The Difference Between Buying E-Curricula (Bad) and Providing Each Student With a Computer (Good)

To provide each student in TUSD with a computer so that it becomes a one-to-one district like Sunnyside does not require purchasing an e-curriculum.  In fact, I am adamantly opposed to large scale purchases of e-curricula, particularly from companies like Pearson.  Teachers should be developing curricula in collaboration with other teachers on sight, based on individual student needs and our community's goals for our schools; multinational corporations do not have the expertise necessary to develop curricula that raise student achievement levels in TUSD.  Well educated teachers know that corporations take part in corporate processes—not educational ones—to form curricula.  Thus, teacher reliance on textbooks to plan curricula is and has always been misplaced.  

Educated teachers know that a textbook, whether online or in-hand, is not a curriculum—it is a political document that reflects publishers’ connections to lobbyists, not the most up-to-date applications of what we know about how people learn. 

Just because multinational behemoths (like Pearson, Microsoft, and Apple) are trying to take over the world of education and turn it into a for-profit venture—quantity at the expense of educational quality—does not mean that we should buy what they are selling.  They are happy with McDonald's-like public schools that are low quality, potentially poisonous, but cheap and easy to sell. 

I am a fiscal conservative, I find business and tax law fascinating, and I enjoy studying strategic for-profit ventures.  I am also aware of the fundamental importance of a high quality education.  Before you join the Pearson-public-schools-can-be-like-McDonald’s brigade, think about what you want from our schools and for our children. 

I believe that education is a fundamental human right for a very good reason—even if corporate giants like Pearson insist on framing that right in terms of their company’s bottom line.  Students do not need e-curricula.  But they would benefit from the enhanced communication with teachers and access to the teacher-created materials that a computer would provide. 

In sum, TUSD should be a one-to-one district—so it should purchase a computer for each student (with grant money, for example).  TUSD should not buy an e-curriculum.  TUSD has a curriculum; if there are problems with it, the District should provide teachers the time and guidance necessary to improve that curriculum.

The Problem with the Superintendent’s Salary and Bonus: An Insult to Teachers

The problem with the Superintendent’s salary and bonus: NOTE: this is not a math lesson (though I think the math is accurate), so if I am wrong about the numbers, please let me know. 

TUSD teacher base pay in 2016-17 is $35,700.[1]  With ten years of experience, a teacher makes $40,700—or just over 10% more than a first-year teacher.[2]  Teachers may receive a stipend of $2,000 for a master’s degree, and $3,000 for a doctoral degree, and all teachers can get performance pay of $650 minimum each year (varies each year).[3]  In 2013, teacher base salary was: $33, 948.80 (so 1^st-year teachers make about 5% more in 2016, after three years).[4]  A teacher hired as a first-year teacher in 2013 would make $37,200 in 2016-17 (about 10% more in three years).[5]

The Superintendent’s base pay rose from $210,000 in 2013 to $260,000 in 2016,[6] which represents an increase of more than 20%, and the Superintendent collects more than just his base salary.  In June of 2016, he got a bonus of 50% of his $210,000 base salary ($105,000).[7]  Each year, he also received $25,000 of incentive pay added to his base salary.[8]  So he made (far) more than $360,000 in June 2016.[9]  As such, his salary has doubled, while teacher salaries . . . have not.  And we cannot forget that the Superintendent has myriad deputies and assistants who are all, presumably, highly compensated.  If money talks, then TUSD believes administrators are more important than teachers.

But the research shows that not only are administrators not as important as teachers, teachers are actually the single most important factor in raising student achievement rates.[10]  So have TUSD leaders not read the research?  Have they chosen to ignore it?  Do they have an interest in raising student achievement scores?  Do they realize that TUSD student achievement scores have not improved for a long, long time?  Have they visited: https://www.azreportcards.org/Assessments/Assessments and seen the following graphs?

Current TUSD funding priorities, as evidenced by this discussion of TUSD’s salary decisions, are contrary to raising student achievement levels.  In addition to providing proof that teachers are the most important determiner of student achievement, scientific research from California shows that spending on teacher and instruction has a positive effect on student performance—whereas spending on administration has no (or even a negative) effect on student achievement.[11]  TUSD data supports that notion.  It is time for TUSD to change; researchers found that “reallocating $100 from non-teaching to teaching increases the average tenth grade math score by 0.4 points.”[12]  We can start by reallocating about 50% of the Superintendent’s salary to raising student achievement levels.  People are constantly reminding me, after all, of the low cost of living in Tucson—what could Sanchez possibly need so much money for?

If the ultimate goal of a school district is to raise student achievement rates, funding should be allocated, first and foremost, to that which raises student achievement levels: teachers and classroom materials.  Second, leaders should figure out how to lower administrative costs and, third (or fourth or . . . last), they should allocate resources to covering those administrative costs. 

TUSD has been very generous with the Superintendent—they gave him over $100,000 simply for staying in TUSD for three years.  Yet teachers who have been in the District for decades are expected to jump with excitement at a $700-dollar raise.  The fact that TUSD leaders continue to tout the raise as a major benefit to teachers is . . . well . . . twisted.  The assertion makes it difficult (for me, at least) to accept that TUSD values teachers, despite the research asserting that teachers are the single most important factor for improving student achievement.

---

[1] TEA Consensus Agreement for 2016-17, http://tusd1.org/contents/employment/Documents/16-17TEA.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.; TEA Consensus Agreement for 2013-14, http://www.tusd1.org/contents/govboard/packet08-13-13/08-13-13-BAI14-Att-13-14ConsensusPending.pdf.

[5] TEA Consensus Agreement for 2016-17, supra at note 1.

[6] Superintendent’s 2015 contract, http://www.tusd1.org/contents/govboard/packet06-09-15/6-9-15-BAI7-FinalContract2015-2018.pdf.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Michael Barber & Mona Mourshed, How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out On Top, McKinsey & Co. (2007), https://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

[11] Kelly Bedard & William O. Brown, The Allocation of Public School Expenditures, Claremont Colleges: Working Papers in Economics 1(August 2000), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.196.8220&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

[12] Id. at 10.

The Dysfunction of TUSD's Three v. Two

Attending and listening to TUSD school board meetings has been an education—more so than any other aspect of this campaign process.  It has taught me that the biggest problem in TUSD is the dynamic that exists between the school board members themselves.  They are, as one of them has noted, dysfunctional.  There are five, but only three speak while two are effectively silenced.  That dynamic, not student achievement, has taken precedence over everything else.  My solution?  Change the board this November—vote in people who will work together.

A problem in TUSD is the huge disparity among schools—some are great, but others are suffering.  The issue was impliedly mentioned at the August 23 meeting.  At that meeting, one school was featured—Booth Fickett—a school that is doing amazing things.  One of the speakers suggests that it was the media that brought attention to the school's problems and which led to increased attention on the school.  The implication is that the positive changes at the school have only taken place because the school was imploding, and TUSD had no choice but to react.  But if the school board functioned, TUSD would run more efficiently; it would have systems in place to turn schools around long before they (or their principals) became media fodder. 

While the dynamic of the school board members may seem unimportant, it has the impact of a terrible scream that resounds throughout our community.  The TUSD Governing Board Members are the official leaders, so they set the tone for the entire district.  If they cannot work together, for whatever reason, that dysfunction reverberates throughout and makes itself felt in every school—it infects the mood of every employee, parent, and student.  

Actually, the dysfunction on the TUSD Board seems to find its source in the idea that some members are “better” or “higher” or some such.  That dynamic—where the mighty rule and the meek get run over—is apparent throughout TUSD.  And teachers have reported to me (some of them felt they had to whisper!) that TUSD is indeed a rather cut-throat place where political alliances are key.  Sounds like the dynamic on the TUSD Governing Board—and probably the reason some schools are great while others just keep getting run over.  

. . . Just imagine what TUSD could do if the Board functioned.