together as a group to build community, rather than to erode it. For the sake of our community’s children, please lead by example.”
By releasing this message first through the media (generating a front-page negative headline),without any warning to the current board, and staging a press conference on the next day, it is unclear whether the former board members were following their own advice.
Though willing to pin substantial responsibility for the MAS controversy on the current board, I have never heard any former board member accept one iota of responsibility for contributing to the problem by, for example, disregarding for years the statutory requirements for the approval of curriculum and neglecting toexercise reasonable oversight of a program which had attracted criticism (both fair and unfair) for years.
The current board has made some errors in handling the MAS situation, but navigating between the three huge rocks of the state’s aggressive intervention, the inherited weaknesses in the MAS program, and the intense local political pressure to defend it without compromise, has been quite challenging.
I emphasize again my respect for the former board members and am happy to receive their constructive suggestions for working together, especially when they do not start the conversation with a press conference.